# This is why we need a living wage



## Againsheila

The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage

Watch the video.  

$300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.


----------



## Defiant1

Againsheila said:


> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.




Has someone figured out the magic formula to define a "living" wage?

Or should each employee be paid according to how much money they need to "live?"


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Againsheila said:


> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.



  Or they could stop trying to make a career out of a starter job meant for teens and old people supplementing their retirement. 
  What a novel idea .....oh wait,it's only been done this way since the inception of the USA.

   Nothing but a bunch of lazy losers to stupid to advance in life....at the tax payers expense.


----------



## martybegan

Againsheila said:


> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.



What would stop them from buying stupid crap and still needing food stamps?


----------



## Asclepias

Againsheila said:


> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.



I'm against a living wage.  Get off your butt and make yourself more valuable.  its better to decide for yourself how much you are worth than having a company or government decide.


----------



## syrenn

martybegan said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would stop them from buying stupid crap and still needing food stamps?
Click to expand...

what stops them from buying crap WITH their food stamps? And if they were smart, they would use said food stamps and shop at walmart.


----------



## syrenn

Asclepias said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm against a living wage.  Get off your butt and make yourself more valuable.  its better to decide for yourself how much you are worth than having a company or government decide.
Click to expand...


A living wage is what ever it is you are willing to work for. If that means working 16 house a day 7 days a week to survive....   Welcome to the real world.


----------



## Asclepias

DiabloBlanco said:


> So 3 who hate the poor and want to force them to go to college or school of some kind to rack up more debt instead of letting them earn a decent wage at a job they enjoy.


Whats wrong with going to college instead of being a perpetual bagger?  Once they automate the bagging then they will be obsolete.


----------



## Shaitra

Going to college is not the only way to make yourself more valuable to an employer.  You can do an apprenticeship or go to trade school.  Or work and get experience to raise your pay.  But you have to have some ambition to do more than just work an entry level job.  Or learn to live on less.


----------



## pinqy

DiabloBlanco said:


> So 3 who hate the poor and want to force them to go to college or school of some kind to rack up more debt instead of letting them earn a decent wage at a job they enjoy.


I don't think I've ever met anyone who enjoyed their min wage job or would want it as a career.


----------



## syrenn

pinqy said:


> DiabloBlanco said:
> 
> 
> 
> So 3 who hate the poor and want to force them to go to college or school of some kind to rack up more debt instead of letting them earn a decent wage at a job they enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I've ever met anyone who enjoyed their min wage job or would want it as a career.
Click to expand...


no, i think they DO enjoy their minimum wage jobs. 

they just what to be paid MORE for the very little that they do. 

Tell me, what walmart greeter doesn't want $15 an hour?


----------



## eflatminor

Againsheila said:


> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.



First, let's call it was it is...*MORE MONEY*, not a "living wage", since you have no idea what one person may or may not need to live.  

Second, giving everyone more money means fewer jobs will be created, more jobs will be outsourced overseas, more jobs will be lost to technology and most importantly, the most vulnerable citizens among us, whose skills and abilities do not warrant your "living wage" will be prevented from working at all, thus throwing even more people on the dole.

How cruel of you.  And how ridiculous.


----------



## HenryBHough

Where does the line form for liberals who want to donate to the federal government because they feel they aren't taxed enough?


----------



## Asclepias

syrenn said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiabloBlanco said:
> 
> 
> 
> So 3 who hate the poor and want to force them to go to college or school of some kind to rack up more debt instead of letting them earn a decent wage at a job they enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I've ever met anyone who enjoyed their min wage job or would want it as a career.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, i think they DO enjoy their minimum wage jobs.
> 
> they just what to be paid MORE for the very little that they do.
> 
> Tell me, what walmart greeter doesn't want $15 an hour?
Click to expand...


Is being a greeter worth $15 dollars an hour?


----------



## syrenn

Asclepias said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I've ever met anyone who enjoyed their min wage job or would want it as a career.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, i think they DO enjoy their minimum wage jobs.
> 
> they just what to be paid MORE for the very little that they do.
> 
> Tell me, what walmart greeter doesn't want $15 an hour?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is being a greeter worth $15 dollars an hour?
Click to expand...


no, and that is my point.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

DiabloBlanco said:


> So 3 who hate the poor and want to force them to go to college or school of some kind to rack up more debt instead of letting them earn a decent wage at a job they enjoy.



  You dont need to go to college to get a decent paying job. All you have to do is apply yourself. The wife and I didnt go to college and I retired at 46,she'll retire in two more years at 47.
  If you dont aspire to be more then a stocker at the grocery store why in the hell should I subsidize that choice? Besides your stealing jobs from teenagers and old people. Have you no shame?


----------



## sameech

pinqy said:


> DiabloBlanco said:
> 
> 
> 
> So 3 who hate the poor and want to force them to go to college or school of some kind to rack up more debt instead of letting them earn a decent wage at a job they enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I've ever met anyone who enjoyed their min wage job or would want it as a career.
Click to expand...


I did when I started out.  I _loved_ my first job--it was related to a sport I played.  I would have done it as a career if it had a future in it that didn't involve poverty.


--Sam


----------



## whitehall

The only "shocking truth" promoted by the video paid by confiscating union worker's mandatory dues is that prices would go up and union leaders would get a bigger golden parachute.


----------



## sameech

Defiant1 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has someone figured out the magic formula to define a "living" wage?
> 
> Or should each employee be paid according to how much money they need to "live?"
Click to expand...


Maybe.  I live in a fairly low income area and it puts our living wage at less than a dollar above the current MW so that probably is about right considering the localized cost of living. 

Living Wage Calculator - Introduction to the Living Wage Calculator


----------



## alan1

Againsheila said:


> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.



Eliminate EBT, problem solved.

Your premise in this thread is that EBT is a responsibility of the government when it is not.  Your premise is to blame WalMart for that false responsibility when it is not.
Sigh.


----------



## whitehall

Unions ran the auto industry out of Detroit but union leaders did pretty well for themselves. What's the plan now?


----------



## RandomVariable

Asclepias said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I've ever met anyone who enjoyed their min wage job or would want it as a career.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, i think they DO enjoy their minimum wage jobs.
> 
> they just what to be paid MORE for the very little that they do.
> 
> Tell me, what walmart greeter doesn't want $15 an hour?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is being a greeter worth $15 dollars an hour?
Click to expand...


Would you rather have Wal-mart pay the employ $15 an hour or the tax payer pay for food stamps?


----------



## RandomVariable

syrenn said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm against a living wage.  Get off your butt and make yourself more valuable.  its better to decide for yourself how much you are worth than having a company or government decide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A living wage is what ever it is you are willing to work for. If that means working 16 house a day 7 days a week to survive....   Welcome to the real world.
Click to expand...


What if "reality" was that a person could work 40 hrs/wk and make enough to get by and it cost you nothing more than what you pay into the system or pay for goods now? Would you be OK with that? With arguing against that reality would you be for it?


----------



## BobPlumb

RandomVariable said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm against a living wage.  Get off your butt and make yourself more valuable.  its better to decide for yourself how much you are worth than having a company or government decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A living wage is what ever it is you are willing to work for. If that means working 16 house a day 7 days a week to survive....   Welcome to the real world.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if "reality" was that a person could work 40 hrs/wk and make enough to get by and it cost you nothing more than what you pay into the system or pay for goods now? Would you be OK with that? With arguing against that reality would you be for it?
Click to expand...


Unicorns and rainbows every day!


----------



## syrenn

RandomVariable said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, i think they DO enjoy their minimum wage jobs.
> 
> they just what to be paid MORE for the very little that they do.
> 
> Tell me, what walmart greeter doesn't want $15 an hour?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is being a greeter worth $15 dollars an hour?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you rather have Wal-mart pay the employ $15 an hour or the tax payer pay for food stamps?
Click to expand...


I would rather the employee work two..or even three jobs and pay their own way in life......


----------



## alan1

RandomVariable said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, i think they DO enjoy their minimum wage jobs.
> 
> they just what to be paid MORE for the very little that they do.
> 
> Tell me, what walmart greeter doesn't want $15 an hour?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is being a greeter worth $15 dollars an hour?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you rather have Wal-mart pay the employ $15 an hour or the tax payer pay for food stamps?
Click to expand...


Those aren't the only two options.
But if you want to limit things to only two options, riddle me this......
Would your rather be in a car wreck, or get stabbed?

See how fun and idiotic it is when there are only two options?


----------



## syrenn

RandomVariable said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm against a living wage.  Get off your butt and make yourself more valuable.  its better to decide for yourself how much you are worth than having a company or government decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A living wage is what ever it is you are willing to work for. If that means working 16 house a day 7 days a week to survive....   Welcome to the real world.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if "reality" was that a person could work 40 hrs/wk and make enough to get by and it cost you nothing more than what you pay into the system or pay for goods now? Would you be OK with that? With arguing against that reality would you be for it?
Click to expand...


that is the reality for skilled labor.... and it costs me nothing now.


----------



## BobPlumb

syrenn said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A living wage is what ever it is you are willing to work for. If that means working 16 house a day 7 days a week to survive....   Welcome to the real world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if "reality" was that a person could work 40 hrs/wk and make enough to get by and it cost you nothing more than what you pay into the system or pay for goods now? Would you be OK with that? With arguing against that reality would you be for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that is the reality for skilled labor.... and it costs me nothing now.
Click to expand...


And it is not reality for the average walmart worker.


----------



## syrenn

BobPlumb said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if "reality" was that a person could work 40 hrs/wk and make enough to get by and it cost you nothing more than what you pay into the system or pay for goods now? Would you be OK with that? With arguing against that reality would you be for it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that is the reality for skilled labor.... and it costs me nothing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it is not reality for the average walmart worker.
Click to expand...




are walmart workers skilled labor? 

people need to pay their own way in life. If that means your average walmart worker needs to work three jobs....80+ hours a week..... then that is what they need to do* to make a living..*...


----------



## Pop23

Shaitra said:


> Going to college is not the only way to make yourself more valuable to an employer.  You can do an apprenticeship or go to trade school.  Or work and get experience to raise your pay.  But you have to have some ambition to do more than just work an entry level job.  Or learn to live on less.



If your ambition is to work at a starter job, living wage or not, no amount of schooling in the worlds gonna hep ya.


----------



## dblack

Againsheila said:


> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.



Or, we could stop subsidizing Walmart with food stamps.


----------



## RandomVariable

syrenn said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A living wage is what ever it is you are willing to work for. If that means working 16 house a day 7 days a week to survive....   Welcome to the real world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if "reality" was that a person could work 40 hrs/wk and make enough to get by and it cost you nothing more than what you pay into the system or pay for goods now? Would you be OK with that? With arguing against that reality would you be for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that is the reality for skilled labor.... and it costs me nothing now.
Click to expand...


90% of the work in getting to a new reality is admitting there might be one. (The correct answer was, "Yes.")


----------



## alan1

dblack said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or, we could stop subsidizing Walmart with food stamps.
Click to expand...




> Or, we could stop subsidizing with food stamps


Fixed it for you.


----------



## BobPlumb

syrenn said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that is the reality for skilled labor.... and it costs me nothing now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it is not reality for the average walmart worker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are walmart workers skilled labor?
> 
> people need to pay their own way in life. If that means your average walmart worker needs to work three jobs....80+ hours a week..... then that is what they need to do* to make a living..*...
Click to expand...


No, Walmart workers are not skilled labor.  I was agreeing with you!

To your next point, most people that are ambitious enough to work 80 + hours per week are going to work their way into higher paying positions.  (And I am still agreeing with you)


----------



## RandomVariable

DiabloBlanco said:


> I think people are taxed enough its just not spent wisely. Get rid of all illegal immigrants,stop with the war adventurism,foreign aid,etc.



Some people are taxed more than enough already. We are the land of milk and honey. The question is what is the worth of the worker bees.


----------



## RandomVariable

BobPlumb said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it is not reality for the average walmart worker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are walmart workers skilled labor?
> 
> people need to pay their own way in life. If that means your average walmart worker needs to work three jobs....80+ hours a week..... then that is what they need to do* to make a living..*...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Walmart workers are not skilled labor.  I was agreeing with you!
> 
> To your next point, most people that are ambitious enough to work 80 + hours per week are going to work their way into higher paying positions.  (And I am still agreeing with you)
Click to expand...


I assume that leaves out reading the kid a bedtime story.


----------



## dblack

alan1 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or, we could stop subsidizing Walmart with food stamps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or, we could stop subsidizing with food stamps
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fixed it for you.
Click to expand...


Whichever. I just find it ironic that the supporters of the welfare state are "shocked and dismayed" to discover that their schemes inadvertently benefit the corporations they think they oppose.


----------



## AquaAthena

alan1 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eliminate EBT, problem solved.
> 
> Your premise in this thread is that EBT is a responsibility of the government when it is not.  Your premise is to blame WalMart for that false responsibility when it is not.
> Sigh.
Click to expand...


I make it a point to ask the Walmart employees if they are happy working at our local store who has a woman, lesbian manager and the men and women I ask, always smile and say they do.   The woman in Photo has worked there 12 years and makes $20.00 an hour with vacations and healthcare. That was last year. She said she wouldn't trade her job for the world. She can't stand to hear ppl put Walmart down. She is a successful person. 
--------------------------

SNIPS:

Observe any hiring center for a new Walmart and you will see thousands of individuals eager to become a Walmart associate. Many already have jobs at fast food restaurants, supermarkets, or other retail stores. LaShawn Ross, 29, worked for McDonalds and Winn-Dixie before taking a job at a brand new Walmart in Pinellas Park, Florida. Ross aptly summarizes the sentiments of many applicants: *They are huge, so I know there is a huge amount of opportunity.*

Nobody has to work at Walmart if he feels underpaid or underappreciated. He can always seek another job. So why do 1.4 million Americans choose to work at Walmart, many for well under $12 per hour? [2013]

Many entry-level Walmart jobs consist of comparatively safe and non-strenuous work such as stocking shelves, working cash registers, and changing price labels. Walmart also pays competitive wages, which, for these jobs, are generally under $12 per hour, because these positions require little or no work experience or technical skills. For anyone with modest credentials, these jobs provide good work experienceexperience which they can use to eventually land a higher paying job.

more:  Why Do 1.4 Million Americans Work At Walmart, With Many More Trying To? - Forbes


----------



## BobPlumb

RandomVariable said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if "reality" was that a person could work 40 hrs/wk and make enough to get by and it cost you nothing more than what you pay into the system or pay for goods now? Would you be OK with that? With arguing against that reality would you be for it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that is the reality for skilled labor.... and it costs me nothing now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 90% of the work in getting to a new reality is admitting there might be one. (The correct answer was, "Yes.")
Click to expand...


If the correct answer is really yes, then you should be able to start your own discount store and pay employees that living wage.  Then Walmart will have to raise their wages or go out of business to compete with your discount store.


----------



## RandomVariable

alan1 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or, we could stop subsidizing Walmart with food stamps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or, we could stop subsidizing with food stamps
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fixed it for you.
Click to expand...


Should we put those savings into education or tax breaks for the top income earners?


----------



## dblack

RandomVariable said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or, we could stop subsidizing Walmart with food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or, we could stop subsidizing with food stamps
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fixed it for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Should we put those savings into education or tax breaks for the top income earners?
Click to expand...


No


----------



## RandomVariable

BobPlumb said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that is the reality for skilled labor.... and it costs me nothing now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 90% of the work in getting to a new reality is admitting there might be one. (The correct answer was, "Yes.")
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the correct answer is really yes, then you should be able to start your own discount store and pay employees that living wage.  Then Walmart will have to raise their wages or go out of business to compete with your discount store.
Click to expand...


I (let's just say) am 23, have a high school education, made good grades, and a kid. You think I should open my own store?


----------



## BobPlumb

AquaAthena said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eliminate EBT, problem solved.
> 
> Your premise in this thread is that EBT is a responsibility of the government when it is not.  Your premise is to blame WalMart for that false responsibility when it is not.
> Sigh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I make it a point to ask the Walmart employees if they are happy working at our local store who has a woman, lesbian manager and the men and women I ask, always smile and say they do.   The woman in Photo has worked there 12 years and makes $20.00 an hour with vacations and healthcare. That was last year. She said she wouldn't trade her job for the world. She can't stand to hear ppl put Walmart down. She is a successful person.
> --------------------------
> 
> SNIPS:
> 
> Observe any hiring center for a new Walmart and you will see thousands of individuals eager to become a Walmart associate. Many already have jobs at fast food restaurants, supermarkets, or other retail stores. LaShawn Ross, 29, worked for McDonalds and Winn-Dixie before taking a job at a brand new Walmart in Pinellas Park, Florida. Ross aptly summarizes the sentiments of many applicants: *They are huge, so I know there is a huge amount of opportunity.*
> 
> Nobody has to work at Walmart if he feels underpaid or underappreciated. He can always seek another job. So why do 1.4 million Americans choose to work at Walmart, many for well under $12 per hour? [2013]
> 
> Many entry-level Walmart jobs consist of comparatively safe and non-strenuous work such as stocking shelves, working cash registers, and changing price labels. Walmart also pays competitive wages, which, for these jobs, are generally under $12 per hour, because these positions require little or no work experience or technical skills. For anyone with modest credentials, these jobs provide good work experienceexperience which they can use to eventually land a higher paying job.
> 
> more:  Why Do 1.4 Million Americans Work At Walmart, With Many More Trying To? - Forbes
Click to expand...


So Walmart is already paying the amount and more than 10.10 an hour.  The amount that Obama wants to set as the new minimum wage.


----------



## RandomVariable

dblack said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fixed it for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should we put those savings into education or tax breaks for the top income earners?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No
Click to expand...


Do you think we spend too much on education?


----------



## dblack

RandomVariable said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should we put those savings into education or tax breaks for the top income earners?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think we spend too much on education?
Click to expand...


Who is "we"?


----------



## syrenn

BobPlumb said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it is not reality for the average walmart worker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are walmart workers skilled labor?
> 
> people need to pay their own way in life. If that means your average walmart worker needs to work three jobs....80+ hours a week..... then that is what they need to do* to make a living..*...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Walmart workers are not skilled labor.  I was agreeing with you!
> 
> To your next point, most people that are ambitious enough to work 80 + hours per week are going to work their way into higher paying positions.  (And I am still agreeing with you)
Click to expand...


and then you have the slugs who just want to be paid more....... for doing nothing more.


----------



## alan1

RandomVariable said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or, we could stop subsidizing Walmart with food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or, we could stop subsidizing with food stamps
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fixed it for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Should we put those savings into education or tax breaks for the top income earners?
Click to expand...

It's not a "savings", it's a reduction of expense.
How about tax breaks for *everybody* that pays taxes?
I'm unsure why you only want to limit the reduced tax burden to "top income earners".


----------



## syrenn

RandomVariable said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are walmart workers skilled labor?
> 
> people need to pay their own way in life. If that means your average walmart worker needs to work three jobs....80+ hours a week..... then that is what they need to do* to make a living..*...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Walmart workers are not skilled labor.  I was agreeing with you!
> 
> To your next point, most people that are ambitious enough to work 80 + hours per week are going to work their way into higher paying positions.  (And I am still agreeing with you)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assume that leaves out reading the kid a bedtime story.
Click to expand...



that's right. If you have qualms about that, dont have children you cant afford.


----------



## syrenn

RandomVariable said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 90% of the work in getting to a new reality is admitting there might be one. (The correct answer was, "Yes.")
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the correct answer is really yes, then you should be able to start your own discount store and pay employees that living wage.  Then Walmart will have to raise their wages or go out of business to compete with your discount store.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I (let's just say) am 23, have a high school education, made good grades, and a kid. You think I should open my own store?
Click to expand...


I think you should work 3 jobs and move out from mommas basement.


----------



## BobPlumb

RandomVariable said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 90% of the work in getting to a new reality is admitting there might be one. (The correct answer was, "Yes.")
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the correct answer is really yes, then you should be able to start your own discount store and pay employees that living wage.  Then Walmart will have to raise their wages or go out of business to compete with your discount store.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I (let's just say) am 23, have a high school education, made good grades, and a kid. You think I should open my own store?
Click to expand...


If the correct answer is really yes!


----------



## RandomVariable

syrenn said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are walmart workers skilled labor?
> 
> people need to pay their own way in life. If that means your average walmart worker needs to work three jobs....80+ hours a week..... then that is what they need to do* to make a living..*...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Walmart workers are not skilled labor.  I was agreeing with you!
> 
> To your next point, most people that are ambitious enough to work 80 + hours per week are going to work their way into higher paying positions.  (And I am still agreeing with you)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and then you have the slugs who just want to be paid more....... for doing nothing more.
Click to expand...


Is this about you or the "slugs"?


----------



## alan1

RandomVariable said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 90% of the work in getting to a new reality is admitting there might be one. (The correct answer was, "Yes.")
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the correct answer is really yes, then you should be able to start your own discount store and pay employees that living wage.  Then Walmart will have to raise their wages or go out of business to compete with your discount store.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I (let's just say) am 23, have a high school education, made good grades, and a kid. You think I should open my own store?
Click to expand...


Bill Gates did.
Steve Jobs did.
Frank Lloyd Wright did.
Mark Zuckerberg did.

Every one of them a college dropout.
Just sayin'


----------



## RandomVariable

alan1 said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the correct answer is really yes, then you should be able to start your own discount store and pay employees that living wage.  Then Walmart will have to raise their wages or go out of business to compete with your discount store.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I (let's just say) am 23, have a high school education, made good grades, and a kid. You think I should open my own store?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bill Gates did.
> Steve Jobs did.
> Frank Lloyd Wright did.
> Mark Zuckerberg did.
> 
> Every one of them a college dropout.
> Just sayin'
Click to expand...


Ever had a sociology class?


----------



## RandomVariable

BobPlumb said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the correct answer is really yes, then you should be able to start your own discount store and pay employees that living wage.  Then Walmart will have to raise their wages or go out of business to compete with your discount store.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I (let's just say) am 23, have a high school education, made good grades, and a kid. You think I should open my own store?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the correct answer is really yes!
Click to expand...


And I live in a very rural, poor part of the country. Still?


----------



## BobPlumb

If you think you are smart enough to tell a highly successful business that they can pay their unskilled employees more, I say put up or shut up.  Start your own business and pay the employees more for that unskilled labor.  See how it works out for you.


----------



## sameech

RandomVariable said:


> Would you rather have Wal-mart pay the employ $15 an hour or the tax payer pay for food stamps?



It is nice to see that a company is willing to hire people to help them transition off assistance or allow parents the chance to work around their life schedules some.  If the MW were $15 an hour, the poverty levels and benefits tables for public assistance will just be re-indexed to reflect the new cost of living and those people will still be receiving assistance and American labor costs will be even more out of alignment with foreign competition than they already are.
The reason some European companies build in the US is because our labor costs are lower than they are there.


----------



## Pop23

BobPlumb said:


> If you think you are smart enough to tell a highly successful business that they can pay their unskilled employees more, I say put up or shut up.  Start your own business and pay the employees more for that unskilled labor.  See how it works out for you.



^^^^^Word^^^^^^


----------



## RandomVariable

sameech said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you rather have Wal-mart pay the employ $15 an hour or the tax payer pay for food stamps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is nice to see that a company is willing to hire people to help them transition off assistance or allow parents the chance to work around their life schedules some.  If the MW were $15 an hour, the poverty levels and benefits tables for public assistance will just be re-indexed to reflect the new cost of living and those people will still be receiving assistance and American labor costs will be even more out of alignment with foreign competition than they already are.
> The reason some European companies build in the US is because our labor costs are lower than they are there.
Click to expand...


Should the MW be done away with and whatever business and employees work out for pay is what it is?


----------



## sameech

RandomVariable said:


> Should the MW be done away with and whatever business and employees work out for pay is what it is?



You know, that is one of those questions that really trouble me.  My mind says, "Yep", but the hairs on the back of my neck say "Shiver me timbers" to even think about such a system and how that would play out in small towns.  I think it would work better in New York City than it would in Apple Creek wherever.   

Back to Walmart hating for a sec--the Earned Income Tax Credit has a positive effect on employment for single moms and the working poor. (Policy Basics: The Earned Income Tax Credit ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities)  It bothers me to see people just trash companies that are assisting the people who otherwise have no job, get some work.  Walmart, love them or hate them, really does help people work a schedule that works for them, and people I knew who worked there and moved elsewhere had no problem continuing to work for Walmart in their new location. 

Now back to the MW, I saw this suggested somewhere else and I am still thinking about it-- perhaps the minimum wage should be based on the cost of living in the cheapest metropolitan areas in the country and let supply-demand drive it up from there as localized wages in places with higher cost of living.  A small city then can compete better to lure in businesses/foreign investments and then let supply-demand in labor drive wages up from there.  It is one of those ideas still simmering in my mind right now before I take a definitive position one way or the other.

--Sam


----------



## Mathbud1

The whole idea of every job paying a "living wage" is just not feasible. Do you pay a "living wage" to the 16 year old lifeguard at the local pool? 

Not every job is meant to be a career.

And the whole "people should be able to keep the job they like and make a living there" argument is lame. Quit whining about enjoying your job. Man up (or woman up) and do what you need to to make a decent living. 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## CaféAuLait

Againsheila said:


> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.



Nearly $104,000,000 million worth of food stamps was redeemed at military commissaries in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2013 alone. This does NOT include any grocery story where the military user did not shop at the commissary on base. Many do not use the commissary for many reasons. This ups the number to almost 200,000,000 million in food stamps use for military families.

Why isn't our military being paid a living wage by the Federal Government? 

Military use of food stamps rises again - Feb. 17, 2014

*How about Firefighters?*

Firefighters, city at pay impasse | Bartlesville Examiner Enterprise

State Troopers? 

*State troopers: Must take out loans, use food stamps to feed families*

Read more: State troopers: Must take out loans, use food stamps to feed families | Local News - WMTW Home

 The above men and women put their lives on the line daily for this country and are not paid a living wage. Why is that? Its not just "evil Wal-Mart". Federal  and state government don't pay living wages as well. So where is the outrage for Joe Schmuck when he or she signs on to die in a fire, war or in some fire fight with a bad guy on the road?


----------



## Asclepias

RandomVariable said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, i think they DO enjoy their minimum wage jobs.
> 
> they just what to be paid MORE for the very little that they do.
> 
> Tell me, what walmart greeter doesn't want $15 an hour?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is being a greeter worth $15 dollars an hour?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you rather have Wal-mart pay the employ $15 an hour or the tax payer pay for food stamps?
Click to expand...


Neither to be honest.  I dont want the cost passed on to me by Walmart raising prices like McDonalds is doing.  I worked 2 jobs and went to school to make ends meet. Other people can do the same.


----------



## Asclepias

RandomVariable said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 90% of the work in getting to a new reality is admitting there might be one. (The correct answer was, "Yes.")
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the correct answer is really yes, then you should be able to start your own discount store and pay employees that living wage.  Then Walmart will have to raise their wages or go out of business to compete with your discount store.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I (let's just say) am 23, have a high school education, made good grades, and a kid. You think I should open my own store?
Click to expand...


If you have a product that people will buy then by all means do that.  Its actually better to be an entrepreneur than a worker anyway.


----------



## Asclepias

RandomVariable said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you rather have Wal-mart pay the employ $15 an hour or the tax payer pay for food stamps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is nice to see that a company is willing to hire people to help them transition off assistance or allow parents the chance to work around their life schedules some.  If the MW were $15 an hour, the poverty levels and benefits tables for public assistance will just be re-indexed to reflect the new cost of living and those people will still be receiving assistance and American labor costs will be even more out of alignment with foreign competition than they already are.
> The reason some European companies build in the US is because our labor costs are lower than they are there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Should the MW be done away with and whatever business and employees work out for pay is what it is?
Click to expand...


No. There should always be a MW.  Unscrupulous business owners would barely pay anything at all and there would be nothing you could do about it.  MW is just a cost of doing business.


----------



## Mac1958

.

Since we have essentially created a large underclass through lowered standards, lowered expectations, excuses and political correctness, we probably have no choice but to increase the minimum wage.  When you create such a class of people, you are responsible for it.  Too late now, they're *all over* the place.  A true national tragedy, there is no excuse for what has been done to them:  Confident Idiots: American Students Growing More Confident, Less Capable

So, now, that said, I'd like to know how we're going to deal with the following.  *WARNING:  REAL WORLD QUESTION COMING UP, NOT A THEORETICAL EXERCISE TO BE CONSIDERED ONLY BY ACADEMIC THEORISTS IN THE ADMINISTRATION:*

Let's say we have a person who is currently making $8.00 an hour.  We increase their hourly wage to $15.00.  Great.  Now they have a "living wage".  What do we do for the people who are making:


$8.50
$8.75
$9.00
$9.25
$9.50
$9.75
$10.00
$10.25
$10.50
$10.75
$11.00
$11.25
... and on and on, let's say, up to $25.00 an hour?

If you're going to be "fair", everyone else's wage has to increase by that same 90%, correct?  And if you're answer is "no", tell us precisely how you're going to break the news to these people, those Americans who have worked their way up, who have put out extra effort, increased their skillset on their own time.  *How, precisely, do you plan to break the news to these Americans that they're now down to the minimum wage with those who have put out ZERO extra effort and sacrifice?*

Please explain.  Oh, and while you're at it,  please describe *any potential negative ramifications in an intensely and increasingly competitive global business environment.*

So, now that we have agreed to increase the minimum wage to a $15.00 "living wage", please continue.  *Since I'm sure you have thought this through,* I'm sure you can knock this one out of the park.  Ready, set, go!

Looking forward to it, thanks.  I have a bunch of business clients who could use some of your guidance.

.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

RandomVariable said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, i think they DO enjoy their minimum wage jobs.
> 
> they just what to be paid MORE for the very little that they do.
> 
> Tell me, what walmart greeter doesn't want $15 an hour?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is being a greeter worth $15 dollars an hour?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you rather have Wal-mart pay the employ $15 an hour or the tax payer pay for food stamps?
Click to expand...


 Neither one. Those people should stop stealing jobs from teenagers and old people and get a job that will support a family. But that would require effort,so I dont expect these sad sacks will do it. To bad for them...and their families.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

RandomVariable said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> I (let's just say) am 23, have a high school education, made good grades, and a kid. You think I should open my own store?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the correct answer is really yes!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I live in a very rural, poor part of the country. Still?
Click to expand...


  I would suggest moving. If you dont want to do that then you have no one to blame but yourself if you're a failure.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

CaféAuLait;9093035 said:
			
		

> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nearly $104,000,000 million worth of food stamps was redeemed at military commissaries in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2013 alone. This does NOT include any grocery story where the military user did not shop at the commissary on base. Many do not use the commissary for many reasons. This ups the number to almost 200,000,000 million in food stamps use for military families.
> 
> Why isn't our military being paid a living wage by the Federal Government?
> 
> Military use of food stamps rises again - Feb. 17, 2014
> 
> *How about Firefighters?*
> 
> Firefighters, city at pay impasse | Bartlesville Examiner Enterprise
> 
> State Troopers?
> 
> *State troopers: Must take out loans, use food stamps to feed families*
> 
> Read more: State troopers: Must take out loans, use food stamps to feed families | Local News - WMTW Home
> 
> The above men and women put their lives on the line daily for this country and are not paid a living wage. Why is that? Its not just "evil Wal-Mart". Federal  and state government don't pay living wages as well. So where is the outrage for Joe Schmuck when he or she signs on to die in a fire, war or in some fire fight with a bad guy on the road?
Click to expand...


  There are two good reasons to join the military. One is self explanatory,the other is a college education.
  If you dont use that opportunity,who's fault is it?


----------



## Missourian

The third major fast food chain restaurant closed up in my town.

Their former employees are now making zero.


----------



## dblack

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Since we have essentially created a large underclass through lowered standards, lowered expectations, excuses and political correctness, we probably have no choice but to increase the minimum wage.  When you create such a class of people, you are responsible for it.  Too late now, they're *all over* the place.  A true national tragedy, there is no excuse for what has been done to them:  Confident Idiots: American Students Growing More Confident, Less Capable



The problem with this line of reasoning, Mac, is that it assumes raising the minimum wage will provide any real long-term relief. And I can't find any reason why it would.

The value that we, as a society, place on different jobs is a relative, subjective judgment that doesn't change merely by slapping a different number on it. Attempting to do so only disrupts current pricing and job availability. And then, only for awhile. Eventually, even in a convoluted not-quite-so-free market, prices reflect the real value of the jobs in question.

When we make these delusional attempts to deny that real value we're essentially telling people that they're not allowed to work for less than some minimum price. This will create one of two results. Either employers will cut back on hiring, focusing on only those employees who can provide the additional value, or they soak up the additional costs, passing some, if not most, of the bump on to consumers. In the first case, we're merely pushing more people into the underclass. In the second, we're implementing defacto welfare via inflated prices for consumers. But the point is both effects are temporary. They are nullified in time by the market rebalancing itself.

Most people who look much at economics understand that minimum wage is just a political tool. Something to manipulate voters (and of course threaten wealthy lobbying interests).


----------



## Mac1958

dblack said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Since we have essentially created a large underclass through lowered standards, lowered expectations, excuses and political correctness, we probably have no choice but to increase the minimum wage.  When you create such a class of people, you are responsible for it.  Too late now, they're *all over* the place.  A true national tragedy, there is no excuse for what has been done to them:  Confident Idiots: American Students Growing More Confident, Less Capable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with this line of reasoning, Mac, is that it assumes raising the minimum wage will provide any real long-term relief. And I can't find any reason why it would.
> 
> The value that we, as a society, place on different jobs is a relative, subjective judgment that doesn't change merely by slapping a different number on it. Attempting to do so only disrupts current pricing and job availability. And then, only for awhile. Eventually, even in a convoluted not-quite-so-free market, prices reflect the real value of the jobs in question.
> 
> When we make these delusional attempts to deny that real value we're essentially telling people that they're not allowed to work for less than some minimum price. This will create one of two results. Either employers will cut back on hiring, focusing on only those employees who can provide the additional value, or they soak up the additional costs, passing some, if not most, of the bump on to consumers. In the first case, we're merely pushing more people into the underclass. In the second, we're implementing defacto welfare via inflated prices for consumers. But the point is both effects are temporary. They are nullified in time by the market rebalancing itself.
> 
> Most people who look much at economics understand that minimum wage is just a political tool. Something to manipulate voters (and of course threaten wealthy lobbying interests).
Click to expand...



I don't disagree at all.  But we, as a culture, have allowed this to happen.  I'll spare you my diatribe (you're welcome!), but this is all part of the decay we're seeing as a country.  You're absolutely right, this would cause significant damage.  

Look, perhaps we're both wrong.  Perhaps someone will come along and provide a reasoned and workable response to my post.  Maybe we're missing something.  Maybe they *really have *thought it through.  I'm completely sincere in that post.  We're obviously headed in this direction and we need to find a way to mitigate the inevitable damage.

.


----------



## Mathbud1

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Since we have essentially created a large underclass through lowered standards, lowered expectations, excuses and political correctness, we probably have no choice but to increase the minimum wage.  When you create such a class of people, you are responsible for it.  Too late now, they're *all over* the place.  A true national tragedy, there is no excuse for what has been done to them:  Confident Idiots: American Students Growing More Confident, Less Capable
> 
> So, now, that said, I'd like to know how we're going to deal with the following.  *WARNING:  REAL WORLD QUESTION COMING UP, NOT A THEORETICAL EXERCISE TO BE CONSIDERED ONLY BY ACADEMIC THEORISTS IN THE ADMINISTRATION:*
> 
> Let's say we have a person who is currently making $8.00 an hour.  We increase their hourly wage to $15.00.  Great.  Now they have a "living wage".  What do we do for the people who are making:
> 
> 
> $8.50
> $8.75
> $9.00
> $9.25
> $9.50
> $9.75
> $10.00
> $10.25
> $10.50
> $10.75
> $11.00
> $11.25
> ... and on and on, let's say, up to $25.00 an hour?
> 
> If you're going to be "fair", everyone else's wage has to increase by that same 90%, correct?  And if you're answer is "no", tell us precisely how you're going to break the news to these people, those Americans who have worked their way up, who have put out extra effort, increased their skillset on their own time.  *How, precisely, do you plan to break the news to these Americans that they're now down to the minimum wage with those who have put out ZERO extra effort and sacrifice?*
> 
> Please explain.  Oh, and while you're at it,  please describe *any potential negative ramifications in an intensely and increasingly competitive global business environment.*
> 
> So, now that we have agreed to increase the minimum wage to a $15.00 "living wage", please continue.  *Since I'm sure you have thought this through,* I'm sure you can knock this one out of the park.  Ready, set, go!
> 
> Looking forward to it, thanks.  I have a bunch of business clients who could use some of your guidance.
> 
> .



First, you are probably right. The minimum wage is probably going to be raised. To add to your reasons:

Part of the problem starts with the fact that we have a minimum wage at all. The idea of the minimum wage has infected people and businesses alike. The idea of a minimum wage tells businesses that they are justified in paying that low of a wage because it is the minimum wage. The idea of a minimum wage tells people that a business is justified in paying that wage because it is the minimum wage. People (especially low or no skill workers) lose leverage to negotiate their wage with the company because the company can just point to the minimum wage and say, "I'm allowed to pay that."

So, I'd say that the minimum wage doesn't only artificially raise wages, it actually keeps them lower over time. 

Second, with regards to the increase rising up the pay scale. I was discussing that very point with some left leaning folk who came up with a very ironic argument against it. Their argument was essentially, "You wouldn't have to raise the other wages just because the minimum wage increased. If the people who were higher before don't like it they can just shut up about it or quit and find another job." It was ironic because virtually the same argument had been used by the other side about minimum wage workers. The only difference was one side was saying it about workers who had already worked their way up a pay scale and the other was saying it about workers who hadn't.


----------



## Mathbud1

Another problem with the "living wage" argument is that it shifts responsibility off of the individual. Essentially you are saying that it is not the individual's responsibility to provide for him/her self and/or family. You are moving that responsibility to either the company or to society in general. In either case you are shifting the responsibility away from where it should rest.


----------



## Mac1958

Mathbud1 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Since we have essentially created a large underclass through lowered standards, lowered expectations, excuses and political correctness, we probably have no choice but to increase the minimum wage.  When you create such a class of people, you are responsible for it.  Too late now, they're *all over* the place.  A true national tragedy, there is no excuse for what has been done to them:  Confident Idiots: American Students Growing More Confident, Less Capable
> 
> So, now, that said, I'd like to know how we're going to deal with the following.  *WARNING:  REAL WORLD QUESTION COMING UP, NOT A THEORETICAL EXERCISE TO BE CONSIDERED ONLY BY ACADEMIC THEORISTS IN THE ADMINISTRATION:*
> 
> Let's say we have a person who is currently making $8.00 an hour.  We increase their hourly wage to $15.00.  Great.  Now they have a "living wage".  What do we do for the people who are making:
> 
> 
> $8.50
> $8.75
> $9.00
> $9.25
> $9.50
> $9.75
> $10.00
> $10.25
> $10.50
> $10.75
> $11.00
> $11.25
> ... and on and on, let's say, up to $25.00 an hour?
> 
> If you're going to be "fair", everyone else's wage has to increase by that same 90%, correct?  And if you're answer is "no", tell us precisely how you're going to break the news to these people, those Americans who have worked their way up, who have put out extra effort, increased their skillset on their own time.  *How, precisely, do you plan to break the news to these Americans that they're now down to the minimum wage with those who have put out ZERO extra effort and sacrifice?*
> 
> Please explain.  Oh, and while you're at it,  please describe *any potential negative ramifications in an intensely and increasingly competitive global business environment.*
> 
> So, now that we have agreed to increase the minimum wage to a $15.00 "living wage", please continue.  *Since I'm sure you have thought this through,* I'm sure you can knock this one out of the park.  Ready, set, go!
> 
> Looking forward to it, thanks.  I have a bunch of business clients who could use some of your guidance.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, you are probably right. The minimum wage is probably going to be raised. To add to your reasons:
> 
> Part of the problem starts with the fact that we have a minimum wage at all. The idea of the minimum wage has infected people and businesses alike. The idea of a minimum wage tells businesses that they are justified in paying that low of a wage because it is the minimum wage. The idea of a minimum wage tells people that a business is justified in paying that wage because it is the minimum wage. People (especially low or no skill workers) lose leverage to negotiate their wage with the company because the company can just point to the minimum wage and say, "I'm allowed to pay that."
> 
> So, I'd say that the minimum wage doesn't only artificially raise wages, it actually keeps them lower over time.
> 
> Second, with regards to the increase rising up the pay scale. I was discussing that very point with some left leaning folk who came up with a very ironic argument against it. Their argument was essentially, *"You wouldn't have to raise the other wages just because the minimum wage increased. If the people who were higher before don't like it they can just shut up about it or quit and find another job."* It was ironic because virtually the same argument had been used by the other side about minimum wage workers. The only difference was one side was saying it about workers who had already worked their way up a pay scale and the other was saying it about workers who hadn't.
Click to expand...



This is the part that concerns me.  Are they really thinking that, or has this issue just not occurred to them?

I'm still hoping to get a clear and civil response.

.


----------



## Mathbud1

Mac1958 said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Since we have essentially created a large underclass through lowered standards, lowered expectations, excuses and political correctness, we probably have no choice but to increase the minimum wage.  When you create such a class of people, you are responsible for it.  Too late now, they're *all over* the place.  A true national tragedy, there is no excuse for what has been done to them:  Confident Idiots: American Students Growing More Confident, Less Capable
> 
> So, now, that said, I'd like to know how we're going to deal with the following.  *WARNING:  REAL WORLD QUESTION COMING UP, NOT A THEORETICAL EXERCISE TO BE CONSIDERED ONLY BY ACADEMIC THEORISTS IN THE ADMINISTRATION:*
> 
> Let's say we have a person who is currently making $8.00 an hour.  We increase their hourly wage to $15.00.  Great.  Now they have a "living wage".  What do we do for the people who are making:
> 
> 
> $8.50
> $8.75
> $9.00
> $9.25
> $9.50
> $9.75
> $10.00
> $10.25
> $10.50
> $10.75
> $11.00
> $11.25
> ... and on and on, let's say, up to $25.00 an hour?
> 
> If you're going to be "fair", everyone else's wage has to increase by that same 90%, correct?  And if you're answer is "no", tell us precisely how you're going to break the news to these people, those Americans who have worked their way up, who have put out extra effort, increased their skillset on their own time.  *How, precisely, do you plan to break the news to these Americans that they're now down to the minimum wage with those who have put out ZERO extra effort and sacrifice?*
> 
> Please explain.  Oh, and while you're at it,  please describe *any potential negative ramifications in an intensely and increasingly competitive global business environment.*
> 
> So, now that we have agreed to increase the minimum wage to a $15.00 "living wage", please continue.  *Since I'm sure you have thought this through,* I'm sure you can knock this one out of the park.  Ready, set, go!
> 
> Looking forward to it, thanks.  I have a bunch of business clients who could use some of your guidance.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, you are probably right. The minimum wage is probably going to be raised. To add to your reasons:
> 
> Part of the problem starts with the fact that we have a minimum wage at all. The idea of the minimum wage has infected people and businesses alike. The idea of a minimum wage tells businesses that they are justified in paying that low of a wage because it is the minimum wage. The idea of a minimum wage tells people that a business is justified in paying that wage because it is the minimum wage. People (especially low or no skill workers) lose leverage to negotiate their wage with the company because the company can just point to the minimum wage and say, "I'm allowed to pay that."
> 
> So, I'd say that the minimum wage doesn't only artificially raise wages, it actually keeps them lower over time.
> 
> Second, with regards to the increase rising up the pay scale. I was discussing that very point with some left leaning folk who came up with a very ironic argument against it. Their argument was essentially, *"You wouldn't have to raise the other wages just because the minimum wage increased. If the people who were higher before don't like it they can just shut up about it or quit and find another job."* It was ironic because virtually the same argument had been used by the other side about minimum wage workers. The only difference was one side was saying it about workers who had already worked their way up a pay scale and the other was saying it about workers who hadn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is the part that concerns me.  Are they really thinking that, or has this issue just not occurred to them?
> 
> I'm still hoping to get a clear and civil response.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


It really really is concerning. You get the general feeling that people who support the "living wage" argument fall into two groups: those who haven't thought about it much beyond the emotional or superficial, and those who know it won't really help anything but want to use it as a political tool to get themselves or their "side" re-elected.

Like you said, I could be wrong. Maybe someone really has thought it through and has some concrete reasoning for why it won't cause any problems. I just haven't heard them yet.


----------



## Asclepias

Mathbud1 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, you are probably right. The minimum wage is probably going to be raised. To add to your reasons:
> 
> Part of the problem starts with the fact that we have a minimum wage at all. The idea of the minimum wage has infected people and businesses alike. The idea of a minimum wage tells businesses that they are justified in paying that low of a wage because it is the minimum wage. The idea of a minimum wage tells people that a business is justified in paying that wage because it is the minimum wage. People (especially low or no skill workers) lose leverage to negotiate their wage with the company because the company can just point to the minimum wage and say, "I'm allowed to pay that."
> 
> So, I'd say that the minimum wage doesn't only artificially raise wages, it actually keeps them lower over time.
> 
> Second, with regards to the increase rising up the pay scale. I was discussing that very point with some left leaning folk who came up with a very ironic argument against it. Their argument was essentially, *"You wouldn't have to raise the other wages just because the minimum wage increased. If the people who were higher before don't like it they can just shut up about it or quit and find another job."* It was ironic because virtually the same argument had been used by the other side about minimum wage workers. The only difference was one side was saying it about workers who had already worked their way up a pay scale and the other was saying it about workers who hadn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the part that concerns me.  Are they really thinking that, or has this issue just not occurred to them?
> 
> I'm still hoping to get a clear and civil response.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really really is concerning. You get the general feeling that people who support the "living wage" argument fall into two groups: those who haven't thought about it much beyond the emotional or superficial, and those who know it won't really help anything but want to use it as a political tool to get themselves or their "side" re-elected.
> 
> Like you said, I could be wrong. Maybe someone really has thought it through and has some concrete reasoning for why it won't cause any problems. I just haven't heard them yet.
Click to expand...


You forgot the people that would benefit a little from the wage increase. The workers themselves.  I have been at minimum wage and every little bit helps.  However, I realized I simply had to make myself more valuable by acquiring better skills.  That doesn't mean I would have turned down an increase.


----------



## kiwiman127

I just really don't understand why folks why people think low wages are OK.
I would guess that most folks posting here are Middle Class.  When wages go up at the bottom, typically it spreads to the next group, which would be the Middle Class.
While the Middle Class in America has seen flat/stagnant wage growth (in Real Dollars), other industrial nation's Middle Class has seen wage growth.  Canada recently passed the US as having t
the best pad Middle Class and other countries are poised to do the same. 
This shouldn't be a partisan subject.  Wages for the working Middle Class have been stagnant under both Republican and Democratic presidents and congresses.
I've posted this before, working Americans didn't cause flat wages, the didn't ship jobs offshore and they didn't bring in automation into the workplace.  They didn't benefit at all.  But someone reaped the rewards of those policies.
A weak Middle Class symbolizes a weak economic environment. While the US spins it's wheels economically, other countries are moving forward.


----------



## dblack

kiwiman127 said:


> I just really don't understand why folks why people think low wages are OK.
> I would guess that most folks posting here are Middle Class.  When wages go up at the bottom, typically it spreads to the next group, which would be the Middle Class.
> While the Middle Class in America has seen flat/stagnant wage growth (in Real Dollars), other industrial nation's Middle Class has seen wage growth.  Canada recently passed the US as having t
> the best pad Middle Class and other countries are poised to do the same.
> This shouldn't be a partisan subject.  Wages for the working Middle Class have been stagnant under both Republican and Democratic presidents and congresses.
> I've posted this before, working Americans didn't cause flat wages, the didn't ship jobs offshore and they didn't bring in automation into the workplace.  They didn't benefit at all.  But someone reaped the rewards of those policies.
> A weak Middle Class symbolizes a weak economic environment. While the US spins it's wheels economically, other countries are moving forward.



*sigh*....

Yep.


----------



## Asclepias

kiwiman127 said:


> *I just really don't understand why folks why people think low wages are OK.*
> I would guess that most folks posting here are Middle Class.  When wages go up at the bottom, typically it spreads to the next group, which would be the Middle Class.
> While the Middle Class in America has seen flat/stagnant wage growth (in Real Dollars), other industrial nation's Middle Class has seen wage growth.  Canada recently passed the US as having t
> the best pad Middle Class and other countries are poised to do the same.
> This shouldn't be a partisan subject.  Wages for the working Middle Class have been stagnant under both Republican and Democratic presidents and congresses.
> I've posted this before, working Americans didn't cause flat wages, the didn't ship jobs offshore and they didn't bring in automation into the workplace.  They didn't benefit at all.  But someone reaped the rewards of those policies.
> A weak Middle Class symbolizes a weak economic environment. While the US spins it's wheels economically, other countries are moving forward.



They are ok because the whole concept of wages is getting paid for the worth you provide in the time you provide it to the company paying you.  If your skill set is only worth $10 to them you have to either accept it or decide you are worth more by acquiring the skills to get paid more.  Even when I was minimum wage I knew that and accepted it.


----------



## Againsheila

HereWeGoAgain said:


> DiabloBlanco said:
> 
> 
> 
> So 3 who hate the poor and want to force them to go to college or school of some kind to rack up more debt instead of letting them earn a decent wage at a job they enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You dont need to go to college to get a decent paying job. All you have to do is apply yourself. The wife and I didnt go to college and I retired at 46,she'll retire in two more years at 47.
> If you dont aspire to be more then a stocker at the grocery store why in the hell should I subsidize that choice? Besides your stealing jobs from teenagers and old people. Have you no shame?
Click to expand...


When minimum wage was created it could sustain a family of 3 over the poverty wage.  You really don't think people work less hard today than they did then do you?


----------



## Againsheila

Mathbud1 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, you are probably right. The minimum wage is probably going to be raised. To add to your reasons:
> 
> Part of the problem starts with the fact that we have a minimum wage at all. The idea of the minimum wage has infected people and businesses alike. The idea of a minimum wage tells businesses that they are justified in paying that low of a wage because it is the minimum wage. The idea of a minimum wage tells people that a business is justified in paying that wage because it is the minimum wage. People (especially low or no skill workers) lose leverage to negotiate their wage with the company because the company can just point to the minimum wage and say, "I'm allowed to pay that."
> 
> So, I'd say that the minimum wage doesn't only artificially raise wages, it actually keeps them lower over time.
> 
> Second, with regards to the increase rising up the pay scale. I was discussing that very point with some left leaning folk who came up with a very ironic argument against it. Their argument was essentially, *"You wouldn't have to raise the other wages just because the minimum wage increased. If the people who were higher before don't like it they can just shut up about it or quit and find another job."* It was ironic because virtually the same argument had been used by the other side about minimum wage workers. The only difference was one side was saying it about workers who had already worked their way up a pay scale and the other was saying it about workers who hadn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the part that concerns me.  Are they really thinking that, or has this issue just not occurred to them?
> 
> I'm still hoping to get a clear and civil response.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really really is concerning. You get the general feeling that people who support the "living wage" argument fall into two groups: those who haven't thought about it much beyond the emotional or superficial, and those who know it won't really help anything but want to use it as a political tool to get themselves or their "side" re-elected.
> 
> Like you said, I could be wrong. Maybe someone really has thought it through and has some concrete reasoning for why it won't cause any problems. I just haven't heard them yet.
Click to expand...


That's because you refuse to listen.  Did you watch the video in the OP?


----------



## Wake

If wages go up for the same work, prices will shoot up, too. 

What will be the difference when everything costs more?


----------



## sameech

Againsheila said:


> When minimum wage was created it could sustain a family of 3 over the poverty wage.  You really don't think people work less hard today than they did then do you?



The current MW is just shy of supporting a family of two at poverty level.  If someone had a family of three to support, the earned income tax credit around $5K would kick in to lift you up up slightly above the poverty level for a family of 3.


----------



## Againsheila

BobPlumb said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that is the reality for skilled labor.... and it costs me nothing now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 90% of the work in getting to a new reality is admitting there might be one. (The correct answer was, "Yes.")
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the correct answer is really yes, then you should be able to start your own discount store and pay employees that living wage.  Then Walmart will have to raise their wages or go out of business to compete with your discount store.
Click to expand...


Walmart has already run any competitors out of the market and they will make sure you don't stand a chance.


----------



## Againsheila

sameech said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> When minimum wage was created it could sustain a family of 3 over the poverty wage.  You really don't think people work less hard today than they did then do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The current MW is just shy of supporting a family of two at poverty level.  If someone had a family of three to support, the earned income tax credit around $5K would kick in to lift you up up slightly above the poverty level for a family of 3.
Click to expand...


Where are you getting your figures.  Today's minimum wage won't even support one person at the poverty level.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Againsheila said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiabloBlanco said:
> 
> 
> 
> So 3 who hate the poor and want to force them to go to college or school of some kind to rack up more debt instead of letting them earn a decent wage at a job they enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You dont need to go to college to get a decent paying job. All you have to do is apply yourself. The wife and I didnt go to college and I retired at 46,she'll retire in two more years at 47.
> If you dont aspire to be more then a stocker at the grocery store why in the hell should I subsidize that choice? Besides your stealing jobs from teenagers and old people. Have you no shame?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When minimum wage was created it could sustain a family of 3 over the poverty wage.  You really don't think people work less hard today than they did then do you?
Click to expand...


 You're so full of shit. Min.wage was $3.31 when I started working a normal job in 1981.
There is noway in hell I could have supported a family of three.
  But then I've never worked min wage in my life. It just didnt pay enough.

  Wait I take that back,when I was nine years old I worked as a ball boy for the rockets for $5.00 bucks.......A GAME. My evening started at 5:00 pm and ended at midnight.

  The people today dont have the same work ethic for damn sure. Back then they hadn't been coddled and told that they were the best thing since sliced bread,that there are no losers. 
  That self esteem is more important then learning that life isn't fair,and you damn well better expect some disappointments in life.

  Youth of today are pussies when it comes to working,they dont believe in working your way up the ladder. Their attitude is "pay me more now",then I'll work harder".
  Pathetic.....


----------



## Mac1958

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dont need to go to college to get a decent paying job. All you have to do is apply yourself. The wife and I didnt go to college and I retired at 46,she'll retire in two more years at 47.
> If you dont aspire to be more then a stocker at the grocery store why in the hell should I subsidize that choice? Besides your stealing jobs from teenagers and old people. Have you no shame?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When minimum wage was created it could sustain a family of 3 over the poverty wage.  You really don't think people work less hard today than they did then do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your so full of shit. Min.wage was $3.31 when I started working a normal job in 1981.
> There is noway in hell I could have supported a family of three.
> But then I've never worked min wage in my life. It just didnt pay enough.
> 
> Wait I take that back,when I was nine years old I worked as a ball boy for the rockets for $5.00 bucks.......A GAME. My evening started at 5:00 pm and ended at midnight.
> 
> The people today dont have the same work ethic for damn sure. Back then they hadn't been coddled and told that they were the best thing since sliced bread,that there are no losers.
> That self esteem is more important then learning that life isn't fair,and you damn well better expect some disappointments in life.
> 
> Youth of today are pussies when it comes to working,they dont believe in working your way up the ladder. Their attitude is "pay me more now,then I'll work harder".
> Pathetic.....
Click to expand...


Yep, a hundred years ago my first job was at Kentucky Fried Chicken.  $2.05 per hour.  And no, that would not have supported a family.



And I wonder if I'll ever get a response to the points I bring up in post #68...

.


----------



## sameech

Againsheila said:


> Where are you getting your figures.  Today's minimum wage won't even support one person at the poverty level.



40 hrs x $7.25 x 52 weeks=$15,080.

FPL 1 person=$11,670
2 person HH=$15,730
3 person HH=$19,790

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm


----------



## Againsheila

CaféAuLait;9093035 said:
			
		

> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nearly $104,000,000 million worth of food stamps was redeemed at military commissaries in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2013 alone. This does NOT include any grocery story where the military user did not shop at the commissary on base. Many do not use the commissary for many reasons. This ups the number to almost 200,000,000 million in food stamps use for military families.
> 
> Why isn't our military being paid a living wage by the Federal Government?
> 
> Military use of food stamps rises again - Feb. 17, 2014
> 
> *How about Firefighters?*
> 
> Firefighters, city at pay impasse | Bartlesville Examiner Enterprise
> 
> State Troopers?
> 
> *State troopers: Must take out loans, use food stamps to feed families*
> 
> Read more: State troopers: Must take out loans, use food stamps to feed families | Local News - WMTW Home
> 
> The above men and women put their lives on the line daily for this country and are not paid a living wage. Why is that? Its not just "evil Wal-Mart". Federal  and state government don't pay living wages as well. So where is the outrage for Joe Schmuck when he or she signs on to die in a fire, war or in some fire fight with a bad guy on the road?
Click to expand...


And if the minimum wage was raised, their pay would be raised as well.


----------



## Mathbud1

kiwiman127 said:


> I just really don't understand why folks why people think low wages are OK.
> I would guess that most folks posting here are Middle Class.  When wages go up at the bottom, typically it spreads to the next group, which would be the Middle Class.
> While the Middle Class in America has seen flat/stagnant wage growth (in Real Dollars), other industrial nation's Middle Class has seen wage growth.  Canada recently passed the US as having t
> the best pad Middle Class and other countries are poised to do the same.
> This shouldn't be a partisan subject.  Wages for the working Middle Class have been stagnant under both Republican and Democratic presidents and congresses.
> I've posted this before, working Americans didn't cause flat wages, the didn't ship jobs offshore and they didn't bring in automation into the workplace.  They didn't benefit at all.  But someone reaped the rewards of those policies.
> A weak Middle Class symbolizes a weak economic environment. While the US spins it's wheels economically, other countries are moving forward.



It isn't that people don't care about low wages. It is that they don't think raising the minimum wage to a living wage is the answer. According to this page Minimum wage in Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Canada doesn't have a national minimum wage. The minimum wage is determined separately in each province. The same page says that their minimum is also not a living wage. So, if you are using Canada as a model: states should be determining their own minimum wage, and it should not be a "living wage".


----------



## syrenn

Againsheila said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiabloBlanco said:
> 
> 
> 
> So 3 who hate the poor and want to force them to go to college or school of some kind to rack up more debt instead of letting them earn a decent wage at a job they enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You dont need to go to college to get a decent paying job. All you have to do is apply yourself. The wife and I didnt go to college and I retired at 46,she'll retire in two more years at 47.
> If you dont aspire to be more then a stocker at the grocery store why in the hell should I subsidize that choice? Besides your stealing jobs from teenagers and old people. Have you no shame?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When minimum wage was created it could sustain a family of 3 over the poverty wage.  You really don't think people work less hard today than they did then do you?
Click to expand...


as a matter of fact, yes i sure do think that. 

When minimum wage was created, people did not feel that a lifestyle was entitled to them. Now they do. When minimum wage was created people would work 3 jobs if they had to. Now, they cry they want more money and should not have to work 3 jobs to survive.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Mac1958 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> When minimum wage was created it could sustain a family of 3 over the poverty wage.  You really don't think people work less hard today than they did then do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your so full of shit. Min.wage was $3.31 when I started working a normal job in 1981.
> There is noway in hell I could have supported a family of three.
> But then I've never worked min wage in my life. It just didnt pay enough.
> 
> Wait I take that back,when I was nine years old I worked as a ball boy for the rockets for $5.00 bucks.......A GAME. My evening started at 5:00 pm and ended at midnight.
> 
> The people today dont have the same work ethic for damn sure. Back then they hadn't been coddled and told that they were the best thing since sliced bread,that there are no losers.
> That self esteem is more important then learning that life isn't fair,and you damn well better expect some disappointments in life.
> 
> Youth of today are pussies when it comes to working,they dont believe in working your way up the ladder. Their attitude is "pay me more now,then I'll work harder".
> Pathetic.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, a hundred years ago my first job was at Kentucky Fried Chicken.  $2.05 per hour.  And no, that would not have supported a family.
> 
> 
> 
> And I wonder if I'll ever get a response to the points I bring up in post #68...
> 
> .
Click to expand...


   Of course not...because they have no answers to those questions.
Or possibly they all work min wage and want a raise,be damned what it does to the economy or their employer.


----------



## syrenn

Wake said:


> If wages go up for the same work, prices will shoot up, too.
> 
> What will be the difference when everything costs more?



if wages go up.... are employers able to expect more work from said worker? Will the low paying worker getting a 50% raise have to work 50% harder for that raise? Will they have to be 50% more productive?


----------



## Mathbud1

Againsheila said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the part that concerns me.  Are they really thinking that, or has this issue just not occurred to them?
> 
> I'm still hoping to get a clear and civil response.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It really really is concerning. You get the general feeling that people who support the "living wage" argument fall into two groups: those who haven't thought about it much beyond the emotional or superficial, and those who know it won't really help anything but want to use it as a political tool to get themselves or their "side" re-elected.
> 
> Like you said, I could be wrong. Maybe someone really has thought it through and has some concrete reasoning for why it won't cause any problems. I just haven't heard them yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because you refuse to listen.  Did you watch the video in the OP?
Click to expand...


I listen well. I did watch the video. The video did not go into anything but the superficial and emotional which is exactly what I said.


----------



## syrenn

Againsheila said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 90% of the work in getting to a new reality is admitting there might be one. (The correct answer was, "Yes.")
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the correct answer is really yes, then you should be able to start your own discount store and pay employees that living wage.  Then Walmart will have to raise their wages or go out of business to compete with your discount store.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walmart has already run any competitors out of the market and they will make sure you don't stand a chance.
Click to expand...


so this is about walmart and not MW?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Againsheila said:


> CaféAuLait;9093035 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nearly $104,000,000 million worth of food stamps was redeemed at military commissaries in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2013 alone. This does NOT include any grocery story where the military user did not shop at the commissary on base. Many do not use the commissary for many reasons. This ups the number to almost 200,000,000 million in food stamps use for military families.
> 
> Why isn't our military being paid a living wage by the Federal Government?
> 
> Military use of food stamps rises again - Feb. 17, 2014
> 
> *How about Firefighters?*
> 
> Firefighters, city at pay impasse | Bartlesville Examiner Enterprise
> 
> State Troopers?
> 
> *State troopers: Must take out loans, use food stamps to feed families*
> 
> Read more: State troopers: Must take out loans, use food stamps to feed families | Local News - WMTW Home
> 
> The above men and women put their lives on the line daily for this country and are not paid a living wage. Why is that? Its not just "evil Wal-Mart". Federal  and state government don't pay living wages as well. So where is the outrage for Joe Schmuck when he or she signs on to die in a fire, war or in some fire fight with a bad guy on the road?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if the minimum wage was raised, their pay would be raised as well.
Click to expand...


  And you seriously dont think the cost of everything wont go up as a consequence?
Have you ever ran a business? Even a cool aide stand?
  For Gods sake!!! This isn't rocket science!


----------



## syrenn

Againsheila said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> When minimum wage was created it could sustain a family of 3 over the poverty wage.  You really don't think people work less hard today than they did then do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The current MW is just shy of supporting a family of two at poverty level.  If someone had a family of three to support, the earned income tax credit around $5K would kick in to lift you up up slightly above the poverty level for a family of 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are you getting your figures.  Today's minimum wage won't even support one person at the poverty level.
Click to expand...


something wrong with working 80 hours a week to support yourself?


----------



## syrenn

Againsheila said:


> CaféAuLait;9093035 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nearly $104,000,000 million worth of food stamps was redeemed at military commissaries in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2013 alone. This does NOT include any grocery story where the military user did not shop at the commissary on base. Many do not use the commissary for many reasons. This ups the number to almost 200,000,000 million in food stamps use for military families.
> 
> Why isn't our military being paid a living wage by the Federal Government?
> 
> Military use of food stamps rises again - Feb. 17, 2014
> 
> *How about Firefighters?*
> 
> Firefighters, city at pay impasse | Bartlesville Examiner Enterprise
> 
> State Troopers?
> 
> *State troopers: Must take out loans, use food stamps to feed families*
> 
> Read more: State troopers: Must take out loans, use food stamps to feed families | Local News - WMTW Home
> 
> The above men and women put their lives on the line daily for this country and are not paid a living wage. Why is that? Its not just "evil Wal-Mart". Federal  and state government don't pay living wages as well. So where is the outrage for Joe Schmuck when he or she signs on to die in a fire, war or in some fire fight with a bad guy on the road?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if the minimum wage was raised, their pay would be raised as well.
Click to expand...



I take it you are not keeping up on cities going bankrupt.....


----------



## Mathbud1

Asclepias said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the part that concerns me.  Are they really thinking that, or has this issue just not occurred to them?
> 
> I'm still hoping to get a clear and civil response.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It really really is concerning. You get the general feeling that people who support the "living wage" argument fall into two groups: those who haven't thought about it much beyond the emotional or superficial, and those who know it won't really help anything but want to use it as a political tool to get themselves or their "side" re-elected.
> 
> Like you said, I could be wrong. Maybe someone really has thought it through and has some concrete reasoning for why it won't cause any problems. I just haven't heard them yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot the people that would benefit a little from the wage increase. The workers themselves.  I have been at minimum wage and every little bit helps.  However, I realized I simply had to make myself more valuable by acquiring better skills.  That doesn't mean I would have turned down an increase.
Click to expand...


True. I did forget to mention that point. I can't imagine ever saying no to a pay increase that didn't require me to work any harder.


----------



## Againsheila

Mathbud1 said:


> Another problem with the "living wage" argument is that it shifts responsibility off of the individual. Essentially you are saying that it is not the individual's responsibility to provide for him/her self and/or family. You are moving that responsibility to either the company or to society in general. In either case you are shifting the responsibility away from where it should rest.



It the richest country in the world, the lowest paid worker should make a living wage.  In truth the low wage workers in this country have a huge disadvantage.  We bring in more immigrants than all other nations combined, and that's just the legal immigrants.  Add the illegals and it's even worse.  Since the 70's Americans have limited their birth rate to less than replacement value.  If our government had kept our immigration rate at what it was in the 70's, the lowest paid workers would be making a lot of money right now as they would be in great demand.  

We're not competing on a level field and it's killing us.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Againsheila said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> When minimum wage was created it could sustain a family of 3 over the poverty wage.  You really don't think people work less hard today than they did then do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The current MW is just shy of supporting a family of two at poverty level.  If someone had a family of three to support, the earned income tax credit around $5K would kick in to lift you up up slightly above the poverty level for a family of 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are you getting your figures.  Today's minimum wage won't even support one person at the poverty level.
Click to expand...


  Do what all of us did when starting out...Get a damn room mate!!!
Your view is so myopic it's laughable. Please tell me you dont vote. Because I find it hard to believe you have the brain power to make a bowl of Ramon noodles without burning em.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Againsheila said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another problem with the "living wage" argument is that it shifts responsibility off of the individual. Essentially you are saying that it is not the individual's responsibility to provide for him/her self and/or family. You are moving that responsibility to either the company or to society in general. In either case you are shifting the responsibility away from where it should rest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It the richest country in the world, the lowest paid worker should make a living wage.  In truth the low wage workers in this country have a huge disadvantage.  We bring in more immigrants than all other nations combined, and that's just the legal immigrants.  Add the illegals and it's even worse.  Since the 70's Americans have limited their birth rate to less than replacement value.  If our government had kept our immigration rate at what it was in the 70's, the lowest paid workers would be making a lot of money right now as they would be in great demand.
> 
> We're not competing on a level field and it's killing us.
Click to expand...


  So you're saying you're against wholesale immigration?
With your attitude I somehow find that hard to believe.


----------



## Againsheila

sameech said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are you getting your figures.  Today's minimum wage won't even support one person at the poverty level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 40 hrs x $7.25 x 52 weeks=$15,080.
> 
> FPL 1 person=$11,670
> 2 person HH=$15,730
> 3 person HH=$19,790
> 
> http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm
Click to expand...


Ah, yes, except for the fact that minimum wage jobs only employ you for 30 hours a week, on average.  That's to avoid paying any more benefits than they have to.


----------



## syrenn

Againsheila said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another problem with the "living wage" argument is that it shifts responsibility off of the individual. Essentially you are saying that it is not the individual's responsibility to provide for him/her self and/or family. You are moving that responsibility to either the company or to society in general. In either case you are shifting the responsibility away from where it should rest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It the richest country in the world, the lowest paid worker should make a living wage.  In truth the low wage workers in this country have a huge disadvantage.  We bring in more immigrants than all other nations combined, and that's just the legal immigrants.  Add the illegals and it's even worse.  Since the 70's Americans have limited their birth rate to less than replacement value.  If our government had kept our immigration rate at what it was in the 70's, the lowest paid workers would be making a lot of money right now as they would be in great demand.
> 
> We're not competing on a level field and it's killing us.
Click to expand...



funny you should bring up that point. You do realize that immigrants both legal and illegal.... are willing to work to death to try and make their lives better don't you.  

Ive had whole crews working two jobs and have tried to accommodate that by adjusting when they have to clock in and out. 

so if the soft entitled Americans cant compete...that is their fault.


----------



## syrenn

Againsheila said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are you getting your figures.  Today's minimum wage won't even support one person at the poverty level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 40 hrs x $7.25 x 52 weeks=$15,080.
> 
> FPL 1 person=$11,670
> 2 person HH=$15,730
> 3 person HH=$19,790
> 
> http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, yes, except for the fact that minimum wage jobs only employ you for 30 hours a week, on average.  That's to avoid paying any more benefits than they have to.
Click to expand...



and what do these people do with themselves the other 50 hours a week they could be working other jobs?


----------



## Wake

syrenn said:


> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> If wages go up for the same work, prices will shoot up, too.
> 
> What will be the difference when everything costs more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if wages go up.... are employers able to expect more work from said worker? Will the low paying worker getting a 50% raise have to work 50% harder for that raise? Will they have to be 50% more productive?
Click to expand...


If wages shoot up to $15 from minimum wage, that's going to put far more burden on the employer when it comes to dishing out money. I'm not sure if the workers will be expected to work far harder, but I'm certain the employer will have to make up for his/her losses by charging much more for those goods and services... to cover the difference. A lot of fast food workers work very hard as it is, like those at Jimmy Johns, and I'm not sure how much harder they'd have to work to reach 50% more productivity.


----------



## dblack

Againsheila said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are you getting your figures.  Today's minimum wage won't even support one person at the poverty level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 40 hrs x $7.25 x 52 weeks=$15,080.
> 
> FPL 1 person=$11,670
> 2 person HH=$15,730
> 3 person HH=$19,790
> 
> http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, yes, except for the fact that minimum wage jobs only employ you for 30 hours a week, on average.  That's to avoid paying any more benefits than they have to.
Click to expand...


Yeah, dumb regulations cause all kinds of these "unintended" consequences.

You know, I usually try to avoid insinuating someone is stupid merely because they disagree with me. But in this case, I have to make an exception. MW is little more than a political tool to stir up the ignorant.


----------



## syrenn

Wake said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake said:
> 
> 
> 
> If wages go up for the same work, prices will shoot up, too.
> 
> What will be the difference when everything costs more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if wages go up.... are employers able to expect more work from said worker? Will the low paying worker getting a 50% raise have to work 50% harder for that raise? Will they have to be 50% more productive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If wages shoot up to $15 from minimum wage, that's going to put far more burden on the employer when it comes to dishing out money. I'm not sure if the workers will be expected to work far harder, but I'm certain the employer will have to make up for his/her losses by charging much more for those goods and services... to cover the difference. A lot of fast food workers work very hard as it is, like those at Jimmy Johns, and I'm not sure how much harder they'd have to work to reach 50% more productivity.
Click to expand...


lots of people going to lose their jobs too.....


----------



## Mathbud1

Againsheila said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another problem with the "living wage" argument is that it shifts responsibility off of the individual. Essentially you are saying that it is not the individual's responsibility to provide for him/her self and/or family. You are moving that responsibility to either the company or to society in general. In either case you are shifting the responsibility away from where it should rest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It the richest country in the world, the lowest paid worker should make a living wage.*  In truth the low wage workers in this country have a huge disadvantage.  We bring in more immigrants than all other nations combined, and that's just the legal immigrants.  Add the illegals and it's even worse.  Since the 70's Americans have limited their birth rate to less than replacement value.  If our government had kept our immigration rate at what it was in the 70's, the lowest paid workers would be making a lot of money right now as they would be in great demand.
> 
> We're not competing on a level field and it's killing us.
Click to expand...


*Why *should the lowest paid worker make a living wage? And what is this *should*?

Is it the responsibility of a company to make sure each employee makes enough money to live off of? Or are you saying it is the responsibility of society to make sure each person makes enough money? In your view, where does the responsibility fall?


----------



## Ernie S.

DiabloBlanco said:


> So 3 who hate the poor and want to force them to go to college or school of some kind to rack up more debt instead of letting them earn a decent wage at a job they enjoy.



No one hates the poor. Speaking only for myself, I'd be more happy if the poor became rich and shared more of the tax burden.

BUT, it is not my job to make them rich, make them want to work hard to be successful or to remind them that cranking out babies is counterproductive.


----------



## Asclepias

Againsheila said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another problem with the "living wage" argument is that it shifts responsibility off of the individual. Essentially you are saying that it is not the individual's responsibility to provide for him/her self and/or family. You are moving that responsibility to either the company or to society in general. In either case you are shifting the responsibility away from where it should rest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It the richest country in the world, the lowest paid worker should make a living wage.  In truth the low wage workers in this country have a huge disadvantage.  We bring in more immigrants than all other nations combined, and that's just the legal immigrants.  Add the illegals and it's even worse.  Since the 70's Americans have limited their birth rate to less than replacement value.  If our government had kept our immigration rate at what it was in the 70's, the lowest paid workers would be making a lot of money right now as they would be in great demand.
> 
> We're not competing on a level field and it's killing us.
Click to expand...


The reason we are not competing on a level field is because in general we have become lazy.  People come from other countries and outwork us.  Never underestimate the power of working hard and sometimes for free so you can gain a skill.  If you feel that everyone *should* make a living wage what is the point of calling it a wage?


----------



## Ernie S.

DiabloBlanco said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiabloBlanco said:
> 
> 
> 
> So 3 who hate the poor and want to force them to go to college or school of some kind to rack up more debt instead of letting them earn a decent wage at a job they enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> Whats wrong with going to college instead of being a perpetual bagger?  Once they automate the bagging then they will be obsolete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's wrong with doing what they enjoy? I HATED school and would only go back to a tech school of some kind without all the goofy pointless classes. I know others who are completely different and enjoyed school and want to go to college. Wages should be tied to inflation after we bump the minimum wage up to at least 10$ an hour.
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiabloBlanco said:
> 
> 
> 
> So 3 who hate the poor and want to force them to go to college or school of some kind to rack up more debt instead of letting them earn a decent wage at a job they enjoy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think I've ever met anyone who enjoyed their min wage job or would want it as a career.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have. Many times.
Click to expand...


So what you're saying is school was unpleasant for you so you are stuck flipping burgers and you think you are owed more money to do it?
Sorry, Charlie. Sitting right next to you in high school was another guy who hated school as well, but instead of dropping out, he sucked it up and graduated and got into a decent college. Guess what? He's making 10 times what you're making because he made himself more valuable to an employer.


----------



## sameech

Againsheila said:


> Ah, yes, except for the fact that minimum wage jobs only employ you for 30 hours a week, on average.  That's to avoid paying any more benefits than they have to.



Seems like you are trying to move the goalpost now.  MW can provide someone with an above poverty level pay.  Even at 30 hours a week they would make $11,310.00 a year which is just shy of the $11,670 and the earned income credit would still push them over the finish line (Earned Income Tax Credit; Do I Qualify?).


----------



## kiwiman127

Asclepias said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I just really don't understand why folks why people think low wages are OK.*
> I would guess that most folks posting here are Middle Class.  When wages go up at the bottom, typically it spreads to the next group, which would be the Middle Class.
> While the Middle Class in America has seen flat/stagnant wage growth (in Real Dollars), other industrial nation's Middle Class has seen wage growth.  Canada recently passed the US as having t
> the best pad Middle Class and other countries are poised to do the same.
> This shouldn't be a partisan subject.  Wages for the working Middle Class have been stagnant under both Republican and Democratic presidents and congresses.
> I've posted this before, working Americans didn't cause flat wages, the didn't ship jobs offshore and they didn't bring in automation into the workplace.  They didn't benefit at all.  But someone reaped the rewards of those policies.
> A weak Middle Class symbolizes a weak economic environment. While the US spins it's wheels economically, other countries are moving forward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are ok because the whole concept of wages is getting paid for the worth you provide in the time you provide it to the company paying you.  If your skill set is only worth $10 to them you have to either accept it or decide you are worth more by acquiring the skills to get paid more.  Even when I was minimum wage I knew that and accepted it.
Click to expand...


American worker productivity has climbed while wage growth has been stagnant.  Profits have climbed while wages growth has been stagnate. It's been happening for three decades.  
One doesn't have to wonder why the US Middle class has been weakened.


----------



## Mac1958

.

So we're pretending that someone who can only get 30 MW hours at one job can't add a job?

.


----------



## dblack

Mathbud1 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another problem with the "living wage" argument is that it shifts responsibility off of the individual. Essentially you are saying that it is not the individual's responsibility to provide for him/her self and/or family. You are moving that responsibility to either the company or to society in general. In either case you are shifting the responsibility away from where it should rest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It the richest country in the world, the lowest paid worker should make a living wage.*  In truth the low wage workers in this country have a huge disadvantage.  We bring in more immigrants than all other nations combined, and that's just the legal immigrants.  Add the illegals and it's even worse.  Since the 70's Americans have limited their birth rate to less than replacement value.  If our government had kept our immigration rate at what it was in the 70's, the lowest paid workers would be making a lot of money right now as they would be in great demand.
> 
> We're not competing on a level field and it's killing us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Why *should the lowest paid worker make a living wage? And what is this *should*?
Click to expand...


Why shouldn't someone be allowed to work for less than the minimum wage if they want to? I've yet to hear a good answer to this. It's really no one else's business.


----------



## hadit

The bottom line question is:

Should there be any job anywhere that pays less than enough to fully support the lives of a given number of people?  I contend that there should be, because there is a need for starter jobs, jobs that those new to the job market can get that pay little, but provide vital work experience and skills.  Make every job pay enough for an adult to totally support him or herself, and you eliminate the job market for the young and unskilled.  Then what happens when you have high unemployment among that demographic?  Ask France.


----------



## Asclepias

DiabloBlanco said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiabloBlanco said:
> 
> 
> 
> So 3 who hate the poor and want to force them to go to college or school of some kind to rack up more debt instead of letting them earn a decent wage at a job they enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> Whats wrong with going to college instead of being a perpetual bagger?  Once they automate the bagging then they will be obsolete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's wrong with doing what they enjoy? I HATED school and would only go back to a tech school of some kind without all the goofy pointless classes. I know others who are completely different and enjoyed school and want to go to college. Wages should be tied to inflation after we bump the minimum wage up to at least 10$ an hour.
Click to expand...



If they enjoy their work then they need to enjoy the worth that work is to the company paying them their wages.  If you like being a bagger then also accept your pay. Baggers are a dime a dozen.  Why should I pay you more than the going rate for that skill set?  Exactly what value are you bringing to me when a 11 yr old kid can do the same thing?  

Wages being tied to inflation makes sense in theory if you ignore everything else.  What causes inflation?  Surplus money in the market place. Its a never ending cycle.


----------



## KissMy

syrenn said:


> no, i think they DO enjoy their minimum wage jobs.
> 
> they just what to be paid MORE for the very little that they do.
> 
> Tell me, what walmart greeter doesn't want $15 an hour?



Every worker should be paid more than what they could get sitting on the couch collecting from tax payers. They should not have to stay latched onto the government tit while they are working. Tax payers should not be paying wages for another persons employee.

Government exploded causing inflation to take care of all those underpaid employees. Government shrinks & prices go down every time minimum wage was raised above government dole poverty levels.

People working more than 40/hrs should have money for college savings to better their life. They should not be just surviving or living on government backed student loans.


----------



## sameech

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> So we're pretending that someone who can only get 30 MW hours at one job can't add a job?
> 
> .



Even if that were the case, I still do not see why employers in small towns should be burdened when someone making MW couldn't stay with friends/relatives, get a flat mate, etc.  I guess it is a matter of one's experiences.  I started at MW and was making above MW in my primary job before I ever left high school, and have never made MW since except when I was trying to help people out on the side where the wage wasn't even a factor in why I was doing it.


----------



## Againsheila

Ernie S. said:


> DiabloBlanco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whats wrong with going to college instead of being a perpetual bagger?  Once they automate the bagging then they will be obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with doing what they enjoy? I HATED school and would only go back to a tech school of some kind without all the goofy pointless classes. I know others who are completely different and enjoyed school and want to go to college. Wages should be tied to inflation after we bump the minimum wage up to at least 10$ an hour.
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I've ever met anyone who enjoyed their min wage job or would want it as a career.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have. Many times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is school was unpleasant for you so you are stuck flipping burgers and you think you are owed more money to do it?
> Sorry, Charlie. Sitting right next to you in high school was another guy who hated school as well, but instead of dropping out, he sucked it up and graduated and got into a decent college. Guess what? He's making 10 times what you're making because he made himself more valuable to an employer.
Click to expand...


Do you have any idea how many college educated people are out there working minimum wage jobs with loans up to the hilt?  Our well paying jobs have left the country.  Most of those working minimum wage are now adults.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Againsheila said:


> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.



How much went to food stamps to Walmart employees before Obama became god?

Oh and, I don't believe your $300 million claim, not by a long shot.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Has anyone decided just how much the "living wage" should be? Who decided it and based on what?

One more thing, all this talk about college is BS, not everyone needs to go to college. There are plenty of jobs out there that doesn't require a college degree and these jobs have the potential of earning someone 80 to 120 grand a year.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Againsheila said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are you getting your figures.  Today's minimum wage won't even support one person at the poverty level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 40 hrs x $7.25 x 52 weeks=$15,080.
> 
> FPL 1 person=$11,670
> 2 person HH=$15,730
> 3 person HH=$19,790
> 
> http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, yes, except for the fact that minimum wage jobs only employ you for 30 hours a week, on average.  That's to avoid paying any more benefits than they have to.
Click to expand...


  Thats perfect!! You can now go and get another thirty hour job and work sixty.
Or if you were a real go getter you'd go and find a forty to go with your thirty.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

hadit said:


> The bottom line question is:
> 
> Should there be any job anywhere that pays less than enough to fully support the lives of a given number of people?  I contend that there should be, because there is a need for starter jobs, jobs that those new to the job market can get that pay little, but provide vital work experience and skills.  Make every job pay enough for an adult to totally support him or herself, and you eliminate the job market for the young and unskilled.  Then what happens when you have high unemployment among that demographic?  Ask France.



 Yep. And you lose the ego boost and confidence that goes with earning something instead of having it handed to you.
   Liberals dont understand the damage it does to the psyche of people who are on the dole.


----------



## Mathbud1

KissMy said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, i think they DO enjoy their minimum wage jobs.
> 
> they just what to be paid MORE for the very little that they do.
> 
> Tell me, what walmart greeter doesn't want $15 an hour?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every worker should be paid more than what they could get sitting on the couch collecting from tax payers. They should not have to stay latched onto the government tit while they are working. Tax payers should not be paying wages for another persons employee.
> 
> Government exploded causing inflation to take care of all those underpaid employees. *Government shrinks & prices go down every time minimum wage was raised above government dole poverty levels.*
> 
> People working more than 40/hrs should have money for college savings to better their life. They should not be just surviving or living on government backed student loans.
Click to expand...


Do you have any evidence of that? I wouldn't even know where to look to see if that were true. I doubt it based on my own admittedly limited knowledge.

Again, we come to the *should*. No one seems to want to answer me when I ask what they mean by should. Where do you place the responsibility? Is it society's responsibility to make sure this happens? Is it an employers responsibility? Or is it an individual's responsibility to take care of themselves and their family?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Asclepias said:


> DiabloBlanco said:
> 
> 
> 
> So 3 who hate the poor and want to force them to go to college or school of some kind to rack up more debt instead of letting them earn a decent wage at a job they enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> Whats wrong with going to college instead of being a perpetual bagger?  Once they automate the bagging then they will be obsolete.
Click to expand...


They will still need to stock shelves and pick up the crap that slobs throw on the floor.

Foodstamps exploded under Obama as he created the "dependance society."


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Look here Sheila...I dont care who you are, I dont care if it's McDonalds or the Piggly Wiggly. If you work hard and apply yourself,I promise you you could be a manager or assistant manger in five years max barring any physical or mental disabilities. 
   Is that to much to ask? Five years? You cant help but learn a job like that in five years...all you have to do is show up and ask questions for Christ sake!


----------



## Ernie S.

RandomVariable said:


> DiabloBlanco said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think people are taxed enough its just not spent wisely. Get rid of all illegal immigrants,stop with the war adventurism,foreign aid,etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people are taxed more than enough already. We are the land of milk and honey. The question is what is the worth of the worker bees.
Click to expand...


If the worker bee says hello and gives you a shopping cart when you walk through the door, not much.

Now, if you think all workers should earn $X/hour, perhaps you also think my 13 year old Ford pick-up is worth as much as your new Beemer.


----------



## HenryBHough

Thanx for the reminders....gotta nip over to Wallyworld for some lawn food and people food.  I haven't noticed "greeters" of late so will check again.  Last I heard - and it was unofficial - was that they had been eliminated because they were being threatened so frequently.


----------



## Ernie S.

Againsheila said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another problem with the "living wage" argument is that it shifts responsibility off of the individual. Essentially you are saying that it is not the individual's responsibility to provide for him/her self and/or family. You are moving that responsibility to either the company or to society in general. In either case you are shifting the responsibility away from where it should rest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It the richest country in the world, the lowest paid worker should make a living wage.  In truth the low wage workers in this country have a huge disadvantage.  We bring in more immigrants than all other nations combined, and that's just the legal immigrants.  Add the illegals and it's even worse.  Since the 70's Americans have limited their birth rate to less than replacement value.  If our government had kept our immigration rate at what it was in the 70's, the lowest paid workers would be making a lot of money right now as they would be in great demand.
> 
> We're not competing on a level field and it's killing us.
Click to expand...


The playing field will never be level. There are people who are content in a minimum wage job and there are people with the motivation to better themselves. There are people with the aptitude to say hello at WalMart and those with the aptitude to play short stop for the Yankees. The bottom line is "What are you worth to an employer?"


----------



## Mathbud1

Lonestar_logic said:


> Has anyone decided just how much the "living wage" should be? Who decided it and based on what?
> 
> One more thing, all this talk about college is BS, not everyone needs to go to college. There are plenty of jobs out there that doesn't require a college degree and these jobs have the potential of earning someone 80 to 120 grand a year.



I wish I hadn't gone to college myself. I would be in the same job today without the student loans if I had not. In my field certifications are more respected than a degree, and you can get a certification for as little as $150. You have to self-motivate and study hard to get them, but you don't have to pay anything but the testing fee if you don't want to buy any training materials. Now I'm stuck working to get certifications after already having gone to college and gotten a degree.


----------



## Luissa

Uncensored2008 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> 
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> 
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much went to food stamps to Walmart employees before Obama became god?
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and, I don't believe your $300 million claim, not by a long shot.
Click to expand...



Obama is God? 



Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.


----------



## sameech

Againsheila said:


> Do you have any idea how many college educated people are out there working minimum wage jobs with loans up to the hilt?  Our well paying jobs have left the country.  Most of those working minimum wage are now adults.



44% of those who would benefit from the raise to $10.10 have at least some college.  

There are bias confirming statistics going both ways.  The BLS numbers support one argument, while the legitimate concerns over flaws in the BLS cut the other way (like leaving out the data for states with higher than fed MW).  

It is not just a question of who gets helped, but also who gets hurt, and that is where the fault line lies between the two sides IMO.  For me, the working poor in the poorest states would be hurt the most which is why I prefer more moderate phase-ins of any increases over some bad implementation to be able to sound political trumpets.

--Sam


----------



## Ernie S.

kiwiman127 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I just really don't understand why folks why people think low wages are OK.*
> I would guess that most folks posting here are Middle Class.  When wages go up at the bottom, typically it spreads to the next group, which would be the Middle Class.
> While the Middle Class in America has seen flat/stagnant wage growth (in Real Dollars), other industrial nation's Middle Class has seen wage growth.  Canada recently passed the US as having t
> the best pad Middle Class and other countries are poised to do the same.
> This shouldn't be a partisan subject.  Wages for the working Middle Class have been stagnant under both Republican and Democratic presidents and congresses.
> I've posted this before, working Americans didn't cause flat wages, the didn't ship jobs offshore and they didn't bring in automation into the workplace.  They didn't benefit at all.  But someone reaped the rewards of those policies.
> A weak Middle Class symbolizes a weak economic environment. While the US spins it's wheels economically, other countries are moving forward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are ok because the whole concept of wages is getting paid for the worth you provide in the time you provide it to the company paying you.  If your skill set is only worth $10 to them you have to either accept it or decide you are worth more by acquiring the skills to get paid more.  Even when I was minimum wage I knew that and accepted it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> American worker productivity has climbed while wage growth has been stagnant.  Profits have climbed while wages growth has been stagnate. It's been happening for three decades.
> One doesn't have to wonder why the US Middle class has been weakened.
Click to expand...

Worker productivity has increased due to inflation and capital investments by the corporations that employ them. Most workers actually put forth less effort than they did 50 years ago due to automation and technology.
Take a roofer, for instance. He is not carrying shingles up a ladder and while he is nailing the shingles (that are brought to him on a conveyor) in place 3 times as fast, he has been provided with an air compressor and a nail gun by his boss. He is not swinging a hammer and climbing a ladder all day.

So, why should we reward the worker for installing more shingles when he is actually working less?


----------



## Uncensored2008

HenryBHough said:


> Where does the line form for liberals who want to donate to the federal government because they feel they aren't taxed enough?



Do the companies owned by Warren Buffet all pay above minimum? What about the owner of the democratic party, George Soros? Do all the enterprises that Soros has his pudgy, piggy hooves into, start people at a 'living wage?"

We all know the horror stories of that bastion of leftism. Apple Computer; how workers in the early 80's slaved for 20 hours a day without overtime or even pay - on promises of Jobs and Wozniak that they would be given stock - only to be screwed out of it.

Lefties talk a LOT about the poor, and living wage, BUT when they are in charge, the workers get screwed FAR more than Walmart ever DREAMED of screwing them.


----------



## LockeJaw

Againsheila said:


> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.



Minimum wage causes more unemployment, most economists agree. The goal should be to decrease inflation so that our dollar buys more, not forcing more businesses to increase wages. This is a government problem, not private sector problem. Your heart is in the right place, and God bless you for that...but youre just wrong on this.


----------



## KissMy

Mathbud1 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, i think they DO enjoy their minimum wage jobs.
> 
> they just what to be paid MORE for the very little that they do.
> 
> Tell me, what walmart greeter doesn't want $15 an hour?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every worker should be paid more than what they could get sitting on the couch collecting from tax payers. They should not have to stay latched onto the government tit while they are working. Tax payers should not be paying wages for another persons employee.
> 
> Government exploded causing inflation to take care of all those underpaid employees. *Government shrinks & prices go down every time minimum wage was raised above government dole poverty levels.*
> 
> People working more than 40/hrs should have money for college savings to better their life. They should not be just surviving or living on government backed student loans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any evidence of that? I wouldn't even know where to look to see if that were true. I doubt it based on my own admittedly limited knowledge.
> 
> Again, we come to the *should*. No one seems to want to answer me when I ask what they mean by should. Where do you place the responsibility? Is it society's responsibility to make sure this happens? Is it an employers responsibility? Or is it an individual's responsibility to take care of themselves and their family?
Click to expand...


Unless you want to maximize the nanny state government, then you *should* establish policy that do not have the business, people & the economy relying on government.

Welfare & Entitlement Spending Way Up Under Bush & Down Under Clinton & Since Obama Took Office Because Raising Minimum Wages CUTS Government Spending.

*WELFARE SPENDING*






The faster & higher you raise the minimum wage, the slower the dollar loses it's value. Because most of the people on the government dole are working at a real job. Prices ALWAYS rise before wages because Government & Banks create money. Wages do not push or drive inflation & wage price spiral is a hoax. Higher minimum wages get workers off the government dole so government does not have to print more money causing inflation. Also higher minimum wages means Government does not have to guarantee bank home or business loans causing inflation because underpaid workers default at high rates.






Raising Wages increases employment & CUTS Government Spending. Socialism is when employers make government tax payers pay for their workers so they can drive others out of business & pocket everyone else's wealth. If you don't like the minimum wage then pass a law banning employment of someone on the government dole. Because I already pay my workers & should not have to keep subsidizing yours, harming my business. Employment rises as wages & minimum wages rise.


----------



## Ernie S.

Againsheila said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiabloBlanco said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with doing what they enjoy? I HATED school and would only go back to a tech school of some kind without all the goofy pointless classes. I know others who are completely different and enjoyed school and want to go to college. Wages should be tied to inflation after we bump the minimum wage up to at least 10$ an hour.
> 
> 
> I have. Many times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is school was unpleasant for you so you are stuck flipping burgers and you think you are owed more money to do it?
> Sorry, Charlie. Sitting right next to you in high school was another guy who hated school as well, but instead of dropping out, he sucked it up and graduated and got into a decent college. Guess what? He's making 10 times what you're making because he made himself more valuable to an employer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any idea how many college educated people are out there working minimum wage jobs with loans up to the hilt?  Our well paying jobs have left the country.  Most of those working minimum wage are now adults.
Click to expand...

Jobs have left the country because labor costs are too high due to minimum wage laws and labor unions.

Want those jobs back in the US? It would be easy enough to do.


----------



## Asclepias

Mathbud1 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone decided just how much the "living wage" should be? Who decided it and based on what?
> 
> One more thing, all this talk about college is BS, not everyone needs to go to college. There are plenty of jobs out there that doesn't require a college degree and these jobs have the potential of earning someone 80 to 120 grand a year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I hadn't gone to college myself. I would be in the same job today without the student loans if I had not. In my field certifications are more respected than a degree, and you can get a certification for as little as $150. You have to self-motivate and study hard to get them, but you don't have to pay anything but the testing fee if you don't want to buy any training materials. Now I'm stuck working to get certifications after already having gone to college and gotten a degree.
Click to expand...


I'm glad I went to college if only to learn that they teach you to work hard for other people so they can become wealthy. Once I got my degree in network engineering no one would hire me until I lied and said I had experience in the field.  My certs were through Cisco. Sounds like you are in the same field?


----------



## Asclepias

Ernie S. said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is school was unpleasant for you so you are stuck flipping burgers and you think you are owed more money to do it?
> Sorry, Charlie. Sitting right next to you in high school was another guy who hated school as well, but instead of dropping out, he sucked it up and graduated and got into a decent college. Guess what? He's making 10 times what you're making because he made himself more valuable to an employer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any idea how many college educated people are out there working minimum wage jobs with loans up to the hilt?  Our well paying jobs have left the country.  Most of those working minimum wage are now adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jobs have left the country because labor costs are too high due to minimum wage laws and labor unions.
> 
> Want those jobs back in the US? It would be easy enough to do.
Click to expand...


The jobs are never coming back. People better wake up and adjust.


----------



## Asclepias

kiwiman127 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I just really don't understand why folks why people think low wages are OK.*
> I would guess that most folks posting here are Middle Class.  When wages go up at the bottom, typically it spreads to the next group, which would be the Middle Class.
> While the Middle Class in America has seen flat/stagnant wage growth (in Real Dollars), other industrial nation's Middle Class has seen wage growth.  Canada recently passed the US as having t
> the best pad Middle Class and other countries are poised to do the same.
> This shouldn't be a partisan subject.  Wages for the working Middle Class have been stagnant under both Republican and Democratic presidents and congresses.
> I've posted this before, working Americans didn't cause flat wages, the didn't ship jobs offshore and they didn't bring in automation into the workplace.  They didn't benefit at all.  But someone reaped the rewards of those policies.
> A weak Middle Class symbolizes a weak economic environment. While the US spins it's wheels economically, other countries are moving forward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are ok because the whole concept of wages is getting paid for the worth you provide in the time you provide it to the company paying you.  If your skill set is only worth $10 to them you have to either accept it or decide you are worth more by acquiring the skills to get paid more.  Even when I was minimum wage I knew that and accepted it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> American worker productivity has climbed while wage growth has been stagnant.  Profits have climbed while wages growth has been stagnate. It's been happening for three decades.
> One doesn't have to wonder why the US Middle class has been weakened.
Click to expand...


You are missing the point though. Its sounds cold but why should the company give you their profits when your skill set is probably worth less than what they are require ed to pay you?  Good companies do profit share sometimes but why do you assume it should be mandatory?  They put up the money to get started and took the risk. Why should you profit when you only bagged groceries?


----------



## Uncensored2008

dblack said:


> Or, we could stop subsidizing Walmart with food stamps.



We don't subsidize Walmart, we never have. Union lies don't create reality just because useless idiots repeat them.

Walmart pays above MW, even for starting positions. The Obama dependency society offers food stamps to just about anyone making under $100K. Walmart has nothing to do with it. They pay an average wage for unskilled, retail sales. Greedy Unions want to rape and pillage, so they spread stupid lies - like this "living wage" one.


----------



## LockeJaw

Asclepias said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any idea how many college educated people are out there working minimum wage jobs with loans up to the hilt?  Our well paying jobs have left the country.  Most of those working minimum wage are now adults.
> 
> 
> 
> Jobs have left the country because labor costs are too high due to minimum wage laws and labor unions.
> 
> Want those jobs back in the US? It would be easy enough to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The jobs are never coming back. People better wake up and adjust.
Click to expand...


I think that is a fair prediction since those businesses are getting sweetheart deals in the countries they currently operate. That doesn't mean we cannot create new production jobs here to outdo them. We need more economic freedom in this country if we ever want it to be what it once was.


----------



## Pennywise

HenryBHough said:


> Where does the line form for liberals who want to donate to the federal government because they feel they aren't taxed enough?



Right behind Michael Moore's enormous flabby ass cheeks. Oh wait, there's no room. I guess they're off the hook.


----------



## RandomVariable

sameech said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should the MW be done away with and whatever business and employees work out for pay is what it is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, that is one of those questions that really trouble me.  My mind says, "Yep", but the hairs on the back of my neck say "Shiver me timbers" to even think about such a system and how that would play out in small towns.  I think it would work better in New York City than it would in Apple Creek wherever.
> 
> Back to Walmart hating for a sec--the Earned Income Tax Credit has a positive effect on employment for single moms and the working poor. (Policy Basics: The Earned Income Tax Credit ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities)  It bothers me to see people just trash companies that are assisting the people who otherwise have no job, get some work.  Walmart, love them or hate them, really does help people work a schedule that works for them, and people I knew who worked there and moved elsewhere had no problem continuing to work for Walmart in their new location.
> 
> Now back to the MW, I saw this suggested somewhere else and I am still thinking about it-- perhaps the minimum wage should be based on the cost of living in the cheapest metropolitan areas in the country and let supply-demand drive it up from there as localized wages in places with higher cost of living.  A small city then can compete better to lure in businesses/foreign investments and then let supply-demand in labor drive wages up from there.  It is one of those ideas still simmering in my mind right now before I take a definitive position one way or the other.
> 
> --Sam
Click to expand...


Your first point is one that just can't be ignored. Without some kind of minimum wage it would be a race to the bottom for pay. 

I don't know the full story of Wal-mart. I know they have a really bad reputation but I also know someone, who I know very well, was quite happy with her job at Wal-mart. Although when she described it to me I thought is was very questionable that it was a good deal. The earned income tax credit does make a huge difference to many people.

The cost of living adjustment I don't think would be necessary if there was a complete system in place. Also someone making a raised minimum wage in a poor area helps out the community much more than someone making a raised minimum wage in a middle class community. A complete system would insure that people did not go hungry or live in abject poverty in this country. We can do it but we would have to arrange our priories around quality of life rather than capitalism at all costs.


----------



## Asclepias

LockeJaw said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jobs have left the country because labor costs are too high due to minimum wage laws and labor unions.
> 
> Want those jobs back in the US? It would be easy enough to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The jobs are never coming back. People better wake up and adjust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that is a fair prediction since those businesses are getting sweetheart deals in the countries they currently operate. *That doesn't mean we cannot create new production jobs here to outdo them.* We need more economic freedom in this country if we ever want it to be what it once was.
Click to expand...


I think that ship has sailed.  As a global economy production jobs are going to remain outsourced.  People still have a mindset of the industrial age when we are deep into the information age.  I remember a few years back when India put out a mandate to take over as the "help desk of the world".  They pretty much succeeded in that.  Right now the good fields are medical, tech, and service.  I may have left something out but those appear to be the main 3.


----------



## RandomVariable

Asclepias said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is being a greeter worth $15 dollars an hour?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you rather have Wal-mart pay the employ $15 an hour or the tax payer pay for food stamps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither to be honest.  I dont want the cost passed on to me by Walmart raising prices like McDonalds is doing.  I worked 2 jobs and went to school to make ends meet. Other people can do the same.
Click to expand...


Some people need to spend a lot more time doing their homework than you did. I expect you had a good education before starting at that school.


----------



## RandomVariable

HereWeGoAgain said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is being a greeter worth $15 dollars an hour?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you rather have Wal-mart pay the employ $15 an hour or the tax payer pay for food stamps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither one. Those people should stop stealing jobs from teenagers and old people and get a job that will support a family. But that would require effort,so I dont expect these sad sacks will do it. To bad for them...and their families.
Click to expand...


These "sad sacks" are 47% of the population. (or somewhere about there)


----------



## Asclepias

RandomVariable said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you rather have Wal-mart pay the employ $15 an hour or the tax payer pay for food stamps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither to be honest.  I dont want the cost passed on to me by Walmart raising prices like McDonalds is doing.  I worked 2 jobs and went to school to make ends meet. Other people can do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some people need to spend a lot more time doing their homework than you did. I expect you had a good education before starting at that school.
Click to expand...


 If you only knew.  I grew up in the ghetto.  I received a crappy education and i barely made it out without going to jail or getting shot.  Ask yourself this question.  Why do some people have the time to get things done and you don't believe you could?  We all have the same 24 hours a day.  You should get this book. 

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Eat-That-Frog-Great-Procrastinating/dp/1576754227"]http://www.amazon.com/Eat-That-Frog-Great-Procrastinating/dp/1576754227[/ame]


----------



## Uncensored2008

Againsheila said:


> Do you have any idea how many college educated people are out there working minimum wage jobs with loans up to the hilt?  Our well paying jobs have left the country.  Most of those working minimum wage are now adults.



Let me count up the "Ethnic Studies" degrees, and I'll get back to you with a number....


----------



## RandomVariable

HereWeGoAgain said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the correct answer is really yes!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I live in a very rural, poor part of the country. Still?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would suggest moving. If you dont want to do that then you have no one to blame but yourself if you're a failure.
Click to expand...


Even is it is nothing out of your pockets you still hate these "failures". Poor is the new Jew.


----------



## RandomVariable

Asclepias said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither to be honest.  I dont want the cost passed on to me by Walmart raising prices like McDonalds is doing.  I worked 2 jobs and went to school to make ends meet. Other people can do the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people need to spend a lot more time doing their homework than you did. I expect you had a good education before starting at that school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you only knew.  I grew up in the ghetto.  I received a crappy education and i barely made it out without going to jail or getting shot.  Ask yourself this question.  Why do some people have the time to get things done and you don't believe you could?  We all have the same 24 hours a day.  You should get this book.
> 
> [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Eat-That-Frog-Great-Procrastinating/dp/1576754227"]http://www.amazon.com/Eat-That-Frog-Great-Procrastinating/dp/1576754227[/ame]
Click to expand...


So maybe that book should be a text book in high school. We are not even trying to succeed in this country. Every time someone suggests we do there are all kinds of excuses like the ones in this thread.


----------



## LockeJaw

Nah. People are always going to need STUFF, manufacturing could make a huge comeback if we had the political will to create the enviroment to do so. With the current class warfare-driven politics we are practicing here, you'd probably be right. 





Asclepias said:


> LockeJaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> The jobs are never coming back. People better wake up and adjust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is a fair prediction since those businesses are getting sweetheart deals in the countries they currently operate. *That doesn't mean we cannot create new production jobs here to outdo them.* We need more economic freedom in this country if we ever want it to be what it once was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that ship has sailed.  As a global economy production jobs are going to remain outsourced.  People still have a mindset of the industrial age when we are deep into the information age.  I remember a few years back when India put out a mandate to take over as the "help desk of the world".  They pretty much succeeded in that.  Right now the good fields are medical, tech, and service.  I may have left something out but those appear to be the main 3.
Click to expand...


----------



## Asclepias

RandomVariable said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people need to spend a lot more time doing their homework than you did. I expect you had a good education before starting at that school.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you only knew.  I grew up in the ghetto.  I received a crappy education and i barely made it out without going to jail or getting shot.  Ask yourself this question.  Why do some people have the time to get things done and you don't believe you could?  We all have the same 24 hours a day.  You should get this book.
> 
> [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Eat-That-Frog-Great-Procrastinating/dp/1576754227"]http://www.amazon.com/Eat-That-Frog-Great-Procrastinating/dp/1576754227[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So maybe that book should be a text book in high school. We are not even trying to succeed in this country. Every time someone suggests we do there are all kinds of excuses like the ones in this thread.
Click to expand...


I dont know you but I would bet you are filled with excuses.  I was too.  I had a blame list of why I could not succeed.  Someone sat me down and asked what I was going to do since everything else controlled my destiny.  That woke me up.  Find yourself a mentor. Someone that has what you want and start talking to them about their philosophy on life.  I agree about the book. There are a lot of books that should be required reading in high school.  Most adults need to read more too.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Asclepias said:


> I'm glad I went to college if only to learn that they teach you to work hard for other people so they can become wealthy. Once I got my degree in network engineering no one would hire me until I lied and said I had experience in the field.  My certs were through Cisco. Sounds like you are in the same field?



Interesting.

I went a different path. I was programming for years, then went back and got first the bachelors, then the masters - mainly because employers paid for them. 

I certed as an MCSE under Windows 2003 - and never updated, because I don't freelance and never found a need for it. My understanding was that CCIE's could name their price. Back in the bad old days when I ran Cisco stuff, I always had to hire someone to come in and program the Pix and Routers because I despise IOS. Went off to HP switches and routers, and a Palo Alto firewall, so I no longer worry about it.


----------



## sameech

RandomVariable said:


> Your first point is one that just can't be ignored. Without some kind of minimum wage it would be a race to the bottom for pay.
> 
> I don't know the full story of Wal-mart. I know they have a really bad reputation but I also know someone, who I know very well, was quite happy with her job at Wal-mart. Although when she described it to me I thought is was very questionable that it was a good deal. The earned income tax credit does make a huge difference to many people.
> 
> The cost of living adjustment I don't think would be necessary if there was a complete system in place. Also someone making a raised minimum wage in a poor area helps out the community much more than someone making a raised minimum wage in a middle class community. A complete system would insure that people did not go hungry or live in abject poverty in this country. We can do it but we would have to arrange our priories around quality of life rather than capitalism at all costs.



It depends on where one lives, which is the problem with racing to the top.  Sure $10.10 tomorrow gives poor people in poor areas more money, but it also gives businesses in poor areas less money unless they fire some people.  Businesses are very expensive to run.  The commercial rates on everything from utilities, telephones, cable, internet etc are typically much higher than what someone pays as a residential customer.  Most of the small business owners I know really have very little margin for added costs.  Something will be cut, and it will be the worker before it is the owner.


----------



## Asclepias

LockeJaw said:


> Nah. People are always going to need STUFF, manufacturing could make a huge comeback if we had the political will to create the enviroment to do so. With the current class warfare-driven politics we are practicing here, you'd probably be right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LockeJaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is a fair prediction since those businesses are getting sweetheart deals in the countries they currently operate. *That doesn't mean we cannot create new production jobs here to outdo them.* We need more economic freedom in this country if we ever want it to be what it once was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that ship has sailed.  As a global economy production jobs are going to remain outsourced.  People still have a mindset of the industrial age when we are deep into the information age.  I remember a few years back when India put out a mandate to take over as the "help desk of the world".  They pretty much succeeded in that.  Right now the good fields are medical, tech, and service.  I may have left something out but those appear to be the main 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


China makes more stuff at a cheaper cost than we ever could or will.  I once heard  this guy complaining about illegal aliens and i asked him would he volunteer to pick fruit for a dollar an hour(or whatever ungodly sum it is) in the blazing sun.  Even poor people here in the states don't want to do that type of work generally.


----------



## Asclepias

Uncensored2008 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad I went to college if only to learn that they teach you to work hard for other people so they can become wealthy. Once I got my degree in network engineering no one would hire me until I lied and said I had experience in the field.  My certs were through Cisco. Sounds like you are in the same field?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> I went a different path. I was programming for years, then went back and got first the bachelors, then the masters - mainly because employers paid for them.
> 
> I certed as an MCSE under Windows 2003 - and never updated, because I don't freelance and never found a need for it. My understanding was that CCIE's could name their price. Back in the bad old days when I ran Cisco stuff, I always had to hire someone to come in and program the Pix and Routers because I despise IOS. Went off to HP switches and routers, and a Palo Alto firewall, so I no longer worry about it.
Click to expand...


MCSE was my first cert NT 4.  Never used it. I eventually got my CCNP and I was able to name my price where ever I went.  CCIE's are the cream of the crop for good reason.  The time an effort spent getting that cert was something I was not going to do.  At the end of the day I knew that no matter how good I was at my job, once I stopped working my paychecks would stop.  Thats why I started my own business.


----------



## Uncensored2008

lockejaw said:


> asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ernie s. said:
> 
> 
> 
> jobs have left the country because labor costs are too high due to minimum wage laws and labor unions.
> 
> Want those jobs back in the us? It would be easy enough to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the jobs are never coming back. People better wake up and adjust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i think that is a fair prediction since those businesses are getting sweetheart deals in the countries they currently operate. That doesn't mean we cannot create new production jobs here to outdo them. We need more economic freedom in this country if we ever want it to be what it once was.
Click to expand...



lol


----------



## LockeJaw

I don't think that is entirely true about China. Funny you mentioned picking fruit, I did that as a teen. Apples in WA state near Yakima. Back then there weren't as many illegals to exploit, so the poor blacks, whites, and native Americans did the work. The pay wasn't too horrible. I don't know how it is today, but back then you got paid by the crate. The quicker you picked, the more money you made that day. Paid in cash at the end of the day, every day. For a kid back then, I'd say it was actually good money. I worked my whole "vacation" at my Auntie's place, but I also bought my first car with those wages.





Asclepias said:


> LockeJaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah. People are always going to need STUFF, manufacturing could make a huge comeback if we had the political will to create the enviroment to do so. With the current class warfare-driven politics we are practicing here, you'd probably be right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that ship has sailed.  As a global economy production jobs are going to remain outsourced.  People still have a mindset of the industrial age when we are deep into the information age.  I remember a few years back when India put out a mandate to take over as the "help desk of the world".  They pretty much succeeded in that.  Right now the good fields are medical, tech, and service.  I may have left something out but those appear to be the main 3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> China makes more stuff at a cheaper cost than we ever could or will.  I once heard  this guy complaining about illegal aliens and i asked him would he volunteer to pick fruit for a dollar an hour(or whatever ungodly sum it is) in the blazing sun.  Even poor people here in the states don't want to do that type of work generally.
Click to expand...


----------



## Againsheila

Ernie S. said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiabloBlanco said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think people are taxed enough its just not spent wisely. Get rid of all illegal immigrants,stop with the war adventurism,foreign aid,etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people are taxed more than enough already. We are the land of milk and honey. The question is what is the worth of the worker bees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the worker bee says hello and gives you a shopping cart when you walk through the door, not much.
> 
> Now, if you think all workers should earn $X/hour, perhaps you also think my 13 year old Ford pick-up is worth as much as your new Beemer.
Click to expand...


I think all workers should receive a living wage and wages should go up from there.  

I miss when Sears had the workers that actually knew what they were doing.  Back when they had a profit sharing plan and their workers worked there until retirement and actually made a decent living.  They knew the store and the catalog and could help you when you needed it.  Now the workers are all part time, and temporary.  They can't help you with anything, they can't even help themselves.


----------



## LockeJaw

I think all workers should be paid a living wage too..but the thing is, we need to reduce inflation in order to do that. You raise the minimum wage, it just raises prices and you're back to square one. We need to scream loudly to the fed to stop printing us into poverty...ask 99% of economists...they agree. 





Againsheila said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people are taxed more than enough already. We are the land of milk and honey. The question is what is the worth of the worker bees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the worker bee says hello and gives you a shopping cart when you walk through the door, not much.
> 
> Now, if you think all workers should earn $X/hour, perhaps you also think my 13 year old Ford pick-up is worth as much as your new Beemer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think all workers should receive a living wage and wages should go up from there.
> 
> I miss when Sears had the workers that actually knew what they were doing.  Back when they had a profit sharing plan and their workers worked there until retirement and actually made a decent living.  They knew the store and the catalog and could help you when you needed it.  Now the workers are all part time, and temporary.  They can't help you with anything, they can't even help themselves.
Click to expand...


----------



## Uncensored2008

LockeJaw said:


> I think all workers should be paid a living wage too..but the thing is, we need to reduce inflation in order to do that. You raise the minimum wage, it just raises prices and you're back to square one. We need to scream loudly to the fed to stop printing us into poverty...ask 99% of economists...they agree.



The elephant in the room, that the left will NEVER acknowledge, is that you will NEVER stabilize unskilled wages if there are open borders.

You want a living wage? Kick the illegals out and close the border. That's what really brought up the bottom in the 50's - Ike kicked the wetbacks out.


----------



## RandomVariable

Asclepias said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you only knew.  I grew up in the ghetto.  I received a crappy education and i barely made it out without going to jail or getting shot.  Ask yourself this question.  Why do some people have the time to get things done and you don't believe you could?  We all have the same 24 hours a day.  You should get this book.
> 
> Eat That Frog!: 21 Great Ways to Stop Procrastinating and Get More Done in Less Time: Brian Tracy: 9781576754221: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So maybe that book should be a text book in high school. We are not even trying to succeed in this country. Every time someone suggests we do there are all kinds of excuses like the ones in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont know you but I would bet you are filled with excuses.  I was too.  I had a blame list of why I could not succeed.  Someone sat me down and asked what I was going to do since everything else controlled my destiny.  That woke me up.  Find yourself a mentor. Someone that has what you want and start talking to them about their philosophy on life.  I agree about the book. There are a lot of books that should be required reading in high school.  Most adults need to read more too.
Click to expand...


I had crappy schools. I was talking to the councilor one day and she said some people just fall between the cracks. Later I realized she was talking about me. Finished high by the last credit in summer school. Recruiter showed up and I was out on the first flight I could get on. Did my part for them and they paid me while I was in school. I got grants and loans but I also worked 20 hours and finished a four year degree in three and a half years, comp sci., one of the top schools too. I didn't watch TV or even listen to the radio the whole time. The person I married I met in community college. Full time job, two kids, full time school, 3.89 GPA, not U.S. citizen so she did not get any thing, nor did she ask. Pharmacy score and pretty much perfect score on the state pharmacy test (99% percentile, I don't think there is a 100%), pharmacy bar exam or whatever it is. Today you ask her she tell you no one gets nothing. They can work for it like she did and her taxes aren't for anyone's handout. If someone isn't pulling their weight on the team she fires, that's it. I know the kids from high school who never made it anywhere. The kids in the service who would have nothing else. I tutored elementary students in a poor, black district. I know there are plenty of people who could have but as a country we just don't go the extra step for them. It is all so many people need. I made it because although I didn't realized I used it my parents are really smart, both MENSA (dumb too but oh well). My wife went to just about the best school in Iran. She can just about quote the entire Koran. That's what we had. Some people don't have an ace in the hole and never expect to. Our country needs to be that ace. 

(Sorry that was long and rambling but sometimes it is better if I don't overthink some things.)


----------



## LockeJaw

Yes, illegals need to get 86'd but our politicians, left & right, don't have the guts to do what is right. Gotta be "nice" after all.


----------



## dblack

Uncensored2008 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or, we could stop subsidizing Walmart with food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't subsidize Walmart, we never have. Union lies don't create reality just because useless idiots repeat them.
> 
> Walmart pays above MW, even for starting positions. The Obama dependency society offers food stamps to just about anyone making under $100K. Walmart has nothing to do with it. They pay an average wage for unskilled, retail sales. Greedy Unions want to rape and pillage, so they spread stupid lies - like this "living wage" one.
Click to expand...


Whatever. I'm not interested in arguing over whether the indirect benefit of a pool of subsidized workers enjoyed by Wal-Mart and other employers is labeled as a 'subsidy' or not. I'm addressing the hypocrisy of those who call for the policies and then bitch about it when people utilize them. They want  the self-satisfaction of voting for a a free lunch, but turn around and wag their fingers at companies who hire people taking advantage of it. It's idiotic. But then, we're talking about people who think minimum wage laws make sense.


----------



## LockeJaw

I think that is a fair criticism, but probably not toward uncensored...he probably doesn't support what you're claiming he does..since he is a radical libertarian and all.





dblack said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or, we could stop subsidizing Walmart with food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't subsidize Walmart, we never have. Union lies don't create reality just because useless idiots repeat them.
> 
> Walmart pays above MW, even for starting positions. The Obama dependency society offers food stamps to just about anyone making under $100K. Walmart has nothing to do with it. They pay an average wage for unskilled, retail sales. Greedy Unions want to rape and pillage, so they spread stupid lies - like this "living wage" one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever. I'm not interested in arguing over whether the indirect benefit of a pool of subsidized workers enjoyed by Wal-Mart and other employers is labeled as a 'subsidy' or not. I'm addressing the hypocrisy of those who call for the policies and then bitch about it when people utilize them. They want  the self-satisfaction of voting for a a free lunch, but turn around and wag their fingers at companies who hire people taking advantage of it. It's idiotic. But then, we're talking about people who think minimum wage laws make sense.
Click to expand...


----------



## Mathbud1

Asclepias said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone decided just how much the "living wage" should be? Who decided it and based on what?
> 
> One more thing, all this talk about college is BS, not everyone needs to go to college. There are plenty of jobs out there that doesn't require a college degree and these jobs have the potential of earning someone 80 to 120 grand a year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I hadn't gone to college myself. I would be in the same job today without the student loans if I had not. In my field certifications are more respected than a degree, and you can get a certification for as little as $150. You have to self-motivate and study hard to get them, but you don't have to pay anything but the testing fee if you don't want to buy any training materials. Now I'm stuck working to get certifications after already having gone to college and gotten a degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm glad I went to college if only to learn that they teach you to work hard for other people so they can become wealthy. Once I got my degree in network engineering no one would hire me until I lied and said I had experience in the field.  My certs were through Cisco. Sounds like you are in the same field?
Click to expand...


I'm on the workstation side, but still in IT. Right now I'm trying to decide between pursuing app development or focusing on server administration.

Like you, I wasn't getting anything without experience. Luckily I was able to get my employer at the time to let me help out in IT there 1 day a week so I could put it on my resume. Now I work IT at a company with 30,000+ employees. In this field (for getting a job) experience is king, certs are a close second, and a degree isn't worth much more than the paper it is printed on.


----------



## Asclepias

RandomVariable said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> So maybe that book should be a text book in high school. We are not even trying to succeed in this country. Every time someone suggests we do there are all kinds of excuses like the ones in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know you but I would bet you are filled with excuses.  I was too.  I had a blame list of why I could not succeed.  Someone sat me down and asked what I was going to do since everything else controlled my destiny.  That woke me up.  Find yourself a mentor. Someone that has what you want and start talking to them about their philosophy on life.  I agree about the book. There are a lot of books that should be required reading in high school.  Most adults need to read more too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had crappy schools. I was talking to the councilor one day and she said some people just fall between the cracks. Later I realized she was talking about me. Finished high by the last credit in summer school. Recruiter showed up and I was out on the first flight I could get on. Did my part for them and they paid me while I was in school. I got grants and loans but I also worked 20 hours and finished a four year degree in three and a half years, comp sci., one of the top schools too. I didn't watch TV or even listen to the radio the whole time. The person I married I met in community college. Full time job, two kids, full time school, 3.89 GPA, not U.S. citizen so she did not get any thing, nor did she ask. Pharmacy score and pretty much perfect score on the state pharmacy test (99% percentile, I don't think there is a 100%), pharmacy bar exam or whatever it is. Today you ask her she tell you no one gets nothing. They can work for it like she did and her taxes aren't for anyone's handout. If someone isn't pulling their weight on the team she fires, that's it. I know the kids from high school who never made it anywhere. The kids in the service who would have nothing else. I tutored elementary students in a poor, black district. I know there are plenty of people who could have but as a country we just don't go the extra step for them. It is all so many people need. I made it because although I didn't realized I used it my parents are really smart, both MENSA (dumb too but oh well). My wife went to just about the best school in Iran. She can just about quote the entire Koran. That's what we had. Some people don't have an ace in the hole and never expect to. Our country needs to be that ace.
> 
> (Sorry that was long and rambling but sometimes it is better if I don't overthink some things.)
Click to expand...


I agree the country should go an extra step for people.  I just dont think they should take away the incentive for people to improve themselves.  What we have now is so dangerously close to everyone becoming either poor or wealthy.  How are some people getting wealthy and why do some remain poor?  Whats the difference?  Its not racial as poor people exist in every race. its not the part of the country you come from per say.  Its philosophy.  Change your mindset and how you look at things and watch what happens. The country enacting things like universal healthcare is a good extra step. Raising MW so people get comfortable with being mediocre or poor is not a good extra step.


----------



## dblack

LockeJaw said:


> I think that is a fair criticism, but probably not toward uncensored...he probably doesn't support what you're claiming he does..since he is a radical libertarian and all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't subsidize Walmart, we never have. Union lies don't create reality just because useless idiots repeat them.
> 
> Walmart pays above MW, even for starting positions. The Obama dependency society offers food stamps to just about anyone making under $100K. Walmart has nothing to do with it. They pay an average wage for unskilled, retail sales. Greedy Unions want to rape and pillage, so they spread stupid lies - like this "living wage" one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever. I'm not interested in arguing over whether the indirect benefit of a pool of subsidized workers enjoyed by Wal-Mart and other employers is labeled as a 'subsidy' or not. I'm addressing the hypocrisy of those who call for the policies and then bitch about it when people utilize them. They want  the self-satisfaction of voting for a a free lunch, but turn around and wag their fingers at companies who hire people taking advantage of it. It's idiotic. But then, we're talking about people who think minimum wage laws make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Oh, I know. I wasn't presuming he disagrees with me - about anything other than the technicality of whether employers are 'subsidized' by welfare. It's an indirect subsidy in any case.


----------



## LockeJaw

It is an indirect subsidy, I agree there. They do take advantage of it. A product of the corporate state, which should be done away with. The less intermingling between business & government, the better.





dblack said:


> LockeJaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is a fair criticism, but probably not toward uncensored...he probably doesn't support what you're claiming he does..since he is a radical libertarian and all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever. I'm not interested in arguing over whether the indirect benefit of a pool of subsidized workers enjoyed by Wal-Mart and other employers is labeled as a 'subsidy' or not. I'm addressing the hypocrisy of those who call for the policies and then bitch about it when people utilize them. They want  the self-satisfaction of voting for a a free lunch, but turn around and wag their fingers at companies who hire people taking advantage of it. It's idiotic. But then, we're talking about people who think minimum wage laws make sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I know. I wasn't presuming he disagrees with me - about anything other than the technicality of whether employers are 'subsidized' by welfare. It's an indirect subsidy in any case.
Click to expand...


----------



## Mathbud1

KissMy said:


> Unless you want to maximize the nanny state government, then you *should* establish policy that do not have the business, people & the economy relying on government.
> 
> Welfare & Entitlement Spending Way Up Under Bush & Down Under Clinton & Since Obama Took Office Because Raising Minimum Wages CUTS Government Spending.
> 
> *The faster & higher you raise the minimum wage, the slower the dollar loses it's value.*



I think you probably didn't mean this, but it sounds like you are recommending we raise the minimum wage to $100/hr since that is both faster and higher than I have ever heard recommended by anyone else.



KissMy said:


> Because most of the people on the government dole are working at a real job. Prices ALWAYS rise before wages because Government & Banks create money. Wages do not push or drive inflation & *wage price spiral is a hoax*.



You could be right. I don't know. I'm not an economist. What I do know is this: My relative who owns a small business couldn't absorb a huge increase in his employees' wages all at once. He would be borrowing money the first month he had to make the new payroll, and it would be downhill from there.



KissMy said:


> Higher minimum wages get workers off the government dole so government does not have to print more money causing inflation. Also higher minimum wages means Government does not have to guarantee bank home or business loans causing inflation because underpaid workers default at high rates.
> 
> Raising Wages increases employment & CUTS Government Spending. Socialism is when employers make government tax payers pay for their workers so they can drive others out of business & pocket everyone else's wealth. If you don't like the minimum wage then pass a law banning employment of someone on the government dole. Because I already pay my workers & should not have to keep subsidizing yours, harming my business. Employment rises as wages & minimum wages rise.



Again, if there is no negative impact to raising wages why do we stop at a merely "living wage." Let's bump everyone up to a "partying wage" and really get the economy rocking.


----------



## Rozman

What the hell does that mean anyway....
A living wage?

Can you guys define it so we can debate it!


----------



## Againsheila

Uncensored2008 said:


> LockeJaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think all workers should be paid a living wage too..but the thing is, we need to reduce inflation in order to do that. You raise the minimum wage, it just raises prices and you're back to square one. We need to scream loudly to the fed to stop printing us into poverty...ask 99% of economists...they agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The elephant in the room, that the left will NEVER acknowledge, is that you will NEVER stabilize unskilled wages if there are open borders.
> 
> You want a living wage? Kick the illegals out and close the border. That's what really brought up the bottom in the 50's - Ike kicked the wetbacks out.
Click to expand...


We do need to kick out the illegals and reduce legal immigration until our lowest paid jobs do pay a living wage and every American citizen who wants a job has a job.


----------



## dblack

Mathbud1 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you want to maximize the nanny state government, then you *should* establish policy that do not have the business, people & the economy relying on government.
> 
> Welfare & Entitlement Spending Way Up Under Bush & Down Under Clinton & Since Obama Took Office Because Raising Minimum Wages CUTS Government Spending.
> 
> *The faster & higher you raise the minimum wage, the slower the dollar loses it's value.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you probably didn't mean this, but it sounds like you are recommending we raise the minimum wage to $100/hr since that is both faster and higher than I have ever heard recommended by anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because most of the people on the government dole are working at a real job. Prices ALWAYS rise before wages because Government & Banks create money. Wages do not push or drive inflation & *wage price spiral is a hoax*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could be right. I don't know. I'm not an economist. What I do know is this: My relative who owns a small business couldn't absorb a huge increase in his employees' wages all at once. He would be borrowing money the first month he had to make the new payroll, and it would be downhill from there.
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Higher minimum wages get workers off the government dole so government does not have to print more money causing inflation. Also higher minimum wages means Government does not have to guarantee bank home or business loans causing inflation because underpaid workers default at high rates.
> 
> Raising Wages increases employment & CUTS Government Spending. Socialism is when employers make government tax payers pay for their workers so they can drive others out of business & pocket everyone else's wealth. If you don't like the minimum wage then pass a law banning employment of someone on the government dole. Because I already pay my workers & should not have to keep subsidizing yours, harming my business. Employment rises as wages & minimum wages rise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, if there is no negative impact to raising wages why do we stop at a merely "living wage." Let's bump everyone up to a "partying wage" and really get the economy rocking.
Click to expand...


They'll never touch that one. It shorts out their neurons or something.


----------



## alan1

RandomVariable said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> I (let's just say) am 23, have a high school education, made good grades, and a kid. You think I should open my own store?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Gates did.
> Steve Jobs did.
> Frank Lloyd Wright did.
> Mark Zuckerberg did.
> 
> Every one of them a college dropout.
> Just sayin'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever had a sociology class?
Click to expand...

No.
I studied things that actually are beneficial to my success in real world situations.  Provided I don't want to be a teacher of sociology.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

RandomVariable said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you rather have Wal-mart pay the employ $15 an hour or the tax payer pay for food stamps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither one. Those people should stop stealing jobs from teenagers and old people and get a job that will support a family. But that would require effort,so I dont expect these sad sacks will do it. To bad for them...and their families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These "sad sacks" are 47% of the population. (or somewhere about there)
Click to expand...


 You sure about that???
And "somewhere about there" aint gonna cut it.

 And if we did have 47% of this country working min wage we're already fucked!!! (which we dont) But keep trying...you'll get us there eventually.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Asclepias said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you only knew.  I grew up in the ghetto.  I received a crappy education and i barely made it out without going to jail or getting shot.  Ask yourself this question.  Why do some people have the time to get things done and you don't believe you could?  We all have the same 24 hours a day.  You should get this book.
> 
> Eat That Frog!: 21 Great Ways to Stop Procrastinating and Get More Done in Less Time: Brian Tracy: 9781576754221: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So maybe that book should be a text book in high school. We are not even trying to succeed in this country. Every time someone suggests we do there are all kinds of excuses like the ones in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont know you but I would bet you are filled with excuses.  I was too.  I had a blame list of why I could not succeed.  Someone sat me down and asked what I was going to do since everything else controlled my destiny.  That woke me up.  Find yourself a mentor. Someone that has what you want and start talking to them about their philosophy on life.  I agree about the book. There are a lot of books that should be required reading in high school.  Most adults need to read more too.
Click to expand...


Never thought I would say this but......I agree with you,and we both have been down the same road.


----------



## alan1

Againsheila said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiabloBlanco said:
> 
> 
> 
> So 3 who hate the poor and want to force them to go to college or school of some kind to rack up more debt instead of letting them earn a decent wage at a job they enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You dont need to go to college to get a decent paying job. All you have to do is apply yourself. The wife and I didnt go to college and I retired at 46,she'll retire in two more years at 47.
> If you dont aspire to be more then a stocker at the grocery store why in the hell should I subsidize that choice? Besides your stealing jobs from teenagers and old people. Have you no shame?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When minimum wage was created it could sustain a family of 3 over the poverty wage.  You really don't think people work less hard today than they did then do you?
Click to expand...

It's not about whether they work hard, it's about the value they produce to their employer.
If Bob works his ass off as a cashier at McDonalds, it doesn't matter how hard he works, he can't make a customer order any faster.

You know what is likely going to happen here?  Companies like McDonalds are going to get tired of the people like the cashiers protesting for wages beyond their worth/value and then put in self-service kiosks for ordering.  The cashier job will be eliminated and Bob will no longer have a job.  Panera Bread is already moving that direction, grocery stores have already put in self check-out.
I suggest that Bob learns how to work on the machines that are going to replace his job if he wants to be employed.


----------



## alan1

Againsheila said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are you getting your figures.  Today's minimum wage won't even support one person at the poverty level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 40 hrs x $7.25 x 52 weeks=$15,080.
> 
> FPL 1 person=$11,670
> 2 person HH=$15,730
> 3 person HH=$19,790
> 
> http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, yes, except for the fact that minimum wage jobs only employ you for 30 hours a week, on average.  That's to avoid paying any more benefits than they have to.
Click to expand...


What "benefits" do they (employers) "have to" pay for, for employees working over 30 hours a week?
Think pre ACA and answer that question.
Hint:  Aside from minimum wage it would be nothing.


----------



## alan1

Againsheila said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiabloBlanco said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with doing what they enjoy? I HATED school and would only go back to a tech school of some kind without all the goofy pointless classes. I know others who are completely different and enjoyed school and want to go to college. Wages should be tied to inflation after we bump the minimum wage up to at least 10$ an hour.
> 
> 
> I have. Many times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is school was unpleasant for you so you are stuck flipping burgers and you think you are owed more money to do it?
> Sorry, Charlie. Sitting right next to you in high school was another guy who hated school as well, but instead of dropping out, he sucked it up and graduated and got into a decent college. Guess what? He's making 10 times what you're making because he made himself more valuable to an employer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Do you have any idea how many college educated people are out there working minimum wage jobs* with loans up to the hilt?  Our well paying jobs have left the country.  Most of those working minimum wage are now adults.
Click to expand...

2% of hourly paid workers, less when you add salaried workers.
Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2012
snip,


> Among hourly paid workers age 16 and over, about 10 percent of those who had less than a high school diploma earned the federal minimum wage or less, compared with about 4 percent of those who had a high school diploma (with no college) and about 2 percent of college graduates.


----------



## sameech

alan1 said:


> It's not about whether they work hard, it's about the value they produce to their employer.
> If Bob works his ass off as a cashier at McDonalds, it doesn't matter how hard he works, he can't make a customer order any faster.
> 
> You know what is likely going to happen here?  Companies like McDonalds are going to get tired of the people like the cashiers protesting for wages beyond their worth/value and then put in self-service kiosks for ordering.  The cashier job will be eliminated and Bob will no longer have a job.  Panera Bread is already moving that direction, grocery stores have already put in self check-out.
> I suggest that Bob learns how to work on the machines that are going to replace his job if he wants to be employed.



I doubt MCDonalds would anytime soon.  The cashiers at ours at least do several jobs like cashier, fill drinks, do the ice cream stuff, restock the coolers out front, try to upsell you--plus McD's customers tend to not be that up to date with technology (Old ladies, people with pockets full of wrinkled dollars and dimes, etc)


----------



## Mathbud1

sameech said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about whether they work hard, it's about the value they produce to their employer.
> If Bob works his ass off as a cashier at McDonalds, it doesn't matter how hard he works, he can't make a customer order any faster.
> 
> You know what is likely going to happen here?  Companies like McDonalds are going to get tired of the people like the cashiers protesting for wages beyond their worth/value and then put in self-service kiosks for ordering.  The cashier job will be eliminated and Bob will no longer have a job.  Panera Bread is already moving that direction, grocery stores have already put in self check-out.
> I suggest that Bob learns how to work on the machines that are going to replace his job if he wants to be employed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt MCDonalds would anytime soon.  The cashiers at ours at least do several jobs like cashier, fill drinks, do the ice cream stuff, restock the coolers out front, try to upsell you--plus McD's customers tend to not be that up to date with technology (Old ladies, people with pockets full of wrinkled dollars and dimes, etc)
Click to expand...


Does Wal-Mart typically have a higher quality clientele do you think? Wal-Mart put in self checkout lanes for groceries years ago and those are way more complicated than the McDonald's ones would need to be. People learn when they need to. Even little old ladies and people with wrinkly money. And they can still have people filling drinks and ice cream and handing out food. They would just need fewer people.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## alan1

sameech said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about whether they work hard, it's about the value they produce to their employer.
> If Bob works his ass off as a cashier at McDonalds, it doesn't matter how hard he works, he can't make a customer order any faster.
> 
> You know what is likely going to happen here?  Companies like McDonalds are going to get tired of the people like the cashiers protesting for wages beyond their worth/value and then put in self-service kiosks for ordering.  The cashier job will be eliminated and Bob will no longer have a job.  Panera Bread is already moving that direction, grocery stores have already put in self check-out.
> I suggest that Bob learns how to work on the machines that are going to replace his job if he wants to be employed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt MCDonalds would anytime soon.  The cashiers at ours at least do several jobs like cashier, fill drinks, do the ice cream stuff, restock the coolers out front, try to upsell you--plus McD's customers tend to not be that up to date with technology (Old ladies, people with pockets full of wrinkled dollars and dimes, etc)
Click to expand...

Remove the cashier function, and I bet it takes half as many people to fill drinks, do the ice cream stuff, restock the coolers, etc.  They still fill drinks where you live?  Around here, all the fast food places have the drink dispensers on the customer side of the counter.
My mom is an old lady (pushing 80), she can work the self checkout kiosk at the grocery store, so I'm sure she can push the button that has a picture of a cheeseburger on it.


----------



## Mathbud1

alan1 said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about whether they work hard, it's about the value they produce to their employer.
> If Bob works his ass off as a cashier at McDonalds, it doesn't matter how hard he works, he can't make a customer order any faster.
> 
> You know what is likely going to happen here?  Companies like McDonalds are going to get tired of the people like the cashiers protesting for wages beyond their worth/value and then put in self-service kiosks for ordering.  The cashier job will be eliminated and Bob will no longer have a job.  Panera Bread is already moving that direction, grocery stores have already put in self check-out.
> I suggest that Bob learns how to work on the machines that are going to replace his job if he wants to be employed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt MCDonalds would anytime soon.  The cashiers at ours at least do several jobs like cashier, fill drinks, do the ice cream stuff, restock the coolers out front, try to upsell you--plus McD's customers tend to not be that up to date with technology (Old ladies, people with pockets full of wrinkled dollars and dimes, etc)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Remove the cashier function, and I bet it takes half as many people to fill drinks, do the ice cream stuff, restock the coolers, etc.  They still fill drinks where you live?  Around here, all the fast food places have the drink dispensers on the customer side of the counter.
> My mom is an old lady (pushing 80), she can work the self checkout kiosk at the grocery store, so I'm sure she can push the button that has a picture of a cheeseburger on it.
Click to expand...


Ha ha. So similar to what I just said.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## sameech

alan1 said:


> Remove the cashier function, and I bet it takes half as many people to fill drinks, do the ice cream stuff, restock the coolers, etc.  They still fill drinks where you live?  Around here, all the fast food places have the drink dispensers on the customer side of the counter.
> My mom is an old lady (pushing 80), she can work the self checkout kiosk at the grocery store, so I'm sure she can push the button that has a picture of a cheeseburger on it.



Most of their drinks seem to be drive thru or some blended/flavored whatever.  They have the fountains in the lobby but seems to me that most of it is pumping syrup out of some gallon jug to mix into whatever it is people are getting.  Sure you can get rid of half your cashiers, but you are probably getting rid of half your customers in the process.  McDonald's are already too slow.  They are a lot quicker to take your order than they are to fill it.  I have been in men's rooms right after a concert that were less crowded than those things become during peak times.


----------



## alan1

sameech said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remove the cashier function, and I bet it takes half as many people to fill drinks, do the ice cream stuff, restock the coolers, etc.  They still fill drinks where you live?  Around here, all the fast food places have the drink dispensers on the customer side of the counter.
> My mom is an old lady (pushing 80), she can work the self checkout kiosk at the grocery store, so I'm sure she can push the button that has a picture of a cheeseburger on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of their drinks seem to be drive thru or some blended/flavored whatever.  They have the fountains in the lobby but seems to me that most of it is pumping syrup out of some gallon jug to mix into whatever it is people are getting.  Sure you can get rid of half your cashiers, but you are probably getting rid of half your customers in the process.  McDonald's are already too slow.  They are a lot quicker to take your order than they are to fill it.  I have been in men's rooms right after a concert that were less crowded than those things become during peak times.
Click to expand...


Do you believe grocery stores got rid of half their customers when they added self-service kiosks?  (The correct answer is no).
You seem to be very good at just blurting out random statements of mediocre opinion with no basis in experiential reality.


----------



## sameech

alan1 said:


> Do you believe grocery stores got rid of half their customers when they added self-service kiosks?  (The correct answer is no).
> You seem to be very good at just blurting out random statements of mediocre opinion with no basis in experiential reality.



Not as good as you are with false comparisons, but if I interact with you enough, I am sure I will get the hang of it.  

Cashiers in grocery stores do two functions--check you out and bag you.  Those are more easily replaceable than someone getting your fries, your drinks, taking your lettuce off and putting more onions on your order.  Restaurants tend not to do well if they become completely self-service because then they are called "vending machines".


----------



## HenryBHough

sameech said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe grocery stores got rid of half their customers when they added self-service kiosks?  (The correct answer is no).
> You seem to be very good at just blurting out random statements of mediocre opinion with no basis in experiential reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not as good as you are with false comparisons, but if I interact with you enough, I am sure I will get the hang of it.
> 
> Cashiers in grocery stores do two functions--check you out and bag you.  Those are more easily replaceable than someone getting your fries, your drinks, taking your lettuce off and putting more onions on your order.  Restaurants tend not to do well if they become completely self-service because then they are called "vending machines".
Click to expand...



Actually they WERE called "Horn & Hardart".


----------



## sameech

HenryBHough said:


> Actually they WERE called "Horn & Hardart".



Thanks for the tube.  I know they are popular in Japan but we are not Japan (which I thank God for every day).

The problem with people making this "raise MW and you will be replaced with a kiosk" apparently never bothered to read that Panera isn't shedding a single job as they install these things.  They are not there to replace workers but to speed up orders which their cashiers will do more toward helping, not less.


----------



## HenryBHough

sameech said:


> Thanks for the tube.  I know they are popular in Japan but we are not Japan (which I thank God for every day).



It was a long time ago so my memory is vague.....I recall the Automats as still having popularity but the owners wanted out and considered the cost of converting thousands of machines to take paper money since nobody could carry enough in coins to buy much anymore.  It just seemed futile.

Remember, they closed down before credit and debit cards became commonplace.  Perhaps the concept could be brought back but the initial investment would be pretty high for each location.


----------



## Againsheila

alan1 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dont need to go to college to get a decent paying job. All you have to do is apply yourself. The wife and I didnt go to college and I retired at 46,she'll retire in two more years at 47.
> If you dont aspire to be more then a stocker at the grocery store why in the hell should I subsidize that choice? Besides your stealing jobs from teenagers and old people. Have you no shame?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When minimum wage was created it could sustain a family of 3 over the poverty wage.  You really don't think people work less hard today than they did then do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not about whether they work hard, it's about the value they produce to their employer.
> If Bob works his ass off as a cashier at McDonalds, it doesn't matter how hard he works, he can't make a customer order any faster.
> 
> You know what is likely going to happen here?  Companies like McDonalds are going to get tired of the people like the cashiers protesting for wages beyond their worth/value and then put in self-service kiosks for ordering.  The cashier job will be eliminated and Bob will no longer have a job.  Panera Bread is already moving that direction, grocery stores have already put in self check-out.
> I suggest that Bob learns how to work on the machines that are going to replace his job if he wants to be employed.
Click to expand...


Our Albertson's store took out their self check out.  We customers refused to use it.


----------



## HenryBHough

Againsheila said:


> Our Albertson's store took out their self check out.  We customers refused to use it.



Albertson's is not alone.  Other chains have reduced the number of machines.  They were costing too much in labor.

Yes, in labor.  They had to station at least one clerk at each bank of machines to help customers make the damn things work properly.  But the real cost was the staff to restock the items (former) customers abandoned in carts and walked away to competitors when the frustration became sufficiently high.


----------



## KissMy

Mathbud1 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you want to maximize the nanny state government, then you *should* establish policy that do not have the business, people & the economy relying on government.
> 
> Welfare & Entitlement Spending Way Up Under Bush & Down Under Clinton & Since Obama Took Office Because Raising Minimum Wages CUTS Government Spending.
> 
> *The faster & higher you raise the minimum wage, the slower the dollar loses it's value.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you probably didn't mean this, but it sounds like you are recommending we raise the minimum wage to $100/hr since that is both faster and higher than I have ever heard recommended by anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because most of the people on the government dole are working at a real job. Prices ALWAYS rise before wages because Government & Banks create money. Wages do not push or drive inflation & *wage price spiral is a hoax*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could be right. I don't know. I'm not an economist. What I do know is this: My relative who owns a small business couldn't absorb a huge increase in his employees' wages all at once. He would be borrowing money the first month he had to make the new payroll, and it would be downhill from there.
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Higher minimum wages get workers off the government dole so government does not have to print more money causing inflation. Also higher minimum wages means Government does not have to guarantee bank home or business loans causing inflation because underpaid workers default at high rates.
> 
> Raising Wages increases employment & CUTS Government Spending. Socialism is when employers make government tax payers pay for their workers so they can drive others out of business & pocket everyone else's wealth. If you don't like the minimum wage then pass a law banning employment of someone on the government dole. Because I already pay my workers & should not have to keep subsidizing yours, harming my business. Employment rises as wages & minimum wages rise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, if there is no negative impact to raising wages why do we stop at a merely "living wage." Let's bump everyone up to a "partying wage" and really get the economy rocking.
Click to expand...


Obviously you are being stupid. Raising minimum to your ridiculous $100 is well beyond the increased productivity rate of $22 would cause wage push inflation. However raising the rate up to $12 will get the max number of workers off government dole, shrinking government spending, size & inflation while creating more private sector jobs.


----------



## Mathbud1

KissMy said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you want to maximize the nanny state government, then you *should* establish policy that do not have the business, people & the economy relying on government.
> 
> Welfare & Entitlement Spending Way Up Under Bush & Down Under Clinton & Since Obama Took Office Because Raising Minimum Wages CUTS Government Spending.
> 
> *The faster & higher you raise the minimum wage, the slower the dollar loses it's value.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you probably didn't mean this, but it sounds like you are recommending we raise the minimum wage to $100/hr since that is both faster and higher than I have ever heard recommended by anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> You could be right. I don't know. I'm not an economist. What I do know is this: My relative who owns a small business couldn't absorb a huge increase in his employees' wages all at once. He would be borrowing money the first month he had to make the new payroll, and it would be downhill from there.
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Higher minimum wages get workers off the government dole so government does not have to print more money causing inflation. Also higher minimum wages means Government does not have to guarantee bank home or business loans causing inflation because underpaid workers default at high rates.
> 
> Raising Wages increases employment & CUTS Government Spending. Socialism is when employers make government tax payers pay for their workers so they can drive others out of business & pocket everyone else's wealth. If you don't like the minimum wage then pass a law banning employment of someone on the government dole. Because I already pay my workers & should not have to keep subsidizing yours, harming my business. Employment rises as wages & minimum wages rise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, if there is no negative impact to raising wages why do we stop at a merely "living wage." Let's bump everyone up to a "partying wage" and really get the economy rocking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you are being stupid. Raising minimum to your ridiculous $100 is well beyond the increased productivity rate of $22 would cause wage push inflation. However raising the rate up to $12 will get the max number of workers off government dole, shrinking government spending, size & inflation while creating more private sector jobs.
Click to expand...


I *did* say I didn't think you actually meant that. You should be a little more careful maybe in what you say though because it really really came across that way.

You seemed to be advocating pushing the minimum wage up as fast and high as possible. Now you've backed off somewhat to only pitching for raising it to $12. If faster and higher is better why stop at 12? What makes 12 the magic number suddenly? Might there be adverse effects to raising it too high too fast? What would keep those effects from manifesting with smaller increases?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## sameech

HenryBHough said:


> It was a long time ago so my memory is vague.....I recall the Automats as still having popularity but the owners wanted out and considered the cost of converting thousands of machines to take paper money since nobody could carry enough in coins to buy much anymore.  It just seemed futile.
> 
> Remember, they closed down before credit and debit cards became commonplace.  Perhaps the concept could be brought back but the initial investment would be pretty high for each location.



I have been to 4 different hospitals this year visiting and they all had credit/debit swipes on their vending machines.  In places like that where folks' focus is on other things, it makes sense.  I am not sure paying too much money for food you still have to nuke would do as well if people weren't so captive to the location as they are with hospitals.


----------



## Mathbud1

HenryBHough said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Albertson's store took out their self check out.  We customers refused to use it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Albertson's is not alone.  Other chains have reduced the number of machines.  They were costing too much in labor.
> 
> Yes, in labor.  They had to station at least one clerk at each bank of machines to help customers make the damn things work properly.  But the real cost was the staff to restock the items (former) customers abandoned in carts and walked away to competitors when the frustration became sufficiently high.
Click to expand...


I don't know where you live, but around here they aren't reducing the number of self checkout kiosks. They are increasing them. Our closest Wal-Mart just doubled the number they had. These days they only ever have 1 or two manned registers open most times. And 1 attendant easily manages all the self checkout kiosks they have running.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## sameech

Mathbud1 said:


> I don't know where you live, but around here they aren't reducing the number of self checkout kiosks. They are increasing them. Our closest Wal-Mart just doubled the number they had. These days they only ever have 1 or two manned registers open most times. And 1 attendant easily manages all the self checkout kiosks they have running.



Our Walmart has them at either end of register row but most people still use the regular/express checkouts.  Kiosks are a hassle if you are buying a lot, large items, alcohol, R-rated movies, anything with a security device, because of having to keep everything on the scales or still getting customer service approval.


----------



## Mathbud1

sameech said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe grocery stores got rid of half their customers when they added self-service kiosks?  (The correct answer is no).
> You seem to be very good at just blurting out random statements of mediocre opinion with no basis in experiential reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not as good as you are with false comparisons, but if I interact with you enough, I am sure I will get the hang of it.
> 
> Cashiers in grocery stores do two functions--check you out and bag you.  Those are more easily replaceable than someone getting your fries, your drinks, taking your lettuce off and putting more onions on your order.  Restaurants tend not to do well if they become completely self-service because then they are called "vending machines".
Click to expand...


Cashiers at most places don't modify the orders. By the time the cashier touches it there isn't much more to do than hand you the tray. It isn't exactly rocket science, and it isn't a five star restaurant.

For all I know McDonald's could have already considered and discarded the idea of having automated kiosks. But if labor becomes expensive enough you can bet they are going to take another look at it.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## SAYIT

Againsheila said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> When minimum wage was created it could sustain a family of 3 over the poverty wage.  You really don't think people work less hard today than they did then do you?
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about whether they work hard, it's about the value they produce to their employer.
> If Bob works his ass off as a cashier at McDonalds, it doesn't matter how hard he works, he can't make a customer order any faster.
> 
> You know what is likely going to happen here?  Companies like McDonalds are going to get tired of the people like the cashiers protesting for wages beyond their worth/value and then put in self-service kiosks for ordering.  The cashier job will be eliminated and Bob will no longer have a job.  Panera Bread is already moving that direction, grocery stores have already put in self check-out.
> I suggest that Bob learns how to work on the machines that are going to replace his job if he wants to be employed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our Albertson's store took out their self check out.  We customers refused to use it.
Click to expand...


Crain's Chicago Business : Subscription Center

McDonald's Corp. is getting lapped by rivals in the race to make fast food even faster. 

Competitors such as Jimmy John's, Potbelly and Wow Bao are deploying on-site kiosks or mobile apps that enable customers to skip lines by placing orders with the tap of a finger and a swipe of a debit card. Starbucks Corp. is exploring ways for members of its loyalty program to use their smartphones to order their custom coffees. 

Restaurants employing automated ordering options say the devices lift traffic and boost individual sales. Since many of these rivals are near McDonald's center-city locations, they might lure customers turned off by slow-moving lines under the Golden Arches.


----------



## Noomi

Againsheila said:


> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.



Read the first two responses to your OP, and you will realise that the conservatives here wouldn't have a bar of it, because they don't give a shit.


----------



## sameech

Mathbud1 said:


> Cashiers at most places don't modify the orders. By the time the cashier touches it there isn't much more to do than hand you the tray. It isn't exactly rocket science, and it isn't a five star restaurant.
> 
> For all I know McDonald's could have already considered and discarded the idea of having automated kiosks. But if labor becomes expensive enough you can bet they are going to take another look at it.



They'll try to find cheaper cheese or raise prices first IMO.  Most of these places are franchises and quite a few businessmen are hostile toward technology, especially expensive technology that will require expensive tech geeks to maintain.

Even places like Sheetz have touchpad ordering, but you still have to go stand in line and pay the cashier and then come back and get your food.


----------



## BobPlumb

sameech said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where you live, but around here they aren't reducing the number of self checkout kiosks. They are increasing them. Our closest Wal-Mart just doubled the number they had. These days they only ever have 1 or two manned registers open most times. And 1 attendant easily manages all the self checkout kiosks they have running.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our Walmart has them at either end of register row but most people still use the regular/express checkouts.  Kiosks are a hassle if you are buying a lot, large items, alcohol, R-rated movies, anything with a security device, because of having to keep everything on the scales or still getting customer service approval.
Click to expand...


I agree.  However, when I'm buying just a few items I often prefer the self checkout.


----------



## KissMy

Againsheila said:


> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.



You have it all wrong. Walmart made $16 billion profit a year. The cost to get their employees wages & benefits up enough to get them & their families off the government dole is only a couple billion. Competition sets price so they can't just raise price. But the dollar will get strong because government support will shrink & that will lower prices. The data proves it every time. Holding minimum wage below government supported poverty levels causes inflation & prices to rise every time.


----------



## sameech

KissMy said:


> You have it all wrong. Walmart made $16 billion profit a year. The cost to get their employees wages & benefits up enough to get them & their families off the government dole is only a couple billion. Competition sets price so they can't just raise price. But the dollar will get strong because government support will shrink & that will lower prices. The data proves it every time. Holding minimum wage below government supported poverty levels causes inflation & prices to rise every time.




Isn't that really the same argument for lowering welfare then since too much government poverty support would also cause inflation?

I am okay either way on the MW issue just as long as if we do it, we do it is small steps instead of a 45% all at once jump.  There are legitimate economic arguments on both sides of the issue IMO, but it doesn't affect me directly one way or the other.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Noomi said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the first two responses to your OP, and you will realise that the conservatives here wouldn't have a bar of it, because they don't give a shit.
Click to expand...


You're right....I dont give a shit.


----------



## KissMy

sameech said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have it all wrong. Walmart made $16 billion profit a year. The cost to get their employees wages & benefits up enough to get them & their families off the government dole is only a couple billion. Competition sets price so they can't just raise price. But the dollar will get strong because government support will shrink & that will lower prices. The data proves it every time. Holding minimum wage below government supported poverty levels causes inflation & prices to rise every time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that really the same argument for lowering welfare then since too much government poverty support would also cause inflation?
> 
> I am okay either way on the MW issue just as long as if we do it, we do it is small steps instead of a 45% all at once jump.  There are legitimate economic arguments on both sides of the issue IMO, but it doesn't affect me directly one way or the other.
Click to expand...


Welfare was lowered via massive inflation. Actually lowering it will reduce living standards for 47 million people witch reduces the economy. No way in hell any party will vote to lower the living standard of half the country. There are NO legitimate economic arguments for holding minimum wages into government support levels. You only do that if you want government dependency, size, power, cost & inefficiency to explode.


----------



## bedowin62

KissMy said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have it all wrong. Walmart made $16 billion profit a year. The cost to get their employees wages & benefits up enough to get them & their families off the government dole is only a couple billion. Competition sets price so they can't just raise price. But the dollar will get strong because government support will shrink & that will lower prices. The data proves it every time. Holding minimum wage below government supported poverty levels causes inflation & prices to rise every time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that really the same argument for lowering welfare then since too much government poverty support would also cause inflation?
> 
> I am okay either way on the MW issue just as long as if we do it, we do it is small steps instead of a 45% all at once jump.  There are legitimate economic arguments on both sides of the issue IMO, but it doesn't affect me directly one way or the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welfare was lowered via massive inflation. Actually lowering it will reduce living standards for 47% of the country witch reduces the economy for everyone. No way in hell any party will vote to lower the living standard of half the country. There are NO legitimate economic arguments for holding minimum wages into government support levels. You only do that if you want government dependency, size, power, cost & inefficiency to explode.
Click to expand...




you dont know what you're talking about; typical

 welfare was lowered when time limits were placed on it.  the Left's cries that people were going to starve in the streets were never borne out


----------



## KissMy

bedowin62 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that really the same argument for lowering welfare then since too much government poverty support would also cause inflation?
> 
> I am okay either way on the MW issue just as long as if we do it, we do it is small steps instead of a 45% all at once jump.  There are legitimate economic arguments on both sides of the issue IMO, but it doesn't affect me directly one way or the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare was lowered via massive inflation. Actually lowering it will reduce living standards for 47% of the country witch reduces the economy for everyone. No way in hell any party will vote to lower the living standard of half the country. There are NO legitimate economic arguments for holding minimum wages into government support levels. You only do that if you want government dependency, size, power, cost & inefficiency to explode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you dont know what you're talking about; typical
> 
> welfare was lowered when time limits were placed on it.  the Left's cries that people were going to starve in the streets were never borne out
Click to expand...


Total retard. Half the population was not on the dole when Clinton placed limits on welfare. Bush exploded inflation & dependancy that continued to increase to 47 million now. No politician will get elected saying they will lower income on those dependent voters.

70% now support hiking minimum wage so it can get done now. If we don't fix this now & get people off the dole, the majority of the population will become dependents & will vote themselves more & more entitlements. The country as we used to know it will be lost for the rest of our lives.

Looking at the data, even the high wages during the peak socialist union worker representation did not cause inflation or reduce employment. So there is no way in hell hiking wages causes inflation. Inflation is only caused by lending to people because they can't make it on their pay which explains the consumer lending boom & housing lending boom when wages fall behind. Massive lending causes massive bubbles. Inflation is also caused by deficit spending on underpaid working people.


----------



## FireFly

Washington state now has a lower unemployment rate than before the great recession began. Washington has the highest minimum wage in the country. I thought that Washington's highest minimum wage rate in the country was supposed to destroy jobs.


----------



## Mathbud1

KissMy said:


> Wow, their McDonald's Bacon McDouble made in Denmark by workers paid $21/hr is the exact same price as it is at our McDonald's in the USA made by workers making $7.75/hr



The picture was taken in New York. Which you should have known if you actually read the blog.

From the comments on that story:


> I ate lunch at a McDonalds just outside of Copenhagen, Denmark recently. Had a quarter-pounder with cheese meal (they dont call it quarter-pounder there of course) and the total with tax came to the equivalent of $14, roughly double what I would pay in the US.



Which makes sense given that the teenager wage quoted was roughly double the average here.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## beagle9

Defiant1 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has someone figured out the magic formula to define a "living" wage?
> 
> Or should each employee be paid according to how much money they need to "live?"
Click to expand...

The magic formula is to have a structural or a structured pay grade system that works once again in each company. For some reason companies got away from this concept, and I believe it was all due to greed and corruption.  The concept needs to return before we go totally *communist *or *socialist *in this nation. If we do either, then the suffering will be unbelievable for the work forces, and for the progress in this nation.  The upper classes will remain without worry, and will go without lacking in such a system as they will have created now, yet everyone else will picking up the crumbs that will be issued to them in such systems that are listed above.

*The minimum wage is just an entrance wage for crying out loud, and it should not be attempted by any company to be used as a socialist wage that would apply to workers as some sort of equal pay wage across the board scheme, even if it is 10.00 dollars an hour or better that it would be moved to.* No one should be on minimum wage after being with a company for two years or less all depending. The wage should sustain a person until they are trained up and ready to climb on board the regular pay grade system that would be intact at the company upon a years time spent training and working at the company. A person should be able to be hired at minimum wage that is set by the company all depending on the type of work that is involved, and this if they have no training or skills in the job at all, where as it is just a try out pay, and that is all that it should be. If it works out then move the person up as they progress with raises according to their works and what the market will bear in a specific company. 

There should be a starting pay be it minimum or above that if the person is skilled already, then it should transpire into the long structure of a preset pay system that had been developed to enhance the employee's pay by work ethic and consistency, and also to make it clear the companies goals and objectives for the long haul as well when the employee's are rewarded for their devotion and time spent at the companies as it should be.

The whole minimum wage thing is a socialist scheme to introduce to the corporations who would then pay the minimum wage of say 10.5 dollars and hour to their workers, and this like in a manufacturing situation where it would be all they would get until another hike would come. Talk about socialist communist thinking...WOW! I can't believe the nation is falling for Obama and his socialist communist ways and change. 

Beware America, because you are about to go through hell, as Obama is going to make this nation pay for it's slips, mistakes and greed, and he will attempt to rally the masses to his change, and they will follow just as they followed Hitler just prior to world war two.


----------



## beagle9

The nation just needs a grading system for companies in order to create competition on who is the best company out there, and who is the best companies to work for across the boards. 

Bill Boards in each city and state could broadcast the results. They have this kind of grading system in restaurants now, so why wouldn't it work everywhere else ?

Either your company gets an A+/A or a D/ F rating. The feds could run this type of program, and they should stay out of telling a company what to pay it's employee's, especially when the feds don't even know the employee's like the company does, but yet it wants to stick it's nose where it don't belong, and then do it in the wrong ways. Go figure!


----------



## sameech

KissMy said:


> Welfare was lowered via massive inflation. Actually lowering it will reduce living standards for 47 million people witch reduces the economy. No way in hell any party will vote to lower the living standard of half the country. There are NO legitimate economic arguments for holding minimum wages into government support levels. You only do that if you want government dependency, size, power, cost & inefficiency to explode.



Well no legitimate arguments if you think reducing the purchasing power of the dollar is the best economic policy, leaving the poor still poor, but with a bigger balance on their EBT's and no more food in their cupboards.


----------



## Uncensored2008

KissMy said:


> Welfare was lowered via massive inflation. Actually lowering it will reduce living standards for 47 million people witch reduces the economy. No way in hell any party will vote to lower the living standard of half the country. There are NO legitimate economic arguments for holding minimum wages into government support levels. You only do that if you want government dependency, size, power, cost & inefficiency to explode.



How is it that you think your 6 years of formal, primary education qualifies you to post on economics?

Do you think the idiotic lies you repeat from the hate sites are legitimate economic theory? Entitlement payments excluding Social Security Retirement payments (which are not an entitlement) are at the highest level in history. Direct cash benefits INCREASED after Clinton's "welfare reform." Moving 10's of thousands of people from general relief to Supplemental Security Income INCREASED the federal outlay of welfare


----------



## Skull Pilot

It's your responsibility to pay your bills.

It is not your employer's responsibility to guarantee you make enough in a week to do so.

If you don't make enough to pay your bills you have options.  Get a higher paying job.  Get a second job or a third and reduce your expenses.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Mathbud1 said:


> The picture was taken in New York. Which you should have known if you actually read the blog.
> 
> From the comments on that story:
> 
> 
> 
> I ate lunch at a McDonalds just outside of Copenhagen, Denmark recently. Had a quarter-pounder with cheese meal (they dont call it quarter-pounder there of course) and the total with tax came to the equivalent of $14, roughly double what I would pay in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which makes sense given that the teenager wage quoted was roughly double the average here.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Wait, that means Kissmy was lying through his fucking teeth?



I'm shocked...


----------



## Mathbud1

Uncensored2008 said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The picture was taken in New York. Which you should have known if you actually read the blog.
> 
> From the comments on that story:
> 
> 
> 
> I ate lunch at a McDonalds just outside of Copenhagen, Denmark recently. Had a quarter-pounder with cheese meal (they dont call it quarter-pounder there of course) and the total with tax came to the equivalent of $14, roughly double what I would pay in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which makes sense given that the teenager wage quoted was roughly double the average here.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, that means Kissmy was lying through his fucking teeth?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm shocked...
Click to expand...


I'll be fair. I don't know if he was lying intentionally, our was just confused.

In either case he was wrong.

I don't know about you, but if a quarter pound meal at McDonald's cost $14 I wouldn't be eating there.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## Uncensored2008

Mathbud1 said:


> I'll be fair. I don't know if he was lying intentionally, our was just confused.
> 
> In either case he was wrong.
> 
> I don't know about you, but if a quarter pound meal at McDonald's cost $14 I wouldn't be eating there.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk



In all honesty, McDonalds food would have to change drastically for me to eat there at all. I really don't like the place.


----------



## Mathbud1

Uncensored2008 said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be fair. I don't know if he was lying intentionally, our was just confused.
> 
> In either case he was wrong.
> 
> I don't know about you, but if a quarter pound meal at McDonald's cost $14 I wouldn't be eating there.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In all honesty, McDonalds food would have to change drastically for me to eat there at all. I really don't like the place.
Click to expand...


I totally agree. Unfortunately my three year old son doesn't. I don't know what kids like about McDonald's, but I'm a push over for what he wants.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## FireFly

Uncensored2008 said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The picture was taken in New York. Which you should have known if you actually read the blog.
> 
> From the comments on that story:
> 
> 
> 
> I ate lunch at a McDonalds just outside of Copenhagen, Denmark recently. Had a quarter-pounder with cheese meal (they don&#8217;t call it quarter-pounder there of course) and the total with tax came to the equivalent of $14, roughly double what I would pay in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which makes sense given that the teenager wage quoted was roughly double the average here.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, that means Kissmy was lying through his fucking teeth?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm shocked...
Click to expand...


There is no such post by KissMy in this thread. You are the liar.


----------



## GHook93

Againsheila said:


> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.



I started a thread on this no seeing you did. At the $13.63 rate proposed would still put most of them in the food stamp eligible category. Also this is an estimate by someone not in the STORE or who is CRUNCHING the numbers. 

However, I do agree I don't think it would be the drastic cost increase most people say it would be!


----------



## Mathbud1

FireFly said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The picture was taken in New York. Which you should have known if you actually read the blog.
> 
> From the comments on that story:
> 
> 
> Which makes sense given that the teenager wage quoted was roughly double the average here.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, that means Kissmy was lying through his fucking teeth?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm shocked...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no such post by KissMy in this thread. You are the liar.
Click to expand...


You are incorrect.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## Againsheila

Mathbud1 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The picture was taken in New York. Which you should have known if you actually read the blog.
> 
> From the comments on that story:
> 
> 
> Which makes sense given that the teenager wage quoted was roughly double the average here.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, that means Kissmy was lying through his fucking teeth?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm shocked...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll be fair. I don't know if he was lying intentionally, our was just confused.
> 
> In either case he was wrong.
> 
> I don't know about you, but if a quarter pound meal at McDonald's cost $14 I wouldn't be eating there.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


I don't eat there now.


----------



## Mathbud1

Againsheila said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, that means Kissmy was lying through his fucking teeth?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm shocked...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be fair. I don't know if he was lying intentionally, our was just confused.
> 
> In either case he was wrong.
> 
> I don't know about you, but if a quarter pound meal at McDonald's cost $14 I wouldn't be eating there.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't eat there now.
Click to expand...


No wonder you feel comfortable demanding they pay their workers more. Your money isn't involved.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## alan1

HenryBHough said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Albertson's store took out their self check out.  We customers refused to use it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Albertson's is not alone.  Other chains have reduced the number of machines.  They were costing too much in labor.
> 
> Yes, in labor.  They had to station at least one clerk at each bank of machines to help customers make the damn things work properly.  But the real cost was the staff to restock the items (former) customers abandoned in carts and walked away to competitors when the frustration became sufficiently high.
Click to expand...


A modern car or cell phone has more controls than a self service cash register, yet people manage them just fine.

I prefer the grocery store self checkout for a few reasons.....
The primary one being that I typically have 12 or less items simply because I am a single person household.  Were I to be buying an entire grocery cart full of stuff, I'd prefer an actual cashier.
I also once worked as a cashier (back in my college days), so I know how to process a grocery order, such as ring up the heavy items first so they are in the bottom of the bag and the light items end up in the top.
Speaking of bagging groceries, if I buy a steak, a wedge of cheese, a bag of grapes and underarm deodorant, that will all fit in one bag.  However, laws dictate that a chemical such as deodorant should never be put in the same bag as food.  A grocery store cashier will put this single bag order into two bags.  The reality is, in the 10 minute drive from the store to my house, my food is not at risk of contamination from my sealed package of deodorant.  Why use two bags when one will do.  I'm not an environmentalist but I see no reason for the waste.
I don't like the grocery store charity Du Jour.  That's where the cashier asks you if you want to make a donation to whatever the current charity drive is, be it breast cancer, heart disease, leukemia, or endangered species.  I don't have a problem with charity drives, but the grocery store is not where I choose to conduct my charity simply because that grocery store decided it was a worthy cause.

Now then, as far as fast food goes I rarely go to places like that.  On the few occasions that I do, I find it to be extremely annoying when a cashier asks me if I want fries with that or if I want to super-size my meal.  If I wanted more food, I'd have ordered it to begin with, quit wasting my time with your up-selling.  I'd much rather place my order at a kiosk than deal with a person-bot programmed to up-sell me.

I know that eventually, they will program the self service kiosks to ask the same questions about donating to a charity, or up-selling their fries, but they haven't done it yet.

At times when I do use an actually cashier at the grocery store, I have fun with them sometimes.  Here where I live, the cashiers always ask, "Did you find everything you needed?"  I'll go totally deadpan and say something stupid such as, "I really struggled to find the coffee filters.  They are a paper product so I was scouring the aisles with paper towels, toilet paper and paper plates looking for them.  I have no idea why you guys keep a paper product in the same aisle as coffee and tea.  You should tell the managers to move them."  Their reactions are varied, but the look on their faces always tell the same story, how could this guy be so damn dumb.  I find pleasure in the small things.


----------



## alan1

sameech said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe grocery stores got rid of half their customers when they added self-service kiosks?  (The correct answer is no).
> You seem to be very good at just blurting out random statements of mediocre opinion with no basis in experiential reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not as good as you are with false comparisons, but if I interact with you enough, I am sure I will get the hang of it.
> 
> Cashiers in grocery stores do two functions--check you out and bag you.  Those are more easily replaceable than someone getting your fries, your drinks, taking your lettuce off and putting more onions on your order.  Restaurants tend not to do well if they become completely self-service because then they are called "vending machines".
Click to expand...


Fast food (such as McDonalds) is a vending machine.
The comparison is valid, you just didn't like it, which is probably why you eliminated the previous conversation in your quote.


----------



## alan1

sameech said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually they WERE called "Horn & Hardart".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the tube.  I know they are popular in Japan but we are not Japan (which I thank God for every day).
> 
> The problem with people making this "raise MW and you will be replaced with a kiosk" apparently never bothered to read that Panera isn't shedding a single job as they install these things.  They are not there to replace workers but to speed up orders which their cashiers will do more toward helping, not less.
Click to expand...


A company can improve productivity in more ways than one.  Adding a one time expense of a $50,000 kiosk that will last for 5 years is cheaper than paying a $25,000 employee for five years.  Nobody got fired (shedding a job), but a machine was hired, not a person.
Like I said, if Bob wants a job he's better off learning how to work the machine than asking you if you want a cookie for desert.


----------



## alan1

sameech said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cashiers at most places don't modify the orders. By the time the cashier touches it there isn't much more to do than hand you the tray. It isn't exactly rocket science, and it isn't a five star restaurant.
> 
> For all I know McDonald's could have already considered and discarded the idea of having automated kiosks. But if labor becomes expensive enough you can bet they are going to take another look at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They'll try to find cheaper cheese or raise prices first IMO.  Most of these places are franchises and *quite a few businessmen are hostile toward technology*, especially expensive technology that will require expensive tech geeks to maintain.
> 
> Even places like Sheetz have touchpad ordering, but you still have to go stand in line and pay the cashier and then come back and get your food.
Click to expand...


See bold blue above.
That is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard.
I work in IT for a Fortune 100 retailer.  The "businessmen"  are all about using technology to make things faster, better, easier and smarter for both the customers and the employees.  They aren't hostile, they are embracing the tech.


----------



## sameech

alan1 said:


> Fast food (such as McDonalds) is a vending machine.
> The comparison is valid, you just didn't like it, which is probably why you eliminated the previous conversation in your quote.



No they are not vending machines.  They are restaurants.   

I delete previous quotes as a matter of policy because if find it rather annoying when my quotes get wrapped up in other people's back and forth, so I try to be courteous to others that might feel the same way; and it further avoids people being mis-attributed quotes when someone does a bad cut-down on these quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes.


----------



## alan1

sameech said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fast food (such as McDonalds) is a vending machine.
> The comparison is valid, you just didn't like it, which is probably why you eliminated the previous conversation in your quote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they are not vending machines.  They are restaurants.
> 
> I delete previous quotes as a matter of policy because if find it rather annoying when my quotes get wrapped up in other people's back and forth, so I try to be courteous to others that might feel the same way; and it further avoids people being mis-attributed quotes when someone does a bad cut-down on these quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes.
Click to expand...


Technically, they are restaurants.  In practice, they are a vending machine.
I'd never ask a date to go to a restaurant with me, then take her to fast food such as a McDonalds.  That would be like asking a date to the movies then whipping out my cellphone and streaming a movie on it.  Technically, I still showed her a movie.  But it is still just as lame as calling McDonalds a restaurant. 
The bonus is, nobody was paid an "unfair" wage for my phone streaming movie.  Unlike the person trying to sell me over priced popcorn at the movie theater.


----------



## BobPlumb

alan1 said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fast food (such as McDonalds) is a vending machine.
> The comparison is valid, you just didn't like it, which is probably why you eliminated the previous conversation in your quote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they are not vending machines.  They are restaurants.
> 
> I delete previous quotes as a matter of policy because if find it rather annoying when my quotes get wrapped up in other people's back and forth, so I try to be courteous to others that might feel the same way; and it further avoids people being mis-attributed quotes when someone does a bad cut-down on these quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Technically, they are restaurants.  In practice, they are a vending machine.
> I'd never ask a date to go to a restaurant with me, then take her to fast food such as a McDonalds.  That would be like asking a date to the movies then whipping out my cellphone and streaming a movie on it.  Technically, I still showed her a movie.  But it is still just as lame as calling McDonalds a restaurant.
> The bonus is, nobody was paid an "unfair" wage for my phone streaming movie.  Unlike the person trying to sell me over priced popcorn at the movie theater.
Click to expand...


If the wage at the movie theater is unfair, then the person should not take the job go start with.  Is the person better off without the job?  If so, don't take the job.  In life, decisions are made at the margins much of the time.


----------



## dblack

BobPlumb said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they are not vending machines.  They are restaurants.
> 
> I delete previous quotes as a matter of policy because if find it rather annoying when my quotes get wrapped up in other people's back and forth, so I try to be courteous to others that might feel the same way; and it further avoids people being mis-attributed quotes when someone does a bad cut-down on these quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, they are restaurants.  In practice, they are a vending machine.
> I'd never ask a date to go to a restaurant with me, then take her to fast food such as a McDonalds.  That would be like asking a date to the movies then whipping out my cellphone and streaming a movie on it.  Technically, I still showed her a movie.  But it is still just as lame as calling McDonalds a restaurant.
> The bonus is, nobody was paid an "unfair" wage for my phone streaming movie.  Unlike the person trying to sell me over priced popcorn at the movie theater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the wage at the movie theater her is unfair, then the person should not take the job go start with.  Is the person better off without the job?  If so, don't take the job.  In life, decisions are made at the margins much of the time.
Click to expand...


That's what MW laws mandate. We're not allowed to accept wages that aren't "fair". The difference is that they dictate what's a fair wage and what isn't, instead of letting us decide for ourselves.


----------



## sameech

alan1 said:


> Technically, they are restaurants.  In practice, they are a vending machine.
> I'd never ask a date to go to a restaurant with me, then take her to fast food such as a McDonalds.  That would be like asking a date to the movies then whipping out my cellphone and streaming a movie on it.  Technically, I still showed her a movie.  But it is still just as lame as calling McDonalds a restaurant.
> The bonus is, nobody was paid an "unfair" wage for my phone streaming movie.  Unlike the person trying to sell me over priced popcorn at the movie theater.



Is your cellphone manufactured either in the US or by people making more than $7.25 an hour overseas?


----------



## Againsheila




----------



## Againsheila




----------



## KissMy

Againsheila said:


>



This is happening in part because tax payers subsidize their workers & their business. This is why we have inflation. The data proves high wages have never caused inflation or job loss. It is a fiction preached by the shepherds to their flock of sheep. They parrot this lie instinctively while the data proves it is all lies.


----------



## Mathbud1

KissMy said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is happening in part because tax payers subsidize their workers & their business. This is why we have inflation. The data proves high wages have never caused inflation or job loss. It is a fiction preached by the shepherds to their flock of sheep. They parrot this lie instinctively while the data proves it is all lies.
Click to expand...


You admitted yourself that both automating jobs away and shipping jobs overseas are primarily motivated by the cost of labor. That is high wages costing jobs. Yes or no?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## sameech

Againsheila said:


>



What difference does this information make?  Whether a CEO makes twice as much or two thousand times as much as I do has no relevance to whether or not my income is sufficient by my measure.  Likewise, if we were to lower CEO pay, it would just increase stock dividends which would still end up more in the hands of the wealthy than in the pocket of the guy flipping the burgers.


----------



## sameech

Just for fun, I looked at the 100 richest CEO list.  In 2012, JP Morgan's CEO got $18,717,013 in total compensation (100 Highest Paid CEOs).  JP Morgan has 222,316 employees whose average income is $56K (Number of J.P.Morgan Employees | Number Of | How Many).

If the CEO made zero money that he otherwise steals from his workers and gave all that equally to his employees, they would each be able to live like kings on the $84.10 per year pay raise they would receive.  Yep, that $7.02 cents a month would make all the difference between those median household income level workers living or dying.


----------



## CitizenSeven

Nothing is monetarily worth anything save what someone is willing to pay.  Similarly, no job is worth anything save what someone is willing to pay.  The aggregate average for all such bilateral transactions is called "the market rate".  It is arrived at via many freely chosen agreements between two parties.

 That's why walmart workers and fast food workers make so little:  literally anyone could do those jobs, so the labor pool is very competitive and hence little leverage in bargaining.  If someone wants a "living wage", they need to earn it by developing more sought after skills and not coast in jobs more suitable for teenagers earning beer and gas money.


----------



## Ernie S.

sameech said:


> Just for fun, I looked at the 100 richest CEO list.  In 2012, JP Morgan's CEO got $18,717,013 in total compensation (100 Highest Paid CEOs).  JP Morgan has 222,316 employees whose average income is $56K (Number of J.P.Morgan Employees | Number Of | How Many).
> 
> If the CEO made zero money that he otherwise steals from his workers and gave all that equally to his employees, they would each be able to live like kings on the $84.10 per year pay raise they would receive.  Yep, that $7.02 cents a month would make all the difference between those median household income level workers living or dying.



Walmart CEO makes $35 million. Walmart has 2 million employees. That would amount to $17.50/employee.


----------



## KissMy

sameech said:


> Just for fun, I looked at the 100 richest CEO list.  In 2012, JP Morgan's CEO got $18,717,013 in total compensation (100 Highest Paid CEOs).  JP Morgan has 222,316 employees whose average income is $56K (Number of J.P.Morgan Employees | Number Of | How Many).
> 
> If the CEO made zero money that he otherwise steals from his workers and gave all that equally to his employees, they would each be able to live like kings on the $84.10 per year pay raise they would receive.  Yep, that $7.02 cents a month would make all the difference between those median household income level workers living or dying.



JPM makes about $30 billion in profits. That is $135k per employee above their current pay.


----------



## BobPlumb

KissMy said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just for fun, I looked at the 100 richest CEO list.  In 2012, JP Morgan's CEO got $18,717,013 in total compensation (100 Highest Paid CEOs).  JP Morgan has 222,316 employees whose average income is $56K (Number of J.P.Morgan Employees | Number Of | How Many).
> 
> If the CEO made zero money that he otherwise steals from his workers and gave all that equally to his employees, they would each be able to live like kings on the $84.10 per year pay raise they would receive.  Yep, that $7.02 cents a month would make all the difference between those median household income level workers living or dying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JPM makes about $30 billion in profits. That is $135k per employee above their current pay.
Click to expand...


And how many thousands/millions of shareholders get a chuck of that 30 billion in profits.  Or do the owners of JPM have any claim on the profits that they want the company to maximize?


----------



## alan1

sameech said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, they are restaurants.  In practice, they are a vending machine.
> I'd never ask a date to go to a restaurant with me, then take her to fast food such as a McDonalds.  That would be like asking a date to the movies then whipping out my cellphone and streaming a movie on it.  Technically, I still showed her a movie.  But it is still just as lame as calling McDonalds a restaurant.
> The bonus is, nobody was paid an "unfair" wage for my phone streaming movie.  Unlike the person trying to sell me over priced popcorn at the movie theater.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is your cellphone manufactured either in the US or by people making more than $7.25 an hour overseas?
Click to expand...


I don't care.
I bought the phone because I like it.  The origin and the salary of the people making it matter not to me.  It does what I want it to do at a price that I am willing to pay.
It's not that much different from the ethnographic articles that I collect.  I buy what I like when I think it is a fair price.  For example, the Masai shield I have hanging on my wall was made by some tribal warrior that didn't get paid shit for making the shield.  He made it to protect his ass from arrows coming from some other tribe that was trying to kill him.  It's well over a hundred years old.  I acquired it because I like it, not because I need a shield.  I don't need a cellphone either, but I like having one.

Do you take your date to McDonalds and tell her it is a restaurant outing?  Do you call viewing movies on a device 'going to the movies'?
I answered your questions, will you answer mine?


----------



## alan1

Againsheila said:


>



If it bothers you so much, feel free to become a CEO.  Pay your employees more and pay yourself less.  Nobody is stopping you.


----------



## GHook93

I seriously have no idea how some one makes it on $15 an hour! I guarantee once they get $15 per hour, they will say I can't make it we need $20!!!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## sameech

alan1 said:


> I don't care.
> I bought the phone because I like it.  The origin and the salary of the people making it matter not to me.  It does what I want it to do at a price that I am willing to pay.
> It's not that much different from the ethnographic articles that I collect.  I buy what I like when I think it is a fair price.  For example, the Masai shield I have hanging on my wall was made by some tribal warrior that didn't get paid shit for making the shield.  He made it to protect his ass from arrows coming from some other tribe that was trying to kill him.  It's well over a hundred years old.  I acquired it because I like it, not because I need a shield.  I don't need a cellphone either, but I like having one.
> 
> Do you take your date to McDonalds and tell her it is a restaurant outing?  Do you call viewing movies on a device 'going to the movies'?
> I answered your questions, will you answer mine?



I will take my dates wherever they want to go and sure, i throw them my cellphone and a bag of microwave popcorn and call it going to the theater


----------



## sameech

KissMy said:


> JPM makes about $30 billion in profits. That is $135k per employee above their current pay.



Well if we want to compare the incomes of people who have rights to revenue to those who don't even buy stock, why not talk about the Obamas income in relation to a homeless person now that the "CEO's steal from the workers" meme is failing?


----------



## KissMy

GHook93 said:


> I seriously have no idea how some one makes it on $15 an hour! I guarantee once they get $15 per hour, they will say I can't make it we need $20!!!



They are all on the Government Dole eating my earnings taxes by causing higher inflation & taxes.

Why must I continue to pay for another companies workers when I already pay my own workers & I do not shop their store. Government is forcing me to subsidize my competition. They need to force them to pay their own way & get out of my pockets. They are causing inflation.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

KissMy said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just for fun, I looked at the 100 richest CEO list.  In 2012, JP Morgan's CEO got $18,717,013 in total compensation (100 Highest Paid CEOs).  JP Morgan has 222,316 employees whose average income is $56K (Number of J.P.Morgan Employees | Number Of | How Many).
> 
> If the CEO made zero money that he otherwise steals from his workers and gave all that equally to his employees, they would each be able to live like kings on the $84.10 per year pay raise they would receive.  Yep, that $7.02 cents a month would make all the difference between those median household income level workers living or dying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JPM makes about $30 billion in profits. That is $135k per employee above their current pay.
Click to expand...


  What about the stock holders? The cost of overhead? It appears that you want to just distribute all profits among the employees.


----------



## KissMy

HereWeGoAgain said:


> What about the stock holders? The cost of overhead? It appears that you want to just distribute all profits among the employees.



The cost of overhead?

LOL - You don't even understand that profit is after all cost overhead has been paid. 

 You are not even smart enough to discuss complex issues like subsidies.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

KissMy said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the stock holders? The cost of overhead? It appears that you want to just distribute all profits among the employees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of overhead?
> 
> LOL - You don't even understand that profit is after all cost overhead has been paid.
> 
> You are not even smart enough to discuss complex issues like subsidies.
Click to expand...


  So where is this money? In the CEO's mattress?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

KissMy said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the stock holders? The cost of overhead? It appears that you want to just distribute all profits among the employees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of overhead?
> 
> LOL - You don't even understand that profit is after all cost overhead has been paid.
> 
> You are not even smart enough to discuss complex issues like subsidies.
Click to expand...


 And it appears you're lying....
JPMorgan Gross Profit vs Profit Margin


----------



## Crystalclear

HereWeGoAgain said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the stock holders? The cost of overhead? It appears that you want to just distribute all profits among the employees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of overhead?
> 
> LOL - You don't even understand that profit is after all cost overhead has been paid.
> 
> You are not even smart enough to discuss complex issues like subsidies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it appears you're lying....
> JPMorgan Gross Profit vs Profit Margin
Click to expand...

Gross profit is before the overhead costs have been paid. The real profit is what remains after all the costs have been paid (including wages of the employees). The profit is is distributed to the shareholders and some profit is retained in the company for future investments.


----------



## KissMy

HereWeGoAgain said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the stock holders? The cost of overhead? It appears that you want to just distribute all profits among the employees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of overhead?
> 
> LOL - You don't even understand that profit is after all cost overhead has been paid.
> 
> You are not even smart enough to discuss complex issues like subsidies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it appears you're lying....
> JPMorgan Gross Profit vs Profit Margin
Click to expand...


 JPMorgan Gross Profit was $96,381,000,000


----------



## priceless

Unfortunately, I think food stamps and other non-monetary compensation protects low-wage workers from predatory lending.  Because these people often feel they have so little to lose, they are more eager to enter into exploitative loans thinking that surviving today is more important than whatever consequences may be levied against them in the future.  

If predatory lending could somehow be prohibited, wages would automatically go up because there would be less desperate competition for jobs at low wage levels.  Black market activity is almost impossible to control, though, so there are always going to be people who lend their 'friends' money derived from whatever source, licit or illicit, and then torture and/or enslave them to get it back with interest, even if it's just by pushing them to get more hours at Walmart or a 2nd (or 3rd) job.


----------



## Againsheila

GHook93 said:


> I seriously have no idea how some one makes it on $15 an hour! I guarantee once they get $15 per hour, they will say I can't make it we need $20!!!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com



Truth is, if mw had kept up with inflation, it would be over $16.00 an hour by now.


----------



## Amelia

Againsheila said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously have no idea how some one makes it on $15 an hour! I guarantee once they get $15 per hour, they will say I can't make it we need $20!!!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truth is, if mw had kept up with inflation, it would be over $16.00 an hour by now.
Click to expand...



Using which year as the benchmark?


----------



## Amelia

That was question 1.

Question 2 is what would inflation be if the minimum wage kept up with inflation?  Wouldn't raising the minimum wage increase inflation?  Would there be anything resembling an equilibrium state?


----------



## sameech

priceless said:


> Unfortunately, I think food stamps and other non-monetary compensation protects low-wage workers from predatory lending.  Because these people often feel they have so little to lose, they are more eager to enter into exploitative loans thinking that surviving today is more important than whatever consequences may be levied against them in the future.
> 
> If predatory lending could somehow be prohibited, wages would automatically go up because there would be less desperate competition for jobs at low wage levels.  Black market activity is almost impossible to control, though, so there are always going to be people who lend their 'friends' money derived from whatever source, licit or illicit, and then torture and/or enslave them to get it back with interest, even if it's just by pushing them to get more hours at Walmart or a 2nd (or 3rd) job.



Predatory lending could be outlawed, but there is also the other side of this coin.  It isn't just that poor people agree because they have little to lose, but lenders will not lend to them at normal rates because they have EVERYTHING to lose in the deal.  The old saying "You can't get blood out of a turnip" comes to mind.

Good post though.

--Sam


----------



## Againsheila

Amelia said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously have no idea how some one makes it on $15 an hour! I guarantee once they get $15 per hour, they will say I can't make it we need $20!!!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truth is, if mw had kept up with inflation, it would be over $16.00 an hour by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Using which year as the benchmark?
Click to expand...


The year it started.  When it could support a family of three above poverty.


----------



## Againsheila

Amelia said:


> That was question 1.
> 
> Question 2 is what would inflation be if the minimum wage kept up with inflation?  Wouldn't raising the minimum wage increase inflation?  Would there be anything resembling an equilibrium state?



In Washington State, our minimum wage has been indexed to inflation for years.  Haven't noticed that we have more inflation than California, in fact, we have less.


----------



## priceless

sameech said:


> Predatory lending could be outlawed, but there is also the other side of this coin.  It isn't just that poor people agree because they have little to lose, but lenders will not lend to them at normal rates because they have EVERYTHING to lose in the deal.  The old saying "You can't get blood out of a turnip" comes to mind.


Are you assuming that there's no way to survive without borrowing in some way or other?  I guess I'm enough of a believer in the relative value of money and ability for the economy to meet people halfway that I think if people would avoid borrowing money altogether, they could make due and survive in one way or another until prices came down to levels they could afford.  

They might have to live in tents or igloos and wear 2nd hand clothing, etc. but eventually businesses would compete to provide them goods and services at prices they could afford at their income level.  

I think you're right, though, that predatory lenders profit from being able to whitewash and/or regularize their sources of income enough to take advantage of 'normal rates' and thereby profit from lending to others at higher rates.


----------



## sameech

priceless said:


> Are you assuming that there's no way to survive without borrowing in some way or other?  I guess I'm enough of a believer in the relative value of money and ability for the economy to meet people halfway that I think if people would avoid borrowing money altogether, they could make due and survive in one way or another until prices came down to levels they could afford.
> 
> They might have to live in tents or igloos and wear 2nd hand clothing, etc. but eventually businesses would compete to provide them goods and services at prices they could afford at their income level.
> 
> I think you're right, though, that predatory lenders profit from being able to whitewash and/or regularize their sources of income enough to take advantage of 'normal rates' and thereby profit from lending to others at higher rates.



I am assuming that if someone's car breaks down and they need it to get to work and do not have the money for the repairs, they might borrow it as they do not have time for the market to catch up to them.


----------



## depotoo

Againsheila said:


> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.


Have you ever once thought of the money Walmart saves us tax payors by giving the unskilled worker a chance to work, rather than their remaining unemployed??


----------



## dblack

depotoo said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever once thought of the money Walmart saves us tax payors by giving the unskilled worker a chance to work, rather than their remaining unemployed??
Click to expand...


No.


----------



## sameech

Every person I have known to work at Kmart started off at MW, so Walmart is not some horrible offender for starting people off at the bottom, but people do not hate on Kmart.

Walmart's profits are primarily the result of two things:

1)  The people they don't have to hire because of their insanely efficient inventory & deliver network; and
2)  Even beyond the savings they would get in buying in huge bulk, they exert pressure on suppliers to provide goods at or near production costs.

If they are suppressing wages, it is in the supplier chain and not their stores.  Someone who works for such a supplier told me that their employer probably lost money on most shipments to Walmart, but they were afraid that not being on the shelves there could damage their brand in that if people couldn't get it at walmart, they might also not buy it at Kroger or wherever.


----------



## HenryBHough

I regularly comparison shop Kroger and Walmart.  Many items I regularly buy may be in or out of stock at Walmart.  Too often out.  Price is a crap shoot; about an even split as to who has the best price on any given item; often the difference is in pennies.

Kroger is cutting their own throats by cutting back on staffing.  In the local store policy allows only two (2, libs) cashiers from opening until 11am Saturdays.  Front-end manager often runs a register himself to keep customers from abandoning full baskets and leaving when lines are too long.

Walmart is doing the same thing - cutting back on cashiers and pushing the robotic checkouts.  They seem surprised when customers get half way through a self-checkout, give up in frustration and leave.  Only fully functional grocery in the area is Safeway - excellent service and short lines if you can afford the prices.  If you put any value on your time sometimes their high prices represent the best value.


----------



## beagle9

depotoo said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever once thought of the money Walmart saves us tax payors by giving the unskilled worker a chance to work, rather than their remaining unemployed??
Click to expand...

What ever happened to the mutual respect between company and worker when it came to businesses and their employee's, where as one needs the other just as bad as the other needs the one ? This idea of people being blackmailed or leveraged as the talk always goes anymore is out right disgusting to say the least. I remember when I was 16 years old, my uncle ask me to come down and apply for a job at the Volkswagen dealership. I went into the interview, and the one doing the hiring treated me like I was somebody. He ask me did I have my own tools, and I said I do have some, and he said to me that he would give me a chance, and he hired me based on that interview. Then he told me how the structure of the pay system worked there, where as I would be hired at minimum wage, and after 3 months I would be re-evaluated for another raise. He told me after 6 months I could get health insurance with the company and on and on after that. I was considered as part time until 18, but I was still treated like I was a man who was respected as a man, even though I wasn't quite the man I could be just yet. I then started out washing all the used and new cars there, and started keeping the lot up. I would train with my uncle 2 days out the week (all this was after school) on the mechanical side of the situation.

What happened to these concepts in America ?


----------



## priceless

sameech said:


> I am assuming that if someone's car breaks down and they need it to get to work and do not have the money for the repairs, they might borrow it as they do not have time for the market to catch up to them.


I think this is the essence of why the supply side has the upper hand and thus why inflation is so often the norm.  Theoretically there is a point where it is more rational to cut losses and stop borrowing by cutting expenditures but as long as money is available to borrow, there are going to be people who go ahead and borrow it instead of restructuring their spending.  

Then, as you suggest, they just persist in economic patterns they've gotten used to and assume that all the expenditures required for maintaining those patterns are inevitable.  It's the "status quo or bust" approach but the question is at what point borrowing is no longer a sufficient means of maintaining the status quo indefinitely.  At what point does restructuring become inevitable?  

Or can the "too big to fail" economy continue indefinitely underwriting a vast persisting network of lending and bailouts when borrowed money fails to get repaid?


----------



## sameech

priceless said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am assuming that if someone's car breaks down and they need it to get to work and do not have the money for the repairs, they might borrow it as they do not have time for the market to catch up to them.
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is the essence of why the supply side has the upper hand and thus why inflation is so often the norm.  Theoretically there is a point where it is more rational to cut losses and stop borrowing by cutting expenditures but as long as money is available to borrow, there are going to be people who go ahead and borrow it instead of restructuring their spending.
> 
> Then, as you suggest, they just persist in economic patterns they've gotten used to and assume that all the expenditures required for maintaining those patterns are inevitable.  It's the "status quo or bust" approach but the question is at what point borrowing is no longer a sufficient means of maintaining the status quo indefinitely.  At what point does restructuring become inevitable?
> 
> Or can the "too big to fail" economy continue indefinitely underwriting a vast persisting network of lending and bailouts when borrowed money fails to get repaid?
Click to expand...


What happens is we end up with inflation due to too much money being in circulation.  Personally, I am surprised it has not happened yet since the vast amount of money is now electronic.  Probably the only reason it hasn't happened is that the capital markets are holding onto it.  We have selective run away inflation on real estate, stocks, and college tuition.  I am not sure if that is good or bad that the inflation is being contained to certain sectors.


----------



## Uncensored2008

KissMy said:


> This is happening in part because tax payers subsidize their workers & their business. This is why we have inflation. The data proves high wages have never caused inflation or job loss. It is a fiction preached by the shepherds to their flock of sheep. They parrot this lie instinctively while the data proves it is all lies.



You've never had even an introduction to economics class.

Did you make it into high school?

{CBO examined the budget impacts of raising the minimum wage to $9 and $10.10. The report concluded that a $9 increase would lift 300,000 workers above the poverty line, but cost 100,000 new jobs as employers are expected to reduce workforces to make up for higher wages. A $10.10 increase would lift 900,000 workers above the poverty line, but cost 500,000 jobs.}

CBO report: Minimum wage hike could cost 500,000 jobs







The Minimum Wage Delusion, And The Death Of Common Sense - Forbes



What is Minimum Wage: Its History and Effects on the Economy


----------



## Uncensored2008

KissMy said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of overhead?
> 
> LOL - You don't even understand that profit is after all cost overhead has been paid.
> 
> You are not even smart enough to discuss complex issues like subsidies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it appears you're lying....
> JPMorgan Gross Profit vs Profit Margin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> JPMorgan Gross Profit was $96,381,000,000
Click to expand...


So, it appears that it was you who didn't grasp the concept of overhead.

Shall I hold my breath while I wait for you to apologize to Herwegoagain?


----------



## Uncensored2008

sameech said:


> What happens is we end up with inflation due to too much money being in circulation.  Personally, I am surprised it has not happened yet since the vast amount of money is now electronic.  Probably the only reason it hasn't happened is that the capital markets are holding onto it.  We have selective run away inflation on real estate, stocks, and college tuition.  I am not sure if that is good or bad that the inflation is being contained to certain sectors.



Actually, inflation has hit pretty hard. If you look at food prices, you'll find about a 20% annual increase since 2008.

The blow of this has been softened by the decrease in the costs of electronics and many manufactured goods. A combination of offshore production, automation, and increased efficiency offers lower costs - thus prices, for the array of foreign produced goods. Cars and TV's cost a fraction of what they used to cost. The result is a CPI that appears to show only moderate inflation. Domestic inflation is actually at the 20% range, and rising. A steak cost double what it did 5 years ago, so does a domestically grown tomato. But even in produce, the reaction to sky rocketing domestic prices has been to carry Mexican and Chilean produce.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Uncensored2008 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it appears you're lying....
> JPMorgan Gross Profit vs Profit Margin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JPMorgan Gross Profit was $96,381,000,000
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, it appears that it was you who didn't grasp the concept of overhead.
> 
> Shall I hold my breath while I wait for you to apologize to Herwegoagain?
Click to expand...


  I wouldnt......


----------



## Againsheila

Uncensored2008 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is happening in part because tax payers subsidize their workers & their business. This is why we have inflation. The data proves high wages have never caused inflation or job loss. It is a fiction preached by the shepherds to their flock of sheep. They parrot this lie instinctively while the data proves it is all lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've never had even an introduction to economics class.
> 
> Did you make it into high school?
> 
> {CBO examined the budget impacts of raising the minimum wage to $9 and $10.10. The report concluded that a $9 increase would lift 300,000 workers above the poverty line, but cost 100,000 new jobs as employers are expected to reduce workforces to make up for higher wages. A $10.10 increase would lift 900,000 workers above the poverty line, but cost 500,000 jobs.}
> 
> CBO report: Minimum wage hike could cost 500,000 jobs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Minimum Wage Delusion, And The Death Of Common Sense - Forbes
> 
> 
> 
> What is Minimum Wage: Its History and Effects on the Economy
Click to expand...


And yet, the last several times the minimum wage was raised, there was no net loss of jobs.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Againsheila said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is happening in part because tax payers subsidize their workers & their business. This is why we have inflation. The data proves high wages have never caused inflation or job loss. It is a fiction preached by the shepherds to their flock of sheep. They parrot this lie instinctively while the data proves it is all lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've never had even an introduction to economics class.
> 
> Did you make it into high school?
> 
> {CBO examined the budget impacts of raising the minimum wage to $9 and $10.10. The report concluded that a $9 increase would lift 300,000 workers above the poverty line, but cost 100,000 new jobs as employers are expected to reduce workforces to make up for higher wages. A $10.10 increase would lift 900,000 workers above the poverty line, but cost 500,000 jobs.}
> 
> CBO report: Minimum wage hike could cost 500,000 jobs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Minimum Wage Delusion, And The Death Of Common Sense - Forbes
> 
> 
> 
> What is Minimum Wage: Its History and Effects on the Economy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet, the last several times the minimum wage was raised, there was no net loss of jobs.
Click to expand...


Link?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Againsheila said:


> And yet, the last several times the minimum wage was raised, there was no net loss of jobs.



False,

About 500,000 low wage jobs were lost under Clinton, short term.  After 2 years, it declined to about 100,000 jobs lost.

President Clinton: Raising the Minimum Wage -- An Overdue Pay Raise for Americas Working Families

The biggest issue was the demographic shift, about 1 million American's under 25 lost employment due to the rate increase, to be replaced by illegal aliens. Ultimately, the jobs needed to be done, but who did them changed dramatically. Black teens were virtually removed from the job market.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Uncensored2008 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, the last several times the minimum wage was raised, there was no net loss of jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False,
> 
> About 500,000 low wage jobs were lost under Clinton, short term.  After 2 years, it declined to about 100,000 jobs lost.
> 
> President Clinton: Raising the Minimum Wage -- An Overdue Pay Raise for Americas Working Families
> 
> The biggest issue was the demographic shift, about 1 million American's under 25 lost employment due to the rate increase, to be replaced by illegal aliens. Ultimately, the jobs needed to be done, but who did them changed dramatically. Black teens were virtually removed from the job market.
Click to expand...


  Yep..I remember the days when you drove past a construction sight and it was whites and blacks working them. Now it's nothing but mexicans. Yet liberals cant seem to put two and two together.
   Yeah...lets bring in more immigrants,that'll help..


----------



## GHook93

sameech said:


> Every person I have known to work at Kmart started off at MW, so Walmart is not some horrible offender for starting people off at the bottom, but people do not hate on Kmart.
> 
> Walmart's profits are primarily the result of two things:
> 
> 1)  The people they don't have to hire because of their insanely efficient inventory & deliver network; and
> 2)  Even beyond the savings they would get in buying in huge bulk, they exert pressure on suppliers to provide goods at or near production costs.
> 
> If they are suppressing wages, it is in the supplier chain and not their stores.  Someone who works for such a supplier told me that their employer probably lost money on most shipments to Walmart, but they were afraid that not being on the shelves there could damage their brand in that if people couldn't get it at walmart, they might also not buy it at Kroger or wherever.



Target, Home Depot, Menards and all the other groceries do the same. Walmart is the largest and most profitable, therefore they are the face of the industry.


----------



## sameech

GHook93 said:


> Target, Home Depot, Menards and all the other groceries do the same. Walmart is the largest and most profitable, therefore they are the face of the industry.



They may be the face of the industry, but they get the lion's share of the blame when they are not the only Kitty Kat.  They are the ones that get protested and boycotted and the like.  The only difference between them and the others is in their profits, not in their labor practices.


----------



## alan1

GHook93 said:


> I seriously have no idea how some one makes it on $15 an hour! I guarantee once they get $15 per hour, they will say I can't make it we need $20!!!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com



Although my gross income is way more than $15 per hour these days, I manage to live on just about that much when it comes to my needs... housing, clothing, food, utilities, transportation, etc.  $15 an hour is $31,200 annual income.  Granted, I am a single person these days and I bought my house 20 years ago so my mortgage is small.
I did live off of less than $15 per hour (as a single parent) for much of the time my children were growing up, but that would be 10 years ago and more.
I certainly spend more than that, but that is because I like to take my daughters and their boyfriends out for dinner, I like to buy ethnographic artifacts and I like to travel a few times a year.  Those are all discretionary things that I don't have to pay for, I just choose to.
If the shit really hit the fan and I was forced to return to a wage of $15 an hour or less, I could make ends meet, but I'd probably pick up a second job.  It wouldn't be the first time I worked 50 to 60 hours a week, but this time I wouldn't have to worry about covering daycare for young children.


----------



## beagle9

alan1 said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously have no idea how some one makes it on $15 an hour! I guarantee once they get $15 per hour, they will say I can't make it we need $20!!!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although my gross income is way more than $15 per hour these days, I manage to live on just about that much when it comes to my needs... housing, clothing, food, utilities, transportation, etc.  $15 an hour is $31,200 annual income.  Granted, I am a single person these days and I bought my house 20 years ago so my mortgage is small.
> I did live off of less than $15 per hour (as a single parent) for much of the time my children were growing up, but that would be 10 years ago and more.
> I certainly spend more than that, but that is because I like to take my daughters and their boyfriends out for dinner, I like to buy ethnographic artifacts and I like to travel a few times a year.  Those are all discretionary things that I don't have to pay for, I just choose to.
> If the shit really hit the fan and I was forced to return to a wage of $15 an hour or less, I could make ends meet, but I'd probably pick up a second job.  It wouldn't be the first time I worked 50 to 60 hours a week, but this time I wouldn't have to worry about covering daycare for young children.
Click to expand...

No, instead you would just have to worry that you are now to old to work two job's, but here you are considering it instead of saying hmmmm lets fix this better for the next generation, and also fix it for all us old folks in which should be included in the fix as well.


----------



## SAYIT

beagle9 said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously have no idea how some one makes it on $15 an hour! I guarantee once they get $15 per hour, they will say I can't make it we need $20!!!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although my gross income is way more than $15 per hour these days, I manage to live on just about that much when it comes to my needs... housing, clothing, food, utilities, transportation, etc.  $15 an hour is $31,200 annual income.  Granted, I am a single person these days and I bought my house 20 years ago so my mortgage is small.
> I did live off of less than $15 per hour (as a single parent) for much of the time my children were growing up, but that would be 10 years ago and more.
> I certainly spend more than that, but that is because I like to take my daughters and their boyfriends out for dinner, I like to buy ethnographic artifacts and I like to travel a few times a year.  Those are all discretionary things that I don't have to pay for, I just choose to.
> If the shit really hit the fan and I was forced to return to a wage of $15 an hour or less, I could make ends meet, but I'd probably pick up a second job.  It wouldn't be the first time I worked 50 to 60 hours a week, but this time I wouldn't have to worry about covering daycare for young children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, instead you would just have to worry that you are now to old to work two job's, but here you are considering it instead of saying hmmmm lets fix this better for the next generation, and also fix it for all us old folks in which should be included in the fix as well.
Click to expand...


Did you intentionally ignore Alan's point? He said that he could, if need be, still make it on $15/hr but would likely add a 2nd job. The point being these are choices. We all have to make them and live with the benefits & consequences ... even those who choose to live on a min wage job. If one wants or needs more than those entry level jobs offer as pay, get a better job. No one should be forced to be responsible for the happiness or satisfaction or maintenance of anyone else other than immediate family nor should companies be forced by gov't to pay more than the value of their employees labor.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Defiant1 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has someone figured out the magic formula to define a "living" wage?
> 
> Or should each employee be paid according to how much money they need to "live?"
Click to expand...


I cannot say the formula is "magic" but there is an income below which is defined as being in "poverty" and thus that income is called "the poverty line".


----------



## SAYIT

Zombie_Pundit said:


> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has someone figured out the magic formula to define a "living" wage?
> 
> Or should each employee be paid according to how much money they need to "live?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cannot say the formula is "magic" but there is an income below which is defined as being in "poverty" and thus that income is called "the poverty line".
Click to expand...


A living wage is clearly in the eye of the beholder and is a specious term used here to make some feel superior about his concern for humanity. It has no single meaning economically and virtually all of us have concern for humanity.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

SAYIT said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has someone figured out the magic formula to define a "living" wage?
> 
> Or should each employee be paid according to how much money they need to "live?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot say the formula is "magic" but there is an income below which is defined as being in "poverty" and thus that income is called "the poverty line".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A living wage is clearly in the eye of the beholder and is a specious term used here to make some feel superior about his concern for humanity. It has no single meaning economically and virtually all of us have concern for humanity.
Click to expand...


No doubt we do all have concern for humanity.  

There are 2080 working hours in a year for a fulltime employee.
To be below the poverty line of $11,490 requires a wage lower than $5.52/hr.
Would you agree or disagree that it is in the nation's interest to keep fulltime employees above the poverty line?


----------



## SAYIT

Zombie_Pundit said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot say the formula is "magic" but there is an income below which is defined as being in "poverty" and thus that income is called "the poverty line".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A living wage is clearly in the eye of the beholder and is a specious term used here to make some feel superior about his concern for humanity. It has no single meaning economically and virtually all of us have concern for humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No doubt we do all have concern for humanity.
> 
> There are 2080 working hours in a year for a fulltime employee.
> To be below the poverty line of $11,490 requires a wage lower than $5.52/hr.
> Would you agree or disagree that it is in the nation's interest to keep fulltime employees above the poverty line?
Click to expand...


Min wage jobs are intended as entry level and supplementary jobs. They are not intended to provide a living wage (whatever that is).  Many min wagers also get tips. If one wants to earn more one must get a job that pays more. Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million - of America's 150mil total workers - earn exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.

https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNErLKro_JJXvobGlxMM0vGmsCvA3Q


----------



## beagle9

SAYIT said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although my gross income is way more than $15 per hour these days, I manage to live on just about that much when it comes to my needs... housing, clothing, food, utilities, transportation, etc.  $15 an hour is $31,200 annual income.  Granted, I am a single person these days and I bought my house 20 years ago so my mortgage is small.
> I did live off of less than $15 per hour (as a single parent) for much of the time my children were growing up, but that would be 10 years ago and more.
> I certainly spend more than that, but that is because I like to take my daughters and their boyfriends out for dinner, I like to buy ethnographic artifacts and I like to travel a few times a year.  Those are all discretionary things that I don't have to pay for, I just choose to.
> If the shit really hit the fan and I was forced to return to a wage of $15 an hour or less, I could make ends meet, but I'd probably pick up a second job.  It wouldn't be the first time I worked 50 to 60 hours a week, but this time I wouldn't have to worry about covering daycare for young children.
> 
> 
> 
> No, instead you would just have to worry that you are now to old to work two job's, but here you are considering it instead of saying hmmmm lets fix this better for the next generation, and also fix it for all us old folks in which should be included in the fix as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you intentionally ignore Alan's point? He said that he could, if need be, still make it on $15/hr but would likely add a 2nd job. The point being these are choices. We all have to make them and live with the benefits & consequences ... even those who choose to live on a min wage job. If one wants or needs more than those entry level jobs offer as pay, get a better job. No one should be forced to be responsible for the happiness or satisfaction or maintenance of anyone else other than immediate family nor should companies be forced by gov't to pay more than the value of their employees labor.
Click to expand...

I bet the plantation owners of the old south had the same opinion that you have, to otherwise just be responsible only for their immediate family, and to hec with everybody else eh ? I mean that is what your post sounded like when I read it.. If you would go back and read my post, then you will see where I am coming in from on this stuff. Do you think it right that a man or woman like Alan should have to get another job to go along with the one he or she already works hard enough at now, and do it just to make ends meet these days ? I'd say something is very wrong when you see a lot of this going on now a days don't you, but funny how the business owners these days don't see it eh? Everyone see's it, but you have a powerful clique who are distracting and deflecting like mad now, and they are doing this because they figure their chickens are possibly about to come home to roost finally in it all. They eased us all into this situation, now lets see if they can do the right thing to get us out of it or will they bail with their golden Para shoots somehow along the way ? I am against a hike of above $8.50 or 9.00 dollars an hour minimum wage right now, and I am for the minimum wage meaning minimum, and it being always a temporary wage for say 6 months after hire, where as then it is to be re-evaluated again afterwards for a raise to follow. At this point the employee is to be placed into a structural pay grade system that the company should already have set up beyond the evaluation period or the training period until leaves there.


----------



## beagle9

SAYIT said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> A living wage is clearly in the eye of the beholder and is a specious term used here to make some feel superior about his concern for humanity. It has no single meaning economically and virtually all of us have concern for humanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt we do all have concern for humanity.
> 
> There are 2080 working hours in a year for a fulltime employee.
> To be below the poverty line of $11,490 requires a wage lower than $5.52/hr.
> Would you agree or disagree that it is in the nation's interest to keep fulltime employees above the poverty line?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Min wage jobs are intended as entry level and supplementary jobs. They are not intended to provide a living wage (whatever that is).  Many min wagers also get tips. If one wants to earn more *one must get a job that pays more*. Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million - of America's 150mil total workers - earn exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
Click to expand...


What's wrong with a company paying more as the employee progresses and learns ? Get another job eh ?  I always thought that companies with high turn over rates was a bad things, so if people are to just go and get another job, then how are we to ever get the service we deserve as customers ?


----------



## SAYIT

beagle9 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, instead you would just have to worry that you are now to old to work two job's, but here you are considering it instead of saying hmmmm lets fix this better for the next generation, and also fix it for all us old folks in which should be included in the fix as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you intentionally ignore Alan's point? He said that he could, if need be, still make it on $15/hr but would likely add a 2nd job. The point being these are choices. We all have to make them and live with the benefits & consequences ... even those who choose to live on a min wage job. If one wants or needs more than those entry level jobs offer as pay, get a better job. No one should be forced to be responsible for the happiness or satisfaction or maintenance of anyone else other than immediate family nor should companies be forced by gov't to pay more than the value of their employees labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I bet the plantation owners of the old south had the same opinion that you have, to otherwise just be responsible only for their immediate family, and to hec with everybody else eh ? I mean that is what your post sounded like when I read it.. If you would go back and read my post, then you will see where I am coming in from on this stuff. Do you think it right that a man or woman like Alan should have to get another job to go along with the one he or she already works hard enough at now, and do it just to make ends meet these days ? I'd say something is very wrong when you see a lot of this going on now a days don't you, but funny how the business owners these days don't see it eh? Everyone see's it, but you have a powerful clique who are distracting and deflecting like mad now, and they are doing this because they figure their chickens are possibly about to come home to roost finally in it all. They eased us all into this situation, now lets see if they can do the right thing to get us out of it or will they bail with their golden Para shoots somehow along the way ? I am against a hike of above $8.50 or 9.00 dollars an hour minimum wage right now, and I am for the minimum wage meaning minimum, and it being always a temporary wage for say 6 months after hire, where as then it is to be re-evaluated again afterwards for a raise to follow. At this point the employee is to be placed into a structural pay grade system that the company should already have set up beyond the evaluation period or the training period until leaves there.
Click to expand...


Your posts read like typical socialist whining.
For those who have $15 skills that is what they should earn and if they want more they can seek a better paying job, get a 2nd job, start their own biz from which they can then pay their employees whatever they deem suitable (at or above min wage) or whine about the unfairness of life on this message board. 
The choices in our economic system (education, training, lifestyle, etc.) are yours and mine and we are relatively free to enjoy the fruit of those choices.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

SAYIT said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt we do all have concern for humanity.
> 
> There are 2080 working hours in a year for a fulltime employee.
> To be below the poverty line of $11,490 requires a wage lower than $5.52/hr.
> Would you agree or disagree that it is in the nation's interest to keep fulltime employees above the poverty line?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Min wage jobs are intended as entry level and supplementary jobs. They are not intended to provide a living wage (whatever that is).  Many min wagers also get tips. If one wants to earn more one must get a job that pays more. Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNErLKro_JJXvobGlxMM0vGmsCvA3Q
Click to expand...


An employer of a tipped employee is only required to pay $2.13.  
http://www.dol.gov/elaws/faq/esa/flsa/002.htm

Let's not throw a number around like $7.25 and imply that person also gets tips.

Let's have a fair discussion.  

It is true that many high school children work in minimum wage jobs, however child labor laws prevent them from working fulltime thus precluding children from the category of fulltime employees.

A supplemental job is, as far as I understand the term, also not fulltime though why a pensioner should be compensated below the poverty line for their labor escapes me.

That leaves us with entry level.  Should an entry level American working fulltime be paid a wage below the poverty line, that being a wage of $5.52/hr, regardless of the supply of  let's say "fungible" entry level Americans?  

I am obviously attempting to establish the necessity of a minimum wage.  If your concern is that high school children have no need to earn a wage above the poverty line, I can understand that.  Child labor laws already create a special category for high school children in their low paying jobs.  Reforming minimum wage to take that fact into consideration is not out of the question.


----------



## SAYIT

beagle9 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt we do all have concern for humanity.
> 
> There are 2080 working hours in a year for a fulltime employee.
> To be below the poverty line of $11,490 requires a wage lower than $5.52/hr.
> Would you agree or disagree that it is in the nation's interest to keep fulltime employees above the poverty line?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Min wage jobs are intended as entry level and supplementary jobs. They are not intended to provide a living wage (whatever that is).  Many min wagers also get tips. If one wants to earn more *one must get a job that pays more*. Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million - of America's 150mil total workers - earn exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's wrong with a company paying more as the employee progresses and learns ? Get another job eh ?  I always thought that companies with high turn over rates was a bad things, so if people are to just go and get another job, then how are we to ever get the service we deserve as customers ?
Click to expand...


What a concept! In fact, the labor market does pay more as workers progress and learn.  If the company does not we are free to find one that does. Turnover issues are not your concern unless you own the company. This is not a socialist economy. It is the company's choice to set their wage scale - other than min wage which is set by law - and if they lose biz because their workers are dissatisfied, that is the company's prob. If you want higher pay, start your own company and set you own pay scale. Simple enough?


----------



## SAYIT

Zombie_Pundit said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt we do all have concern for humanity.
> 
> There are 2080 working hours in a year for a fulltime employee.
> To be below the poverty line of $11,490 requires a wage lower than $5.52/hr.
> Would you agree or disagree that it is in the nation's interest to keep fulltime employees above the poverty line?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Min wage jobs are intended as entry level and supplementary jobs. They are not intended to provide a living wage (whatever that is).  Many min wagers also get tips. If one wants to earn more one must get a job that pays more. Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNErLKro_JJXvobGlxMM0vGmsCvA3Q
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An employer of a tipped employee is only required to pay $2.13.
> Let's not throw a number around like $7.25 and imply that person also gets tips.
> Let's have a fair discussion.
> 
> http://www.dol.gov/elaws/faq/esa/flsa/002.htm
Click to expand...


Not so. Many tip jars benefit min wage earners.
If we are going to have a fair discussion let's try being honest and not toss around numbers like $5.52/hr.


----------



## SAYIT

Zombie_Pundit said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt we do all have concern for humanity.
> 
> There are 2080 working hours in a year for a fulltime employee.
> To be below the poverty line of $11,490 requires a wage lower than $5.52/hr.
> Would you agree or disagree that it is in the nation's interest to keep fulltime employees above the poverty line?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Min wage jobs are intended as entry level and supplementary jobs. They are not intended to provide a living wage (whatever that is).  Many min wagers also get tips. If one wants to earn more one must get a job that pays more. Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNErLKro_JJXvobGlxMM0vGmsCvA3Q
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is true that many high school children work in minimum wage jobs, however child labor laws prevent them from working fulltime thus precluding children from the category of fulltime employees.
> 
> A supplemental job is, as far as I understand the term, also not fulltime though why a pensioner should be compensated below the poverty line for their labor escapes me.
> 
> That leaves us with entry level.  Should an entry level American working fulltime be paid a wage below the poverty line, that being a wage of $5.52/hr, regardless of the supply of  let's say "fungible" entry level Americans?
> 
> I am obviously attempting to establish the necessity of a minimum wage.  If your concern is that high school children have no need to earn a wage above the poverty line, I can understand that.  Child labor laws already create a special category for high school children in their low paying jobs.  Reforming minimum wage to take that fact into consideration is not out of the question.
Click to expand...


So among the 1.6 mil min wagers is a significant number of children who certainly don't require a "living wage" and pensioners who aren't living on their supplemental wages but rather are supplementing other income. Anyone with skills greater than min wagers are free to find a better paying job. Those min wage jobs are entry & exit level jobs and we already have a legal minimum (and it's not $5.52/hr) so you need not establish its necessity.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

SAYIT said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Min wage jobs are intended as entry level and supplementary jobs. They are not intended to provide a living wage (whatever that is).  Many min wagers also get tips. If one wants to earn more one must get a job that pays more. Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNErLKro_JJXvobGlxMM0vGmsCvA3Q
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An employer of a tipped employee is only required to pay $2.13.
> Let's not throw a number around like $7.25 and imply that person also gets tips.
> Let's have a fair discussion.
> 
> http://www.dol.gov/elaws/faq/esa/flsa/002.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not so. Many tip jars benefit min wage earners.
> If we are going to have a fair discussion let's try being honest and not toss around numbers like $5.52/hr.
Click to expand...


I have given you the minimum wage for tip earners and the source.  I cannot change the source.

Let's go over the math again for that $5.52/hr

Fulltime job=40 hrs/week
52 weeks in a year yields 2080 paid manhours per year.

The poverty line as of 2014 in these United States is actually $11,670/year (I reported a lower number from a earlier year in a previous post).
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm
http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CH...wnloads/2014-Federal-Poverty-level-charts.pdf

11670/2080 = $5.61 per hour.

A fulltime employee needs $5.61/hr to stay at the poverty line.  That's just the numbers.

If we're going to talk about numbers, let's lay out the math.


----------



## SAYIT

Zombie_Pundit said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> An employer of a tipped employee is only required to pay $2.13.
> Let's not throw a number around like $7.25 and imply that person also gets tips.
> Let's have a fair discussion.
> 
> http://www.dol.gov/elaws/faq/esa/flsa/002.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so. Many tip jars benefit min wage earners.
> If we are going to have a fair discussion let's try being honest and not toss around numbers like $5.52/hr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have given you the minimum wage for tip earners and the source.  I cannot change the source.
> 
> Let's go over the math again for that $5.52/hr
> 
> Fulltime job=40 hrs/week
> 52 weeks in a year yields 2080 paid manhours per year.
> 
> The poverty line as of 2014 in these United States is actually $11,670/year (I reported a lower number from a earlier year in a previous post).
> http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm
> http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CH...wnloads/2014-Federal-Poverty-level-charts.pdf
> 
> 11670/2080 = $5.61 per hour.
> 
> A fulltime employee needs $5.61/hr to stay at the poverty line.  That's just the numbers.
> 
> If we're going to talk about numbers, let's lay out the math.
Click to expand...


OK, so you aren't really interested in a "fair discussion." Got it. 
Just for shits and giggles, have you ever put a buck (or some change) in a coffee shop or pizza joint tip jar? Those counter peeps are getting min wage (or more) and as to your new math I say the min wage is $7.25. Do you require a link for that?


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

SAYIT said:


> So among the 1.6 mil min wagers are a significant number of children who certainly don't require a "living wage" and pensioners who aren't living on their supplemental wages but rather are supplementing other income. Anyone with skills greater than min wagers are free to find a better paying job. Those min wage jobs are entry & exit level jobs and we already have a legal minimum (and it's not $5.52/hr) so you need not establish its necessity.



I'm glad that we agree on the necessity of a minimum wage.  Now that we have established the necessity based on the poverty line, at what point do social welfare programs kick in?
How little does a person need to earn in order to receive Medicare and Foodstamps?

Foodstamp eligibility begins at $14,940 per annum.  That's a wage of $7.18/hour
Eligibility | Food and Nutrition Service
So now, to keep people off SNAP, we need a minimum wage of $7.18/hr.  Otherwise we taxpayers are supplementing the income of these low wage workers.

There are two ways to look at this:
1) Abolish SNAP.  The SNAP program exists because people cannot buy sufficient food at a fulltime wage lower than $7.18/hr.  We could abolish SNAP and let poor people go hungry.  That's what will happen.  How hungry is hungry?  You might be surprised, as someone who cares about their fellow human beings.
2) Raise the minimum wage to or above $7.18/hr.  We have established the necessity of $5.61/hr.  If we agree to a minimum wage at or above $7.18/hr, a fulltime employee will not qualify for SNAP.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

SAYIT said:


> OK, so you aren't really interested in a "fair discussion." Got it.
> Just for shits and giggles, have you ever put a buck (or some change) in a coffee shop or pizza joint tip jar? Those counter peeps are getting min wage (or more) and as to your new math I say the min wage is $7.25. Do you require a link for that?



I am being fair with you.  I am going through the numbers, step by step.  The numbers are real.  Once you acknowledge that a minimum wage is necessary to keep fulltime employees above the poverty line, then we see how desperate that poverty line really is and that the minimum wage needs to be increased well beyond that.  You'll see it ends up right around that  $7.25 number.  And a link to the federal minimum wage for covered nonexempt employees will not be necessary.


----------



## SAYIT

Zombie_Pundit said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> So among the 1.6 mil min wagers are a significant number of children who certainly don't require a "living wage" and pensioners who aren't living on their supplemental wages but rather are supplementing other income. Anyone with skills greater than min wagers are free to find a better paying job. Those min wage jobs are entry & exit level jobs and we already have a legal minimum (and it's not $5.52/hr) so you need not establish its necessity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad that we agree on the necessity of a minimum wage.  Now that we have established the necessity based on the poverty line, at what point do social welfare programs kick in?
> How little does a person need to earn in order to receive Medicare and Foodstamps?
> 
> Foodstamp eligibility begins at $14,940 per annum.  That's a wage of $7.18/hour
> Eligibility | Food and Nutrition Service
> So now, to keep people off SNAP, we need a minimum wage of $7.18/hr.  Otherwise we taxpayers are supplementing the income of these low wage workers.
> 
> There are two ways to look at this:
> 1) Abolish SNAP.  The SNAP program exists because people cannot buy sufficient food at a fulltime wage lower than $7.18/hr.  We could abolish SNAP and let poor people go hungry.  That's what will happen.  How hungry is hungry?  You might be surprised, as someone who cares about their fellow human beings.
> 2) Raise the minimum wage to or above $7.18/hr.  We have established the necessity of $5.61/hr.  If we agree to a minimum wage at or above $7.18/hr, a fulltime employee will not qualify for SNAP.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry. Where exactly did I mention min wage must be "based on the poverty line?" Putting your words into my mouth isn't my idea of a "fair discussion" and gov't benefits and hunger are other subjects entirely but isn't the $7.25 min wage above your new math $7.18?


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

SAYIT said:


> I'm sorry. Where exactly did I mention min wage must be "based on the poverty line?" Putting your words into my mouth isn't my idea of a "fair discussion" and gov't benefits and hunger are another subject entirely but isn't the $7.25 min wage above your new math $7.18?



You responded to my post about the poverty line being used to determine how much someone needed to live.  You said that we all have a concern for humanity but that we could not know how much anyone needed to live.  I have provided sources and simple arithmetic to arrive at an actual number.  And of course I noticed your disparaging remarks equating the simplest arithmetic to "new math", how clever of you!  I'm sure this singular wit will make for a lively, though fair and clean, discussion!

The basic arithmetic, or "new math" as you call it, isn't over quite yet.  There other basic needs we as taxpayers subsidize for the low wage earners.  You have agreed that a fulltime employee should not be below the poverty line; and your concern for your fellow human being most likely compels you to consider that the basic needs of your fellow human being who works fulltime should be met.  And your reasonableness most certainly enables you to discern a need such as shelter and food, without demanding that a packet of ketchup be considered a serving vegetables.  
Because we are determining a minimum wage on the most basic needs of a fulltime employee, meeting the cost of these basic needs is the cost of labor.

Why should you, as an average taxpayer, subsidize the labor costs of large and profitable businesses?  If you dislike subsidizing the labor costs of these organizations, there are two possible solutions:
1) End the subsidies.  Abolish SNAP, Medicaid, SCHIP, etc...
2) Require a minimum wage that is high enough as to disqualify a fulltime employee from these subsidies thus putting the burden of labor costs on the employer.


----------



## RKMBrown

Againsheila said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is happening in part because tax payers subsidize their workers & their business. This is why we have inflation. The data proves high wages have never caused inflation or job loss. It is a fiction preached by the shepherds to their flock of sheep. They parrot this lie instinctively while the data proves it is all lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've never had even an introduction to economics class.
> 
> Did you make it into high school?
> 
> {CBO examined the budget impacts of raising the minimum wage to $9 and $10.10. The report concluded that a $9 increase would lift 300,000 workers above the poverty line, but cost 100,000 new jobs as employers are expected to reduce workforces to make up for higher wages. A $10.10 increase would lift 900,000 workers above the poverty line, but cost 500,000 jobs.}
> 
> CBO report: Minimum wage hike could cost 500,000 jobs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Minimum Wage Delusion, And The Death Of Common Sense - Forbes
> 
> 
> 
> What is Minimum Wage: Its History and Effects on the Economy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet, the last several times the minimum wage was raised, there was no net loss of jobs.
Click to expand...

Cause 8million jobs lost didn't happen.  Cause tens of millions of Americans working part time isn't real. 

Cause this chart is false:





But hey you go right on believing higher wage rates has no effect on employment rates.


----------



## SAYIT

Zombie_Pundit said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so you aren't really interested in a "fair discussion." Got it.
> Just for shits and giggles, have you ever put a buck (or some change) in a coffee shop or pizza joint tip jar? Those counter peeps are getting min wage (or more) and as to your new math I say the min wage is $7.25. Do you require a link for that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am being fair with you.  I am going through the numbers, step by step.  The numbers are real.  Once you acknowledge that a minimum wage is necessary to keep fulltime employees above the poverty line, then we see how desperate that poverty line really is and that the minimum wage needs to be increased well beyond that.  You'll see it ends up right around that  $7.25 number.  And a link to the federal minimum wage for covered nonexempt employees will not be necessary.
Click to expand...


I don't believe the purpose of min wage is to keep workers above the poverty line.


----------



## SAYIT

Zombie_Pundit said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry. Where exactly did I mention min wage must be "based on the poverty line?" Putting your words into my mouth isn't my idea of a "fair discussion" and gov't benefits and hunger are another subject entirely but isn't the $7.25 min wage above your new math $7.18?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You responded to my post about the poverty line being used to determine how much someone needed to live.  You said that we all have a concern for humanity but that we could not know how much anyone needed to live.  I have provided sources and simple arithmetic to arrive at an actual number.  And of course I noticed your disparaging remarks equating the simplest arithmetic to "new math", how clever of you!  I'm sure this singular wit will make for a lively, though fair and clean, discussion!
> 
> The basic arithmetic, or "new math" as you call it, isn't over quite yet.  There other basic needs we as taxpayers subsidize for the low wage earners.  You have agreed that a fulltime employee should not be below the poverty line; and your concern for your fellow human being most likely compels you to consider that the basic needs of your fellow human being who works fulltime should be met.  And your reasonableness most certainly enables you to discern a need such as shelter and food, without demanding that a packet of ketchup be considered a serving vegetables.
> Because we are determining a minimum wage on the most basic needs of a fulltime employee, meeting the cost of these basic needs is the cost of labor.
> 
> Why should you, as an average taxpayer, subsidize the labor costs of large and profitable businesses?  If you dislike subsidizing the labor costs of these organizations, there are two possible solutions:
> 1) End the subsidies.  Abolish SNAP, Medicaid, SCHIP, etc...
> 2) Require a minimum wage that is high enough as to disqualify a fulltime employee from these subsidies thus putting the burden of labor costs on the employer.
Click to expand...


Again, I do not believe the purpose of min wage is to keep workers at or above poverty level but I did specifically say that min wage jobs are not intended to provide a "living wage" ... whatever that is. They are entry and exit level jobs. Period. 
To keep this a "fair discussion" or, for that matter any kind of discussion at all, you will need to stop putting your words in my mouth. Thanks.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

SAYIT said:


> I don't believe the purpose of min wage is to keep workers above the poverty line.



Outside of a rigid interpretation of that statement, one that requires ignoring the fact that the albeit poorly defined "living wage" is implicitly above the poverty line, how did you come to the belief that the purpose of the minimum wage was not to keep workers above the poverty line?


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

SAYIT said:


> Again, I do not believe the purpose of min wage is to keep workers at or above poverty level but I did specifically say that min wage jobs are not intended to provide a "living wage" ... whatever that is. They are entry and exit level jobs. Period.
> To keep this a "fair discussion" or, for that matter any kind of discussion at all, you will need to stop putting your words in my mouth. Thanks.



It takes quite a leap to disassociate "living wage" from "above the poverty line".  You keep returning the "entry and exit" qualifier.  Does "fulltime entry level" equal "below poverty line"?


----------



## RKMBrown

Zombie_Pundit said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe the purpose of min wage is to keep workers above the poverty line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Outside of a rigid interpretation of that statement, one that requires ignoring the fact that the albeit poorly defined "living wage" is implicitly above the poverty line, how did you come to the belief that the purpose of the minimum wage was not to keep workers above the poverty line?
Click to expand...


Why should a child of 15 with zero experience get a "living" wage for bagging groceries?  Why should we pay a child of 15 with zero experience the same as an adult with 5years experience who stocks at the same store?  Why should we pay that child the same as we would someone fresh out of college or a vocational school?

Why should someone sitting in AC on their butt taking orders at a drive through window get paid the same as a roofer working in 115 degree weather?


----------



## SAYIT

Zombie_Pundit said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe the purpose of min wage is to keep workers above the poverty line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Outside of a rigid interpretation of that statement, one that requires ignoring the fact that the albeit poorly defined "living wage" is implicitly above the poverty line, how did you come to the belief that the purpose of the minimum wage was not to keep workers above the poverty line?
Click to expand...


What made you think it is? Those min wage jobs are not careers.


----------



## RKMBrown

SAYIT said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe the purpose of min wage is to keep workers above the poverty line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Outside of a rigid interpretation of that statement, one that requires ignoring the fact that the albeit poorly defined "living wage" is implicitly above the poverty line, how did you come to the belief that the purpose of the minimum wage was not to keep workers above the poverty line?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What made you think it is? Those min wage jobs are not careers.
Click to expand...


I think the problem is folks that have made a career out of being on welfare want more handouts.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

RKMBrown said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe the purpose of min wage is to keep workers above the poverty line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Outside of a rigid interpretation of that statement, one that requires ignoring the fact that the albeit poorly defined "living wage" is implicitly above the poverty line, how did you come to the belief that the purpose of the minimum wage was not to keep workers above the poverty line?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should a child of 15 with zero experience get a "living" wage for bagging groceries?
Click to expand...


Child labor laws exclude children from the category of fulltime employees.  I cannot determine what you mean by "living wage" but I'm certain it was not your intention to exclude fulltime employees from a wage above the poverty line by asking about high school children.


----------



## SAYIT

RKMBrown said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Outside of a rigid interpretation of that statement, one that requires ignoring the fact that the albeit poorly defined "living wage" is implicitly above the poverty line, how did you come to the belief that the purpose of the minimum wage was not to keep workers above the poverty line?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What made you think it is? Those min wage jobs are not careers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the problem is folks that have made a career out of being on welfare want more handouts.
Click to expand...


Any (not just welfarists) who manage to suck on the gov't teat want more but the prob here is socialists who can't (or won't) seem to grasp the fundamentals of a capitalist economy. They need to stop jamming their paws into my pocket to make themselves feel good.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

SAYIT said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe the purpose of min wage is to keep workers above the poverty line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Outside of a rigid interpretation of that statement, one that requires ignoring the fact that the albeit poorly defined "living wage" is implicitly above the poverty line, how did you come to the belief that the purpose of the minimum wage was not to keep workers above the poverty line?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What made you think it is? Those min wage jobs are not careers.
Click to expand...


You are not answering the question.

How did you come to the belief that the purpose of the minimum wage was not to keep workers (fulltime) above the poverty line?

Also, please consider that an entry level job is called entry level because it is an entry to a career, as you were using the term just a few posts ago.

The history of the minimum wage led me to my conclusion.  Please don't ask me to google that for you.


----------



## RKMBrown

Zombie_Pundit said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Outside of a rigid interpretation of that statement, one that requires ignoring the fact that the albeit poorly defined "living wage" is implicitly above the poverty line, how did you come to the belief that the purpose of the minimum wage was not to keep workers above the poverty line?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should a child of 15 with zero experience get a "living" wage for bagging groceries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Child labor laws exclude children from the category of fulltime employees.  I cannot determine what you mean by "living wage" but I'm certain it was not your intention to exclude fulltime employees from a wage above the poverty line by asking about high school children.
Click to expand...


Since when has minimum wage only applied to fulltime workers?  Is that the new socialist goal to get people off full time jobs by enacting new wage laws that only apply to full time workers?


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

RKMBrown said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should a child of 15 with zero experience get a "living" wage for bagging groceries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Child labor laws exclude children from the category of fulltime employees.  I cannot determine what you mean by "living wage" but I'm certain it was not your intention to exclude fulltime employees from a wage above the poverty line by asking about high school children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. Since when has minimum wage only applied to fulltime workers?
Click to expand...


Clean your post and I'll answer.  I came here for a clean discussion.


----------



## SAYIT

Zombie_Pundit said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I do not believe the purpose of min wage is to keep workers at or above poverty level but I did specifically say that min wage jobs are not intended to provide a "living wage" ... whatever that is. They are entry and exit level jobs. Period.
> To keep this a "fair discussion" or, for that matter any kind of discussion at all, you will need to stop putting your words in my mouth. Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It takes quite a leap to disassociate "living wage" from "above the poverty line".  You keep returning the "entry and exit" qualifier.  Does "fulltime entry level" equal "below poverty line"?
Click to expand...


While "living wage" (whatever that is) may be something above the poverty line, min wage isn't intended to provide either and full-time or part-time entry level is set by law at $7.25/hr or better. It is not a function of poverty level.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

SAYIT said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I do not believe the purpose of min wage is to keep workers at or above poverty level but I did specifically say that min wage jobs are not intended to provide a "living wage" ... whatever that is. They are entry and exit level jobs. Period.
> To keep this a "fair discussion" or, for that matter any kind of discussion at all, you will need to stop putting your words in my mouth. Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It takes quite a leap to disassociate "living wage" from "above the poverty line".  You keep returning the "entry and exit" qualifier.  Does "fulltime entry level" equal "below poverty line"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While "living wage" (whatever that is) may be something above the poverty line, min wage isn't intended to provide either and full-time or part-time entry level is set by law at $7.25/hr or better. It is not a function of poverty level.
Click to expand...


The minimum wage increases over time.  Why do you think it increases over time?  How do you think the increases are determined and justified?


----------



## SAYIT

Zombie_Pundit said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Outside of a rigid interpretation of that statement, one that requires ignoring the fact that the albeit poorly defined "living wage" is implicitly above the poverty line, how did you come to the belief that the purpose of the minimum wage was not to keep workers above the poverty line?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What made you think it is? Those min wage jobs are not careers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not answering the question.
> 
> How did you come to the belief that the purpose of the minimum wage was not to keep workers (fulltime) above the poverty line?
> 
> Also, please consider that an entry level job is called entry level because it is an entry to a career, as you were using the term just a few posts ago.
> 
> The history of the minimum wage led me to my conclusion.  Please don't ask me to google that for you.
Click to expand...


I don't agree that min wage is a function of the poverty line. It is what the gov't stipulates as the bottom rung and entry level means entry into the workforce. Working the counter at McD's or bagging groceries is not a career. Woo.


----------



## SAYIT

Zombie_Pundit said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes quite a leap to disassociate "living wage" from "above the poverty line".  You keep returning the "entry and exit" qualifier.  Does "fulltime entry level" equal "below poverty line"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While "living wage" (whatever that is) may be something above the poverty line, min wage isn't intended to provide either and full-time or part-time entry level is set by law at $7.25/hr or better. It is not a function of poverty level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The minimum wage increases over time.  Why do you think it increases over time?  How do you think the increases are determined and justified?
Click to expand...


Gov't fiat, which isn't to say they are unwarranted.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

SAYIT said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> What made you think it is? Those min wage jobs are not careers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not answering the question.
> 
> How did you come to the belief that the purpose of the minimum wage was not to keep workers (fulltime) above the poverty line?
> 
> Also, please consider that an entry level job is called entry level because it is an entry to a career, as you were using the term just a few posts ago.
> 
> The history of the minimum wage led me to my conclusion.  Please don't ask me to google that for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't agree that min wage is a function of the poverty line. It is what the gov't stipulates as the bottom rung and entry level means entry into the workforce. Working the counter at McD's or bagging groceries is not a career. Woo.
Click to expand...


Your assertion is becoming more rigid.  

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended
29 U.S.C. 201, et seq.
To provide for the establishment of fair labor standards in employments in and 
affecting interstate commerce, and for other purposes. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the Fair Labor 
Standards Act of 1938. 
§ 201. Short title 
This chapter may be cited as the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. 
§ 202. Congressional finding and declaration of policy 
(a) The Congress finds that the existence, in industries engaged in commerce or in 
the production of goods for commerce, of labor conditions detrimental to the 
maintenance of the *minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and 
general well-being of workers* 
(1) causes commerce and the channels and instrumentalities of commerce to 
be used to spread and perpetuate such labor conditions among the workers of 
the several States; 
(2) burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce; 
(3) constitutes an unfair method of competition in commerce; 
(4) leads to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free 
flow of goods in commerce; and 
(5) interferes with the orderly and fair marketing of goods in commerce. That 
Congress further finds that the employment of persons in domestic service in 
households affects commerce. 
(b) It is declared to be the policy of this chapter, through the exercise by Congress 
of its power to regulate commerce among the several States and with foreign 
nations, to correct and as rapidly as practicable to eliminate the conditions above 
referred to in such industries without substantially curtailing employment or earning 
power.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

SAYIT said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> While "living wage" (whatever that is) may be something above the poverty line, min wage isn't intended to provide either and full-time or part-time entry level is set by law at $7.25/hr or better. It is not a function of poverty level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The minimum wage increases over time.  Why do you think it increases over time?  How do you think the increases are determined and justified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gov't fiat, which isn't to say they are unwarranted.
Click to expand...


http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/history/flsa1938.htm

Goodnight


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

RKMBrown said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should a child of 15 with zero experience get a "living" wage for bagging groceries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Child labor laws exclude children from the category of fulltime employees.  I cannot determine what you mean by "living wage" but I'm certain it was not your intention to exclude fulltime employees from a wage above the poverty line by asking about high school children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since when has minimum wage only applied to fulltime workers?  Is that the new socialist goal to get people off full time jobs by enacting new wage laws that only apply to full time workers?
Click to expand...



You need to cool it with the strawmen, but at least you stopped cussing so I'll answer.

The year was 1997.  
http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/coverage.htm
The 1996 amendments increased the minimum wage to $4.75 an hour on October 1, 1996, and to $5.15 an hour on September 1, 1997. The amendments also established a youth sub minimum wage of $4.25 an hour for newly hired employees under age 20 during their first 90 consecutive calendar days after being hired by their employer; revised the tip credit provisions to allow employers to pay qualifying tipped employees no less than $2.13 per hour if they received the remainder of the statutory minimum wage in tips; set the hourly compensation test for qualifying computer related professional employees at $27.63 an hour; and amended the Portal-to-Portal Act to allow employers and employees to agree on the use of employer provided vehicles for commuting to and from work, at the beginning and end of the work day, without counting the commuting time as compensable working time if certain conditions are met.

http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/q-a.htm
Must young workers be paid the minimum wage?
A minimum wage of $4.25 per hour applies to young workers under the age of 20 during their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with an employer, as long as their work does not displace other workers. After 90 consecutive days of employment or the employee reaches 20 years of age, whichever comes first, the employee must receive a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009.
Other programs that allow for payment of less than the full federal minimum wage apply to workers with disabilities, full-time students, and student-learners employed pursuant to sub-minimum wage certificates. These programs are not limited to the employment of young workers.

For all other questions, please see the following link
https://www.google.com/


Goodnight


----------



## RKMBrown

Zombie_Pundit said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Child labor laws exclude children from the category of fulltime employees.  I cannot determine what you mean by "living wage" but I'm certain it was not your intention to exclude fulltime employees from a wage above the poverty line by asking about high school children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since when has minimum wage only applied to fulltime workers?  Is that the new socialist goal to get people off full time jobs by enacting new wage laws that only apply to full time workers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You need to cool it with the strawmen, but at least you stopped cussing so I'll answer.
> 
> The year was 1997.
> http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/coverage.htm
> The 1996 amendments increased the minimum wage to $4.75 an hour on October 1, 1996, and to $5.15 an hour on September 1, 1997. The amendments also established a youth sub minimum wage of $4.25 an hour for newly hired employees under age 20 during their first 90 consecutive calendar days after being hired by their employer; revised the tip credit provisions to allow employers to pay qualifying tipped employees no less than $2.13 per hour if they received the remainder of the statutory minimum wage in tips; set the hourly compensation test for qualifying computer related professional employees at $27.63 an hour; and amended the Portal-to-Portal Act to allow employers and employees to agree on the use of employer provided vehicles for commuting to and from work, at the beginning and end of the work day, without counting the commuting time as compensable working time if certain conditions are met.
> 
> http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/q-a.htm
> Must young workers be paid the minimum wage?
> A minimum wage of $4.25 per hour applies to young workers under the age of 20 during their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with an employer, as long as their work does not displace other workers. After 90 consecutive days of employment or the employee reaches 20 years of age, whichever comes first, the employee must receive a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009.
> Other programs that allow for payment of less than the full federal minimum wage apply to workers with disabilities, full-time students, and student-learners employed pursuant to sub-minimum wage certificates. These programs are not limited to the employment of young workers.
> 
> For all other questions, please see the following link
> https://www.google.com/
> 
> 
> Goodnight
Click to expand...


97 was the dot com boom.  What happened after the boom?


----------



## SAYIT

Zombie_Pundit said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not answering the question.
> 
> How did you come to the belief that the purpose of the minimum wage was not to keep workers (fulltime) above the poverty line?
> 
> Also, please consider that an entry level job is called entry level because it is an entry to a career, as you were using the term just a few posts ago.
> 
> The history of the minimum wage led me to my conclusion.  Please don't ask me to google that for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree that min wage is a function of the poverty line. It is what the gov't stipulates as the bottom rung and entry level means entry into the workforce. Working the counter at McD's or bagging groceries is not a career. Woo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your assertion is becoming more rigid.
> 
> The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended
> 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq.
> To provide for the establishment of fair labor standards in employments in and
> affecting interstate commerce, and for other purposes.
> Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
> America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the Fair Labor
> Standards Act of 1938.
> § 201. Short title
> This chapter may be cited as the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
> § 202. Congressional finding and declaration of policy
> (a) The Congress finds that the existence, in industries engaged in commerce or in
> the production of goods for commerce, of labor conditions detrimental to the
> maintenance of the *minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and
> general well-being of workers*
> (1) causes commerce and the channels and instrumentalities of commerce to
> be used to spread and perpetuate such labor conditions among the workers of
> the several States;
> (2) burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce;
> (3) constitutes an unfair method of competition in commerce;
> (4) leads to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
> flow of goods in commerce; and
> (5) interferes with the orderly and fair marketing of goods in commerce. That
> Congress further finds that the employment of persons in domestic service in
> households affects commerce.
> (b) It is declared to be the policy of this chapter, through the exercise by Congress
> of its power to regulate commerce among the several States and with foreign
> nations, to correct and as rapidly as practicable to eliminate the conditions above
> referred to in such industries without substantially curtailing employment or earning
> power.
Click to expand...


Beautiful cut & paste work. You'll note there's nothing in there about the poverty line nor what constitutes *labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers*.
I'd say it was intentionally vague. It may well refer to working conditions which are dangerous or unhealthful.


----------



## pinqy

Zombie_Pundit said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Child labor laws exclude children from the category of fulltime employees.  I cannot determine what you mean by "living wage" but I'm certain it was not your intention to exclude fulltime employees from a wage above the poverty line by asking about high school children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since when has minimum wage only applied to fulltime workers?  Is that the new socialist goal to get people off full time jobs by enacting new wage laws that only apply to full time workers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You need to cool it with the strawmen, but at least you stopped cussing so I'll answer.
> 
> The year was 1997.
> http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/coverage.htm
> The 1996 amendments increased the minimum wage to $4.75 an hour on October 1, 1996, and to $5.15 an hour on September 1, 1997. The amendments also established a youth sub minimum wage of $4.25 an hour for newly hired employees under age 20 during their first 90 consecutive calendar days after being hired by their employer; revised the tip credit provisions to allow employers to pay qualifying tipped employees no less than $2.13 per hour if they received the remainder of the statutory minimum wage in tips; set the hourly compensation test for qualifying computer related professional employees at $27.63 an hour; and amended the Portal-to-Portal Act to allow employers and employees to agree on the use of employer provided vehicles for commuting to and from work, at the beginning and end of the work day, without counting the commuting time as compensable working time if certain conditions are met.
> 
> http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/q-a.htm
> Must young workers be paid the minimum wage?
> A minimum wage of $4.25 per hour applies to young workers under the age of 20 during their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with an employer, as long as their work does not displace other workers. After 90 consecutive days of employment or the employee reaches 20 years of age, whichever comes first, the employee must receive a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009.
> Other programs that allow for payment of less than the full federal minimum wage apply to workers with disabilities, full-time students, and student-learners employed pursuant to sub-minimum wage certificates. These programs are not limited to the employment of young workers.
> 
> For all other questions, please see the following link
> https://www.google.com/
> 
> 
> Goodnight
Click to expand...

The question was about full time workers, not youth workers. The fact is that in 2013, over 60% of those receiving at or below the Federal minimum wage were part time workers.

I'm not sure what your point was with citing the youth minimum wage.


----------



## RKMBrown

My bad.  I conflated two issues in my sentence why should we pay a 15year old grocery bagger a living wage.  I should have said why should we pay a grocery bagger a living wage for bagging groceries, when the job has traditionally been a job done by 15year old kids.  Or more specifically why should we effectively fire anyone older than 20 from being able to bag groceries by setting wage discrimination laws based on the ripe old age of 20, and demanding adults be paid more than the job is worth.


----------



## SAYIT

pinqy said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since when has minimum wage only applied to fulltime workers?  Is that the new socialist goal to get people off full time jobs by enacting new wage laws that only apply to full time workers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to cool it with the strawmen, but at least you stopped cussing so I'll answer.
> 
> The year was 1997.
> http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/coverage.htm
> The 1996 amendments increased the minimum wage to $4.75 an hour on October 1, 1996, and to $5.15 an hour on September 1, 1997. The amendments also established a youth sub minimum wage of $4.25 an hour for newly hired employees under age 20 during their first 90 consecutive calendar days after being hired by their employer; revised the tip credit provisions to allow employers to pay qualifying tipped employees no less than $2.13 per hour if they received the remainder of the statutory minimum wage in tips; set the hourly compensation test for qualifying computer related professional employees at $27.63 an hour; and amended the Portal-to-Portal Act to allow employers and employees to agree on the use of employer provided vehicles for commuting to and from work, at the beginning and end of the work day, without counting the commuting time as compensable working time if certain conditions are met.
> 
> http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/q-a.htm
> Must young workers be paid the minimum wage?
> A minimum wage of $4.25 per hour applies to young workers under the age of 20 during their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with an employer, as long as their work does not displace other workers. After 90 consecutive days of employment or the employee reaches 20 years of age, whichever comes first, the employee must receive a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009.
> Other programs that allow for payment of less than the full federal minimum wage apply to workers with disabilities, full-time students, and student-learners employed pursuant to sub-minimum wage certificates. These programs are not limited to the employment of young workers.
> 
> For all other questions, please see the following link
> https://www.google.com/
> 
> 
> Goodnight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question was about full time workers, not youth workers. The fact is that in 2013, over 60% of those receiving at or below the Federal minimum wage were part time workers.
> 
> I'm not sure what your point was with citing the youth minimum wage.
Click to expand...


Many min wage part-timers are not kids and Zombie's point seems to be that the gov't should enforce a min wage based on his/her sense of fair.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

SAYIT said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree that min wage is a function of the poverty line. It is what the gov't stipulates as the bottom rung and entry level means entry into the workforce. Working the counter at McD's or bagging groceries is not a career. Woo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your assertion is becoming more rigid.
> 
> The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended...[large portion removed]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beautiful cut & paste work. You'll note there's nothing in there about the poverty line nor what constitutes *labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers*.
> I'd say it was intentionally vague. It may well refer to working conditions which are dangerous or unhealthful.
Click to expand...


That was just the first few lines of the The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
.
Workplace safety is not the same as minimum wage and handled by different legislation.  

But ultimately you made your assertion first...



SAYIT said:


> I don't believe the purpose of min wage is to keep workers above the poverty line.



Can you offer any proof to back that up?  

Are you willing to do any research to support your own assertions, to stand on your own two feet and support your own burden of proof, and add to this discussion?


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

pinqy said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since when has minimum wage only applied to fulltime workers?  Is that the new socialist goal to get people off full time jobs by enacting new wage laws that only apply to full time workers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to cool it with the strawmen, but at least you stopped cussing so I'll answer.
> 
> The year was 1997.
> http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/coverage.htm
> 
> 
> For all other questions, please see the following link
> https://www.google.com/
> 
> 
> Goodnight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question was about full time workers, not youth workers.
Click to expand...


That was not the question.  The question was about youth workers.  Here is the full quote.



RKMBrown said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Child labor laws exclude children from the category of fulltime employees.  I cannot determine what you mean by "living wage" but I'm certain it was not your intention to exclude fulltime employees from a wage above the poverty line by asking about high school children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. Since when has minimum wage only applied to fulltime workers?
Click to expand...


----------



## Againsheila

SAYIT said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> A living wage is clearly in the eye of the beholder and is a specious term used here to make some feel superior about his concern for humanity. It has no single meaning economically and virtually all of us have concern for humanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt we do all have concern for humanity.
> 
> There are 2080 working hours in a year for a fulltime employee.
> To be below the poverty line of $11,490 requires a wage lower than $5.52/hr.
> Would you agree or disagree that it is in the nation's interest to keep fulltime employees above the poverty line?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Min wage jobs are intended as entry level and supplementary jobs. They are not intended to provide a living wage (whatever that is).  Many min wagers also get tips. If one wants to earn more one must get a job that pays more. Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million - of America's 150mil total workers - earn exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNErLKro_JJXvobGlxMM0vGmsCvA3Q
Click to expand...


Oh please, you act as if they created these jobs for the worker.  No they created the jobs for the employer, so they can get more done and make more money.  Yet their workers are being subsidized by the taxpayer because they are paid so little.  Just more corporate welfare.  Raise the minimum wage to a living wage, taxpayers should not be subsidizing businesses.


----------



## Againsheila

Zombie_Pundit said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> An employer of a tipped employee is only required to pay $2.13.
> Let's not throw a number around like $7.25 and imply that person also gets tips.
> Let's have a fair discussion.
> 
> http://www.dol.gov/elaws/faq/esa/flsa/002.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so. Many tip jars benefit min wage earners.
> If we are going to have a fair discussion let's try being honest and not toss around numbers like $5.52/hr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have given you the minimum wage for tip earners and the source.  I cannot change the source.
> 
> Let's go over the math again for that $5.52/hr
> 
> Fulltime job=40 hrs/week
> 52 weeks in a year yields 2080 paid manhours per year.
> 
> The poverty line as of 2014 in these United States is actually $11,670/year (I reported a lower number from a earlier year in a previous post).
> http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm
> http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CH...wnloads/2014-Federal-Poverty-level-charts.pdf
> 
> 11670/2080 = $5.61 per hour.
> 
> A fulltime employee needs $5.61/hr to stay at the poverty line.  That's just the numbers.
> 
> If we're going to talk about numbers, let's lay out the math.
Click to expand...


When the minimum wage was created, it was started to support a family of 3 ABOVE the poverty line.


----------



## Pop23

Againsheila said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt we do all have concern for humanity.
> 
> There are 2080 working hours in a year for a fulltime employee.
> To be below the poverty line of $11,490 requires a wage lower than $5.52/hr.
> Would you agree or disagree that it is in the nation's interest to keep fulltime employees above the poverty line?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Min wage jobs are intended as entry level and supplementary jobs. They are not intended to provide a living wage (whatever that is).  Many min wagers also get tips. If one wants to earn more one must get a job that pays more. Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million - of America's 150mil total workers - earn exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNErLKro_JJXvobGlxMM0vGmsCvA3Q
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please, you act as if they created these jobs for the worker.  No they created the jobs for the employer, so they can get more done and make more money.  Yet their workers are being subsidized by the taxpayer because they are paid so little.  Just more corporate welfare.  Raise the minimum wage to a living wage, taxpayers should not be subsidizing businesses.
Click to expand...


Then become the employer and create high paying jobs!

No need to complain about the problem if you create the solution.


----------



## RKMBrown

Zombie_Pundit said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to cool it with the strawmen, but at least you stopped cussing so I'll answer.
> 
> The year was 1997.
> http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/coverage.htm
> 
> 
> For all other questions, please see the following link
> https://www.google.com/
> 
> 
> Goodnight
> 
> 
> 
> The question was about full time workers, not youth workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was not the question.  The question was about youth workers.  Here is the full quote.
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Child labor laws exclude children from the category of fulltime employees.  I cannot determine what you mean by "living wage" but I'm certain it was not your intention to exclude fulltime employees from a wage above the poverty line by asking about high school children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. Since when has minimum wage only applied to fulltime workers?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I find it hilarious that zombie complained about my use of the term bullcarp, then even after I removed the term, he cut and pasted his old copy of it 3 times.

Then even after I fully explained my point as being why should we pay living wages for child jobs that don't deserve living wages he continues to rail on the child wage issue which has been ceded.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Againsheila said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not so. Many tip jars benefit min wage earners.
> If we are going to have a fair discussion let's try being honest and not toss around numbers like $5.52/hr.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have given you the minimum wage for tip earners and the source.  I cannot change the source.
> 
> Let's go over the math again for that $5.52/hr
> 
> Fulltime job=40 hrs/week
> 52 weeks in a year yields 2080 paid manhours per year.
> 
> The poverty line as of 2014 in these United States is actually $11,670/year (I reported a lower number from a earlier year in a previous post).
> http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm
> http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CH...wnloads/2014-Federal-Poverty-level-charts.pdf
> 
> 11670/2080 = $5.61 per hour.
> 
> A fulltime employee needs $5.61/hr to stay at the poverty line.  That's just the numbers.
> 
> If we're going to talk about numbers, let's lay out the math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the minimum wage was created, it was started to support a family of 3 ABOVE the poverty line.
Click to expand...


  If it's enough to pay the rent in a shithole and put rice and beans on the table it's enough to live on. You dont need a car,cell phone,TV or any other luxury item.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Againsheila said:


> When the minimum wage was created, it was started to support a family of 3 ABOVE the poverty line.



You keep repeating that.

It's not even in the same zip code as true, but you keep repeating it.

Do you belong to a public employee union, by chance?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Againsheila said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt we do all have concern for humanity.
> 
> There are 2080 working hours in a year for a fulltime employee.
> To be below the poverty line of $11,490 requires a wage lower than $5.52/hr.
> Would you agree or disagree that it is in the nation's interest to keep fulltime employees above the poverty line?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Min wage jobs are intended as entry level and supplementary jobs. They are not intended to provide a living wage (whatever that is).  Many min wagers also get tips. If one wants to earn more one must get a job that pays more. Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million - of America's 150mil total workers - earn exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNErLKro_JJXvobGlxMM0vGmsCvA3Q
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please, you act as if they created these jobs for the worker.  No they created the jobs for the employer, so they can get more done and make more money.  Yet their workers are being subsidized by the taxpayer because they are paid so little.  Just more corporate welfare.  Raise the minimum wage to a living wage, taxpayers should not be subsidizing businesses.
Click to expand...


You are paying for businesses whether with tax subsidies or by patronizing them. Most tax subsidies are local and not federal, they do that to bring companies into their area and when that happens everybody wins.


----------



## beagle9

SAYIT said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you intentionally ignore Alan's point? He said that he could, if need be, still make it on $15/hr but would likely add a 2nd job. The point being these are choices. We all have to make them and live with the benefits & consequences ... even those who choose to live on a min wage job. If one wants or needs more than those entry level jobs offer as pay, get a better job. No one should be forced to be responsible for the happiness or satisfaction or maintenance of anyone else other than immediate family nor should companies be forced by gov't to pay more than the value of their employees labor.
> 
> 
> 
> I bet the plantation owners of the old south had the same opinion that you have, to otherwise just be responsible only for their immediate family, and to hec with everybody else eh ? I mean that is what your post sounded like when I read it.. If you would go back and read my post, then you will see where I am coming in from on this stuff. Do you think it right that a man or woman like Alan should have to get another job to go along with the one he or she already works hard enough at now, and do it just to make ends meet these days ? I'd say something is very wrong when you see a lot of this going on now a days don't you, but funny how the business owners these days don't see it eh? Everyone see's it, but you have a powerful clique who are distracting and deflecting like mad now, and they are doing this because they figure their chickens are possibly about to come home to roost finally in it all. They eased us all into this situation, now lets see if they can do the right thing to get us out of it or will they bail with their golden Para shoots somehow along the way ? I am against a hike of above $8.50 or 9.00 dollars an hour minimum wage right now, and I am for the minimum wage meaning minimum, and it being always a temporary wage for say 6 months after hire, where as then it is to be re-evaluated again afterwards for a raise to follow. At this point the employee is to be placed into a structural pay grade system that the company should already have set up beyond the evaluation period or the training period until leaves there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your posts read like typical socialist whining.
> For those who have $15 skills that is what they should earn and if they want more they can seek a better paying job, get a 2nd job, start their own biz from which they can then pay their employees whatever they deem suitable (at or above min wage) or whine about the unfairness of life on this message board.
> The choices in our economic system (education, training, lifestyle, etc.) are yours and mine and we are relatively free to enjoy the fruit of those choices.
Click to expand...

To lazy to go back and read eh ? I guess I can't help you then, so lets just move on.


----------



## beagle9

Zombie_Pundit said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes quite a leap to disassociate "living wage" from "above the poverty line".  You keep returning the "entry and exit" qualifier.  Does "fulltime entry level" equal "below poverty line"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While "living wage" (whatever that is) may be something above the poverty line, min wage isn't intended to provide either and full-time or part-time entry level is set by law at $7.25/hr or better. It is not a function of poverty level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The minimum wage increases over time.  Why do you think it increases over time?  How do you think the increases are determined and justified?
Click to expand...

Why does the increases if they are what you say they are, not bring workers above the poverty line ?

Minimum wage has never brought workers above the poverty line, but it did establish a line in the sand that tells companies that if you hire someone, then you should at least pay them this amount of money to start, and then hopefully move them up as time passes and they prove themselves as worthy of becoming a full time employee with benefits etc. Competition between companies and their workers kicks in and does the rest. If you have done what was expected of you, and you see that you are being held at minimum wage after a year, and you are stuck in a dead end job, then it should be that you would be able to get out and into a better company that appreciates you and your talents.

Monopolies and corporate unionism found in management trends, has all but destroyed competition, and the more open options for Americas to move about freely in the job markets, and to pursue the American dream as it should be in America. Look deeply people, and you will connect all the dots soon enough.


----------



## RKMBrown

beagle9 said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> While "living wage" (whatever that is) may be something above the poverty line, min wage isn't intended to provide either and full-time or part-time entry level is set by law at $7.25/hr or better. It is not a function of poverty level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The minimum wage increases over time.  Why do you think it increases over time?  How do you think the increases are determined and justified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does the increases if they are what you say they are, not bring workers above the poverty line ?
> 
> Minimum wage has never brought workers above the poverty line, but it did establish a line in the sand that tells companies that if you hire someone, then you should at least pay them this amount of money to start, and then hopefully move them up as time passes and they prove themselves as worthy of becoming a full time employee with benefits etc. Competition between companies and their workers kicks in and does the rest. If you have done what was expected of you, and you see that you are being held at minimum wage after a year, and you are stuck in a dead end job, then it should be that you would be able to get out and into a better company that appreciates you and your talents.
> 
> Monopolies and corporate unionism found in management trends, has all but destroyed competition, and the more open options for Americas to move about freely in the job markets, and to pursue the American dream as it should be in America. Look deeply people, and you will connect all the dots soon enough.
Click to expand...


The poverty line is essentially a % line.  No matter what you do 20% of the people will always be at or below 20%.  America's poor would be considered filthy rich in many countries.


----------



## beagle9

Againsheila said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt we do all have concern for humanity.
> 
> There are 2080 working hours in a year for a fulltime employee.
> To be below the poverty line of $11,490 requires a wage lower than $5.52/hr.
> Would you agree or disagree that it is in the nation's interest to keep fulltime employees above the poverty line?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Min wage jobs are intended as entry level and supplementary jobs. They are not intended to provide a living wage (whatever that is).  Many min wagers also get tips. If one wants to earn more one must get a job that pays more. Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million - of America's 150mil total workers - earn exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNErLKro_JJXvobGlxMM0vGmsCvA3Q
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please, you act as if they created these jobs for the worker.  No they created the jobs for the employer, so they can get more done and make more money.  Yet their workers are being subsidized by the taxpayer because they are paid so little.  Just more corporate welfare.  Raise the minimum wage to a living wage, taxpayers should not be subsidizing businesses.
Click to expand...

That's not what the results will be.. It will cause the corporations and businesses to do away with their structural pay grade systems altogether when it comes to the labor forces, and it would allow them to create a socialistic/communistic style system of pay, where as the companies will say "there, now I am paying them a living wage", and this as according to your standard and law implemented, but they won't get a penny more until it is raised somewhere in the future again (5 years maybe?). Then it may stagnate under different regimes or leaderships, therefore giving the corporate along with the medium to higher ended small businesses that are working what say 10 or more employee's, a utopic socialist/communist style system in which they would die for. 

It will create a flat labor rate, and it would stay that way for millions of Americans who are subjected to such a thing as time goes on if the definition of what the minimum wage is, changes to being called a living wage instead going foward.


----------



## beagle9

I agree that the minimum should be moved up a bit in order to keep pace a bit better, otherwise if the companies are not doing their part, but the way this is going down, and by what it is being called now, it is simply a big sham, and a huge redistribution of the wealth type of scheme.


----------



## alan1

beagle9 said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously have no idea how some one makes it on $15 an hour! I guarantee once they get $15 per hour, they will say I can't make it we need $20!!!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although my gross income is way more than $15 per hour these days, I manage to live on just about that much when it comes to my needs... housing, clothing, food, utilities, transportation, etc.  $15 an hour is $31,200 annual income.  Granted, I am a single person these days and I bought my house 20 years ago so my mortgage is small.
> I did live off of less than $15 per hour (as a single parent) for much of the time my children were growing up, but that would be 10 years ago and more.
> I certainly spend more than that, but that is because I like to take my daughters and their boyfriends out for dinner, I like to buy ethnographic artifacts and I like to travel a few times a year.  Those are all discretionary things that I don't have to pay for, I just choose to.
> If the shit really hit the fan and I was forced to return to a wage of $15 an hour or less, I could make ends meet, but I'd probably pick up a second job.  It wouldn't be the first time I worked 50 to 60 hours a week, but this time I wouldn't have to worry about covering daycare for young children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, instead you would just have to worry that you are now to old to work two job's, but here you are considering it instead of saying hmmmm lets fix this better for the next generation, and also fix it for all us old folks in which should be included in the fix as well.
Click to expand...

Nice jump to conclusions there.
What, me worry?


----------



## Againsheila

Pop23 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Min wage jobs are intended as entry level and supplementary jobs. They are not intended to provide a living wage (whatever that is).  Many min wagers also get tips. If one wants to earn more one must get a job that pays more. Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million - of America's 150mil total workers - earn exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNErLKro_JJXvobGlxMM0vGmsCvA3Q
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please, you act as if they created these jobs for the worker.  No they created the jobs for the employer, so they can get more done and make more money.  Yet their workers are being subsidized by the taxpayer because they are paid so little.  Just more corporate welfare.  Raise the minimum wage to a living wage, taxpayers should not be subsidizing businesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then become the employer and create high paying jobs!
> 
> No need to complain about the problem if you create the solution.
Click to expand...


So you have no problem subsidizing businesses with our tax dollars?  Bet you cry like heck when it comes to a single mom on welfare though....


----------



## Againsheila

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have given you the minimum wage for tip earners and the source.  I cannot change the source.
> 
> Let's go over the math again for that $5.52/hr
> 
> Fulltime job=40 hrs/week
> 52 weeks in a year yields 2080 paid manhours per year.
> 
> The poverty line as of 2014 in these United States is actually $11,670/year (I reported a lower number from a earlier year in a previous post).
> http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm
> http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CH...wnloads/2014-Federal-Poverty-level-charts.pdf
> 
> 11670/2080 = $5.61 per hour.
> 
> A fulltime employee needs $5.61/hr to stay at the poverty line.  That's just the numbers.
> 
> If we're going to talk about numbers, let's lay out the math.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the minimum wage was created, it was started to support a family of 3 ABOVE the poverty line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's enough to pay the rent in a shithole and put rice and beans on the table it's enough to live on. You dont need a car,cell phone,TV or any other luxury item.
Click to expand...


Except it's not enough to pay for a place to live and food to eat.


----------



## Againsheila

Uncensored2008 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the minimum wage was created, it was started to support a family of 3 ABOVE the poverty line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep repeating that.
> 
> It's not even in the same zip code as true, but you keep repeating it.
> 
> Do you belong to a public employee union, by chance?
Click to expand...


I posted the facts and the site way back when, it's not my problem you weren't paying attention.  Google it.


----------



## alan1

beagle9 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, instead you would just have to worry that you are now to old to work two job's, but here you are considering it instead of saying hmmmm lets fix this better for the next generation, and also fix it for all us old folks in which should be included in the fix as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you intentionally ignore Alan's point? He said that he could, if need be, still make it on $15/hr but would likely add a 2nd job. The point being these are choices. We all have to make them and live with the benefits & consequences ... even those who choose to live on a min wage job. If one wants or needs more than those entry level jobs offer as pay, get a better job. No one should be forced to be responsible for the happiness or satisfaction or maintenance of anyone else other than immediate family nor should companies be forced by gov't to pay more than the value of their employees labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I bet the plantation owners of the old south had the same opinion that you have,
Click to expand...

That is a ridiculous statement. 





beagle9 said:


> to otherwise just be responsible only for their immediate family, and to hec with everybody else eh ? I mean that is what your post sounded like when I read it.. If you would go back and read my post, then you will see where I am coming in from on this stuff. Do you think it right that a man or woman like Alan should have to get another job to go along with the one he or she already works hard enough at now, and do it just to make ends meet these days ?


  I said could, not "have to".  there is a difference. 





beagle9 said:


> I'd say something is very wrong when you see a lot of this going on now a days don't you, but funny how the business owners these days don't see it eh? Everyone see's it, but you have a powerful clique who are distracting and deflecting like mad now, and they are doing this because they figure their chickens are possibly about to come home to roost finally in it all. They eased us all into this situation, now lets see if they can do the right thing to get us out of it or will they bail with their golden Para shoots somehow along the way ?


  Spoken like a person that wants somebody else to "fix' things for them, "take care of them", rather than be a responsible adult.





beagle9 said:


> I am against a hike of above $8.50 or 9.00 dollars an hour minimum wage right now, and I am for the minimum wage meaning minimum, and it being always a temporary wage for say 6 months after hire, where as then it is to be re-evaluated again afterwards for a raise to follow. At this point the employee is to be placed into a structural pay grade system that the company should already have set up beyond the evaluation period or the training period until leaves there.


Against a ridiculous minimum wage hike is good.


----------



## alan1

beagle9 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt we do all have concern for humanity.
> 
> There are 2080 working hours in a year for a fulltime employee.
> To be below the poverty line of $11,490 requires a wage lower than $5.52/hr.
> Would you agree or disagree that it is in the nation's interest to keep fulltime employees above the poverty line?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Min wage jobs are intended as entry level and supplementary jobs. They are not intended to provide a living wage (whatever that is).  Many min wagers also get tips. If one wants to earn more *one must get a job that pays more*. Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million - of America's 150mil total workers - earn exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's wrong with a company paying more as the employee progresses and learns ? Get another job eh ?  I always thought that companies with high turn over rates was a bad things, so if people are to just go and get another job, then how are we to ever get the service we deserve as customers ?
Click to expand...

I've been employed for almost 40 years and every company I have ever worked for does exactly that.  As skills and value to the company increase, so do wages.  I'd leave any company that didn't practice that, and take my skills elsewhere.


----------



## alan1

Zombie_Pundit said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> An employer of a tipped employee is only required to pay $2.13.
> Let's not throw a number around like $7.25 and imply that person also gets tips.
> Let's have a fair discussion.
> 
> http://www.dol.gov/elaws/faq/esa/flsa/002.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so. Many tip jars benefit min wage earners.
> If we are going to have a fair discussion let's try being honest and not toss around numbers like $5.52/hr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have given you the minimum wage for tip earners and the source.  I cannot change the source.
> 
> Let's go over the math again for that $5.52/hr
> 
> Fulltime job=40 hrs/week
> 52 weeks in a year yields 2080 paid manhours per year.
> 
> The poverty line as of 2014 in these United States is actually $11,670/year (I reported a lower number from a earlier year in a previous post).
> http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm
> http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CH...wnloads/2014-Federal-Poverty-level-charts.pdf
> 
> 11670/2080 = $5.61 per hour.
> 
> A fulltime employee needs $5.61/hr to stay at the poverty line.  That's just the numbers.
> 
> If we're going to talk about numbers, let's lay out the math.
Click to expand...


I know this point is strictly anecdotal, but both my brother and his wife are paid minimum wage.  They both work in casino's dealing poker.  With tips, their combined household income is well north of $100k.  Some minimum wage workers are doing quite well when you add in the tips.


----------



## alan1

Zombie_Pundit said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> So among the 1.6 mil min wagers are a significant number of children who certainly don't require a "living wage" and pensioners who aren't living on their supplemental wages but rather are supplementing other income. Anyone with skills greater than min wagers are free to find a better paying job. Those min wage jobs are entry & exit level jobs and we already have a legal minimum (and it's not $5.52/hr) so you need not establish its necessity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad that we agree on the necessity of a minimum wage.  Now that we have established the necessity based on the poverty line, at what point do social welfare programs kick in?
> How little does a person need to earn in order to receive Medicare and Foodstamps?
> 
> Foodstamp eligibility begins at $14,940 per annum.  That's a wage of $7.18/hour
> Eligibility | Food and Nutrition Service
> *So now, to keep people off SNAP, we need a minimum wage of $7.18/hr. * Otherwise we taxpayers are supplementing the income of these low wage workers.
> 
> There are two ways to look at this:
> 1) Abolish SNAP.  The SNAP program exists because people cannot buy sufficient food at a fulltime wage lower than $7.18/hr.  We could abolish SNAP and let poor people go hungry.  That's what will happen.  How hungry is hungry?  You might be surprised, as someone who cares about their fellow human beings.
> 2) Raise the minimum wage to or above $7.18/hr.  We have established the necessity of $5.61/hr.  If we agree to a minimum wage at or above $7.18/hr, a fulltime employee will not qualify for SNAP.
Click to expand...


The federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour, yet SNAP still exists.
Yer not doing well at arguing yer point.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

alan1 said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> So among the 1.6 mil min wagers are a significant number of children who certainly don't require a "living wage" and pensioners who aren't living on their supplemental wages but rather are supplementing other income. Anyone with skills greater than min wagers are free to find a better paying job. Those min wage jobs are entry & exit level jobs and we already have a legal minimum (and it's not $5.52/hr) so you need not establish its necessity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad that we agree on the necessity of a minimum wage.  Now that we have established the necessity based on the poverty line, at what point do social welfare programs kick in?
> How little does a person need to earn in order to receive Medicare and Foodstamps?
> 
> Foodstamp eligibility begins at $14,940 per annum.  That's a wage of $7.18/hour
> Eligibility | Food and Nutrition Service
> *So now, to keep people off SNAP, we need a minimum wage of $7.18/hr. * Otherwise we taxpayers are supplementing the income of these low wage workers.
> 
> There are two ways to look at this:
> 1) Abolish SNAP.  The SNAP program exists because people cannot buy sufficient food at a fulltime wage lower than $7.18/hr.  We could abolish SNAP and let poor people go hungry.  That's what will happen.  How hungry is hungry?  You might be surprised, as someone who cares about their fellow human beings.
> 2) Raise the minimum wage to or above $7.18/hr.  We have established the necessity of $5.61/hr.  If we agree to a minimum wage at or above $7.18/hr, a fulltime employee will not qualify for SNAP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour, yet SNAP still exists.
> Yer not doing well at arguing yer point.
Click to expand...


If you choose to build up a position someone else does not hold, knock down that position and then proclaim victory... you will only ever learn how to talk to strawmen.


----------



## alan1

Againsheila said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt we do all have concern for humanity.
> 
> There are 2080 working hours in a year for a fulltime employee.
> To be below the poverty line of $11,490 requires a wage lower than $5.52/hr.
> Would you agree or disagree that it is in the nation's interest to keep fulltime employees above the poverty line?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Min wage jobs are intended as entry level and supplementary jobs. They are not intended to provide a living wage (whatever that is).  Many min wagers also get tips. If one wants to earn more one must get a job that pays more. Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million - of America's 150mil total workers - earn exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNErLKro_JJXvobGlxMM0vGmsCvA3Q
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please, you act as if they created these jobs for the worker.  No they created the jobs for the employer, so they can get more done and make more money.  Yet their workers are being subsidized by the taxpayer because they are paid so little.  Just more corporate welfare.  Raise the minimum wage to a living wage, taxpayers should not be subsidizing businesses.
Click to expand...


Simple solution.
Quit subsidizing.
Quit subsidizing everything.
It's not the purpose of government to subsidize individuals or companies. Or to provide charity.


----------



## alan1

Againsheila said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not so. Many tip jars benefit min wage earners.
> If we are going to have a fair discussion let's try being honest and not toss around numbers like $5.52/hr.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have given you the minimum wage for tip earners and the source.  I cannot change the source.
> 
> Let's go over the math again for that $5.52/hr
> 
> Fulltime job=40 hrs/week
> 52 weeks in a year yields 2080 paid manhours per year.
> 
> The poverty line as of 2014 in these United States is actually $11,670/year (I reported a lower number from a earlier year in a previous post).
> http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm
> http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CH...wnloads/2014-Federal-Poverty-level-charts.pdf
> 
> 11670/2080 = $5.61 per hour.
> 
> A fulltime employee needs $5.61/hr to stay at the poverty line.  That's just the numbers.
> 
> If we're going to talk about numbers, let's lay out the math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the minimum wage was created, it was started to support a family of 3 ABOVE the poverty line.
Click to expand...

And it was a dumb idea.
I feel no need to to continue the status quo of dumb ideas.


----------



## alan1

Zombie_Pundit said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad that we agree on the necessity of a minimum wage.  Now that we have established the necessity based on the poverty line, at what point do social welfare programs kick in?
> How little does a person need to earn in order to receive Medicare and Foodstamps?
> 
> Foodstamp eligibility begins at $14,940 per annum.  That's a wage of $7.18/hour
> Eligibility | Food and Nutrition Service
> *So now, to keep people off SNAP, we need a minimum wage of $7.18/hr. * Otherwise we taxpayers are supplementing the income of these low wage workers.
> 
> There are two ways to look at this:
> 1) Abolish SNAP.  The SNAP program exists because people cannot buy sufficient food at a fulltime wage lower than $7.18/hr.  We could abolish SNAP and let poor people go hungry.  That's what will happen.  How hungry is hungry?  You might be surprised, as someone who cares about their fellow human beings.
> 2) Raise the minimum wage to or above $7.18/hr.  We have established the necessity of $5.61/hr.  If we agree to a minimum wage at or above $7.18/hr, a fulltime employee will not qualify for SNAP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour, yet SNAP still exists.
> Yer not doing well at arguing yer point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you choose to build up a position someone else does not hold, knock down that position and then proclaim victory... you will only ever learn how to talk to strawmen.
Click to expand...


How is quoting your posts and position a strawman?
I didn't build shit, I merely quoted your post and then stated the fact that the federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, which it is.  And that SNAP still exist, which it does.
Nothing straw about that.
You didn't disagree with the facts I posted, so what is your real point?


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

alan1 said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour, yet SNAP still exists.
> Yer not doing well at arguing yer point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you choose to build up a position someone else does not hold, knock down that position and then proclaim victory... you will only ever learn how to talk to strawmen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is quoting your posts and position a strawman?
> I didn't build shit, I merely quoted your post and then stated the fact that the federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, which it is.  And that SNAP still exist, which it does.
> Nothing straw about that.
> You didn't disagree with the facts I posted, so what is your real point?
Click to expand...

A straw man...is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of the original topic of argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.
Structure:
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a false but superficially similar proposition Y, as if that were an argument against Person 1's position.
This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.

For example:

Quoting an opponent's words out of contexti.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions.
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Example: 
Zombie_Pundit says: "2) Raise the minimum wage to or above $7.18/hr. We [_Zombie_Pundit and the contemporaneous respondent_] have established the necessity of $5.61/hr. If we agree to a minimum wage at or above $7.18/hr, a fulltime employee will not qualify for SNAP. [ _specifically avoiding  the subjects of part-time work, disabilities, unemployment, dependents, etc... to keep the conversation in a simple and civil tone_ ]"

alan1 quotes and highlights: "Raise the minimum wage to or above $7.18/hr." and then quips "yet SNAP still exists" concluding "Yer not doing well at arguing yer point" as if Zombie_Pundit proposed raising the minimum wage as some magic cure for all poverty.

Classic Strawman

*quod erat demonstrandum*


----------



## beagle9

SAYIT said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then become the employer and create high paying jobs!
> 
> No need to complain about the problem if you create the solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no problem subsidizing businesses with our tax dollars?  Bet you cry like heck when it comes to a single mom on welfare though....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the single silliest argument socialists can make.
> Stop whining about "they." Get off your duff, start a biz and, if it makes you happy, pay *YOUR* employees 10 times the going rate.
Click to expand...

The problems are not businesses (i.e. small businesses), but it's more about corporations/monopolies in which has hearded so many into the barns and cattle gates together, and this is found in some form or another now. The relief valves have been closed off for many, therefore leaving them no where to run and no where to go anymore yet all depending. 

Corporations/Manufacturing these days, have the ideolgies of communism and socialism in the work place as their main goals anymore when it comes to pay. It works for them, just as it does for those who think this way in many other parts of the world today. Americans are not slaves or anything like slaves, so people beware of moder day slavery, because it has a whole different suit on these days, but the methods and motives to some degree are just the same as they always was.


----------



## RKMBrown

beagle9 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no problem subsidizing businesses with our tax dollars?  Bet you cry like heck when it comes to a single mom on welfare though....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the single silliest argument socialists can make.
> Stop whining about "they." Get off your duff, start a biz and, if it makes you happy, pay *YOUR* employees 10 times the going rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problems are not businesses (i.e. small businesses), but it's more about corporations/monopolies in which has hearded so many into the barns and cattle gates together, and this is found in some form or another now. The relief valves have been closed off for many, therefore leaving them no where to run and no where to go anymore yet all depending.
> 
> Corporations/Manufacturing these days, have the ideolgies of communism and socialism in the work place as their main goals anymore when it comes to pay. It works for them, just as it does for those who think this way in many other parts of the world today. Americans are not slaves or anything like slaves, so people beware of moder day slavery, because it has a whole different suit on these days, but the methods and motives to some degree are just the same as they always was.
Click to expand...


Yeah monopolies should be broken up.  Let's start with china's monopoly on production.


----------



## Asclepias

The greatest journey in life is realizing your true value and potential and going out there and making it happen.  How would you feel if someone had to carry you all the way through your journey?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Againsheila said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the minimum wage was created, it was started to support a family of 3 ABOVE the poverty line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it's enough to pay the rent in a shithole and put rice and beans on the table it's enough to live on. You dont need a car,cell phone,TV or any other luxury item.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except it's not enough to pay for a place to live and food to eat.
Click to expand...


  You can rent a cheesy all bills paid apartment in Houston for 650.00 a month.
So yeah you can live on min wage.


----------



## RKMBrown

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it's enough to pay the rent in a shithole and put rice and beans on the table it's enough to live on. You dont need a car,cell phone,TV or any other luxury item.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except it's not enough to pay for a place to live and food to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can rent a cheesy all bills paid apartment in Houston for 650.00 a month.
> So yeah you can live on min wage.
Click to expand...


And put 2-4 people in that apartment sharing the rent.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Againsheila said:


> So you have no problem subsidizing businesses with our tax dollars?  Bet you cry like heck when it comes to a single mom on welfare though....



The persistent democrat lie...

We don't subsidize businesses - that's just a lie you tell on behalf of your union.

You of the left demanded that 50% of the population be given taxpayer fund - not Walmart - but democrats.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Againsheila said:


> Except it's not enough to pay for a place to live and food to eat.



When you go to the store, do you demand that prices be raised, because the tomato you bought doesn't cost enough to support a family of 5 for a week? 

When Walmart or anyone else hires a person, they are purchasing a service, nothing more.  They are not adopting a child to care for, they are purchasing the labor of a person at a mutually agreed upon price.

Look, your Union bosses have stolen everything they can from the public sector - you need to rob Walmart to pay for the outrageous benefits that the welfare rats known as government workers get - I understand. Walmart has money and you want it - there are unfunded pensions for government welfare rats that need to be paid for..


----------



## Uncensored2008

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it's enough to pay the rent in a shithole and put rice and beans on the table it's enough to live on. You dont need a car,cell phone,TV or any other luxury item.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except it's not enough to pay for a place to live and food to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can rent a cheesy all bills paid apartment in Houston for 650.00 a month.
> So yeah you can live on min wage.
Click to expand...


Si, but how do you feed your 35 niños?

¿Qué pasa con los niños?


----------



## Againsheila

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it's enough to pay the rent in a shithole and put rice and beans on the table it's enough to live on. You dont need a car,cell phone,TV or any other luxury item.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except it's not enough to pay for a place to live and food to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can rent a cheesy all bills paid apartment in Houston for 650.00 a month.
> So yeah you can live on min wage.
Click to expand...


You can't in Seattle.


----------



## Againsheila

Uncensored2008 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except it's not enough to pay for a place to live and food to eat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you go to the store, do you demand that prices be raised, because the tomato you bought doesn't cost enough to support a family of 5 for a week?
> 
> When Walmart or anyone else hires a person, they are purchasing a service, nothing more.  They are not adopting a child to care for, they are purchasing the labor of a person at a mutually agreed upon price.
> 
> Look, your Union bosses have stolen everything they can from the public sector - you need to rob Walmart to pay for the outrageous benefits that the welfare rats known as government workers get - I understand. Walmart has money and you want it - there are unfunded pensions for government welfare rats that need to be paid for..
Click to expand...


Bulcrap.  Walmart is stealing our money in the form of welfare to their workers.  I would rather pay for it upfront in the cost of their merchandise.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Againsheila said:


> You can't in Seattle.



Seattle hates poor people. Limousine liberals detest the little people.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Againsheila said:


> Bulcrap.  Walmart is stealing our money in the form of welfare to their workers.  I would rather pay for it upfront in the cost of their merchandise.



Walmart gets welfare?

Nope, that is a deliberate falsehood by your Union. You in the public sector are essentially on welfare, you do jobs no one cares about or would pay for out their own pockets. You retire at 50 with outrageous pensions that no actual worker ever gets - then you want to steal from Walmart, to stuff into your own pockets. That's the truth of it.


----------



## Againsheila

Uncensored2008 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bulcrap.  Walmart is stealing our money in the form of welfare to their workers.  I would rather pay for it upfront in the cost of their merchandise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart gets welfare?
> 
> Nope, that is a deliberate falsehood by your Union. You in the public sector are essentially on welfare, you do jobs no one cares about or would pay for out their own pockets. You retire at 50 with outrageous pensions that no actual worker ever gets - then you want to steal from Walmart, to stuff into your own pockets. That's the truth of it.
Click to expand...


Again, bulcrap.  First of all I'm not a liberal.  Second of all, it's true, Walmart pays it's workers so little they qualify for welfare, that means we the taxpayer are subsidizing them.  Like I said, I'd rather pay it upfront in the prices on their merchandize.  You, apparently, want it hidden so you can think low wage workers are lazy and stupid.


----------



## Asclepias

Againsheila said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bulcrap.  Walmart is stealing our money in the form of welfare to their workers.  I would rather pay for it upfront in the cost of their merchandise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart gets welfare?
> 
> Nope, that is a deliberate falsehood by your Union. You in the public sector are essentially on welfare, you do jobs no one cares about or would pay for out their own pockets. You retire at 50 with outrageous pensions that no actual worker ever gets - then you want to steal from Walmart, to stuff into your own pockets. That's the truth of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, bulcrap.  First of all I'm not a liberal.  Second of all, it's true, Walmart pays it's workers so little they qualify for welfare, that means we the taxpayer are subsidizing them.  Like I said, I'd rather pay it upfront in the prices on their merchandize.  You, apparently, want it hidden so you can think low wage workers are lazy and stupid.
Click to expand...


Do you think its better to be paid more than you are worth?  The reason I ask is I think just the opposite.  I would rather there be an incentive for people to get off welfare and better themselves.  I'd rather pay on the back end.  Either way we are going to pay.  I just would like the effect of having more people better themselves.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Againsheila said:


> Again, bulcrap.



It's all true, and you know it.



> First of all I'm not a liberal.  Second of all, it's true, Walmart pays it's workers so little they qualify for welfare, that means we the taxpayer are subsidizing them.



False - a deliberate lie by your union. Walmart offers many entry positions, which means they employ those who are on welfare. Your union claims that if these people were not given jobs by Walmart - somehow magically, they wouldn't be on assistance. Of course that's a lie - as you know. In fact, the amounts these people would collect with be far greater, if they were not employed.

But the REAL issue is that Obama now gives Welfare to anyone making less than $52K per year. A Quick Guide to SNAP Eligibility and Benefits ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

About 50% of the nation is on some sort of aid - and that isn't even counting the leaches who "work" for government," sucking the lifeblood out of the taxpayers. 



> Like I said, I'd rather pay it upfront in the prices on their merchandize.  You, apparently, want it hidden so you can think low wage workers are lazy and stupid.



You'd rather rob Walmart to pay for your own pension - which is what Unions are attempting to do. This whole campaign of lies is designed to force Walmart into the corrupt monopoly union, where they can be raped and pillaged to fill the unfunded pension chests of millions of government workers (welfare bums.)


----------



## Againsheila

Uncensored2008 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, bulcrap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all true, and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all I'm not a liberal.  Second of all, it's true, Walmart pays it's workers so little they qualify for welfare, that means we the taxpayer are subsidizing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False - a deliberate lie by your union. Walmart offers many entry positions, which means they employ those who are on welfare. Your union claims that if these people were not given jobs by Walmart - somehow magically, they wouldn't be on assistance. Of course that's a lie - as you know. In fact, the amounts these people would collect with be far greater, if they were not employed.
> 
> But the REAL issue is that Obama now gives Welfare to anyone making less than $52K per year. A Quick Guide to SNAP Eligibility and Benefits ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
> 
> About 50% of the nation is on some sort of aid - and that isn't even counting the leaches who "work" for government," sucking the lifeblood out of the taxpayers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, I'd rather pay it upfront in the prices on their merchandize.  You, apparently, want it hidden so you can think low wage workers are lazy and stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd rather rob Walmart to pay for your own pension - which is what Unions are attempting to do. This whole campaign of lies is designed to force Walmart into the corrupt monopoly union, where they can be raped and pillaged to fill the unfunded pension chests of millions of government workers (welfare bums.)
Click to expand...


Yeah, paying more for their goods so they can pay their employees a descent wage is "robbing" them.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walmart gets welfare?
> 
> Nope, that is a deliberate falsehood by your Union. You in the public sector are essentially on welfare, you do jobs no one cares about or would pay for out their own pockets. You retire at 50 with outrageous pensions that no actual worker ever gets - then you want to steal from Walmart, to stuff into your own pockets. That's the truth of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, bulcrap.  First of all I'm not a liberal.  Second of all, it's true, Walmart pays it's workers so little they qualify for welfare, that means we the taxpayer are subsidizing them.  Like I said, I'd rather pay it upfront in the prices on their merchandize.  You, apparently, want it hidden so you can think low wage workers are lazy and stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think its better to be paid more than you are worth?  The reason I ask is I think just the opposite.  I would rather there be an incentive for people to get off welfare and better themselves.  I'd rather pay on the back end.  Either way we are going to pay.  I just would like the effect of having more people better themselves.
Click to expand...


I prefer to pick and choose who I pay for good services, my payment is my incentive.  If we pay up front for everything there is no monetary incentive for one to provide good services... the country crumbles.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, bulcrap.  First of all I'm not a liberal.  Second of all, it's true, Walmart pays it's workers so little they qualify for welfare, that means we the taxpayer are subsidizing them.  Like I said, I'd rather pay it upfront in the prices on their merchandize.  You, apparently, want it hidden so you can think low wage workers are lazy and stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think its better to be paid more than you are worth?  The reason I ask is I think just the opposite.  I would rather there be an incentive for people to get off welfare and better themselves.  I'd rather pay on the back end.  Either way we are going to pay.  I just would like the effect of having more people better themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I prefer to pick and choose who I pay for good services, my payment is my incentive.  If we pay up front for everything there is no monetary incentive for one to provide good services... the country crumbles.
Click to expand...


  Yep..Half up front,the other half on completion to my standard.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Againsheila said:


> Yeah, paying more for their goods so they can pay their employees a descent wage is "robbing" them.



Your union doesn't want "a decent wage," they want Walmart employees paying dues to SEIU - which will fund your retirement.

In Southern California, the minimum wage is 8.25 an hour - Walmart starts at 9.18 and goes up from there.

Your union is waging a campaign of lies - in an attempt to rob Walmart - and by extension, anyone who shops at Walmart.

You on the public employment dole already get more than 95% of workers get - how much is enough? Is there no end to the greed of the public employee unions?


----------



## Againsheila

Uncensored2008 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, paying more for their goods so they can pay their employees a descent wage is "robbing" them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your union doesn't want "a decent wage," they want Walmart employees paying dues to SEIU - which will fund your retirement.
> 
> In Southern California, the minimum wage is 8.25 an hour - Walmart starts at 9.18 and goes up from there.
> 
> Your union is waging a campaign of lies - in an attempt to rob Walmart - and by extension, anyone who shops at Walmart.
> 
> You on the public employment dole already get more than 95% of workers get - how much is enough? Is there no end to the greed of the public employee unions?
Click to expand...


Do you know anything at all about me?  I'm a homemaker.  I don't belong to a union.  Even when I was working for the DOD I didn't belong to a union.  I did belong to a union when I was working for United Airlines, but that was the Machinist union, not the SEIU.

I don't care if Walmart gets a union or not, I want them to pay a living wage.  In the richest country in the world, the lowest paid worker should make a living wage and everything should go up from there.


----------



## RKMBrown

Againsheila said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, paying more for their goods so they can pay their employees a descent wage is "robbing" them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your union doesn't want "a decent wage," they want Walmart employees paying dues to SEIU - which will fund your retirement.
> 
> In Southern California, the minimum wage is 8.25 an hour - Walmart starts at 9.18 and goes up from there.
> 
> Your union is waging a campaign of lies - in an attempt to rob Walmart - and by extension, anyone who shops at Walmart.
> 
> You on the public employment dole already get more than 95% of workers get - how much is enough? Is there no end to the greed of the public employee unions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know anything at all about me?  I'm a homemaker.  I don't belong to a union.  Even when I was working for the DOD I didn't belong to a union.  I did belong to a union when I was working for United Airlines, but that was the Machinist union, not the SEIU.
> 
> I don't care if Walmart gets a union or not, I want them to pay a living wage.  In the richest country in the world, the lowest paid worker should make a living wage and everything should go up from there.
Click to expand...


Why should the lowest wage be a living wage and what does living wage even mean?  Is that some sort of feel good statement?  Fine call the current  minimum wage the living wage as I'm not aware of anyone dying on minimum wage in this country. Do you know anyone that has died because their wage was to low in the past decade or two?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Againsheila said:


> Do you know anything at all about me?  I'm a homemaker.  I don't belong to a union.  Even when I was working for the DOD I didn't belong to a union.  I did belong to a union when I was working for United Airlines, but that was the Machinist union, not the SEIU.



You propagate Union lies, which is the usual behavior of government leeches.

Unions in America are a monopoly - names may vary, but the AFL/CIO run all the unions. 



> I don't care if Walmart gets a union or not, I want them to pay a living wage.  In the richest country in the world, the lowest paid worker should make a living wage and everything should go up from there.



Then you should ask stores where you shop to raise prices, or volunteer to pay double and ask that half of the difference go to the employees, and the rest to the union bosses.

When I buy something, I shop for the lowest price. Do you search the Internet to make sure you pay the highest price for like items? 

When I bought my first Rebel, I got it from Walmart because they were $100 cheaper than Bestbuy - Walmart pays their employees more than Bestbuy does - would you have bought at the higher price? When I bought my 5Si, I bought from TigerDirect, because they were the cheapest by far. I have no idea what Tiger pays their employees - and couldn't care less...


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Againsheila said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, paying more for their goods so they can pay their employees a descent wage is "robbing" them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your union doesn't want "a decent wage," they want Walmart employees paying dues to SEIU - which will fund your retirement.
> 
> In Southern California, the minimum wage is 8.25 an hour - Walmart starts at 9.18 and goes up from there.
> 
> Your union is waging a campaign of lies - in an attempt to rob Walmart - and by extension, anyone who shops at Walmart.
> 
> You on the public employment dole already get more than 95% of workers get - how much is enough? Is there no end to the greed of the public employee unions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know anything at all about me?  I'm a homemaker.  I don't belong to a union.  Even when I was working for the DOD I didn't belong to a union.  I did belong to a union when I was working for United Airlines, but that was the Machinist union, not the SEIU.
> 
> I don't care if Walmart gets a union or not, I want them to pay a living wage.  In the richest country in the world, the lowest paid worker should make a living wage and everything should go up from there.
Click to expand...


What is a living wage?


----------



## HenryBHough

Lonestar_logic said:


> What is a living wage?



A new product from Playtex?


----------



## beagle9

Uncensored2008 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, bulcrap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all true, and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all I'm not a liberal.  Second of all, it's true, Walmart pays it's workers so little they qualify for welfare, that means we the taxpayer are subsidizing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False - a deliberate lie by your union. Walmart offers many entry positions, which means they employ those who are on welfare. Your union claims that if these people were not given jobs by Walmart - somehow magically, they wouldn't be on assistance. Of course that's a lie - as you know. In fact, the amounts these people would collect with be far greater, if they were not employed.
> 
> But the REAL issue is that Obama now gives Welfare to anyone making less than $52K per year. A Quick Guide to SNAP Eligibility and Benefits ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
> 
> About 50% of the nation is on some sort of aid - and that isn't even counting the leaches who "work" for government," sucking the lifeblood out of the taxpayers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, I'd rather pay it upfront in the prices on their merchandize.  You, apparently, want it hidden so you can think low wage workers are lazy and stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd rather rob Walmart to pay for your own pension - which is what Unions are attempting to do. This whole campaign of lies is designed to force Walmart into the corrupt monopoly union, where they can be raped and pillaged to fill the unfunded pension chests of millions of government workers (welfare bums.)
Click to expand...

In our town we saw an add where "Mcdonalds" was going to help it's employee's qualify for welfare, now what do you have to say about that ? Also she is right, where as with the illegals, entry level young mothers/workers, and other such manual or low skilled labor forces in America, we the tax payers have been subsidizing the companies who have been working them for a while now, and this was so that their help can live and eat while working for them either above or under the table. The scam has been caught and the people are livid about what they have found out in all of this now, so the spin just gets faster and faster as the gates close faster and faster on it all.


----------



## beagle9

Lonestar_logic said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your union doesn't want "a decent wage," they want Walmart employees paying dues to SEIU - which will fund your retirement.
> 
> In Southern California, the minimum wage is 8.25 an hour - Walmart starts at 9.18 and goes up from there.
> 
> Your union is waging a campaign of lies - in an attempt to rob Walmart - and by extension, anyone who shops at Walmart.
> 
> You on the public employment dole already get more than 95% of workers get - how much is enough? Is there no end to the greed of the public employee unions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know anything at all about me?  I'm a homemaker.  I don't belong to a union.  Even when I was working for the DOD I didn't belong to a union.  I did belong to a union when I was working for United Airlines, but that was the Machinist union, not the SEIU.
> 
> I don't care if Walmart gets a union or not, I want them to pay a living wage.  In the richest country in the world, the lowest paid worker should make a living wage and everything should go up from there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is a living wage?
Click to expand...

I think it is a wage that is paid to the employee's for services rendered, and it would be based upon their loyalty, hardworks and good stewardship while working there, and also upon the companies progress and fortunes it has had as a team within the market place. It is and should be generally divided up out of the spoils of the companies sucesses between all persons found in percentage of (structural pay grade systems), and for whom are involved in the process after cost and taxes are paid. To look upon a workforce as modern day slaves, where as greed trumps all, and where as the employee's are left out of what should be the moral and ethical realm of it all as they should not be, is just criminal if you ask me.

Minimum wage has nothing to do with the living wage situation in America, as they are two seperate things.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

HenryBHough said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a living wage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A new product from Playtex?
Click to expand...


  I thought it was Kotex....?


----------



## beagle9

HereWeGoAgain said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a living wage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A new product from Playtex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it was Kotex....?
Click to expand...

Watch it or you will be accused of having a war on women..


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

beagle9 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, bulcrap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all true, and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> False - a deliberate lie by your union. Walmart offers many entry positions, which means they employ those who are on welfare. Your union claims that if these people were not given jobs by Walmart - somehow magically, they wouldn't be on assistance. Of course that's a lie - as you know. In fact, the amounts these people would collect with be far greater, if they were not employed.
> 
> But the REAL issue is that Obama now gives Welfare to anyone making less than $52K per year. A Quick Guide to SNAP Eligibility and Benefits ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
> 
> About 50% of the nation is on some sort of aid - and that isn't even counting the leaches who "work" for government," sucking the lifeblood out of the taxpayers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, I'd rather pay it upfront in the prices on their merchandize.  You, apparently, want it hidden so you can think low wage workers are lazy and stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd rather rob Walmart to pay for your own pension - which is what Unions are attempting to do. This whole campaign of lies is designed to force Walmart into the corrupt monopoly union, where they can be raped and pillaged to fill the unfunded pension chests of millions of government workers (welfare bums.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In our town we saw an add where "Mcdonalds" was going to help it's employee's qualify for welfare, now what do you have to say about that ? Also she is right, where as with the illegals, entry level young mothers/workers, and other such manual or low skilled labor forces in America, we the tax payers have been subsidizing the companies who have been working them for a while now, and this was so that their help can live and eat while working for them either above or under the table. The scam has been caught and the people are livid about what they have found out in all of this now, so the spin just gets faster and faster as the gates close faster and faster on it all.
Click to expand...


   Cant say I've ever seen a sixteen year old on welfare. Unless of course his parents are.


----------



## Uncensored2008

beagle9 said:


> In our town we saw an add where "Mcdonalds" was going to help it's employee's qualify for welfare, now what do you have to say about that ? Also she is right, where as with the illegals, entry level young mothers/workers, and other such manual or low skilled labor forces in America, we the tax payers have been subsidizing the companies who have been working them for a while now, and this was so that their help can live and eat while working for them either above or under the table. The scam has been caught and the people are livid about what they have found out in all of this now, so the spin just gets faster and faster as the gates close faster and faster on it all.



What government agency do you work for?

How long has your retirement fund been underfunded? If you can't rape Walmart, how much will benefits be cut?


----------



## Uncensored2008

beagle9 said:


> I think it is a wage that is paid to the employee's for services rendered, and it would be based upon their loyalty, hardworks and good stewardship while working there, and also upon the companies progress and fortunes it has had as a team within the market place.



Is that how YOU buy things?

Do you go to buy a new flat screen and pay based on loyalty to the union? Or are you asking employers to do what you refuse to do?

Because EVERYONE I know buys things for the lowest price they can get them for. 



> It is and should be generally divided up out of the spoils of the companies sucesses



Really? 

How much did you put into the start up costs? What did you risk? Did YOU put your home up to finance the business?

No, of course not - others owe it to you because, um, OBAMA AKBAR.



> between all persons found in percentage of (structural pay grade systems), and for whom are involved in the process after cost and taxes are paid. To look upon a workforce as modern day slaves, where as greed trumps all, and where as the employee's are left out of what should be the moral and ethical realm of it all as they should not be, is just criminal if you ask me.
> 
> Minimum wage has nothing to do with the living wage situation in America, as they are two seperate things.



So, you want something for nothing, and you want to take it from others... The greed is all yours.


----------



## beagle9

Uncensored2008 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is a wage that is paid to the employee's for services rendered, and it would be based upon their loyalty, hardworks and good stewardship while working there, and also upon the companies progress and fortunes it has had as a team within the market place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that how YOU buy things?
> 
> Do you go to buy a new flat screen and pay based on loyalty to the union? Or are you asking employers to do what you refuse to do?
> 
> *Because EVERYONE I know buys things for the lowest price they can get them for. *
> 
> 
> 
> It is and should be generally divided up out of the spoils of the companies sucesses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> How much did you put into the start up costs? What did you risk? Did YOU put your home up to finance the business?
> 
> No, of course not - others owe it to you because, um, OBAMA AKBAR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> between all persons found in percentage of (structural pay grade systems), and for whom are involved in the process after cost and taxes are paid. To look upon a workforce as modern day slaves, where as greed trumps all, and where as the employee's are left out of what should be the moral and ethical realm of it all as they should not be, is just criminal if you ask me.
> 
> Minimum wage has nothing to do with the living wage situation in America, as they are two seperate things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you want something for nothing, and you want to take it from others... The greed is all yours.
Click to expand...


People are not things, and therefore companies shouldn't be trying to get them for as cheap as they can get them for, and then keeping them there for as long as they can afterwards.


Really ? "Want something for nothing" eh?  You actually got that from what I've been saying here???? So Sad for you.


----------



## beagle9

HereWeGoAgain said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all true, and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> False - a deliberate lie by your union. Walmart offers many entry positions, which means they employ those who are on welfare. Your union claims that if these people were not given jobs by Walmart - somehow magically, they wouldn't be on assistance. Of course that's a lie - as you know. In fact, the amounts these people would collect with be far greater, if they were not employed.
> 
> But the REAL issue is that Obama now gives Welfare to anyone making less than $52K per year. A Quick Guide to SNAP Eligibility and Benefits ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
> 
> About 50% of the nation is on some sort of aid - and that isn't even counting the leaches who "work" for government," sucking the lifeblood out of the taxpayers.
> 
> 
> 
> You'd rather rob Walmart to pay for your own pension - which is what Unions are attempting to do. This whole campaign of lies is designed to force Walmart into the corrupt monopoly union, where they can be raped and pillaged to fill the unfunded pension chests of millions of government workers (welfare bums.)
> 
> 
> 
> In our town we saw an add where "Mcdonalds" was going to help it's employee's qualify for welfare, now what do you have to say about that ? Also she is right, where as with the illegals, entry level young mothers/workers, and other such manual or low skilled labor forces in America, we the tax payers have been subsidizing the companies who have been working them for a while now, and this was so that their help can live and eat while working for them either above or under the table. The scam has been caught and the people are livid about what they have found out in all of this now, so the spin just gets faster and faster as the gates close faster and faster on it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cant say I've ever seen a sixteen year old on welfare. Unless of course his parents are.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that only 16 year olds work at McDonald's ?


----------



## alan1

Zombie_Pundit said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you choose to build up a position someone else does not hold, knock down that position and then proclaim victory... you will only ever learn how to talk to strawmen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is quoting your posts and position a strawman?
> I didn't build shit, I merely quoted your post and then stated the fact that the federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, which it is.  And that SNAP still exist, which it does.
> Nothing straw about that.
> You didn't disagree with the facts I posted, so what is your real point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A straw man...is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of the original topic of argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.
> Structure:
> The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
> 
> Person 1 asserts proposition X.
> Person 2 argues against a false but superficially similar proposition Y, as if that were an argument against Person 1's position.
> This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.
> 
> For example:
> 
> Quoting an opponent's words out of contexti.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions.
> Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Example:
> Zombie_Pundit says: "2) Raise the minimum wage to or above $7.18/hr. We [_Zombie_Pundit and the contemporaneous respondent_] have established the necessity of $5.61/hr. If we agree to a minimum wage at or above $7.18/hr, a fulltime employee will not qualify for SNAP. [ _specifically avoiding  the subjects of part-time work, disabilities, unemployment, dependents, etc... to keep the conversation in a simple and civil tone_ ]"
> 
> alan1 quotes and highlights: "Raise the minimum wage to or above $7.18/hr." and then quips "yet SNAP still exists" concluding "Yer not doing well at arguing yer point" as if Zombie_Pundit proposed raising the minimum wage as some magic cure for all poverty.
> 
> Classic Strawman
> 
> *quod erat demonstrandum*
Click to expand...


I responded to your post.  I didn't claim anything about you or attribute false claims about you, I merely quoted you and responded to it.
Yawn.
Oh, and fuck off.


----------



## alan1

Againsheila said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except it's not enough to pay for a place to live and food to eat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you go to the store, do you demand that prices be raised, because the tomato you bought doesn't cost enough to support a family of 5 for a week?
> 
> When Walmart or anyone else hires a person, they are purchasing a service, nothing more.  They are not adopting a child to care for, they are purchasing the labor of a person at a mutually agreed upon price.
> 
> Look, your Union bosses have stolen everything they can from the public sector - you need to rob Walmart to pay for the outrageous benefits that the welfare rats known as government workers get - I understand. Walmart has money and you want it - there are unfunded pensions for government welfare rats that need to be paid for..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bulcrap.  *Walmart is stealing our money in the form of welfare to their workers. * I would rather pay for it upfront in the cost of their merchandise.
Click to expand...


Simple solution, tell government to stop paying welfare.
It's not WalMart, McDonalds or any other corporation passing out the welfare money, it's your government passing out the money.
Blaming somebody else for it is kind of ridiculous.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Asclepias said:


> Do you think its better to be paid more than you are worth?  The reason I ask is I think just the opposite.  I would rather there be an incentive for people to get off welfare and better themselves.  I'd rather pay on the back end.  Either way we are going to pay.  I just would like the effect of having more people better themselves.



I agree with you that I would prefer that people aspire to better their lives.  However, in the interest of fairness, our society must enable ladders of upward social mobility in order for people to have the opportunity to improve their fortunes.

I also think the optimal solution would be for employers to pay their employees more by way of the employer's own volition.  There are several companies who pay far above the minimum wage of their own volition.  Whole Foods, for example, though they do it to take advantage of that "hippie" vibe, let us not ignore the motivation.

Given that employers have, historically and presently, not been willing to pay their employees a wage consistent with even meager means, we have the minimum wage.  The debate on the necessity of a minimum wage was settled in 1938 with the FLSA.  The question is how high should it be?  Obviously it should be enough such that a single fulltime employee can literally sustain themselves, and as expected the minimum wage actually is around 130% of poverty.  Should it be higher to allow the minimum wage worker some disposable income to try to better themselves?  

Just a thought on providing ladders of upward social mobility.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

"Do not let any calamity-howling executive with an income of $1,000 a day, who has been turning his employees over to the Government relief rolls in order to preserve his companys undistributed reserves, tell you  using his stockholders money to pay the postage for his personal opinions  tell you that a wage of $11.00 a week is going to have a disastrous effect on all American industry."
- FDR


----------



## MisterBeale

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFbYM2EDz40#t=413[/ame]


----------



## alan1

Zombie_Pundit said:


> "Do not let any calamity-howling executive with an income of $1,000 a day, who has been turning his employees over to the Government relief rolls in order to preserve his companys undistributed reserves, tell you  using his stockholders money to pay the postage for his personal opinions  tell you that a wage of $11.00 a week is going to have a disastrous effect on all American industry."
> - FDR



Are you comfortable with paying $11.00 a week to those that are worthy of it?


----------



## MisterBeale

What people fail to realize, is that a dollar buys less than it did forty years ago.  If the elites would quit stealing from the poor and middle class, if a persons labor and savings weren't stolen from them as they tried to get ahead, no raise in the minimum wage would be necessary.

Both progressive and conservatives are cognitively biased, they support their social programs and the welfare/warfare state, so this "minimum wage" is actually an issue.  If we nixed the FED, the economy would take care of itself.  Wages would float to where they need to be, and the value of the currency would be set and limited by the goods and services produced by the market, not by how much debt is created by the big banks.  When the value of currency is determined by the money changers at the temple, it is the poor who suffer.  Passing laws to create a minimum wage only lets them continue with their sinful games.

Don't Bother Raising The Minimum Wage
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article39668.html


> Put another way, a pre-debasement quarter can still buy you a gallon of gas...with change left over. A gallon of gas cost about 15 minutes of minimum wage labor in the early 1960s. Gas has actually gotten cheaper relative to gold and silver money since then. A minimum wage worker in 1963 could work for ten minutes, then send the wages of those ten minutes (two 90% silver dimes worth about four of today's dollars) forward in time and buy a gallon of gas. It takes today's minimum wage worker about three times as long to earn that same gallon.
> 
> Every nominal increase in the minimum wage after the silver was removed from the coinage has been a lie.










> Real purchasing power of the minimum wage peaked in 1969. It should come as no great shock that was almost dead center between when silver was taken out of the coinage in 1964 and when gold "taken out of" the dollar in 1971.
> 
> Capitalism didn't leave the bottom earners out in the cold. The central bank has been stealing from the poor and giving to the government and the well-connected.
> 
> So, to all you minimum wage-earners: a tiny percentage of the population is indeed stealing from you. But it's not the "capitalists". It's the fasco-communist central bank on behalf of the US government. You're getting more by government decree, but you can buy a whole lot less. Don't worry, however. Every other wager earner at all levels is harmed, too (which is why it's more important than ever for all of you reading this to get the best advice possible not just on how to keep inflation from picking your pockets, but also how to multiply your purchasing power in spite of it.)


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

alan1 said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Do not let any calamity-howling executive with an income of $1,000 a day, who has been turning his employees over to the Government relief rolls in order to preserve his companys undistributed reserves, tell you  using his stockholders money to pay the postage for his personal opinions  tell you that a wage of $11.00 a week is going to have a disastrous effect on all American industry."
> - FDR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you comfortable with paying $11.00 a week to those that are worthy of it?
Click to expand...


Okay, that's another strawman, but just to have some fun with you,

When I was not a zombie but instead alive in 1938, I was not comfortable paying eleven 1938 dollars to a 1938 worker in a week, because I thought they deserved twelve 1938 dollars, but I compromised and eleven 1938 dollars it was.


----------



## Andylusion

Asclepias said:


> DiabloBlanco said:
> 
> 
> 
> So 3 who hate the poor and want to force them to go to college or school of some kind to rack up more debt instead of letting them earn a decent wage at a job they enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> Whats wrong with going to college instead of being a perpetual bagger?  Once they automate the bagging then they will be obsolete.
Click to expand...


Again, it all goes back to choice.

What if someone doesn't want to go to college, doesn't want to learn some difficult skill, and is perfectly fine bagging?

I personally, say they should be able to keep that job, and the leftards, should just shut the hell up about it.

But leftists, would rather drive up the minimum wage, thus making replacing baggers with robots cost effective.

Net result:  Those people end up losing their jobs, and either living as beggars instead of baggers, or they are forced to go to college which they don't want to.

To the left though, tyranny is equal to benevolence, and forcing you to do what they deem "better", is all that matters.


----------



## Andylusion

pinqy said:


> DiabloBlanco said:
> 
> 
> 
> So 3 who hate the poor and want to force them to go to college or school of some kind to rack up more debt instead of letting them earn a decent wage at a job they enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I've ever met anyone who enjoyed their min wage job or would want it as a career.
Click to expand...


I actually have.  Two of them in fact.  Technically three....

Sometimes, people when they have lived a long full life, and have retired from their careers, simply want to do something to get out of the house.  Do something that has very little stress, and lax requirements.  There was a retired guy that worked at Wendy's, and as mind boggling as it was to me, he loved it.

There was another guy, that worked at an assembly factory, and he loved it there too.  But he ended up leaving because if he stayed he forfeited his Social Security.    Congrats Leftards... turned productive Americans into social leeches, one person at a time.

Lastly, there was one guy who loved it... but I'll concede he loved it because he was in a management program.  6 Months later, he was district manager, earning 3 times as much, plus a management year-end bonus.

The point though is.... let people make the choice about what job they like and don't like.    Stop thinking everyone else should be able to arbitrarily determine what is, and is not a good job.

AND BY THE WAY.....   This is yet another example of how horrible Socialist Insecurity is.    Imagine if you invested in a private retirement investment, and after working for 40 years, and socking money away in the hundreds of thousands, and when you turn 65, you are told by your investment agent that you have to quit your job, or you lose your money???

You would sue the absolute hell out of that guy, and take the company to court, and OWN you a retirement company.

Well here in leftard land, the government does exactly that to every single American citizen, and the left stands back and praises it.


----------



## Andylusion

beagle9 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In our town we saw an add where "Mcdonalds" was going to help it's employee's qualify for welfare, now what do you have to say about that ? Also she is right, where as with the illegals, entry level young mothers/workers, and other such manual or low skilled labor forces in America, we the tax payers have been subsidizing the companies who have been working them for a while now, and this was so that their help can live and eat while working for them either above or under the table. The scam has been caught and the people are livid about what they have found out in all of this now, so the spin just gets faster and faster as the gates close faster and faster on it all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cant say I've ever seen a sixteen year old on welfare. Unless of course his parents are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you suggesting that only 16 year olds work at McDonald's ?
Click to expand...


There are three types of people who work minimum wage jobs, and possibly a fourth.

The first, and most common, are teenagers and people working their way through school.

Often, they are there only in passing.

The second, are retired people.   People who are there because they want something to do in their twilight years.   They want to feel useful in their old age.  They want an excuse to hang around other people, instead of sitting at home all day.

The third, are people who simply flat out, don't want to work hard at anything.    They don't want to have to earn a degree.  They don't want to learn a new skill.   They don't want a high stress job that pays more.

I've met these people.   They want to earn $20 an hour, but they want to work at a five-year-olds lemonade stand.   These people typically (in my limited experience) think they are owed something.

These people also typically have bad work ethics.   You can easily earn far more than minimum wage just by doing extremely difficult things like showing up on time.  Like not talking on your phone during work.   Like conducting yourself in a business-like manor.

But they don't, and thus they work minimum wage at McDs.

The fourth group, are those looking for a way in.   These are the people who take a job working for minimum wage, just so they can get a foot in the door, to move up to a better position.

I had an ex-military guy, who was in his early 40s, work minimum wage at Advance Auto Parts.    6 months later, he was district manager.

A lot of the morons on the left, are oblivious to the concept of sacrificing now, for something better later.   This is exactly why they never succeed in life.


----------



## Andylusion

Againsheila said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except it's not enough to pay for a place to live and food to eat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you go to the store, do you demand that prices be raised, because the tomato you bought doesn't cost enough to support a family of 5 for a week?
> 
> When Walmart or anyone else hires a person, they are purchasing a service, nothing more.  They are not adopting a child to care for, they are purchasing the labor of a person at a mutually agreed upon price.
> 
> Look, your Union bosses have stolen everything they can from the public sector - you need to rob Walmart to pay for the outrageous benefits that the welfare rats known as government workers get - I understand. Walmart has money and you want it - there are unfunded pensions for government welfare rats that need to be paid for..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bulcrap.  Walmart is stealing our money in the form of welfare to their workers.  I would rather pay for it upfront in the cost of their merchandise.
Click to expand...


Let me get this straight........

First *YOU* vote for idiots in government who give out welfare.

Then *YOU* scream about Walmart taking advantage of the system *YOU* support.

Am I missing something?

If you are so unbelievable stupid, as to hand out your money every morning, how is it anyone elses fault, but your own, that you are broke?

If you give money to your drug addicted alcoholic brother-in-law, is it now his fault that he blows your money and beer and drugs, or yours?

The instant that you support policies that government gives out your money.... you also instantly forfeit any right to complain, or blame anyone but the people who voted in favor of such policies.


----------



## beagle9

Why is that people are mixing so many characters and issues together here, when they don't go together except to try and confuse with?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

beagle9 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know anything at all about me?  I'm a homemaker.  I don't belong to a union.  Even when I was working for the DOD I didn't belong to a union.  I did belong to a union when I was working for United Airlines, but that was the Machinist union, not the SEIU.
> 
> I don't care if Walmart gets a union or not, I want them to pay a living wage.  In the richest country in the world, the lowest paid worker should make a living wage and everything should go up from there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is a living wage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think it is a wage that is paid to the employee's for services rendered, and it would be based upon their loyalty, hardworks and good stewardship while working there, and also upon the companies progress and fortunes it has had as a team within the market place. It is and should be generally divided up out of the spoils of the companies sucesses between all persons found in percentage of (structural pay grade systems), and for whom are involved in the process after cost and taxes are paid. To look upon a workforce as modern day slaves, where as greed trumps all, and where as the employee's are left out of what should be the moral and ethical realm of it all as they should not be, is just criminal if you ask me.
> 
> Minimum wage has nothing to do with the living wage situation in America, as they are two seperate things.
Click to expand...


That's stupid. 

So company should not be rewarded for their risk? You would pay an engineer the same as a welder? A pipefitter then same as a helper? A doctor the same as an intern?

Again, that's stupid.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

beagle9 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In our town we saw an add where "Mcdonalds" was going to help it's employee's qualify for welfare, now what do you have to say about that ? Also she is right, where as with the illegals, entry level young mothers/workers, and other such manual or low skilled labor forces in America, we the tax payers have been subsidizing the companies who have been working them for a while now, and this was so that their help can live and eat while working for them either above or under the table. The scam has been caught and the people are livid about what they have found out in all of this now, so the spin just gets faster and faster as the gates close faster and faster on it all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cant say I've ever seen a sixteen year old on welfare. Unless of course his parents are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you suggesting that only 16 year olds work at McDonald's ?
Click to expand...


  I'm suggesting that should be the case. If you're an adult working at Micky D's you need to pull your head out of your ass.


----------



## Asclepias

Zombie_Pundit said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think its better to be paid more than you are worth?  The reason I ask is I think just the opposite.  I would rather there be an incentive for people to get off welfare and better themselves.  I'd rather pay on the back end.  Either way we are going to pay.  I just would like the effect of having more people better themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you that I would prefer that people aspire to better their lives.  However, in the interest of fairness, our society must enable ladders of upward social mobility in order for people to have the opportunity to improve their fortunes.
> 
> I also think the optimal solution would be for employers to pay their employees more by way of the employer's own volition.  There are several companies who pay far above the minimum wage of their own volition.  Whole Foods, for example, though they do it to take advantage of that "hippie" vibe, let us not ignore the motivation.
> 
> Given that employers have, historically and presently, not been willing to pay their employees a wage consistent with even meager means, we have the minimum wage.  The debate on the necessity of a minimum wage was settled in 1938 with the FLSA.  The question is how high should it be?  Obviously it should be enough such that a single fulltime employee can literally sustain themselves, and as expected the minimum wage actually is around 130% of poverty.  Should it be higher to allow the minimum wage worker some disposable income to try to better themselves?
> 
> Just a thought on providing ladders of upward social mobility.
Click to expand...


I agree there should be ladders of upward social mobility.  My point is that its better to go around or through obstacles in the mean time.  Raising the wage on people that do not aspire to do better is not going to help them in the long run.  They will quickly spend up that extra cash to meet their income level as 90% or more of people in the US do.  A curious phenomenon of money is that the more there is in circulation (surplus) the higher the inflation rate goes.  This will effectively put us all back in the same boat as your dollar will be able to buy less and less as time goes on. When people start educating themselves and striving forward without sitting around waiting for a government provided wage they tend to do better as human beings.


----------



## MisterBeale

beagle9 said:


> Why is that people are mixing so many characters and issues together here, when they don't go together except to try and confuse with?



The better to debase the currency with and distract the population of fools. . . .


----------



## beagle9

Lonestar_logic said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a living wage?
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is a wage that is paid to the employee's for services rendered, and it would be based upon their loyalty, hardworks and good stewardship while working there, and also upon the companies progress and fortunes it has had as a team within the market place. It is and should be generally divided up out of the spoils of the companies sucesses between all persons found in percentage of (structural pay grade systems), and for whom are involved in the process after cost and taxes are paid. To look upon a workforce as modern day slaves, where as greed trumps all, and where as the employee's are left out of what should be the moral and ethical realm of it all as they should not be, is just criminal if you ask me.
> 
> Minimum wage has nothing to do with the living wage situation in America, as they are two seperate things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's stupid.
> 
> So company should not be rewarded for their risk? You would pay an engineer the same as a welder? A pipefitter then same as a helper? A doctor the same as an intern?
> 
> Again, that's stupid.
Click to expand...

Your analogy or interpretation of my writings is wrong and maybe stupid because you got me scratching my head now as to how you come to that conclusion by what I said. 

Sorry, but if you will just go back and read what I have written for around 5 or 6 post back , then you will see that I said nothing of the sort, so how do you get that out of what I wrote in the past here ? Hmmm, or are you trying to put words in my mouth, where as if other people don't do their homework, then you will have painted me into saying something that I didn't say, and maybe that's your goal with such tactics as this maybe. Hmmm.

What now, do people just come in on a conversation, and then feel that they can just throw their two cents in there blindly, otherwise even if they don't know what the entire character is of the person is for whom has been adding input into this thread differently than what they think ?

A living wage is always fluid if that helps you any..


----------



## beagle9

HereWeGoAgain said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cant say I've ever seen a sixteen year old on welfare. Unless of course his parents are.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that only 16 year olds work at McDonald's ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm suggesting that should be the case. If you're an adult working at Micky D's you need to pull your head out of your ass.
Click to expand...

You don't do yourself any good with post like that...Just saying.

A job is a terrible thing to waist, and so is a mind.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

beagle9 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that only 16 year olds work at McDonald's ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm suggesting that should be the case. If you're an adult working at Micky D's you need to pull your head out of your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't do yourself any good with post like that...Just saying.
> 
> A job is a terrible thing to waist, and so is a mind.
Click to expand...


  If you're an adult working at Micky D's your mind is already wasted....just saying.


----------



## Andylusion

Asclepias said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think its better to be paid more than you are worth?  The reason I ask is I think just the opposite.  I would rather there be an incentive for people to get off welfare and better themselves.  I'd rather pay on the back end.  Either way we are going to pay.  I just would like the effect of having more people better themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you that I would prefer that people aspire to better their lives.  However, in the interest of fairness, our society must enable ladders of upward social mobility in order for people to have the opportunity to improve their fortunes.
> 
> I also think the optimal solution would be for employers to pay their employees more by way of the employer's own volition.  There are several companies who pay far above the minimum wage of their own volition.  Whole Foods, for example, though they do it to take advantage of that "hippie" vibe, let us not ignore the motivation.
> 
> Given that employers have, historically and presently, not been willing to pay their employees a wage consistent with even meager means, we have the minimum wage.  The debate on the necessity of a minimum wage was settled in 1938 with the FLSA.  The question is how high should it be?  Obviously it should be enough such that a single fulltime employee can literally sustain themselves, and as expected the minimum wage actually is around 130% of poverty.  Should it be higher to allow the minimum wage worker some disposable income to try to better themselves?
> 
> Just a thought on providing ladders of upward social mobility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree there should be ladders of upward social mobility.  My point is that its better to go around or through obstacles in the mean time.  Raising the wage on people that do not aspire to do better is not going to help them in the long run.  They will quickly spend up that extra cash to meet their income level as 90% or more of people in the US do.  A curious phenomenon of money is that the more there is in circulation (surplus) the higher the inflation rate goes.  This will effectively put us all back in the same boat as your dollar will be able to buy less and less as time goes on. When people start educating themselves and striving forward without sitting around waiting for a government provided wage they tend to do better as human beings.
Click to expand...


And the only exception to that, is when people are replaced with machines.... which will cut down on inflation, but the people the minimum wage was meant to help, will end up unemployed.

So either way, it doesn't help.    Either the minimum wage drives up inflation, or it causes people to lose their jobs.

Both result in people being just as bad, or worse off than before.


----------



## beagle9

Androw said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you that I would prefer that people aspire to better their lives.  However, in the interest of fairness, our society must enable ladders of upward social mobility in order for people to have the opportunity to improve their fortunes.
> 
> I also think the optimal solution would be for employers to pay their employees more by way of the employer's own volition.  There are several companies who pay far above the minimum wage of their own volition.  Whole Foods, for example, though they do it to take advantage of that "hippie" vibe, let us not ignore the motivation.
> 
> Given that employers have, historically and presently, not been willing to pay their employees a wage consistent with even meager means, we have the minimum wage.  The debate on the necessity of a minimum wage was settled in 1938 with the FLSA.  The question is how high should it be?  Obviously it should be enough such that a single fulltime employee can literally sustain themselves, and as expected the minimum wage actually is around 130% of poverty.  Should it be higher to allow the minimum wage worker some disposable income to try to better themselves?
> 
> Just a thought on providing ladders of upward social mobility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree there should be ladders of upward social mobility.  My point is that its better to go around or through obstacles in the mean time.  Raising the wage on people that do not aspire to do better is not going to help them in the long run.  They will quickly spend up that extra cash to meet their income level as 90% or more of people in the US do.  A curious phenomenon of money is that the more there is in circulation (surplus) the higher the inflation rate goes.  This will effectively put us all back in the same boat as your dollar will be able to buy less and less as time goes on. When people start educating themselves and striving forward without sitting around waiting for a government provided wage they tend to do better as human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the only exception to that, is when people are replaced with machines.... which will cut down on inflation, but the people the minimum wage was meant to help, will end up unemployed.
> 
> So either way, it doesn't help.    Either the minimum wage drives up inflation, or it causes people to lose their jobs.
> 
> Both result in people being just as bad, or worse off than before.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with a minimum wage hike, but just as long as it is not used for a living wage instead of a minimal entrance pay hike when it is done. The living wage thing can be handled as a sperate issue in my honest opinion. 

The minimum wage thing is just being used I think to satisfy the masses for political reasons, and to give corporations the excuse to pay equal pay across the board to labor. These issues are not being understood as they should be, and that is ashame really.


----------



## Asclepias

Androw said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you that I would prefer that people aspire to better their lives.  However, in the interest of fairness, our society must enable ladders of upward social mobility in order for people to have the opportunity to improve their fortunes.
> 
> I also think the optimal solution would be for employers to pay their employees more by way of the employer's own volition.  There are several companies who pay far above the minimum wage of their own volition.  Whole Foods, for example, though they do it to take advantage of that "hippie" vibe, let us not ignore the motivation.
> 
> Given that employers have, historically and presently, not been willing to pay their employees a wage consistent with even meager means, we have the minimum wage.  The debate on the necessity of a minimum wage was settled in 1938 with the FLSA.  The question is how high should it be?  Obviously it should be enough such that a single fulltime employee can literally sustain themselves, and as expected the minimum wage actually is around 130% of poverty.  Should it be higher to allow the minimum wage worker some disposable income to try to better themselves?
> 
> Just a thought on providing ladders of upward social mobility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree there should be ladders of upward social mobility.  My point is that its better to go around or through obstacles in the mean time.  Raising the wage on people that do not aspire to do better is not going to help them in the long run.  They will quickly spend up that extra cash to meet their income level as 90% or more of people in the US do.  A curious phenomenon of money is that the more there is in circulation (surplus) the higher the inflation rate goes.  This will effectively put us all back in the same boat as your dollar will be able to buy less and less as time goes on. When people start educating themselves and striving forward without sitting around waiting for a government provided wage they tend to do better as human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the only exception to that, is when people are replaced with machines.... which will cut down on inflation, but the people the minimum wage was meant to help, will end up unemployed.
> 
> So either way, it doesn't help.    Either the minimum wage drives up inflation, or it causes people to lose their jobs.
> 
> Both result in people being just as bad, or worse off than before.
Click to expand...


Thats only if people chose to remain at the market value of a minimum wage employee.  You cant really help someone that flat out refuses to help themselves. If you see the market is changing and robots are taking over your job that should be a clue for you to acquire more skills prior to that happening.  I have a problem making employers pay higher wages because ultimately they will hire less employees and work the hell out of them.  You cant win or get ahead looking for someone to gift you more than you are worth as an employee.


----------



## Mertex

Defiant1 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has someone figured out the magic formula to define a "living" wage?
> 
> Or should each employee be paid according to how much money they need to "live?"
Click to expand...



Yep, Economists have.  Google is your friend.


Living Wage Calculator - Introduction to the Living Wage Calculator


----------



## beagle9

Asclepias said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree there should be ladders of upward social mobility.  My point is that its better to go around or through obstacles in the mean time.  Raising the wage on people that do not aspire to do better is not going to help them in the long run.  They will quickly spend up that extra cash to meet their income level as 90% or more of people in the US do.  A curious phenomenon of money is that the more there is in circulation (surplus) the higher the inflation rate goes.  This will effectively put us all back in the same boat as your dollar will be able to buy less and less as time goes on. When people start educating themselves and striving forward without sitting around waiting for a government provided wage they tend to do better as human beings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the only exception to that, is when people are replaced with machines.... which will cut down on inflation, but the people the minimum wage was meant to help, will end up unemployed.
> 
> So either way, it doesn't help.    Either the minimum wage drives up inflation, or it causes people to lose their jobs.
> 
> Both result in people being just as bad, or worse off than before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats only if people chose to remain at the market value of a minimum wage employee.  You cant really help someone that flat out refuses to help themselves. If you see the market is changing and robots are taking over your job that should be a clue for you to acquire more skills prior to that happening.  I have a problem making employers pay higher wages because ultimately they will hire less employees and work the hell out of them.  You cant win or get ahead looking for someone to gift you more than you are worth as an employee.
Click to expand...

No one is saying for anyone to gift someone more than what they are worth (your words), but rather to just pay them what they are worth in a structural pay system that they these companies should have intact in all of them. What is about to happen is Obama and company is about to give them (big companies/corporations) something that is right in line with what they wanted the whole time anyway, and that is for minimum wage to turn into a socialistic styled living wage across the board for all labor. Man talk about giving the wealthy a huge gift, and I mean wow. They will say next that the wage is a living wage, and therefore it won't be raised again for another 5 years, and that will be the next raise that the labor forces will get when government raises it again instead of them.

Talk about socialism/communism operating in America now. WOW! This is what happens when you mix it up with the world to much, and then you start becoming corrupted as a nation by it all. Obama wants to be a world leader, and not just the American President.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Asclepias said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think its better to be paid more than you are worth?  The reason I ask is I think just the opposite.  I would rather there be an incentive for people to get off welfare and better themselves.  I'd rather pay on the back end.  Either way we are going to pay.  I just would like the effect of having more people better themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you that I would prefer that people aspire to better their lives.  However, in the interest of fairness, our society must enable ladders of upward social mobility in order for people to have the opportunity to improve their fortunes.
> 
> I also think the optimal solution would be for employers to pay their employees more by way of the employer's own volition.  There are several companies who pay far above the minimum wage of their own volition.  Whole Foods, for example, though they do it to take advantage of that "hippie" vibe, let us not ignore the motivation.
> 
> Given that employers have, historically and presently, not been willing to pay their employees a wage consistent with even meager means, we have the minimum wage.  The debate on the necessity of a minimum wage was settled in 1938 with the FLSA.  The question is how high should it be?  Obviously it should be enough such that a single fulltime employee can literally sustain themselves, and as expected the minimum wage actually is around 130% of poverty.  Should it be higher to allow the minimum wage worker some disposable income to try to better themselves?
> 
> Just a thought on providing ladders of upward social mobility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree there should be ladders of upward social mobility.  My point is that its better to go around or through obstacles in the mean time.  Raising the wage on people that do not aspire to do better is not going to help them in the long run.  They will quickly spend up that extra cash to meet their income level as 90% or more of people in the US do.  A curious phenomenon of money is that the more there is in circulation (surplus) the higher the inflation rate goes.  This will effectively put us all back in the same boat as your dollar will be able to buy less and less as time goes on. When people start educating themselves and striving forward without sitting around waiting for a government provided wage they tend to do better as human beings.
Click to expand...


You made some excellent points.

Concerning the real wage of the minimum wage worker, let's start with an equation:
Z<X<Y
If we increase the money wage from some value X to some value Y (Y>X), eventually as prices increase we know that Y will buy the same amount of real goods that X could not so long in the past and we're back to the beginning again.  I do agree with you.

However, by not increasing the minimum wage each minimum wage employee earns a lower real wage over time, every day.  
Consider that if we abandoned this debate and left the minimum wage at X, but inflation continued, that minimum wage X would buy fewer and fewer goods as time goes on because of the inflation in prices.  That minimum wage X would normalize with respect to inflation to a value Z lower than X.  Ergo, freezing the minimum wage for years and not compensating for inflation does in fact lower the minimum real wage even the minimum money wage remains constant.  We are making poor people poorer by doing nothing.



You're right, raising the minimum wage would increase demand for consumer goods.  From the CBO
_On balance, according to CBOs analysis, raising the minimum wage would increase demand for goods and services because, taken together, the second, third, and fourth direct effects would shift income from business owners and consumers (as a whole) to low-wage workers. Low-wage workers generally spend a larger share of each dollar they receive than the average business owner or consumer does; thus, when a dollar from business owners or consumers is shifted to low-wage workers, overall spending increases.​_http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44995-MinimumWage.pdf

So we see that the "velocity of money" will increase. 
Let's use the equation of exchange, MV=PQ, and what we want to grow is Q.
Keeping M (Money Supply) constant, and noting that V will increase, the product PQ must also increase. 
Minimum wage represents a price control, meaning that the government dictates that an hour of labor cannot be purchased for less than X amount.  Raising X to Y will inflict an increase in P (price).
So we know V will increase and we know P will increase, but we do not know if the increase in V will exceed the increase in P.
The question is: will Q (real GDP) increase?  We want Q to increase.


----------



## Andylusion

beagle9 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree there should be ladders of upward social mobility.  My point is that its better to go around or through obstacles in the mean time.  Raising the wage on people that do not aspire to do better is not going to help them in the long run.  They will quickly spend up that extra cash to meet their income level as 90% or more of people in the US do.  A curious phenomenon of money is that the more there is in circulation (surplus) the higher the inflation rate goes.  This will effectively put us all back in the same boat as your dollar will be able to buy less and less as time goes on. When people start educating themselves and striving forward without sitting around waiting for a government provided wage they tend to do better as human beings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the only exception to that, is when people are replaced with machines.... which will cut down on inflation, but the people the minimum wage was meant to help, will end up unemployed.
> 
> So either way, it doesn't help.    Either the minimum wage drives up inflation, or it causes people to lose their jobs.
> 
> Both result in people being just as bad, or worse off than before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing wrong with a minimum wage hike, but just as long as it is not used for a living wage instead of a minimal entrance pay hike when it is done. The living wage thing can be handled as a sperate issue in my honest opinion.
> 
> The minimum wage thing is just being used I think to satisfy the masses for political reasons, and to give corporations the excuse to pay equal pay across the board to labor. These issues are not being understood as they should be, and that is ashame really.
Click to expand...


No, the primary driver of the minimum wage is Unions.   It's not those 25 and younger, that work at Wendy's.    Those people are not likely to vote anyway.  

Voter turn out, for those under the age of 24, is less than 48%.
Voter turn out, for those unmarried, is less than 53%.
Voter turn out, for those earning $20K or less, is less than 51%.

In each category, these are the lowest voter turn out rates, of any group.

Minimum wage laws, are most likely to effect, those that are least likely to vote.

The only reason the minimum wage is EVER made into a political issue, is because of Unions.

Unions hate cheaper labor undercutting their membership base.  They hate the idea of companies providing cheaper goods to the public, with a lower cost labor.    They hate that people without education, without training or skills, can make a living doing what Unions do, at a lower cost point.

In short, the Unions want to grow and become larger, and more political powerful, and lack of wage laws, prevent that.

So they vote democrap, donate to democraps, and organize media campaigns for democraps, anything to get these wage laws passed so they can screw unskilled workers, screw the consumer, and protect themselves.


----------



## Andylusion

beagle9 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the only exception to that, is when people are replaced with machines.... which will cut down on inflation, but the people the minimum wage was meant to help, will end up unemployed.
> 
> So either way, it doesn't help.    Either the minimum wage drives up inflation, or it causes people to lose their jobs.
> 
> Both result in people being just as bad, or worse off than before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats only if people chose to remain at the market value of a minimum wage employee.  You cant really help someone that flat out refuses to help themselves. If you see the market is changing and robots are taking over your job that should be a clue for you to acquire more skills prior to that happening.  I have a problem making employers pay higher wages because ultimately they will hire less employees and work the hell out of them.  You cant win or get ahead looking for someone to gift you more than you are worth as an employee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is saying for anyone to gift someone more than what they are worth (your words), but rather to just pay them what they are worth in a structural pay system that they these companies should have intact in all of them. What is about to happen is Obama and company is about to give them (big companies/corporations) something that is right in line with what they wanted the whole time anyway, and that is for minimum wage to turn into a socialistic styled living wage across the board for all labor. Man talk about giving the wealthy a huge gift, and I mean wow. They will say next that the wage is a living wage, and therefore it won't be raised again for another 5 years, and that will be the next raise that the labor forces will get when government raises it again instead of them.
> 
> Talk about socialism/communism operating in America now. WOW! This is what happens when you mix it up with the world to much, and then you start becoming corrupted as a nation by it all. Obama wants to be a world leader, and not just the American President.
Click to expand...


Well first off, Obama is not trying to benefit the companies.

Doesn't matter.   All regulation benefits the large companies.   This is why no matter how much the left scream about right-wingers being in favor of big companies and the super wealthy, the truth is, the left-wing is the biggest support of the super wealthy, and always has been.

Here's what's going to happen.   Let's pretend in magic world, that Obama passes a $15/hr minimum wage.

McDonald, which has billions of dollars, will replace their workers with robots.   Thus, they can keep their prices low enough to stay in business.

What happens to all the Competition which do not have the money to automate??   Well they go out of business.   They'll close.   Thus McDonald and other super large companies with the money to automate their stores, will be the only stores still open.   All the competition will disappear.

Meanwhile, all the employees will lose their jobs, and of all the employees of the competition will lose their jobs.

In short, the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.   McDonald's and the very few other massive fast food companies, get a defacto monopoly, and all the poor are now unemployed.

We've seen how liberal regulation works over and over and over again.   In the 1960s, there were dozens, nearly a hundred independent auto makers.   Then they regulated the hell out of the auto industry.  By 1980s, there were only the Big Three.

The left is always benefiting the rich, at the expense of the poor.   Whether they do it intentionally, or by accident, is irrelevant.  This is the result.

*Back to your first claim*



> No one is saying for anyone to gift someone more than what they are worth (your words), but rather to just pay them what they are worth in a structural pay system that they these companies should have intact in all of them.



Fail?    Who determines how much someone is worth?

Answer?   The customer.    We determine how much someone's labor is worth.

If McDonald's could get customers to pay $480 for a big mac, they would be more than willing to pay a burger flipper $1 Million a year.

For example, a high end Flair Bartender in Las Vegas, can pull $100,000 a year, for essentially pouring drink, and putting on a show doing it.

How the heck can he earn that much when the average Bartender earns $20K?   Customers.   The Customers going to Las Vegas are willing to pay for it.    The minimum wage didn't magically change to $100K in Las Vegas.

Companies do not have one single penny that doesn't come from the Customer.   Every dollar that an employee is paid, comes from a Customer paying for it.

Only the customer determines how much labor is worth.

Say you hired someone to mow your lawn for $25 a mow, twice a month.  If the guy came to you the following year and said "I deserve $50,000 a year, so you need to pay me $100 a mow"   would you do it?

Heck no.  For $200, you could by a law mower, and all the gas to mow your lawn for the entire summer.    Forget that... for a years worth of mowing, you could buy a Lawn Bot, and have a robot mow your lawn for the next 10 years.

Well if the government steps in and puts on a Minimum Lawn Mower wage, and the guy says "you have to pay me $100 to mow your law.  Federal Law"  what will you do?

Same thing.  You'll either mow it yourself, or buy a robot.

HELLO!?!?    It's the same thing with a fast food joint.    A cheap fast food burger, is not worth $20.   It's not.    Hello.... it's not.

If the customer isn't willing to pay $20 for the burger, than the company can't pay $20 an hour to the employee.   The employees labor isn't worth that much, because the customer isn't willing to pay that much.

Thus, either the customer will simply stop buying the labor, and cooking their own food.....  or the company will replace the employee with robots.

In either case, the employee is not going to get paid more than they are worth.   And what they are worth, doesn't change because you passed some law.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Salary should be relative to skill and ability. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## RKMBrown

Lonestar_logic said:


> Salary should be relative to skill and ability. Nothing more, nothing less.


There are a lot more factors than just skill and ability.

For example, amount of effort applied for each work hour, number of hours, results, availability, like-ability with employees and customers, loyalty, retention issues, ....

For a lot of jobs what you get paid is also going to be based on your ability to negotiate with whomever is hiring you when you start, which goes to ability and like-ability but also negotiation experience which are not normally useful for every job, so is another skill set entirely.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Androw said:


> Here's what's going to happen.   Let's pretend in magic world, that Obama passes a $15/hr minimum wage.
> 
> McDonald, which has billions of dollars, will replace their workers with robots.   Thus, they can keep their prices low enough to stay in business.



That is a terrible leap in logic.  This is not a situation where someone can "make it cheaper in China" because you are talking about cooked hamburgers served hot.  There is no foreign competition.  The cost increase would be inflicted upon every fast food restaurant in the United States.  Given the fact that all competition McDonald's faces would suffer the same increase in cost, this is not a situation where McDonald's would need to keep prices low in response to competition.   So, given that competition is not driving the price in the model you propose, a price increase is more realistic. That price increase may yield to a lower volume of sales.  It is the lower volume of sales that would reduce jobs!

Furthermore, if McDonalds had the option to replace their workforce with robots, why wouldn't they just replace the workforce?  It does not follow that anyone should fear a wage hike because MickeyDees might start investing in robots.  If robots could be used (and actually are used in some small capacity to pour drinks in drive-thrus) McDonalds has an obligation to its stockholders reduce labor costs and implement the cheaper more efficient robot solution.  

Look up the "Automated Beverage System".  McDonalds is already investing in robots,




Androw said:


> What happens to all the Competition which do not have the money to automate??   Well they go out of business.   They'll close.   Thus McDonald and other super large companies with the money to automate their stores, will be the only stores still open.   All the competition will disappear.




That automation will happen as soon as the burger-flipper robot is invented.  The day someone invents the burger-flipper robot this is going to happen.  You do understand that MickeyDees has a responsibility to its shareholders, right?  You can abolish the minimum wage all together and robots will still happen.



Androw said:


> We've seen how liberal regulation works over and over and over again.   In the 1960s, there were dozens, nearly a hundred independent auto makers.   Then they regulated the hell out of the auto industry.  By 1980s, there were only the Big Three.



Okay, first, could you substantiate the claim "In the 1960s, there were dozens, nearly a hundred independent auto makers" ?  

I am not aware of "nearly a hundred" or any number close to that.  Please remember that to be on this list of independent automakers, the independent automakers must have actually made cars in the United States such that their manufacturing process was subject to regulation in the United States.
Second, you have completely overlooked the oil embargo.  The oil embargo and price of gas was devastating to American inefficient cars.  You have overlooked the growth foreign competition, and the fact that Germany and Japan had rejoined the world as nations with substantial industry after WWII.  You have overlooked the great American Quality Crisis (Quality is Free by Phil Crosby).
You seem to be trying to blame everything on a book Ralph Nader wrote.  Ralphie was never so powerful.




Androw said:


> If McDonald's could get customers to pay $480 for a big mac, they would be more than willing to pay a burger flipper $1 Million a year.



If McDonalds could get customers to pay $480 for a big mac, then the price of a big mac would be $480, that part is correct.  Where you made a mistake is in assuming this translates into wages.  If MickeyDees could charge $480 of a big mac, but only give $0.01 per hour to the burger-flipper... why wouldn't they?  Why would they deprive their shareholders of the profit?
McDonalds is far more likely to pay just enough to keep the burger-flipper from leaving the job, maybe have some morale when he comes to work, and this will be a function of the supply of labor.



Androw said:


> For example, a high end Flair Bartender in Las Vegas, can pull $100,000 a year, for essentially pouring drink, and putting on a show doing it.


Hey now, that is not a fair comparison.  How many MickeyDees burger-flippers "put on a show"?  A high-end burger-flipper might make the same amount of money if he could figure out a routine and market that routine.  That does distinguish the _performer_ from the average burger-flipper.



Androw said:


> How the heck can he earn that much when the average Bartender earns $20K?   Customers.   The Customers going to Las Vegas are willing to pay for it.    The minimum wage didn't magically change to $100K in Las Vegas.


You are assuming fungibility in the service provided where none exists.  The fact that the two services are different is why the consumer is willing to pay two different prices.



Androw said:


> Say you hired someone to mow your lawn for $25 a mow, twice a month.  If the guy came to you the following year and said "I deserve $50,000 a year, so you need to pay me $100 a mow"   would you do it?
> 
> Heck no.  For $200, you could by a law mower, and all the gas to mow your lawn for the entire summer.


I assume you do not have a large yard.  If you owned several acres, maybe this per-service price would seem more reasonable.



Androw said:


> Forget that... for a years worth of mowing, you could buy a Lawn Bot, and have a robot mow your lawn for the next 10 years.


Thank you for making me aware of lawnbott.
LawnBott Robotic Mowers | LawnBott ? Electric Lawn Mower
If I am able to do so, I am going to terminate my landscaping services and start buying robots.
I do not care how much the landscaper will reduce his prices.  I like robots a lot. I think robots are neat and the robot will never leave a cigarette butt in my yard.
I'm actually serious, if I could I'd buy a landscaping robot and the minimum wage has very little to do with my decision.  See how that works?




Androw said:


> HELLO!?!?    It's the same thing with a fast food joint.    A cheap fast food burger, is not worth $20.   It's not.    Hello.... it's not.



You sound like Biff speaking to McFly... "Hello! McFly Hello!"
A cheap fast food burger is worth $20 if you can sell it for $20. 



Androw said:


> If the customer isn't willing to pay $20 for the burger, than the company can't pay $20 an hour to the employee.  The employees labor isn't worth that much, because the customer isn't willing to pay that much.


The price of the burger actually does not affect the wage of the worker.  If there was a shortage of labor, the wage of the burger-flipper would sky rocket and this would be reflected in reduced profits.  The reduced profits would be necessary because in order to stay in business one would have to pay the laborer a rate better than the competition for that labor.  In the case of limited labor supply, a laborer can demand an incredible amount of money.




Androw said:


> In either case, the employee is not going to get paid more than they are worth.   And what they are worth, doesn't change because you passed some law.


The FLSA and history thereof disagrees with you.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

RKMBrown said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Salary should be relative to skill and ability. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot more factors than just skill and ability.
> 
> For example, amount of effort applied for each work hour, number of hours, results, availability, like-ability with employees and customers, loyalty, retention issues, ....
> 
> For a lot of jobs what you get paid is also going to be based on your ability to negotiate with whomever is hiring you when you start, which goes to ability and like-ability but also negotiation experience which are not normally useful for every job, so is another skill set entirely.
Click to expand...


No there's not. Everything you suggested applies to ability.


----------



## RKMBrown

Lonestar_logic said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Salary should be relative to skill and ability. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot more factors than just skill and ability.
> 
> For example, amount of effort applied for each work hour, number of hours, results, availability, like-ability with employees and customers, loyalty, retention issues, ....
> 
> For a lot of jobs what you get paid is also going to be based on your ability to negotiate with whomever is hiring you when you start, which goes to ability and like-ability but also negotiation experience which are not normally useful for every job, so is another skill set entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No there's not. Everything you suggested applies to ability.
Click to expand...


Nonsense.  One can have all the ability in the world but with no motivation, no character, that person can sit on his ability and not use it. That person can even spend most of his time subverting the company.  Ability isn't worth a copper penny if it's not applied.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot more factors than just skill and ability.
> 
> For example, amount of effort applied for each work hour, number of hours, results, availability, like-ability with employees and customers, loyalty, retention issues, ....
> 
> For a lot of jobs what you get paid is also going to be based on your ability to negotiate with whomever is hiring you when you start, which goes to ability and like-ability but also negotiation experience which are not normally useful for every job, so is another skill set entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No there's not. Everything you suggested applies to ability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  One can have all the ability in the world but with no motivation, no character, that person can sit on his ability and not use it. That person can even spend most of his time subverting the company.  Ability isn't worth a copper penny if it's not applied.
Click to expand...


Reminds me of the quote "knowledge is power".  No, applied knowledge is power.


----------



## Asclepias

Zombie_Pundit said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you that I would prefer that people aspire to better their lives.  However, in the interest of fairness, our society must enable ladders of upward social mobility in order for people to have the opportunity to improve their fortunes.
> 
> I also think the optimal solution would be for employers to pay their employees more by way of the employer's own volition.  There are several companies who pay far above the minimum wage of their own volition.  Whole Foods, for example, though they do it to take advantage of that "hippie" vibe, let us not ignore the motivation.
> 
> Given that employers have, historically and presently, not been willing to pay their employees a wage consistent with even meager means, we have the minimum wage.  The debate on the necessity of a minimum wage was settled in 1938 with the FLSA.  The question is how high should it be?  Obviously it should be enough such that a single fulltime employee can literally sustain themselves, and as expected the minimum wage actually is around 130% of poverty.  Should it be higher to allow the minimum wage worker some disposable income to try to better themselves?
> 
> Just a thought on providing ladders of upward social mobility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree there should be ladders of upward social mobility.  My point is that its better to go around or through obstacles in the mean time.  Raising the wage on people that do not aspire to do better is not going to help them in the long run.  They will quickly spend up that extra cash to meet their income level as 90% or more of people in the US do.  A curious phenomenon of money is that the more there is in circulation (surplus) the higher the inflation rate goes.  This will effectively put us all back in the same boat as your dollar will be able to buy less and less as time goes on. When people start educating themselves and striving forward without sitting around waiting for a government provided wage they tend to do better as human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made some excellent points.
> 
> Concerning the real wage of the minimum wage worker, let's start with an equation:
> Z<X<Y
> If we increase the money wage from some value X to some value Y (Y>X), eventually as prices increase we know that Y will buy the same amount of real goods that X could not so long in the past and we're back to the beginning again.  I do agree with you.
> 
> However, by not increasing the minimum wage each minimum wage employee earns a lower real wage over time, every day.
> Consider that if we abandoned this debate and left the minimum wage at X, but inflation continued, that minimum wage X would buy fewer and fewer goods as time goes on because of the inflation in prices.  That minimum wage X would normalize with respect to inflation to a value Z lower than X.  Ergo, freezing the minimum wage for years and not compensating for inflation does in fact lower the minimum real wage even the minimum money wage remains constant.  We are making poor people poorer by doing nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, raising the minimum wage would increase demand for consumer goods.  From the CBO
> _On balance, according to CBOs analysis, raising the minimum wage would increase demand for goods and services because, taken together, the second, third, and fourth direct effects would shift income from business owners and consumers (as a whole) to low-wage workers. Low-wage workers generally spend a larger share of each dollar they receive than the average business owner or consumer does; thus, when a dollar from business owners or consumers is shifted to low-wage workers, overall spending increases.​_http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44995-MinimumWage.pdf
> 
> So we see that the "velocity of money" will increase.
> Let's use the equation of exchange, MV=PQ, and what we want to grow is Q.
> Keeping M (Money Supply) constant, and noting that V will increase, the product PQ must also increase.
> Minimum wage represents a price control, meaning that the government dictates that an hour of labor cannot be purchased for less than X amount.  Raising X to Y will inflict an increase in P (price).
> So we know V will increase and we know P will increase, but we do not know if the increase in V will exceed the increase in P.
> The question is: will Q (real GDP) increase?  We want Q to increase.
Click to expand...


You make a very valid point I have never really considered in regard to this issue.  Wages stay the same and the cost of living still does go up.  The only way to stop it is for consumers to consciously set a limit on the price they will pay for goods.  Since the average american is hopelessly brainwashed to be a consumer I dont see that happening.  This makes the minimum wage increase more palatable to me but there still remains the issue of motivation. If you are making minimum wage you should be asking yourself 3 questions?

Is min wage acceptable for me and my family?

Am I going to sit around and wait for a wage increase?

Will I go out and make myself more valuable?


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree there should be ladders of upward social mobility.  My point is that its better to go around or through obstacles in the mean time.  Raising the wage on people that do not aspire to do better is not going to help them in the long run.  They will quickly spend up that extra cash to meet their income level as 90% or more of people in the US do.  A curious phenomenon of money is that the more there is in circulation (surplus) the higher the inflation rate goes.  This will effectively put us all back in the same boat as your dollar will be able to buy less and less as time goes on. When people start educating themselves and striving forward without sitting around waiting for a government provided wage they tend to do better as human beings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You made some excellent points.
> 
> Concerning the real wage of the minimum wage worker, let's start with an equation:
> Z<X<Y
> If we increase the money wage from some value X to some value Y (Y>X), eventually as prices increase we know that Y will buy the same amount of real goods that X could not so long in the past and we're back to the beginning again.  I do agree with you.
> 
> However, by not increasing the minimum wage each minimum wage employee earns a lower real wage over time, every day.
> Consider that if we abandoned this debate and left the minimum wage at X, but inflation continued, that minimum wage X would buy fewer and fewer goods as time goes on because of the inflation in prices.  That minimum wage X would normalize with respect to inflation to a value Z lower than X.  Ergo, freezing the minimum wage for years and not compensating for inflation does in fact lower the minimum real wage even the minimum money wage remains constant.  We are making poor people poorer by doing nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, raising the minimum wage would increase demand for consumer goods.  From the CBO
> _On balance, according to CBO&#8217;s analysis, raising the minimum wage would increase demand for goods and services because, taken together, the second, third, and fourth direct effects would shift income from business owners and consumers (as a whole) to low-wage workers. Low-wage workers generally spend a larger share of each dollar they receive than the average business owner or consumer does; thus, when a dollar from business owners or consumers is shifted to low-wage workers, overall spending increases.​_http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44995-MinimumWage.pdf
> 
> So we see that the "velocity of money" will increase.
> Let's use the equation of exchange, MV=PQ, and what we want to grow is Q.
> Keeping M (Money Supply) constant, and noting that V will increase, the product PQ must also increase.
> Minimum wage represents a price control, meaning that the government dictates that an hour of labor cannot be purchased for less than X amount.  Raising X to Y will inflict an increase in P (price).
> So we know V will increase and we know P will increase, but we do not know if the increase in V will exceed the increase in P.
> The question is: will Q (real GDP) increase?  We want Q to increase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make a very valid point I have never really considered in regard to this issue.  Wages stay the same and the cost of living still does go up.  The only way to stop it is for consumers to consciously set a limit on the price they will pay for goods.  Since the average american is hopelessly brainwashed to be a consumer I dont see that happening.  This makes the minimum wage increase more palatable to me but there still remains the issue of motivation. If you are making minimum wage you should be asking yourself 3 questions?
> 
> Is min wage acceptable for me and my family?
> 
> Am I going to sit around and wait for a wage increase?
> 
> Will I go out and make myself more valuable?
Click to expand...


So I'm eating a hamburger at my favorite local bbq joint (real event, this was yesterday). The burger meal costs ten bucks for me ten bucks for my wife, after taxes it comes to 23bucks.  I happen to know that the waitress gets something like 2.50 an hour + tips and is going to texas a&m next year.  I gave her a ten buck tip.  

I would not have paid 15-20 bucks for a hamburger, onion rings & a drink, which would be the result of forcing the owner to pay everyone double pay.

I don't mind forking over a very good tip.  But I do mind the attempt of the left to force me to pay the girl more than she's worth.


----------



## Andylusion

Lonestar_logic said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Salary should be relative to skill and ability. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot more factors than just skill and ability.
> 
> For example, amount of effort applied for each work hour, number of hours, results, availability, like-ability with employees and customers, loyalty, retention issues, ....
> 
> For a lot of jobs what you get paid is also going to be based on your ability to negotiate with whomever is hiring you when you start, which goes to ability and like-ability but also negotiation experience which are not normally useful for every job, so is another skill set entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No there's not. Everything you suggested applies to ability.
Click to expand...


Oh crud.  When you first posted that, I assumed you were joking, because normally you are very rational.   This is the first post by you, that makes me think you are high on pot.

Come on dude....   You KNOW this isn't true.

If you need someone to seal your driveway, and you need someone else to replace the transmission in your car, who do you pay more money to?

The guy who fixes your car.

But what if the skill level and ability of the driveway sealer guy is exceptional, and the backyard mechanic is marginal (which is why he's not at a dealership)? 

You are still going to pay vastly more to the guy fixing your car.

Why?  Because the car is worth more to you fixed, than a few cracks in the driveway sealed.

Cracked driveway means 10 seconds of bumpy ride leaving and getting home.    Broken car means not having a ride at all.

Skill and ability are only important insomuch as the value of the labor of what they are skilled and have ability in.

When I was younger, I was big time into video games (super nerd).    I was so good at video games, that I got banned from dozens, on dozens of servers.  They assumed I was cheating.    It got to the point, that I spent more time trying to find a server I wasn't banned to play on, than actually playing.   In fact (just being honest here), I was so good, and so often banned, that I finally started playing under the name "Tina", because all the nerdy boys online, wouldn't ban the gamer girl (and this was before VOIP, microphones and voice chat).  I spent nearly 3 years playing as Tina, to avoid being banned from being so good.

I was very, very skilled at games, and had massive ability to play.

Now you tell me... who is paid more.... me the super nerd gamer guy, or the least talented, least skilled accountant?

Well of course the accountant.   The value of the labor is what matters.

[ame=http://youtu.be/H7mzVTIYmXk]Lego NXT Xbox 360 Disc Changer "The Carousel" - YouTube[/ame]

See this guy?   Talented guy.  Amazing ability.    Whose getting paid more?   Him, or the least talented accounted?    Again, the accountant.   People are not going to pay him $50K for lego CD changers, no matter how much ability or skill he has.     The labor (building lego CD changers), is not worth as much as even the least skilled accountant.

And here's the kicker.... YOU know this in your own life.   You know that your claim that "Salary should be relative to skill and ability." doesn't apply when it's your own money.

If you go to two different stores, and one store has everything slightly cheaper, which store do you go to?   They have the same milk, same eggs, same potatoes, each for $1 less.

You go to the cheaper store.   Why?   Are you suggesting they have less ability?   Less skill at placing the eggs on the shelf?      Are you saying that the cashier has less skilled at scanning, than the other?

Yet you are paying them less for the exact same product.   Apparently skill and ability are not the only factor.... or you wouldn't go to the store charging you less.

Same if another guy shows up offering to seal your driveway, with the exact same sealant, only he's going to charge you $100 less than the other guy.    Are you going to pay for the lower priced guy?  Yes.   But the skill and ability are the same.     

The only difference between what you are willing to pay for someone's labor, and the employee at a company, is that there is this middle man between the customer and the employee, called the employer.

But it's exactly the same.

If you could arrange a system where you paid the cashier directly for services, you'd find the cheapest cashier you could find, no matter how "skilled at scanning" they are.

It's only because there's the employer between you and the employee, that you can say "Oh well they should pay only based on skill and ability!".... because you are not the one directly shelling out the cash.   But you most certainly go to the cheaper store when you can.


----------



## Andylusion

Asclepias said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree there should be ladders of upward social mobility.  My point is that its better to go around or through obstacles in the mean time.  Raising the wage on people that do not aspire to do better is not going to help them in the long run.  They will quickly spend up that extra cash to meet their income level as 90% or more of people in the US do.  A curious phenomenon of money is that the more there is in circulation (surplus) the higher the inflation rate goes.  This will effectively put us all back in the same boat as your dollar will be able to buy less and less as time goes on. When people start educating themselves and striving forward without sitting around waiting for a government provided wage they tend to do better as human beings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You made some excellent points.
> 
> Concerning the real wage of the minimum wage worker, let's start with an equation:
> Z<X<Y
> If we increase the money wage from some value X to some value Y (Y>X), eventually as prices increase we know that Y will buy the same amount of real goods that X could not so long in the past and we're back to the beginning again.  I do agree with you.
> 
> However, by not increasing the minimum wage each minimum wage employee earns a lower real wage over time, every day.
> Consider that if we abandoned this debate and left the minimum wage at X, but inflation continued, that minimum wage X would buy fewer and fewer goods as time goes on because of the inflation in prices.  That minimum wage X would normalize with respect to inflation to a value Z lower than X.  Ergo, freezing the minimum wage for years and not compensating for inflation does in fact lower the minimum real wage even the minimum money wage remains constant.  We are making poor people poorer by doing nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, raising the minimum wage would increase demand for consumer goods.  From the CBO
> _On balance, according to CBOs analysis, raising the minimum wage would increase demand for goods and services because, taken together, the second, third, and fourth direct effects would shift income from business owners and consumers (as a whole) to low-wage workers. Low-wage workers generally spend a larger share of each dollar they receive than the average business owner or consumer does; thus, when a dollar from business owners or consumers is shifted to low-wage workers, overall spending increases.​_http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44995-MinimumWage.pdf
> 
> So we see that the "velocity of money" will increase.
> Let's use the equation of exchange, MV=PQ, and what we want to grow is Q.
> Keeping M (Money Supply) constant, and noting that V will increase, the product PQ must also increase.
> Minimum wage represents a price control, meaning that the government dictates that an hour of labor cannot be purchased for less than X amount.  Raising X to Y will inflict an increase in P (price).
> So we know V will increase and we know P will increase, but we do not know if the increase in V will exceed the increase in P.
> The question is: will Q (real GDP) increase?  We want Q to increase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make a very valid point I have never really considered in regard to this issue.  Wages stay the same and the cost of living still does go up.  The only way to stop it is for consumers to consciously set a limit on the price they will pay for goods.  Since the average american is hopelessly brainwashed to be a consumer I dont see that happening.  This makes the minimum wage increase more palatable to me but there still remains the issue of motivation. If you are making minimum wage you should be asking yourself 3 questions?
> 
> Is min wage acceptable for me and my family?
> 
> Am I going to sit around and wait for a wage increase?
> 
> Will I go out and make myself more valuable?
Click to expand...


Tell me that you are not suggesting that 'if only consumers would refuse a price' that this would fix anything?

In a free-market, the price will naturally gravitate to the market level just above the cost of production.

Minimum wage drives up the cost production.    If the public refuses to pay the higher fee........        the result is they don't provide the service anymore, and all the employees are unemployed.

Price controls don't work for that exact reason.    This is why they have shortages of *COFFEE* in Venezuela.    You drive up the cost of labor, put price controls on product, and suddenly you have empty shelves....







The sign above the shelf is most fitting "Made in Socialism".  Venezuela Socialism at work.


----------



## Asclepias

Androw said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You made some excellent points.
> 
> Concerning the real wage of the minimum wage worker, let's start with an equation:
> Z<X<Y
> If we increase the money wage from some value X to some value Y (Y>X), eventually as prices increase we know that Y will buy the same amount of real goods that X could not so long in the past and we're back to the beginning again.  I do agree with you.
> 
> However, by not increasing the minimum wage each minimum wage employee earns a lower real wage over time, every day.
> Consider that if we abandoned this debate and left the minimum wage at X, but inflation continued, that minimum wage X would buy fewer and fewer goods as time goes on because of the inflation in prices.  That minimum wage X would normalize with respect to inflation to a value Z lower than X.  Ergo, freezing the minimum wage for years and not compensating for inflation does in fact lower the minimum real wage even the minimum money wage remains constant.  We are making poor people poorer by doing nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, raising the minimum wage would increase demand for consumer goods.  From the CBO
> _On balance, according to CBO&#8217;s analysis, raising the minimum wage would increase demand for goods and services because, taken together, the second, third, and fourth direct effects would shift income from business owners and consumers (as a whole) to low-wage workers. Low-wage workers generally spend a larger share of each dollar they receive than the average business owner or consumer does; thus, when a dollar from business owners or consumers is shifted to low-wage workers, overall spending increases.​_http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44995-MinimumWage.pdf
> 
> So we see that the "velocity of money" will increase.
> Let's use the equation of exchange, MV=PQ, and what we want to grow is Q.
> Keeping M (Money Supply) constant, and noting that V will increase, the product PQ must also increase.
> Minimum wage represents a price control, meaning that the government dictates that an hour of labor cannot be purchased for less than X amount.  Raising X to Y will inflict an increase in P (price).
> So we know V will increase and we know P will increase, but we do not know if the increase in V will exceed the increase in P.
> The question is: will Q (real GDP) increase?  We want Q to increase.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make a very valid point I have never really considered in regard to this issue.  Wages stay the same and the cost of living still does go up.  The only way to stop it is for consumers to consciously set a limit on the price they will pay for goods.  Since the average american is hopelessly brainwashed to be a consumer I dont see that happening.  This makes the minimum wage increase more palatable to me but there still remains the issue of motivation. If you are making minimum wage you should be asking yourself 3 questions?
> 
> Is min wage acceptable for me and my family?
> 
> Am I going to sit around and wait for a wage increase?
> 
> Will I go out and make myself more valuable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me that you are not suggesting that 'if only consumers would refuse a price' that this would fix anything?
> 
> In a free-market, the price will naturally gravitate to the market level just above the cost of production.
> 
> Minimum wage drives up the cost production.    If the public refuses to pay the higher fee........        the result is they don't provide the service anymore, and all the employees are unemployed.
> 
> Price controls don't work for that exact reason.    This is why they have shortages of *COFFEE* in Venezuela.    You drive up the cost of labor, put price controls on product, and suddenly you have empty shelves....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sign above the shelf is most fitting "Made in Socialism".  Venezuela Socialism at work.
Click to expand...


I am suggesting exactly that.  Its the law of supply and demand.  You make a widget and price it at a certain point consumers will not pay then you are only hurting your bottom line.  You now have a ton of widgets sitting there that you now have to sale to the .99 cent store to mitigate your loss.  You may have to lay people off or go out of business but if you are smart you price your widget at what the consumer will pay for it.  Thats why there is a whole industry dedicated to figuring out the price point for your widget and marketing it.


----------



## Andylusion

Zombie_Pundit said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what's going to happen.   Let's pretend in magic world, that Obama passes a $15/hr minimum wage.
> 
> McDonald, which has billions of dollars, will replace their workers with robots.   Thus, they can keep their prices low enough to stay in business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a terrible leap in logic.  This is not a situation where someone can "make it cheaper in China" because you are talking about cooked hamburgers served hot.  There is no foreign competition.  The cost increase would be inflicted upon every fast food restaurant in the United States.  Given the fact that all competition McDonald's faces would suffer the same increase in cost, this is not a situation where McDonald's would need to keep prices low in response to competition.   So, given that competition is not driving the price in the model you propose, a price increase is more realistic. That price increase may yield to a lower volume of sales.  It is the lower volume of sales that would reduce jobs!
> 
> Furthermore, if McDonalds had the option to replace their workforce with robots, why wouldn't they just replace the workforce?  It does not follow that anyone should fear a wage hike because MickeyDees might start investing in robots.  If robots could be used (and actually are used in some small capacity to pour drinks in drive-thrus) McDonalds has an obligation to its stockholders reduce labor costs and implement the cheaper more efficient robot solution.
> 
> Look up the "Automated Beverage System".  McDonalds is already investing in robots,
Click to expand...


First, it doesn't matter if there is foriegn competition or not.  People are not going to pay $20 for a fast food burger.  A fast food burger is not worth $20.  Thus they won't go.   Thus the store closes.

So McDonald's is going to invest in automating with or without foreign competition.

*"That price increase may yield to a lower volume of sales.  It is the lower volume of sales that would reduce jobs!"
*
Dur... yeah.  That was my whole point.  You just made my entire point.
*
"if McDonalds had the option to replace their workforce with robots, why wouldn't they just replace the workforce?"*

There are numerous reasons why McDonald's, and in fact all companies, prefer human workers over robots.

If you make a machine to flip burgers, and a machine to pour drinks, and the burger flipper machine breaks, can you just swap the drink machine to take over flipping burgers?     Of course not.

If there is a system glitch, does a robot respond and adept to the problem?   If someone pukes in the lobby, does a robot stop pouring drinks, and go clean up the mess?

And there is of course the simple fact that customer tend to prefer humans over robots.   If for no other reason, than because they can yell when something goes wrong.   Robot don't tend to care much about yelling customers.

McDonald's would much rather have people over robots.   By far.   But if customers are not willing to pay $20 for a burger, then robot it is.  They'll go robots over bankruptcy any day.    And by the way *YOU* would too.

My uncle is an engineer, and he built glassworks machines.   His company sent him to China to try and sell their automated glassworks.   The trip was a failure, because even though the machine would have saved the company money, it wasn't enough to justify replacing workers because wages are low.     He did the math, they could have saved lots of money, but it simply wasn't enough to justify the machine.

If you want to start making a new product, you just tell your employees "New product today", and show them how to make it.   Machines costs big time, to reconfigure for a new product.  You can make a new product every day with people.  A machine takes time.

Companies would always prefer people over machines.  The *ONLY* reason they move to machines, is because it's either switch over, or close the company.   The cost of labor is too high, verses what customers are willing to pay.   That's why you automate.



> That automation will happen as soon as the burger-flipper robot is invented.  The day someone invents the burger-flipper robot this is going to happen.  You do understand that MickeyDees has a responsibility to its shareholders, right?  You can abolish the minimum wage all together and robots will still happen.



Too late.
McDonald's New High-Tech Burger Flipper | Techdirt
McDonald's had a completely automated store in California, back in 2003.   The store was closed, but it was a proof of concept, and worked.

Robot Serves Up 360 Hamburgers Per Hour | Singularity Hub
*"Alpha churns out a painless 340 hamburgers per hour."*

McDonald's orders 7,000 touchscreen kiosks to replace cashiers - Neowin



> McDonald's recently added 64,000 people to its payroll in the United States, but job prospects in Europe for those so inclined to work in the fast food industry are looking pretty grim right about now. That's because the fast food giant is poised to add touchscreen kiosks in more than 7,000 of its restaurants in Europe in effort to replace actual, human cashiers.



Why?   Why did they hire more people in the US, and fewer people in France, that has to this day, a 10.5% unemployment rate?

Answer?   Policies in France have driven up labor costs through Minimum wage and other regulations, so that they have to replace people with kiosks.     Why are they hiring people instead of robots in the US?  Because it's still profitable to hire people here.

You enact higher minimum wage, up to $15/hr?   That will change very quickly, and McDonald's is testing out robot replacements as we speak, in case it becomes necessary.

Again, McDonald, can and has already made, a completely automated store.   They could completely replace all workers at stores right now.  They don't, because it's not yet worth while yet to do so.  The moment you drive up wages with Federal Law, you'll see people being replaced by robots, real fast. 



> Okay, first, could you substantiate the claim "In the 1960s, there were dozens, nearly a hundred independent auto makers" ?
> 
> I am not aware of "nearly a hundred" or any number close to that.  Please remember that to be on this list of independent automakers, the independent automakers must have actually made cars in the United States such that their manufacturing process was subject to regulation in the United States.
> Second, you have completely overlooked the oil embargo.  The oil embargo and price of gas was devastating to American inefficient cars.  You have overlooked the growth foreign competition, and the fact that Germany and Japan had rejoined the world as nations with substantial industry after WWII.  You have overlooked the great American Quality Crisis (Quality is Free by Phil Crosby).
> You seem to be trying to blame everything on a book Ralph Nader wrote.  Ralphie was never so powerful.



You caught my error.  1960s and before there were hundreds.   But in 1960 there were still dozens of independent, and profitable car companies, even with foreign competition.

Packard.  American Motors.   Austin.  Checker Motors.  Jeep.  Nash Metropolitan.  Studebaker.  Avanti.  Griffith Automobile.  International (used to make consumer vehicles).   Excalibur.  Stutz Motor Company.  Bricklin.  Clénet Coachworks.  Shay Motors Corporation.  Camelot Motors.  Zimmer.    Delorean.  

And that's just what I can remember (and find links to).   Nearly all of those, were either bought up by other companies, or closed down.

There was one, and I can't find the link to it, (either Stutz or Excalibur), where they were interviewing the owner, and asked why they didn't ramp up production, and the answer was that if they produced over a certain amount, they would be forced to follow all the Auto Regulation, and they couldn't afford it.   In other words, they voluntarily choose to stay a niche company, because regulations cost too much.

Now these are only domestic makers, because you claimed that outside makers were not required to follow domestic regulations.   I don't understand that claim.   Or perhaps you didn't mean that?    Because as far as I know, imported cars have to follow the same regulation that all domestically sold cars do.   Thus they were equally effected.

And honestly, the same thing happened in numerous other countries, not just the US.    Japan similarly had dozens of independent car makers.   But as regulations were levied in Japan, they had the same result, of the big Japanese three buying out all the independent makers.



> If McDonalds could get customers to pay $480 for a big mac, then the price of a big mac would be $480, that part is correct.  Where you made a mistake is in assuming this translates into wages.  If MickeyDees could charge $480 of a big mac, but only give $0.01 per hour to the burger-flipper... why wouldn't they?  Why would they deprive their shareholders of the profit?
> McDonalds is far more likely to pay just enough to keep the burger-flipper from leaving the job, maybe have some morale when he comes to work, and this will be a function of the supply of labor.



Nah.  During the 1970s before deregulation of the airline industry, ticket prices were massively higher than what a free-market would pay for, because of government regulations.

During that time, companies paid their airline pilots, and all employees, a ton of money.

After deregulation, the ticket prices fell to market rates, and wages to employees, especially airline pilots fell too.

Did all the pilots quit?   No, they are still working today, as they were during the 1990s.

So obviously, the companies could have paid them less during the 1970s.    But.... they choose to pay them more.  Why?  Because they had more money to pay them with.

My company itself, is proof of this concept.   During the late 90s, and 2000s, my company was drastically bigger than it is today.   It was making tons of product.   In the late 2000s, the company began getting smaller.   All of their engineers, sales, and executives, had a 20% pay cut.    All of them are still there, still working, still doing their jobs.

Obviously they could have cut their pay years ago, or never given them raises to begin with.   Yet the company did.... why?  Because they had the money to do so.

Companies that bring in more profits, tend to pay more wages.  All of them do this.

In fact, the only places I know of that have not done this, have been the small mom&pop shops.



> Hey now, that is not a fair comparison.  How many MickeyDees burger-flippers "put on a show"?  A high-end burger-flipper might make the same amount of money if he could figure out a routine and market that routine.  That does distinguish the _performer_ from the average burger-flipper.



I didn't compare bartenders with burger flippers.  Read the post.  I compared them with other bartenders, that also put on shows.



> You are assuming fungibility in the service provided where none exists.  The fact that the two services are different is why the consumer is willing to pay two different prices.



You made up a strawman, and attacked it.  That shows you don't have an argument.



> I assume you do not have a large yard.  If you owned several acres, maybe this per-service price would seem more reasonable



I based it on how much my neighbor pays to have their lawn cut.



> Thank you for making me aware of lawnbott.
> LawnBott Robotic Mowers | LawnBott ? Electric Lawn Mower
> If I am able to do so, I am going to terminate my landscaping services and start buying robots.
> I do not care how much the landscaper will reduce his prices.  I like robots a lot. I think robots are neat and the robot will never leave a cigarette butt in my yard.
> I'm actually serious, if I could I'd buy a landscaping robot and the minimum wage has very little to do with my decision.  See how that works?



Well that's you.  The rest of us are not like that.    If I can pay someone $25 to do my yard ($300 a year), I'm not going to buy a $1,200 robot, which could break, or get stolen.

If government regulations force me to pay $100 to do my yard ($1,200 a year), and I really don't want to do it myself, now that $1,200 price tag is more reasonable.   The minimum wage (for the rest of us) has very much to do with our decision making.  See how that works?



> The price of the burger actually does not affect the wage of the worker.  If there was a shortage of labor, the wage of the burger-flipper would sky rocket and this would be reflected in reduced profits.



No one is going to run a restaurant to earn $50,000 a year.  If profits fall below a certain point, it's not worth it to run the operation.  An owner would likely close the store, sell off everything they can, and put their money into something else with good profits.

Now you are correct that if the labor supply was lower, supply and demand would naturally move up labor prices.

Norway has no minimum wage, and pays $16 an hr (roughly).  Their prices are up in the $16 for a burger.    However, because prices are high, few people go to McDonalds in Norway.   They have (last I checked) less than 1/4 the McDonald's that we have in the US (per population).    And they are all located in expensive tourist areas.

Here's the difference.   Labor prices going up because of a shortage of labor, is good.   A shortage of labor, inherently means that few people are without jobs.   So a decline in fast food joints because of higher prices, will not have a negative effect, because.... there is a shortage of labor.

In a country like ours, where we have tons of unskilled labor, the cost of labor goes down, thus increase the profitability and investment into low skilled labor jobs...... which is good because.... there is a ton of unskilled labor.   We want more jobs for those that need those jobs.

The problem with the minimum wage is, it drives up labor costs, when there are tons of people who need employment.    Thus jobs dry up, at the same time we have tons of people in need of jobs.



> The FLSA and history thereof disagrees with you.



History doesn't disagree, and the FLSA is a government policy promoted by government which has invested interest is promoting themselves as being a benefit to society, to expand and grow themselves at the cost of tax payers.   US Department of Labor, is wrong.

History does not disagree with me.  You simply don't know history very well.


----------



## beagle9

Androw said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the only exception to that, is when people are replaced with machines.... which will cut down on inflation, but the people the minimum wage was meant to help, will end up unemployed.
> 
> So either way, it doesn't help.    Either the minimum wage drives up inflation, or it causes people to lose their jobs.
> 
> Both result in people being just as bad, or worse off than before.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing wrong with a minimum wage hike, but just as long as it is not used for a living wage instead of a minimal entrance pay hike when it is done. The living wage thing can be handled as a sperate issue in my honest opinion.
> 
> The minimum wage thing is just being used I think to satisfy the masses for political reasons, and to give corporations the excuse to pay equal pay across the board to labor. These issues are not being understood as they should be, and that is ashame really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the primary driver of the minimum wage is Unions.   It's not those 25 and younger, that work at Wendy's.    Those people are not likely to vote anyway.
> 
> Voter turn out, for those under the age of 24, is less than 48%.
> Voter turn out, for those unmarried, is less than 53%.
> Voter turn out, for those earning $20K or less, is less than 51%.
> 
> In each category, these are the lowest voter turn out rates, of any group.
> 
> Minimum wage laws, are most likely to effect, those that are least likely to vote.
> 
> The only reason the minimum wage is EVER made into a political issue, is because of Unions.
> 
> Unions hate cheaper labor undercutting their membership base.  They hate the idea of companies providing cheaper goods to the public, with a lower cost labor.    They hate that people without education, without training or skills, can make a living doing what Unions do, at a lower cost point.
> 
> In short, the Unions want to grow and become larger, and more political powerful, and lack of wage laws, prevent that.
> 
> So they vote democrap, donate to democraps, and organize media campaigns for democraps, anything to get these wage laws passed so they can screw unskilled workers, screw the consumer, and protect themselves.
Click to expand...


*Voter turn out, for those under the age of 24, is less than 48%.
Voter turn out, for those unmarried, is less than 53%.
Voter turn out, for those earning $20K or less, is less than 51%.*

If this is true, then how did Obama get elected ? After the get out the vote campaign that was directed at the young folks of America, and then all the speeches at colleges and such, and then Obama being elected out of all of that? It just leads me to believe that your stats are skewed badly.

The Unions eh ? Seems that I remember not to long ago (some years back), where as they were on the fast track/bandwagon of having the same ideas of agreeing with the corporate and big companiy ideas and/or trends to replace their American laborers over time with Mexican labor, and this just as fast as they could get there the way it was all going down it seemed, but then all of a sudden the huge backlash started coming against the illegals, and against the over flowing of immigrants taking American manufacturing jobs in the nation, where as it all quickly grinded to a halt after that. 

Then all of a sudden everyone had to start backtracking or rolling it all back quickly before they were caught in their schemes to crap on the American labor forces as found in all that was going on at the time. What was being found in these schemes or transitions or new waves of thinking, was just plain bad (IMHO), and worse it was all right beneath the Americans noses when it was happening too. I remember a news/entertainment style talk show segment (Bill Orielly maybe) where the union boss was asked about these concerns of the American laborers way back when, but I'm not sure what the outcome was of the interview now, because my memory isn't that good anymore on some stuff like that.

Do you all remember all of these things or issues not so long ago (maybe in the late 90's or early to mid 2000's ? 

Cheap and low maintenance labor forces is exactly what companies wanted, and they had it growing like crazy at one point, and they also had the unions going along with it at some point. Suddenly it all came to a head, and the nation realized it had lost it's lower middle class American workforce in it all (the American workers in many labor fields), who needed always a job just like anybody else in this nation does, but the no vacancy sign was turned on him and her, while the Mexican labor forces began taking over the job labor markets by leaps and bounds.

The nations companies were looking for a cheap labor force in many things, and also a flat labor rate to pay them. The want is still there I think, and it's hard to break a dog from sucking eggs you see.


----------



## HenryBHough

Used to live in a dry climate.  Spent a lot watering and feeding a lawn.  Paid a neighbor's college kid to mow and trim.  Then he was taught he needed a living wage.  So I agreed.  Paid him $10/hour (when minimum wage was around 5-buicks).  Paid him to dig out the lawn.  Haul it to the dump.  Lay down plastic sheeting and weight it down with rocks.  Then paid another guy with a truck time and material to haul in crushed serpentine rock.

Thereafter maintenance consisted of, by myself, spraying the whole lot with "Roundup" once a year.  Kid somehow thought he had "won".


----------



## beagle9

HenryBHough said:


> Used to live in a dry climate.  Spent a lot watering and feeding a lawn.  Paid a neighbor's college kid to mow and trim.  Then he was taught he needed a living wage.  So I agreed.  Paid him $10/hour (when minimum wage was around 5-buicks).  Paid him to dig out the lawn.  Haul it to the dump.  Lay down plastic sheeting and weight it down with rocks.  Then paid another guy with a truck time and material to haul in crushed serpentine rock.
> 
> Thereafter maintenance consisted of, by myself, spraying the whole lot with "Roundup" once a year.  Kid somehow thought he had "won".


So you moved him from 5 dollars minimum up to ten dollars max in an instant ? Why didn't you move him up gradually, and get far more time out of him in that way, instead of the way that you have described ? Round up ain't cheap, so are you sure you came out in the spite work of the situation in which you have described ?


----------



## HenryBHough

beagle9 said:


> So you moved him from 5 dollars minimum up to ten dollars max in an instant ? Why didn't you move him up gradually, and get far more time out of him in that way, instead of the way that you have described ? Round up ain't cheap, so are you sure you came out in the spite work of the situation in which you have described ?



Moved him up instantly to give him a sense of victory and ensure that he stuck around to do the grunt work to kill off his own job. 

At the time a gallon of Roundup Concentrate was about $75 and I already had a pump sprayer.  Once the grass was gone and the rock was in it took about 1/2 gallon of concentrate to do the whole job so the annual cost was $75 plus about one hour of my labor. Also eliminated were the costs for fertilizer, weed control, lime and the huge portion of the city water/sewer bill that was occasioned by the irrigation usage.  I was ahead in the first year alone.


----------



## blackhawk

How do you determine what is a living wage for someone? How do you determine a living wage for people and we do have these who buy a house more expensive than they can afford then fill it with all new furniture and appliances cable hi def big screen tv throw a new car in there max out the credit cards and simply refuse to live within their means?


----------



## sameech

Asclepias said:


> You make a very valid point I have never really considered in regard to this issue.  Wages stay the same and the cost of living still does go up.  *The only way to stop it is for consumers to consciously set a limit on the price they will pay for goods.  Since the average american is hopelessly brainwashed to be a consumer I dont see that happening. * This makes the minimum wage increase more palatable to me but there still remains the issue of motivation. If you are making minimum wage you should be asking yourself 3 questions?
> 
> Is min wage acceptable for me and my family?
> 
> Am I going to sit around and wait for a wage increase?
> 
> Will I go out and make myself more valuable?



One of the questions I ponder is that if as a whole, poor people spend all their money consuming goods because they are poor and have to meet their basic needs, or if they have trouble meeting their basic needs because they make bad financial decisions.  Obviously there are a lot in either category, but I am not sure which side tips the scales.  

It is hard to wrap my brain around based on my own experiences.  There was a point when I was in college that I was making maybe 2/3rds the income of a full-time minimum wage worker on an annual basis, yet I paid all my living expense bills, had food to eat, had gas money, book money, etc.  I didn't have much else and there were times when I was paying my credit card and then taking that available credit back in charging food until I could get to a break in which I could work some, but it was doable as a lifestyle without welfare.

Edit, BTW I loved when they declared Bush's stimulus a failure because people saved the money or used it to pay bills.  It gave me so much hope for sanity.  Unfortunately it was probably just a foreshadow of the crash that was coming


----------



## Asclepias

blackhawk said:


> How do you determine what is a living wage for someone? How do you determine a living wage for people and we do have these who buy a house more expensive than they can afford then fill it with all new furniture and appliances cable hi def big screen tv throw a new car in there max out the credit cards and simply refuse to live within their means?



Most people live outside of their means. Thats why consumer debt is at a all time high.  Hell some people think buying a house means they have an asset even when they are paying on it.  I agree there should be some min wage but I dont think that should necessarily be living wage designed to support a family.  That kill initiative.


----------



## Asclepias

sameech said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make a very valid point I have never really considered in regard to this issue.  Wages stay the same and the cost of living still does go up.  *The only way to stop it is for consumers to consciously set a limit on the price they will pay for goods.  Since the average american is hopelessly brainwashed to be a consumer I dont see that happening. * This makes the minimum wage increase more palatable to me but there still remains the issue of motivation. If you are making minimum wage you should be asking yourself 3 questions?
> 
> Is min wage acceptable for me and my family?
> 
> Am I going to sit around and wait for a wage increase?
> 
> Will I go out and make myself more valuable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the questions I ponder is that if as a whole, poor people spend all their money consuming goods because they are poor and have to meet their basic needs, or if they have trouble meeting their basic needs because they make bad financial decisions.  Obviously there are a lot in either category, but I am not sure which side tips the scales.
> 
> It is hard to wrap my brain around based on my own experiences.  There was a point when I was in college that I was making maybe 2/3rds the income of a full-time minimum wage worker on an annual basis, yet I paid all my living expense bills, had food to eat, had gas money, book money, etc.  I didn't have much else and there were times when I was paying my credit card and then taking that available credit back in charging food until I could get to a break in which I could work some, but it was doable as a lifestyle without welfare.
> 
> Edit, BTW I loved when they declared Bush's stimulus a failure because people saved the money or used it to pay bills.  It gave me so much hope for sanity.  Unfortunately it was probably just a foreshadow of the crash that was coming
Click to expand...


Somewhere along the line you learned to make the correct decisions.  What I saw growing up in the ghetto was people lived check to check and were persuaded to keep up with the Joneses.  The less money people have the more they use it on things in order to look more financially successful than they are.  Thats really just human nature.


----------



## blackhawk

Asclepias said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you determine what is a living wage for someone? How do you determine a living wage for people and we do have these who buy a house more expensive than they can afford then fill it with all new furniture and appliances cable hi def big screen tv throw a new car in there max out the credit cards and simply refuse to live within their means?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people live outside of their means. Thats why consumer debt is at a all time high.  Hell some people think buying a house means they have an asset even when they are paying on it.  I agree there should be some min wage but I dont think that should necessarily be living wage designed to support a family.  That kill initiative.
Click to expand...


I'm all for giving the minimum wage a bump but I'm talking about 50 or maybe 75 cents not doubling it to 15.00 dollars a hour I find this living wage talk a bit silly given that it would vary depending on how responsible one is with their finances.


----------



## HenryBHough

blackhawk said:


> ...........I find this living wage talk a bit silly given that it would vary depending on how responsible one is with their finances.



What a quaint, old-fashioned concept, "responsibility".

You funny!!!


----------



## sameech

Asclepias said:


> Somewhere along the line you learned to make the correct decisions.  What I saw growing up in the ghetto was people lived check to check and were persuaded to keep up with the Joneses.  The less money people have the more they use it on things in order to look more financially successful than they are.  Thats really just human nature.



My mom could get 11 cents out of a dime so that is probably where I picked up the habit 

For whatever it may be worth to you, it isn't just a ghetto problem.  While I see people trying to blame the 2008 meltdown on government programs to help minorities and the poor, it was mostly because of people making $35K-$70K a year trying to buy the same cars their bosses had, and living in the same neighborhoods their bosses lived in, etc.  I don't personally know of any blue collar or less types that lost their homes, but I know more people than I could bother to count who lost everything driving nicer cars and living in bigger houses than their middle class incomes could ever have sustained for long.  These were the same people doing cash out refinancing every year or two to pay their credit cards they were living on to keep from defaulting on them


----------



## Asclepias

sameech said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somewhere along the line you learned to make the correct decisions.  What I saw growing up in the ghetto was people lived check to check and were persuaded to keep up with the Joneses.  The less money people have the more they use it on things in order to look more financially successful than they are.  Thats really just human nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My mom could get 11 cents out of a dime so that is probably where I picked up the habit
> 
> For whatever it may be worth to you, it isn't just a ghetto problem.  While I see people trying to blame the 2008 meltdown on government programs to help minorities and the poor, it was mostly because of people making $35K-$70K a year trying to buy the same cars their bosses had, and living in the same neighborhoods their bosses lived in, etc.  I don't personally know of any blue collar or less types that lost their homes, but I know more people than I could bother to count who lost everything driving nicer cars and living in bigger houses than their middle class incomes could ever have sustained for long.  These were the same people doing cash out refinancing every year or two to pay their credit cards they were living on to keep from defaulting on them
Click to expand...


Yes I know its not just a ghetto problem however there it is magnified. As an adult I watched supposedly successful white people losing their homes all over my neighborhood at one point.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Before I respond, Androw, we are getting way off topic.
My point to you was simple: You're doing it wrong.

I'm actually going to try to help you out.  I don't expect you to accept my views on the minimum wage as correct.  I don't expect you appreciate the effort I put into this.  But maybe you'll pause and read this.



Androw said:


> ...the FLSA is a *government policy promoted by government which has invested interest is promoting themselves* as being a benefit to society, to expand and grow themselves at the cost of tax payers.


Did you just accuse the United States Government of being some crazy corrupt conspiracy?
If your intention is to convince anyone to trust you that rational discourse with you is possible, I highly recommend you lay off the conspiracy stuff.



Androw said:


> My company itself, is proof of this concept.   During the late 90s, and 2000s, my company was drastically bigger than it is today.   It was making tons of product.   In the late 2000s, the company began getting smaller.   All of their engineers, sales, and executives, had a 20% pay cut.    All of them are still there, still working, still doing their jobs.
> 
> Obviously they could have cut their pay years ago, or never given them raises to begin with.   Yet the company did.... why?  Because they had the money to do so.


You keep saying that wages are a function of profit.  You specifically say, over and over, that employers increase wages because profit is good.  Wages are a function of the supply of labor, or rather, the supply of labor is a function of the money wage.  I think you have confused correlation for causation.  When profits are high, employers have the freedom to reduce turnover by increasing wages and denying skilled labor to their competitors, and by increasing the money wage the supply of labor will increase so the growing enterprise can meets its growing demand for labor.
I think you have confused correlation in time with causation.
Also, I'm not sure who you are working for...  but an employer cannot just start slashing salaries willie nillie because the mood struck him, so no the company could not have "obviously" cut their pay years ago.  You, Androw, have seen a reduction in wages and assume the employer can, at any time, without any repercussions whatsoever, reduce wages and the employee must sit and beg and take it?  

Read this quote from RKMBrown before you bow and scrape for some employer who you claim has the right to slash your pay whenever he darn feels like it:


RKMBrown said:


> There are a lot more factors than just skill and ability.
> 
> For example, amount of effort applied for each work hour, number of hours, results, availability, like-ability with employees and customers, loyalty, retention issues, ....
> 
> For a lot of jobs what you get paid is also going to be based on your ability to negotiate with whomever is hiring you when you start, which goes to ability and like-ability but also negotiation experience which are not normally useful for every job, so is another skill set entirely.


You should listen to RKMBrown... he's on to something here.



Androw said:


> First, it doesn't matter if there is foriegn competition or not.  People are not going to pay $20 for a fast food burger.  A fast food burger is not worth $20.  Thus they won't go.   Thus the store closes.


First, it does matter if there is foreign competition, as it matters if there is any type competition.

You have expressed a belief that you, Androw, can set for all other people the value of all things as opposed to a value based on the price that the free market will bear.

And just to prove you are wrong:
Is This The 'Most Expensive Fast Food Burger'?
It hurts me to share that.  It hurts me because that $38.23 fast food burger, plainly demonstrating that you are wrong and not the head of some Politburo who sets all prices, is just plain disgusting to the eyes of this consumer.




Androw said:


> If you make a machine to flip burgers, and a machine to pour drinks, and the burger flipper machine breaks, can you just swap the drink machine to take over flipping burgers?     Of course not.



Why?  On what basis are you saying that some future burger-flipper-bot cannot also have a drink-pourer mode?  There is a difference between how you think the world is supposed to work and then what free people actually choose to do and build. 



Androw said:


> If there is a system glitch, does a robot respond and adept to the problem?  If someone pukes in the lobby, does a robot stop pouring drinks, and go clean up the mess?


Maybe and maybe, or maybe *partial automation* will require a skeleton human crew, but more importantly no one cannot speak with any accuracy about the future in such absolutes.  Please note, I make no claim that this hypothetical burger-flipper-bot will ever exist, hence the humorously hyphenated name.



Androw said:


> McDonald's would much rather have people over robots.   By far.   But if customers are not willing to pay $20 for a burger, then robot it is.  They'll go robots over bankruptcy any day.    And by the way *YOU* would too.


Appeal to fear...  If we anger the mighty employer, Ronald McDonald will stomp on us but good!



Androw said:


> My uncle is an engineer,


Appeal to authority... but it least it wasn't your own authority.  It was your uncle's.





Androw said:


> If you want to start making a new product, you just tell your employees "New product today", and show them how to make it.   Machines costs big time, to reconfigure for a new product.  You can make a new product every day with people.  A machine takes time.



That completely depends on the machine and the product.  Have you ever fabricated a PCB or an ASIC?  What you are saying as some absolute is simply not absolute and would be damaging to many businesses.



Androw said:


> McDonald's New High-Tech Burger Flipper | Techdirt


_"You walk up to the counter and punch in your own order. The people who used to take your order are just standing there like zombies waiting to take your money."​_Thank you for sharing that link.  As a advocate of zombie rights, I found this quote to be alarming, because zombies find what work they can get and there's no need to mock them for it.




Androw said:


> McDonald's orders 7,000 touchscreen kiosks to replace cashiers - Neowin
> Why?   Why did they hire more people in the US, and fewer people in France, that has to this day, a 10.5% unemployment rate?


Did you bother to read the article?  
_Besides monetary incentive, and not to mention that the kiosks will also be getting rid of cash transactions since they only accept credit or debit cards, the kiosks are also a way to gather statistical information about people's eating habits, said Easterbrook. The company could potentially track every last thing you order (or perhaps offer you a free Big Mac with every ten that you purchase?).​_


Androw said:


> You enact higher minimum wage, up to $15/hr?   That will change very quickly, and McDonald's is testing out robot replacements as we speak, in case it becomes necessary.


Are you suggesting McDonald's has a warehouse of menu kiosks just waiting to be put to use if the cashiers get too uppity?
Appeal to fear... 



Androw said:


> Again, McDonald, can and has already made, a completely automated store.   They could completely replace all workers at stores right now.  They don't, because it's not yet worth while yet to do so.  The moment you drive up wages with Federal Law, you'll see people being replaced by robots, real fast.


Again, you're doing it wrong.  All that needs to happen is for the automation to exceed the human employee in profitability.  The human worker can bow and scrape before his employer but that will make no difference because when the automation becomes more profitable than his employment his employment will end.




Androw said:


> And that's just what I can remember (and find links to).   Nearly all of those, were either bought up by other companies, or closed down.
> 
> There was one, and I can't find the link to it, (either Stutz or Excalibur), where they were interviewing the owner, and asked why they didn't ramp up production, and the answer was that if they produced over a certain amount, they would be forced to follow all the Auto Regulation, and they couldn't afford it.   In other words, they voluntarily choose to stay a niche company, because regulations cost too much.


Which regulations?  The regulations on what is produced or the regulations on how it will be produced?  Since this is a thread on minimum wage, which I will grant as a regulation on how things are produced, are you suggesting the owner kept his volume of sales down to be exempt from the minimum wage?  Because I'm not sure such an exemption existed back then.



Androw said:


> Now these are only domestic makers, because you claimed that outside makers were not required to follow domestic regulations.   I don't understand that claim.   Or perhaps you didn't mean that?    Because as far as I know, imported cars have to follow the same regulation that all domestically sold cars do.   Thus they were equally effected.


Again, you're doing it wrong.  You never specified which regulations were destroying the auto industry like a comet destroyed the dinosaurs...  Where hundreds of companies died out in a mass extinction event called "Regulation".  
Factories in Japan need not follow US regulations on Factories.  Employment in Japan need not abide by US minimum wage laws.  Or perhaps you didn't mean that?  Perhaps you meant to disambiguate the term "regulations" and specify regulations on automobiles sold in these United States over which, during the time period you lament the death of an industry, certain regulations were instantiated to mandate basic safety features like *seat belts*!



Androw said:


> Nah.  During the 1970s before deregulation of the airline industry, ticket prices were massively higher than what a free-market would pay for, because of government regulations.



Interesting... And people bought these "twenty dollar hamburgers"?  Funny how that works, when there is no sufficient competition.  I bet demand started slipping.
Are you sure regulation was the only culprit, because those regulations began way before the 70s.  The 70s were a bad economic time in the US.



Androw said:


> After deregulation, the ticket prices fell to market rates, and wages to employees, especially airline pilots fell too.
> 
> Did all the pilots quit?   No, they are still working today, as they were during the 1990s.


Are you suggesting the supply of labor is inelastic? 
How about a much more recent analysis demonstrating that the supply of labor is a function of the money wage?
Pilot Shortage: Regional Airlines Are Cutting Flights - Businessweek



Androw said:


> So obviously, the companies could have paid them less during the 1970s.    But.... they choose to pay them more.  Why?  Because they had more money to pay them with.


Are you suggesting that employers pay their employees more just because they are all a bunch of nice guys?  Well, some actually are... others have to answer to shareholders who would lynch the employer for violating fiduciary duty so badly.



Androw said:


> I didn't compare bartenders with burger flippers.  Read the post.  I compared them with other bartenders, that also put on shows.
> You made up a strawman, and attacked it.  That shows you don't have an argument.


You compared bartenders to performers, this was your quote:
_"How the heck can he [the performer] earn that much when the average Bartender earns $20K?"_
That's where you were assuming fungibility.  But I should point out I have no argument unless "you're doing it wrong" is an argument.



Androw said:


> I based it on how much my neighbor pays to have their lawn cut.


That sample is insufficient, but I digress.



Androw said:


> No one is going to run a restaurant to earn $50,000 a year.



Again with the absolutes.  What about restaurants that actually lose money the first few years?




Androw said:


> Norway has no minimum wage,


_"The Scandinavian countries of Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark dont dont have a minimum wage at all because they are so highly unionized. The unions there felt that a national minimum wage would interfere with collective bargaining, and it might even bring the price of labor down, says Chater."_
The Best Minimum Wages In Europe - Forbes
Again, you're doing it wrong.





Androw said:


> The problem with the minimum wage is, it drives up labor costs, when there are tons of people who need employment.    Thus jobs dry up, at the same time we have tons of people in need of jobs.


Evidently, not in Norway, where it would drive wages down.  Yeah, that's a strange idea to me too.  Again you are appealing to fear.



Androw said:


> History does not disagree with me.  You simply don't know history very well.


You're doing it wrong.


----------



## Andylusion

beagle9 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing wrong with a minimum wage hike, but just as long as it is not used for a living wage instead of a minimal entrance pay hike when it is done. The living wage thing can be handled as a sperate issue in my honest opinion.
> 
> The minimum wage thing is just being used I think to satisfy the masses for political reasons, and to give corporations the excuse to pay equal pay across the board to labor. These issues are not being understood as they should be, and that is ashame really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the primary driver of the minimum wage is Unions.   It's not those 25 and younger, that work at Wendy's.    Those people are not likely to vote anyway.
> 
> Voter turn out, for those under the age of 24, is less than 48%.
> Voter turn out, for those unmarried, is less than 53%.
> Voter turn out, for those earning $20K or less, is less than 51%.
> 
> In each category, these are the lowest voter turn out rates, of any group.
> 
> Minimum wage laws, are most likely to effect, those that are least likely to vote.
> 
> The only reason the minimum wage is EVER made into a political issue, is because of Unions.
> 
> Unions hate cheaper labor undercutting their membership base.  They hate the idea of companies providing cheaper goods to the public, with a lower cost labor.    They hate that people without education, without training or skills, can make a living doing what Unions do, at a lower cost point.
> 
> In short, the Unions want to grow and become larger, and more political powerful, and lack of wage laws, prevent that.
> 
> So they vote democrap, donate to democraps, and organize media campaigns for democraps, anything to get these wage laws passed so they can screw unskilled workers, screw the consumer, and protect themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Voter turn out, for those under the age of 24, is less than 48%.
> Voter turn out, for those unmarried, is less than 53%.
> Voter turn out, for those earning $20K or less, is less than 51%.*
> 
> If this is true, then how did Obama get elected ? After the get out the vote campaign that was directed at the young folks of America, and then all the speeches at colleges and such, and then Obama being elected out of all of that? It just leads me to believe that your stats are skewed badly.
Click to expand...


Well those numbers came from the US census.  They could be wrong.  Good luck proving it.

Obama most certainly collected more of the lower income vote, and more of the younger vote, than did McCain.

That doesn't change the fact that there were fewer lower income, and younger age votes.

Now if you are asking me why Obama won, there are three clear reasons in my mind.

First, many people didn't know what Obama stood for.  They liked his "Hope and Change", and "Yes we can!" and "Believe!".

The public can be duped into supporting anyone, if you have a slick enough advert.

Second and Third, are more important though.   Namely... McCain was a bad candidate, just like Romney was a bad candidate.

1.  McCain was too honest to succeed.   Going to Michigan and saying "Those jobs are gone.  Move on".   Was incredibly honest, and truthful.  But the American public is no longer interested in the truth.  They would rather hear lies.

Like Obama saying he was going to close gitmo.  I knew the very moment I heard Obama say he was going to close gitmo, that it wasn't going to happen, and Obama knew it would never happen.  Closing Gitmo was an absolute impossibility, and everyone wise enough to know anything about the legal problems involved, knew that it would never close, and wasn't even a consideration by anyone in government.   Shockingly, Obama's legal team issued a report "can't close gitmo".

It was a lie from the start, and everyone with any amount of intelligence knew it.   But people loved those lies, and hated McCain's truth.

2.  McCain wasn't really an alternative.   Although McCain was honest, he really wasn't all that much different policy wise.   He voted for democrats far more than he ever voted for Republicans, or Conservatives.  After all this was the guy that the Keating Five brought in to help defend Charles H. Keating.   Obviously, the four Democrats who were involved in the scandal, felt so comfortable, that bringing in McCain to their little group was natural for them.

I certainly wasn't going to vote for McCain when he didn't support any of the conservative issues I believe in.    I'm sure I'm not alone.

That's why Obama won.   Remember, Obama collected a massive 10% of the self-described Republican vote.   10% is huge!   Now granted most, nearly all in fact, had voter remorse, and regret voting for Obama.

Why did they vote for him?  Because of these issues above.  They didn't realize what he would do.  They were sold on "hope and change" and "yes we can".   And because McCain wasn't really an alternative.  He was like Obama Jr.

That's why Obama won.



> The Unions eh ? Seems that I remember not to long ago (some years back), where as they were on the fast track/bandwagon of having the same ideas of agreeing with the corporate and big companiy ideas and/or trends to replace their American laborers over time with Mexican labor, and this just as fast as they could get there the way it was all going down it seemed, but then all of a sudden the huge backlash started coming against the illegals, and against the over flowing of immigrants taking American manufacturing jobs in the nation, where as it all quickly grinded to a halt after that.



I do not remember any of that, nor have I read anything even close to what you are claiming.   I haven't read it in any history books on the subject, or in any academic journals.   Perhaps I just missed all of them.    Do you have any citation for this?



> Do you all remember all of these things or issues not so long ago (maybe in the late 90's or early to mid 2000's ?



No.... I remember Unions screaming about immigrants, and opposing NAFTA, and yelling about how if all this was allowed to continue, it would be the end of civilization.

Instead, the 90s were pretty good economically.  Which is what I would expect given that free trade, and low labor costs, usually is a stable consistent receipt for economic growth throughout the world.



> Cheap and low maintenance labor forces is exactly what companies wanted, and they had it growing like crazy at one point, and they also had the unions going along with it at some point. Suddenly it all came to a head, and the nation realized it had lost it's lower middle class American workforce in it all (the American workers in many labor fields), who needed always a job just like anybody else in this nation does, but the no vacancy sign was turned on him and her, while the Mexican labor forces began taking over the job labor markets by leaps and bounds.



Sounds like the 1600s.... or the 1700s...  or the 1800s... or the 1900s...  Sounds like present day... and last I checked, the standard of living is higher today than at any time in human history, let alone American history.

We have always.... meaning... always.... had immigration into the US.   And the immigrants have always taken whatever jobs they can get.  And American citizens have always claimed they were ruining civilization.   And the result has always been that civilization has gone on, and things have gotten better.

The only difference today is that we have illegal immigrants, which creates legal problems, and social problems.    But legal immigration is not a problem, and we shouldn't be against it.  And the doomsayers are chicken littles, that have screamed the sky is falling for over 200 years.   The sky is not falling.... not because of immigration at least.  You can calm down now, and drink some long island ice tea.



> The nations companies were looking for a cheap labor force in many things, and also a flat labor rate to pay them. The want is still there I think, and it's hard to break a dog from sucking eggs you see.



Yeah... but it's not the companies.   *WE* want flat labor rates.   We the customers hate prices going up.    We're the ones that want cheap labor.

The companies are merely responding to what we want.     Why do you go to a cheaper store, over the expensive store?   Well you don't want to pay as much.   Hello........   ?    *YOU* don't want to pay so much.   *YOU* want the same products at a lower price.   *YOU* want cheap labor.

The company is merely trying to get *YOU* what *YOU* want.

And that's ok.   We all want cheaper goods and services.  If you would mow my lawn, for only $10.... I'd love it!  I want cheap labor, just like everyone else.


----------



## Andylusion

sameech said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somewhere along the line you learned to make the correct decisions.  What I saw growing up in the ghetto was people lived check to check and were persuaded to keep up with the Joneses.  The less money people have the more they use it on things in order to look more financially successful than they are.  Thats really just human nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My mom could get 11 cents out of a dime so that is probably where I picked up the habit
> 
> For whatever it may be worth to you, it isn't just a ghetto problem.  While I see people trying to blame the 2008 meltdown on government programs to help minorities and the poor, it was mostly because of people making $35K-$70K a year trying to buy the same cars their bosses had, and living in the same neighborhoods their bosses lived in, etc.  I don't personally know of any blue collar or less types that lost their homes, but I know more people than I could bother to count who lost everything driving nicer cars and living in bigger houses than their middle class incomes could ever have sustained for long.  These were the same people doing cash out refinancing every year or two to pay their credit cards they were living on to keep from defaulting on them
Click to expand...


The problem is, you are assuming that because a government program was created based on 'intention x', that problem y, can't be related to it.

Yes, the government programs were designed to help poor minorities.

That doesn't matter.    The fact is, those programs changed the fundamental functions of the mortgage market, which filtered into the entire market.... not just poor minorities.

Doesn't matter what the intentions were.

There's a reason we have old phrases like:
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

The whole point of that aphorism written a thousand years ago, is that intentions can have negative results, no matter how noble, how pure, how altruistic they may have been conceived.

This is an example of that.   Yes, the push for sub-prime loans, was 'intended' to help poor minorities.    Yippy skip.

Reality is, the push for sub-prime loans, lowered lending standards across the board.   The result was a price bubble in real estate as millions of previously unqualified borrowers were drawn into the market, not just poor minorities.   That bubble increased continuously until it popped, which effected all real estate, not just those of the 'intended' poor minorities.


----------



## Asclepias

Androw said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somewhere along the line you learned to make the correct decisions.  What I saw growing up in the ghetto was people lived check to check and were persuaded to keep up with the Joneses.  The less money people have the more they use it on things in order to look more financially successful than they are.  Thats really just human nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My mom could get 11 cents out of a dime so that is probably where I picked up the habit
> 
> For whatever it may be worth to you, it isn't just a ghetto problem.  While I see people trying to blame the 2008 meltdown on government programs to help minorities and the poor, it was mostly because of people making $35K-$70K a year trying to buy the same cars their bosses had, and living in the same neighborhoods their bosses lived in, etc.  I don't personally know of any blue collar or less types that lost their homes, but I know more people than I could bother to count who lost everything driving nicer cars and living in bigger houses than their middle class incomes could ever have sustained for long.  These were the same people doing cash out refinancing every year or two to pay their credit cards they were living on to keep from defaulting on them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, you are assuming that because a government program was created based on 'intention x', that problem y, can't be related to it.
> 
> Yes, the government programs were designed to help poor minorities.
> 
> That doesn't matter.    The fact is, those programs changed the fundamental functions of the mortgage market, which filtered into the entire market.... not just poor minorities.
> 
> Doesn't matter what the intentions were.
> 
> There's a reason we have old phrases like:
> "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
> 
> The whole point of that aphorism written a thousand years ago, is that intentions can have negative results, no matter how noble, how pure, how altruistic they may have been conceived.
> 
> This is an example of that.   Yes, the push for sub-prime loans, was 'intended' to help poor minorities.    Yippy skip.
> 
> Reality is, the push for sub-prime loans, lowered lending standards across the board.   The result was a price bubble in real estate as millions of previously unqualified borrowers were drawn into the market, not just poor minorities.   That bubble increased continuously until it popped, which effected all real estate, not just those of the 'intended' poor minorities.
Click to expand...


Actually its a phenomenon called a cycle that repeats itself over and over. Some market crashes are worse than others but they are cyclical and pretty predictable.  If it was not the subprime loans it would have been something else.


----------



## Andylusion

I'm going to delete the sections where you had nothing of value to say, or you made empty claims that I already countered, and you didn't have an answer to.



Zombie_Pundit said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...the FLSA is a *government policy promoted by government which has invested interest is promoting themselves* as being a benefit to society, to expand and grow themselves at the cost of tax payers.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you just accuse the United States Government of being some crazy corrupt conspiracy?
Click to expand...


Have you read Thomas Sowell's book "A personal odyssey" where he was working at the BLS, and they doctored his research, to fit with what the politicians wanted?

Or have you read where in the 1970s, Jimmy Carter requested the Geological Survey to find out how much coal there was in the US mainland, and they concluded there was only 1,000 years of coal left (or some other really long time span) at current rates of increased usage.    That wasn't very useful to Jimmy Carter who was pushing for green-energy now, and had those researchers fired, and replaced by new researchers, who came to more politically acceptable conclusions.

To the point.... if you believe everything government says, without question.... then you are acting foolishly.   I would take _nearly_ any source as being a higher level of credibility than government.

Now, that doesn't mean I would take any other source at face value without question, but I most certainly would automatically question anything from government.   If you can prove the government's claims true... great.    But until you do, no... not good enough.   Smart people don't blindly have faith in government.  Only idiots do that.

In this specific case... there have been numerous studies on the long term effects of the minimum wage, and thus far, not a single one has shown anything but a negative effect. 



> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> My company itself, is proof of this concept.   During the late 90s, and 2000s, my company was drastically bigger than it is today.   It was making tons of product.   In the late 2000s, the company began getting smaller.   All of their engineers, sales, and executives, had a 20% pay cut.    All of them are still there, still working, still doing their jobs.
> 
> Obviously they could have cut their pay years ago, or never given them raises to begin with.   Yet the company did.... why?  Because they had the money to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, I'm not sure who you are working for...  but an employer cannot just start slashing salaries willie nillie because the mood struck him, so no the company could not have "obviously" cut their pay years ago.  You, Androw, have seen a reduction in wages and assume the employer can, at any time, without any repercussions whatsoever, reduce wages and the employee must sit and beg and take it?
Click to expand...


Well, if you hired me to mow your lawn for a given wage, and the next month, you tell me you are no longer willing to pay me to mow your lawn, unless I accept less..... are you saying you don't have the right as the buyer of my services to make that choice?

I actually know of several that have done this.   In the late 90s, a company called DEX, operating out of Groveport, OH, cut the entire staff $1 an hour, to every employee.   Which was a drop from $11/hr to $10/hr.   I was hired as a replacement for those who quit from the wage cut.

My current company also gave the same ultimatum.   Again, I was not there for this, but I am 1 of only 4 people who were not there when this happened.   Everyone was given the option.  Either a 20% pay cut, or they can leave.   Some left.  Most stayed.

As far as I am aware, Ohio, like most states, is an "at-will" employment.   Meaning, yes... they can in fact cut your wage, and you can choose to either stay or leave.



> Read this quote from RKMBrown before you bow and scrape for some employer who you claim has the right to slash your pay whenever he darn feels like it:



No one at my current company had a problem with it, but I do know that some at DEX tried to sue or something, and they were shot down in court.

Moreover, I personally accept a concept seemingly lost on the left in our society, called "private property".    How that applies in this case, is that their money.... is theirs.   Not mine.

I feel no need whatsoever, to try and force someone else to do with their money, what I want.   Nor would I want others to dictate to me what I do with my money.

So if I have a problem with my employer, or if I feel I am not being compensated fairly (which there have been times), I have never felt like causing a problem to my employers.  Instead, I simply fire my employers, by leaving... and finding another job.

I have no fear of finding another job.  I can do so whenever I wish.  This is not China.  This is America.  I own my labor.  If I don't like the terms given for selling my labor, then I refuse to sell, and go somewhere else.  



> Appeal to fear...  If we anger the mighty employer, Ronald McDonald will stomp on us but good!



No, it's just economic reality.  In places where the cost of labor, goes up beyond the value to the customer, employees are replaced with robots.

Now, if your ok with unskilled employees losing their much needed jobs, ok fine.   But at least be honest that pushing for higher minimum wage, isn't about helping people.... because you are not helping people.



> That completely depends on the machine and the product.  Have you ever fabricated a PCB or an ASIC?  What you are saying as some absolute is simply not absolute and would be damaging to many businesses.



True.   I was talking based on the experience mentioned.   Setting up an automated glassware system with a new design or cup for production, will easily take days, if not weeks, depending on the complexity of the design.       But human employees, operating hand templates, takes minutes.  Full production can start by the end of the day.

Similarly, when Obama asked Steve Jobs, what it would take to bring Iphone manufacturing back to the US, Jobs said plainly that it would never come back, because of the flexibility of Asian manufacturing.

Now Steve could easily be wrong about that.  The whole reason there is so much flexibility in manufacturing, is because all their manufacturing is with people, not machines and bots.   The reason for that, is exactly what I said... the cost savings of machines, isn't high enough to justify replacing people.

But labor costs are on the rise in China, as one would expect in a capitalist system.   At some point, the wages will go up enough, that it is justifiable to replace people with machines, and when that happens, the flexibility will diminish. 



> Are you suggesting McDonald's has a warehouse of menu kiosks just waiting to be put to use if the cashiers get too uppity?
> Appeal to fear...



I never told you what my company does, did I?

My company makes printers for Kiosks.   This very month actually....  we are starting our own kiosk production.

If I seem to think I know which companies, and why those companies.... are buying kiosks..... It's because I do.
Take it or leave it... I don't care.   People who choose to be ignorant, are doomed to remain so.

Nevertheless, this is actually the great Irony of this thread, is that I'm warning people against the minimum wage, even though the minimum wage right now is directly paying my salary.   Driving up the labor cost, is driving companies to sign contracts with my company right now.

If I was a truly selfish person, I should be the biggest supporter of the minimum wage on this forum.



> Which regulations?  The regulations on what is produced or the regulations on how it will be produced?  Since this is a thread on minimum wage, which I will grant as a regulation on how things are produced, are you suggesting the owner kept his volume of sales down to be exempt from the minimum wage?  Because I'm not sure such an exemption existed back then.



What I read, didn't specifically state which regulation he was exempted from.   So, the honest answer to your question is, I don't know.   Nevertheless, that is the reason given that he kept the volume of production low.   Perhaps he was lying, without reason to lie?



> Factories in Japan need not follow US regulations on Factories.  Employment in Japan need not abide by US minimum wage laws.



Yes, they do need to follow regulations on the product being delivered into US markets.  Same regulations, same effects.



> Are you sure regulation was the only culprit, because those regulations began way before the 70s.  The 70s were a bad economic time in the US.



Many current production cars, were exempted from regulations.  But newer models, were required to comply.


> Are you suggesting the supply of labor is inelastic?
> How about a much more recent analysis demonstrating that the supply of labor is a function of the money wage?
> Pilot Shortage: Regional Airlines Are Cutting Flights - Businessweek



The following is from your link you just posted.

"A pilot shortage has forced smaller airlines to cancel flights and ground jets, a side effect of federal regulations that have dramatically increased the minimum number of flight hours required for new pilots."​
So you claim that labor supply is a function of wage, by posting a link saying that the shortage of labor is due to government regulations, requiring more flight hours before a pilot can fly commercial jets.



> Are you suggesting that employers pay their employees more just because they are all a bunch of nice guys?  Well, some actually are... others have to answer to shareholders who would lynch the employer for violating fiduciary duty so badly.



No of course not.  I never once suggested their motives were altruistic.  I simply stated a well known, and demonstrable fact, that labor that has a higher value, universally tends to be paid more.

This idea that if I earn the company billions, that shareholders will demand it all, and I'll end up earning minimum wage, is just bogus.   I have yet to find a single example, where an employee in a major corporation, drastically increased their revenue into a public company, and was not compensated.

Ironically, I have found that in privately owned companies.



> Again with the absolutes.  What about restaurants that actually lose money the first few years?



There's a huge difference between "I'm going to earn less today, and sacrifice today, in order to make big money in the future"... and "Oh crud.  Government passed a minimum wage law, so I'll just have to earn $50,000 from here on out from this restaurant I run".

I have not only seen business owners earn less than $50,000 in the short run, but actually lose money during the business startup phase.

But in the long run if you say "oh well he'll just have to made do with lower profits", no sorry.   You are just wrong.   You obviously have never talked with CEOs and business owners like I have.   They are *NOT* going to work for $50,000 a year, just because a bunch of mindless leftist nit wits, think flipping burgers over is a skill that deserves $15/hr.

Sorry.  You are just flat out wrong on this one.



> _"The Scandinavian countries of Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark dont dont have a minimum wage at all because they are so highly unionized. The unions there felt that a national minimum wage would interfere with collective bargaining, and it might even bring the price of labor down, says Chater."_
> The Best Minimum Wages In Europe - Forbes









According to the OCED.  Only 19% of all Switzerland employees were unionized.

Trade Unions - Switzerland - Information

According to the Swiss government, 25% of Switzerland employees are Unionized.

I wager the Swiss government is only including Swiss citizens, and the OECD is including all employees.  Or it could be that the percentage of Union employees has been dropping, since the 25% number is from 2004, and the 19% number is 2006.

Regardless of which number you wish to go with, they are not "so highly unionized".   They might have been in the past, which is why only now are they pushing for minimum wage laws, because they are slowly dying.



> You're doing it wrong.



If I'm doing it wrong, then we need more people doing it wrong.   You have proven yourself uninformed about nearly every topic on here.   You have also, in many cases, create strawmen to attack, thus proving you can't even come up with any point, let alone a valid point.

Just saying "you are doing it wrong", without any evidence, without any counter claim, without even addressing the information given, while mindlessly repeating "appeal to fear" which doesn't apply to anything I said... just makes your posts a waste of time, which is why I deleted most of your post.

Try just debating what is said.   If that's too hard, maybe you need to find something better to do with your time.


----------



## beagle9

HenryBHough said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you moved him from 5 dollars minimum up to ten dollars max in an instant ? Why didn't you move him up gradually, and get far more time out of him in that way, instead of the way that you have described ? Round up ain't cheap, so are you sure you came out in the spite work of the situation in which you have described ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moved him up instantly to give him a sense of victory and ensure that he stuck around to do the grunt work to kill off his own job.
> 
> At the time a gallon of Roundup Concentrate was about $75 and I already had a pump sprayer.  Once the grass was gone and the rock was in it took about 1/2 gallon of concentrate to do the whole job so the annual cost was $75 plus about one hour of my labor. Also eliminated were the costs for fertilizer, weed control, lime and the huge portion of the city water/sewer bill that was occasioned by the irrigation usage.  I was ahead in the first year alone.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, sounds like an ugly spot you may have there now, instead of an area/yard that has beautiful grass with a lush green look to it come every spring, so I guess you get what you pay for as they say, where as it's all in the eyes of the beholder for whom has minimal or limited resources for the up keep of a place now right ? I could break down some expenses I have round here also, but I like the way my place looks, so I'll just keep things the way they are for now or at least until I can't afford it anymore, then who cares after that because I'll be in my grave at that point. I have given people raises based on the economy and their quality of services when dealing with my help round here, but I'll agree that if they asked me for to much, then I would have to consider a change by going into the market place in order to seek out another option for services.  They will have to do the same once they over price themselves at my place. Now I haven't had to do that because I am fair and they don't have to challenge me on my fairness, otherwise upon me paying them what they are worth to begin with, so everyone is usually happy round here including me.


----------



## Politico

HenryBHough said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...........I find this living wage talk a bit silly given that it would vary depending on how responsible one is with their finances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a quaint, old-fashioned concept, "responsibility".
> 
> You funny!!!
Click to expand...


And logical, How dare he!


----------



## beagle9

Androw said:


> I'm going to delete the sections where you had nothing of value to say, or you made empty claims that I already countered, and you didn't have an answer to.
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...the FLSA is a *government policy promoted by government which has invested interest is promoting themselves* as being a benefit to society, to expand and grow themselves at the cost of tax payers.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you just accuse the United States Government of being some crazy corrupt conspiracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you read Thomas Sowell's book "A personal odyssey" where he was working at the BLS, and they doctored his research, to fit with what the politicians wanted?
> 
> Or have you read where in the 1970s, Jimmy Carter requested the Geological Survey to find out how much coal there was in the US mainland, and they concluded there was only 1,000 years of coal left (or some other really long time span) at current rates of increased usage.    That wasn't very useful to Jimmy Carter who was pushing for green-energy now, and had those researchers fired, and replaced by new researchers, who came to more politically acceptable conclusions.
> 
> To the point.... if you believe everything government says, without question.... then you are acting foolishly.   I would take _nearly_ any source as being a higher level of credibility than government.
> 
> Now, that doesn't mean I would take any other source at face value without question, but I most certainly would automatically question anything from government.   If you can prove the government's claims true... great.    But until you do, no... not good enough.   Smart people don't blindly have faith in government.  Only idiots do that.
> 
> In this specific case... there have been numerous studies on the long term effects of the minimum wage, and thus far, not a single one has shown anything but a negative effect.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you hired me to mow your lawn for a given wage, and the next month, you tell me you are no longer willing to pay me to mow your lawn, unless I accept less..... are you saying you don't have the right as the buyer of my services to make that choice?
> 
> I actually know of several that have done this.   In the late 90s, a company called DEX, operating out of Groveport, OH, cut the entire staff $1 an hour, to every employee.   Which was a drop from $11/hr to $10/hr.   I was hired as a replacement for those who quit from the wage cut.
> 
> My current company also gave the same ultimatum.   Again, I was not there for this, but I am 1 of only 4 people who were not there when this happened.   Everyone was given the option.  Either a 20% pay cut, or they can leave.   Some left.  Most stayed.
> 
> As far as I am aware, Ohio, like most states, is an "at-will" employment.   Meaning, yes... they can in fact cut your wage, and you can choose to either stay or leave.
> 
> 
> 
> No one at my current company had a problem with it, but I do know that some at DEX tried to sue or something, and they were shot down in court.
> 
> Moreover, I personally accept a concept seemingly lost on the left in our society, called "private property".    How that applies in this case, is that their money.... is theirs.   Not mine.
> 
> I feel no need whatsoever, to try and force someone else to do with their money, what I want.   Nor would I want others to dictate to me what I do with my money.
> 
> So if I have a problem with my employer, or if I feel I am not being compensated fairly (which there have been times), I have never felt like causing a problem to my employers.  Instead, I simply fire my employers, by leaving... and finding another job.
> 
> I have no fear of finding another job.  I can do so whenever I wish.  This is not China.  This is America.  I own my labor.  If I don't like the terms given for selling my labor, then I refuse to sell, and go somewhere else.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's just economic reality.  In places where the cost of labor, goes up beyond the value to the customer, employees are replaced with robots.
> 
> Now, if your ok with unskilled employees losing their much needed jobs, ok fine.   But at least be honest that pushing for higher minimum wage, isn't about helping people.... because you are not helping people.
> 
> 
> 
> True.   I was talking based on the experience mentioned.   Setting up an automated glassware system with a new design or cup for production, will easily take days, if not weeks, depending on the complexity of the design.       But human employees, operating hand templates, takes minutes.  Full production can start by the end of the day.
> 
> Similarly, when Obama asked Steve Jobs, what it would take to bring Iphone manufacturing back to the US, Jobs said plainly that it would never come back, because of the flexibility of Asian manufacturing.
> 
> Now Steve could easily be wrong about that.  The whole reason there is so much flexibility in manufacturing, is because all their manufacturing is with people, not machines and bots.   The reason for that, is exactly what I said... the cost savings of machines, isn't high enough to justify replacing people.
> 
> But labor costs are on the rise in China, as one would expect in a capitalist system.   At some point, the wages will go up enough, that it is justifiable to replace people with machines, and when that happens, the flexibility will diminish.
> 
> 
> 
> I never told you what my company does, did I?
> 
> My company makes printers for Kiosks.   This very month actually....  we are starting our own kiosk production.
> 
> If I seem to think I know which companies, and why those companies.... are buying kiosks..... It's because I do.
> Take it or leave it... I don't care.   People who choose to be ignorant, are doomed to remain so.
> 
> Nevertheless, this is actually the great Irony of this thread, is that I'm warning people against the minimum wage, even though the minimum wage right now is directly paying my salary.   Driving up the labor cost, is driving companies to sign contracts with my company right now.
> 
> If I was a truly selfish person, I should be the biggest supporter of the minimum wage on this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> What I read, didn't specifically state which regulation he was exempted from.   So, the honest answer to your question is, I don't know.   Nevertheless, that is the reason given that he kept the volume of production low.   Perhaps he was lying, without reason to lie?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they do need to follow regulations on the product being delivered into US markets.  Same regulations, same effects.
> 
> 
> 
> Many current production cars, were exempted from regulations.  But newer models, were required to comply.
> 
> 
> The following is from your link you just posted.
> 
> "A pilot shortage has forced smaller airlines to cancel flights and ground jets, a side effect of federal regulations that have dramatically increased the minimum number of flight hours required for new pilots."​
> So you claim that labor supply is a function of wage, by posting a link saying that the shortage of labor is due to government regulations, requiring more flight hours before a pilot can fly commercial jets.
> 
> 
> 
> No of course not.  I never once suggested their motives were altruistic.  I simply stated a well known, and demonstrable fact, that labor that has a higher value, universally tends to be paid more.
> 
> This idea that if I earn the company billions, that shareholders will demand it all, and I'll end up earning minimum wage, is just bogus.   I have yet to find a single example, where an employee in a major corporation, drastically increased their revenue into a public company, and was not compensated.
> 
> Ironically, I have found that in privately owned companies.
> 
> 
> 
> There's a huge difference between "I'm going to earn less today, and sacrifice today, in order to make big money in the future"... and "Oh crud.  Government passed a minimum wage law, so I'll just have to earn $50,000 from here on out from this restaurant I run".
> 
> I have not only seen business owners earn less than $50,000 in the short run, but actually lose money during the business startup phase.
> 
> But in the long run if you say "oh well he'll just have to made do with lower profits", no sorry.   You are just wrong.   You obviously have never talked with CEOs and business owners like I have.   They are *NOT* going to work for $50,000 a year, just because a bunch of mindless leftist nit wits, think flipping burgers over is a skill that deserves $15/hr.
> 
> Sorry.  You are just flat out wrong on this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"The Scandinavian countries of Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark dont dont have a minimum wage at all because they are so highly unionized. The unions there felt that a national minimum wage would interfere with collective bargaining, and it might even bring the price of labor down, says Chater."_
> The Best Minimum Wages In Europe - Forbes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the OCED.  Only 19% of all Switzerland employees were unionized.
> 
> Trade Unions - Switzerland - Information
> 
> According to the Swiss government, 25% of Switzerland employees are Unionized.
> 
> I wager the Swiss government is only including Swiss citizens, and the OECD is including all employees.  Or it could be that the percentage of Union employees has been dropping, since the 25% number is from 2004, and the 19% number is 2006.
> 
> Regardless of which number you wish to go with, they are not "so highly unionized".   They might have been in the past, which is why only now are they pushing for minimum wage laws, because they are slowly dying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're doing it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I'm doing it wrong, then we need more people doing it wrong.   You have proven yourself uninformed about nearly every topic on here.   You have also, in many cases, create strawmen to attack, thus proving you can't even come up with any point, let alone a valid point.
> 
> Just saying "you are doing it wrong", without any evidence, without any counter claim, without even addressing the information given, while mindlessly repeating "appeal to fear" which doesn't apply to anything I said... just makes your posts a waste of time, which is why I deleted most of your post.
> 
> Try just debating what is said.   If that's too hard, maybe you need to find something better to do with your time.
Click to expand...

All of this stuff you speak of is highly fluid in one direction or the other, and what is being lost in it all is that we have to have a healthy society through in and through out to a certain degree. Now if we have trends of greediness that run for to long in society, it begins to diminish our nation in many ways, and it makes us vulnerable in many ways. You have to think that if we were to have to go to war, then what kind of nation do we have intact to do so ? If we destroy our nations human resources in ways that weaken the entire nation, then we have exposed ourselves in ways that will be regrettable, and may even prove fatal in the situation, thus making us to have to learn to speak another language once we lose our nation to another in some way or another.

It is that we should recognize our errors before it is to late, but greed has a way of blinding us.


----------



## Andylusion

beagle9 said:


> All of this stuff you speak of is highly fluid in one direction or the other, and what is being lost in it all is that we have to have a healthy society through in and through out to a certain degree. Now if we have trends of greediness that run for to long in society, it begins to diminish our nation in many ways, and it makes us vulnerable in many ways. You have to think that if we were to have to go to war, then what kind of nation do we have intact to do so ? If we destroy our nations human resources in ways that weaken the entire nation, then we have exposed ourselves in ways that will be regrettable, and may even prove fatal in the situation, thus making us to have to learn to speak another language once we lose our nation to another in some way or another.
> 
> It is that we should recognize our errors before it is to late, but greed has a way of blinding us.



There has never been a time in American society, where greed has not existed.  In fact, there has never been a time in any society, current or historical, where greed has not existed.

Adam Smith, wrote about this in the wealth of nations, that the reason the butcher or baker, provides their goods to society, is not, and never has been, for the intention of helping his fellow man.    It is always, and still is to this day, for their own self interest.

"Greed" is not the problem.  Greed is the universal constant human condition.

Greed has never caused damage to civilization.   Government regulations, most certainly has.

As for wars, war is not about greed.   At least not for the US.  The reason we go to war, is because there is a threat.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Androw said:


> *So you claim that labor supply is a function of wage,*


It is the very definition of the supply of labor.
_The supply of labour is the total hours (adjusted for intensity of effort) that workers wish to work at a given real wage rate._
Labour supply - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Principles of Macroeconomics | Economics | MIT OpenCourseWare
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Macroeconomics-N-Gregory-Mankiw/dp/1429240024]Amazon.com: Macroeconomics (9781429240024): N. Gregory Mankiw: Books[/ame]




Androw said:


> *So you claim that labor supply is a function of wage,* by posting a link saying that the shortage of labor is due to government regulations, requiring more flight hours before a pilot can fly commercial jets.


That is not what the article says if you bothered to read the article titled:
*Yes, Theres a Pilot Shortage: Salaries Start at $21,000*
You cannot take one sentence out of an article and declare that's what the whole article said.  That is called a "strawman"
Pilot Shortage: Regional Airlines Are Cutting Flights - Businessweek



Androw said:


> I have no fear of finding another job.  I can do so whenever I wish.  This is not China.  This is America.  I own my labor.  If I don't like the terms given for selling my labor, then I refuse to sell, and go somewhere else.


Which is why supply of labor is a function of wage.
Thank you for demonstrating that.



Androw said:


> Try just debating what is said.   If that's too hard, maybe you need to find something better to do with your time.


It is difficult to debate what is said when you say "Norway" then I find links on labor in Norway disproving your assertion (you spoke and offered no proof) and you then say Switzerland as if Switzerland is Norway in disguise.  If you have any interest in an honest debate, go back and check your post on that.  You switched from Norway to Switzerland as if those two were the same entity.

If you are unwilling to recognize your glaring error concerning replacing *Norway* with *Switzerland*, the you're right that debating what you choose to say at any moment is too much work and I have better things to do.



Androw said:


> Have you read Thomas Sowell's book "A personal odyssey" where he was working at the BLS, and they doctored his research, to fit with what the politicians wanted?


I see.  You read one book one time that talked about malfeasance of some sort and now we are to believe what you said earlier which was...


Androw said:


> ...the FLSA is a *government policy promoted by government which has invested interest is promoting themselves* as being a benefit to society, to expand and grow themselves at the cost of tax payers.



No, that *guilt by association* is illogical.

As for the absolutes in which you speak, such as where a restaurateur would never accept a profit from his business of 50,000 because you dictate terms to that entrepreneur, I don't know how to dissuade you from making up rules you expect other people to live by.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Androw said:


> There has never been a time in American society, where greed has not existed.  In fact, there has never been a time in any society, current or historical, where greed has not existed.
> 
> Adam Smith, wrote about this in the wealth of nations, that the reason the butcher or baker, provides their goods to society, is not, and never has been, for the intention of helping his fellow man.    It is always, and still is to this day, for their own self interest.
> 
> "Greed" is not the problem.  Greed is the universal constant human condition.
> 
> Greed has never caused damage to civilization.   Government regulations, most certainly has.
> 
> As for wars, war is not about greed.   At least not for the US.  The reason we go to war, is because there is a threat.



Adam Smith never said "Greed is Good".  
Book4 chapter 8
_our spinners are poor people, women commonly scattered about in all different parts of the country, without support or protection. It is not by the sale of their work, but by that of the complete work of the weavers, that our great master manufacturers make their profits._
Try actually reading Adam Smith!

"Greed" is a vice.  The "Greed is Good" Gordon Gekko speech is overused, and it ignores that the movie ended badly for that character.  Wanting to make a profit is not necessarily "Greed".  

_greed
/gr&#275;d/
noun
intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.
synonyms:	avarice, cupidity, acquisitiveness, covetousness, rapacity _

Would you accept "rapacity" as a word for a vice?

_"Greed has never caused damage to civilization but Government Regulation has caused damage to civilization?"_  Really?  So "Greed is Good" but "Seatbelts are Bad"?

In any case, what does this have to do with minimum wage, which is the topic of this thread, unless you are suggesting that the FLSA is doing damage to civilization?

If that is your assertion, then please come out and say it and just stop quoting characters from movies.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Asclepias said:


> You make a very valid point I have never really considered in regard to this issue.  Wages stay the same and the cost of living still does go up.  The only way to stop it is for consumers to consciously set a limit on the price they will pay for goods.  Since the average american is hopelessly brainwashed to be a consumer I dont see that happening.  This makes the minimum wage increase more palatable to me but there still remains the issue of motivation. If you are making minimum wage you should be asking yourself 3 questions?
> 
> Is min wage acceptable for me and my family?
> 
> Am I going to sit around and wait for a wage increase?
> 
> Will I go out and make myself more valuable?



I agree, we should encourage people to better their situation.  As they better their situation our nation, as an aggregate, is made better.  As for inflation, there is a conventional wisdom that GDP growth must be accompanied by inflation, though there is some debate as to whether or not inflation is necessary for growth.  Just so you know, most economists will lecture you on the necessity of inflation.  The CATO institute published an article arguing, as you do, that the inflation is not necessary for growth.

Does Growth Cause Inflation?

Because we do have inflation, increasing the minimum wage is a foregone conclusion.  If we do nothing, people entering the workforce at the minimum wage will qualify for SNAP.  Does it need to increase as high as some argue?  Probably not.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

General Observation:

People who don't read Adam Smith attribute to Adam Smith opinions he never held.

Here is a real quote from the Wealth of Nations

By encouraging the importation of foreign linen yarn, and thereby bringing it into competition with that which is made by our own people, they endeavour to buy the work of the poor spinners as cheap as possible. They are as intent to keep down the wages of their own weavers as the earnings of the poor spinners, and it is by no means for the benefit of the workman that they endeavour either to raise the price of the complete work or to lower that of the rude materials. *It is the industry which is carried on for the benefit of the rich and the powerful that is principally encouraged by our mercantile system. That which is carried on for the benefit of the poor and the indigent is too often either neglected or oppressed.*


----------



## Andylusion

Asclepias said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> My mom could get 11 cents out of a dime so that is probably where I picked up the habit
> 
> For whatever it may be worth to you, it isn't just a ghetto problem.  While I see people trying to blame the 2008 meltdown on government programs to help minorities and the poor, it was mostly because of people making $35K-$70K a year trying to buy the same cars their bosses had, and living in the same neighborhoods their bosses lived in, etc.  I don't personally know of any blue collar or less types that lost their homes, but I know more people than I could bother to count who lost everything driving nicer cars and living in bigger houses than their middle class incomes could ever have sustained for long.  These were the same people doing cash out refinancing every year or two to pay their credit cards they were living on to keep from defaulting on them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, you are assuming that because a government program was created based on 'intention x', that problem y, can't be related to it.
> 
> Yes, the government programs were designed to help poor minorities.
> 
> That doesn't matter.    The fact is, those programs changed the fundamental functions of the mortgage market, which filtered into the entire market.... not just poor minorities.
> 
> Doesn't matter what the intentions were.
> 
> There's a reason we have old phrases like:
> "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
> 
> The whole point of that aphorism written a thousand years ago, is that intentions can have negative results, no matter how noble, how pure, how altruistic they may have been conceived.
> 
> This is an example of that.   Yes, the push for sub-prime loans, was 'intended' to help poor minorities.    Yippy skip.
> 
> Reality is, the push for sub-prime loans, lowered lending standards across the board.   The result was a price bubble in real estate as millions of previously unqualified borrowers were drawn into the market, not just poor minorities.   That bubble increased continuously until it popped, which effected all real estate, not just those of the 'intended' poor minorities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually its a phenomenon called a cycle that repeats itself over and over. Some market crashes are worse than others but they are cyclical and pretty predictable.  If it was not the subprime loans it would have been something else.
Click to expand...


Which I would generally grant you..... except that I can specifically point to exact policies and regulations, that encouraged sub-prime lending, and directly penalized those who didn't engage in sub-prime lending.

When you can find direct evidence showing the connection between action A and reaction B... it's no longer a random 'cycle'.


----------



## Andylusion

Zombie_Pundit said:


> General Observation:
> 
> People who don't read Adam Smith attribute to Adam Smith opinions he never held.
> 
> Here is a real quote from the Wealth of Nations
> 
> By encouraging the importation of foreign linen yarn, and thereby bringing it into competition with that which is made by our own people, they endeavour to buy the work of the poor spinners as cheap as possible. They are as intent to keep down the wages of their own weavers as the earnings of the poor spinners, and it is by no means for the benefit of the workman that they endeavour either to raise the price of the complete work or to lower that of the rude materials. *It is the industry which is carried on for the benefit of the rich and the powerful that is principally encouraged by our mercantile system. That which is carried on for the benefit of the poor and the indigent is too often either neglected or oppressed.*



My experience is that people assume others have never read Adam Smith, when in reality they have no idea what books others have or have not read.

Additionally, my experience is that people are first to claim others have never read Adam Smith, have in fact never read it themselves.

Lastly, my experience is that many who claim to have read Adam Smith, often pick out one passage, take it out of context, and apply their own personal views unto the passage, that Adam Smith never intended.

Adam Smith did say what you quoted, but he was talking about a mercantile system, that he opposed.  Not capitalism which he promoted.  If you had actually read the book, you would know that.


----------



## Andylusion

Zombie_Pundit said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> There has never been a time in American society, where greed has not existed.  In fact, there has never been a time in any society, current or historical, where greed has not existed.
> 
> Adam Smith, wrote about this in the wealth of nations, that the reason the butcher or baker, provides their goods to society, is not, and never has been, for the intention of helping his fellow man.    It is always, and still is to this day, for their own self interest.
> 
> "Greed" is not the problem.  Greed is the universal constant human condition.
> 
> Greed has never caused damage to civilization.   Government regulations, most certainly has.
> 
> As for wars, war is not about greed.   At least not for the US.  The reason we go to war, is because there is a threat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adam Smith never said "Greed is Good".
> Book4 chapter 8
> _our spinners are poor people, women commonly scattered about in all different parts of the country, without support or protection. It is not by the sale of their work, but by that of the complete work of the weavers, that our great master manufacturers make their profits._
> Try actually reading Adam Smith!
> 
> "Greed" is a vice.  The "Greed is Good" Gordon Gekko speech is overused, and it ignores that the movie ended badly for that character.  Wanting to make a profit is not necessarily "Greed".
> 
> _greed
> /gr&#275;d/
> noun
> intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.
> synonyms:	avarice, cupidity, acquisitiveness, covetousness, rapacity _
> 
> Would you accept "rapacity" as a word for a vice?
> 
> _"Greed has never caused damage to civilization but Government Regulation has caused damage to civilization?"_  Really?  So "Greed is Good" but "Seatbelts are Bad"?
> 
> In any case, what does this have to do with minimum wage, which is the topic of this thread, unless you are suggesting that the FLSA is doing damage to civilization?
> 
> If that is your assertion, then please come out and say it and just stop quoting characters from movies.
Click to expand...


Did I ever say that Adam Smith said 'greed is good'?

No I did not.  What you just engaged in, was creating a strawman argument, and attacking it.



> Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.



Book 1 Chapter 2

Smith: Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapters 1-4 | Library of Economics and Liberty

This is what he said.   Take it or leave it, but it is true regardless.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Androw said:


> Adam Smith did say what you quoted, but he was talking about a mercantile system, that he opposed.  *Not capitalism which he promoted.*  If you had actually read the book, you would know that.



Are you really going to argue that we live under the capitalist system Adam Smith promoted?  Because, if not, then you cannot argue for the goodness of our current system by arguing for the goodness of Adam Smith's vision of capitalism.

Further, do you really think Adam Smith left no room for the government to take on the cause of the poor?

Try reading Book 5.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

androw said:


> adam smith, wrote about this in the wealth of nations, that the reason the butcher or baker, provides their goods to society, is not, and never has been, for the intention of helping his fellow man.    It is always, and still is to this day, for their own self interest.
> 
> "greed" is not the problem.  Greed is the universal constant human condition.
> 
> Greed has never caused damage to civilization.   Government regulations, most certainly has.






androw said:


> did i ever say that adam smith said 'greed is good'?
> 
> No i did not.  What you just engaged in, was creating a strawman argument, and attacking it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which i want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> book 1 chapter 2
> 
> smith: Wealth of nations, book i, chapters 1-4 | library of economics and liberty
> 
> this is what he said.   Take it or leave it, but it is true regardless.
Click to expand...



"Greed is the universal constant human condition." - androw

Greed and Greedy are pejorative terms.  You can't change the pejorative nature of a word because you think everyone should change our common language.

Further, Smith was no champion of greed.  He spends a good deal of his work lamenting greed and deriding greed.


*Note: "Greed" and "Self-Interest" are not synonymous.*


----------



## Andylusion

Zombie_Pundit said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> *So you claim that labor supply is a function of wage,* by posting a link saying that the shortage of labor is due to government regulations, requiring more flight hours before a pilot can fly commercial jets.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what the article says if you bothered to read the article titled:
> *Yes, There&#8217;s a Pilot Shortage: Salaries Start at $21,000*
> You cannot take one sentence out of an article and declare that's what the whole article said.  That is called a "strawman"
> Pilot Shortage: Regional Airlines Are Cutting Flights - Businessweek
Click to expand...


So clearly prior to the new federal regulations, salaries were exactly the same, and yet there was no pilot shortage.   Yet now, after the rule change, there is a pilot shortage.

Yet in your world, the problem is the wage rate, which was the same in both situations.

You are quickly proving to be a waste of time.



> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...the FLSA is a *government policy promoted by government which has invested interest is promoting themselves* as being a benefit to society, to expand and grow themselves at the cost of tax payers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that *guilt by association* is illogical.
Click to expand...


Blind trust in politicians that never lie, is of course completely logical...

Your opinion of my opinion matters so much to me.    Really.

BTW, normally I would mock you and laugh when you engaged in strawman arguments, deflection, fabrication, and topic changes.

Since this is the clean section, I'm simply deleting all parts of your post where you engage in such behaviors.   Notice how little of your post is left?   You've lost this argument.   People who are making good points, don't have to make up lies about confusing Norway with Switzerland (which I went back 4 pages of posts, and found no evidence of), in order to avoid looking dumb.

Thanks for stopping by, but you really don't have much to say anymore.  If you do, by all means feel free, but given how little of value you've had to say in the last three posts you've made... it's clear your argument is done. 



> As for the absolutes in which you speak, such as where a restaurateur would never accept a profit from his business of 50,000 because you dictate terms to that entrepreneur, I don't know how to dissuade you from making up rules you expect other people to live by.



Perfect example of what I was just eluding to.   It's not a 'rule others must live by'.  It's a fact.   An observation of the real world, which apparently you have no concept of, not a expectation of how the world should work.

The fact you are even questioning this, proves just how little, and how out of touch you are with business owners.

But if you want to remain ignorant, and in your own little world, where owners will work for $50K a year, just so a whopper flopper can make $15 an hour....  just stay in your own little world.    It's 'safer' there.


----------



## Andylusion

Zombie_Pundit said:


> "Greed is the universal constant human condition." - androw
> 
> Greed and Greedy are pejorative terms.  You can't change the pejorative nature of a word because you think everyone should change our common language.
> 
> Further, Smith was no champion of greed.  He spends a good deal of his work lamenting greed and deriding greed.
> 
> 
> *Note: "Greed" and "Self-Interest" are not synonymous.*



Now tell me how the statement:
"Greed is the universal constant human condition."  Which I attributed to .... ME.....

Means that I implied Adam Smith said greed is good?

Look.... this is yet another example of you creating strawman arguments.

If you really can't debate more maturely than this, then I'll just find someone else to talk to.    I will put you on my ignore list, and talk to other more intelligent and mature people.... people that don't just make up crap that I didn't say, and attack me the crap they made up.

That's how this works.  You either prove yourself worth talking to, or prove conclusively that you are not.   I'll be fine either way.  Make your choice.


----------



## Andylusion

Zombie_Pundit said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam Smith did say what you quoted, but he was talking about a mercantile system, that he opposed.  *Not capitalism which he promoted.*  If you had actually read the book, you would know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really going to argue that we live under the capitalist system Adam Smith promoted?  Because, if not, then you cannot argue for the goodness of our current system by arguing for the goodness of Adam Smith's vision of capitalism.
> 
> Further, do you really think Adam Smith left no room for the government to take on the cause of the poor?
> 
> Try reading Book 5.
Click to expand...


No system is absolutely pure to any vision.  That's just the reality of human nature.

Yes, Adam Smith most certainly did support some amount of intervention by government, and he was wrong.

There is no sage of divine wisdom.   Adam Smith was a man.  He was a smart man, but a man nonetheless.    As with any human wisdom, you glean what you can that's good, and reject what you find is bad.

Adam Smith is no different.  There are some aspects, that are absolutely true, and should be considered.   Others...  not so much.

I'm also an avid fan of Milton Friedman.  Yet there are aspects I disagree with that he said.

Like I said.  There is no sage of divine wisdom.   Friedman was correct on many things, and wrong on others.

Pointing out the stuff Adam Smith was wrong about, doesn't disprove all the things he was right about.   Nor does pointing out what he was right about, prove correct all the things he was wrong about.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Androw said:


> *So you claim that labor supply is a function of wage,*


And I have substantiated that claim by providing the definition of the supply of labor.

Pilot Shortage: Regional Airlines Are Cutting Flights - Businessweek


Androw said:


> So clearly prior to the new federal regulations, salaries were exactly the same, and yet there was no pilot shortage.   Yet now, after the rule change, there is a pilot shortage.
> 
> Yet in your world, the problem is the wage rate, which was the same in both situations.



And in your world, requiring that Airline Pilots have training is great regulation evil, and nothing about the shortage could be attributed to the pittance paid to the pilot.



Androw said:


> You are quickly proving to be a waste of time.



Keep it clean...



Androw said:


> BTW, normally I would mock you and laugh...


That I believe



Androw said:


> People who are making good points, don't have to make up lies about confusing Norway with Switzerland (which I went back 4 pages of posts, and found no evidence of), in order to avoid looking dumb.



Let me help you...  remember this?


Androw said:


> Norway has no minimum wage, and pays $16 an hr (roughly).



See?  You started with Norway, back when we were still relatively on topic.  But then you switched countries.



Androw said:


> Thanks for stopping by, but you really don't have much to say anymore.


Neither of us do.  You are wrong.  *I have found someone wrong on the internet* and I can't seem to stop posting.  This is a clean section, and where this is leading can't be good.




Androw said:


> it's clear your argument is done.


I'm just telling you that you're doing it wrong.  You are obviously convinced of your own brilliance and nothing I say can get through to you.



> As for the absolutes in which you speak, such as where a restaurateur would never accept a profit from his business of 50,000 because you dictate terms to that entrepreneur, I don't know how to dissuade you from making up rules you expect other people to live by.





Androw said:


> It's not a 'rule others must live by'.  It's a fact.



And if I find one link to one guy who owns a restaurant pulling in a modest profit... what will I have proven to you?  Actually nothing, because you'll try to change your claim.





Androw said:


> But if you want to remain ignorant, and in your own little world, where owners will work for $50K a year, just so a whopper flopper can make $15 an hour....  just stay in your own little world.    It's 'safer' there.


I never claimed a restaurateur does make $50k.  You claimed all restaurateurs would not.  I pointed out you cannot make such a claim.  People are funny.  Sometimes people actually make a 38 dollar fast food burgers and sometimes people actually open up little shops at a loss because they are independently wealthy and just need something to do.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Androw said:


> Yes, Adam Smith most certainly did support some amount of intervention by government, and he was wrong.



Ok, everyone... Adam Smith was wrong.  Let's pack up this Capitalism thing.

(I'm joking)


----------



## Andylusion

Zombie_Pundit said:


> Pilot Shortage: Regional Airlines Are Cutting Flights - Businessweek
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> So clearly prior to the new federal regulations, salaries were exactly the same, and yet there was no pilot shortage.   Yet now, after the rule change, there is a pilot shortage.
> 
> Yet in your world, the problem is the wage rate, which was the same in both situations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in your world, requiring that Airline Pilots have training is great regulation evil, and nothing about the shortage could be attributed to the pittance paid to the pilot.
Click to expand...


So magically the argument is now that I was claiming requiring training is evil.

Yet another childish strawman argument.

Well I'm done with childish behavior your part.  I gave you the change to grow up and act like an adult on here, and you have choose to resort to strawman arguments again.

You might find some other people that will swap spit with you, but I got better things to do, than endlessly point out your childish posts.  I'll debate a mature adult until the end of time.  Childish crap like this... not so much.

Congrats!  You have proven yourself worthy only to be ignored, and thus are the latest addition to my ignore list.  You won't be missed!    Have a nice life.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Androw said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pilot Shortage: Regional Airlines Are Cutting Flights - Businessweek
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> So clearly prior to the new federal regulations, salaries were exactly the same, and yet there was no pilot shortage.   Yet now, after the rule change, there is a pilot shortage.
> 
> Yet in your world, the problem is the wage rate, which was the same in both situations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in your world, requiring that Airline Pilots have training is great regulation evil, and nothing about the shortage could be attributed to the pittance paid to the pilot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So magically the argument is now that I was claiming requiring training is evil.
Click to expand...

The article never said there was no pilot shortage prior to a change in regulations, you made that up.

You made up a fictitious universe where every pilot was happy with their wage and their was no labor shortage of pilots and every flight was safe until the evil government came around and demanded pilots be trained.

There's no magic here.  For the government to require training is to regulate which you have plainly stated is a great evil responsible for "damaging civilization"

"Greed has never caused damage to civilization. Government regulations, most certainly has [caused damage to civilization]." - Androw




Androw said:


> Congrats!  You have proven yourself worthy only to be ignored, and thus are the latest addition to my ignore list.  You won't be missed!    Have a nice life.


That's fine.  I don't add people to my ignore list.  I'm not afraid of what they have to say, regardless of how poorly they can express those ideas nor in what ignorance those ideas are formed.


----------



## HenryBHough

From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs works very well. Until those who used to have abilities discover they've lost them entirely.


----------



## RKMBrown

Zombie_Pundit said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pilot Shortage: Regional Airlines Are Cutting Flights - Businessweek
> 
> 
> And in your world, requiring that Airline Pilots have training is great regulation evil, and nothing about the shortage could be attributed to the pittance paid to the pilot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So magically the argument is now that I was claiming requiring training is evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The article never said there was no pilot shortage prior to a change in regulations, you made that up.
> 
> You made up a fictitious universe where every pilot was happy with their wage and their was no labor shortage of pilots and every flight was safe until the evil government came around and demanded pilots be trained.
> 
> There's no magic here.  For the government to require training is to regulate which you have plainly stated is a great evil responsible for "damaging civilization"
> 
> "Greed has never caused damage to civilization. Government regulations, most certainly has [caused damage to civilization]." - Androw
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congrats!  You have proven yourself worthy only to be ignored, and thus are the latest addition to my ignore list.  You won't be missed!    Have a nice life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's fine.  I don't add people to my ignore list.  I'm not afraid of what they have to say, regardless of how poorly they can express those ideas nor in what ignorance those ideas are formed.
Click to expand...


I think you hit his cognitive dissonance funny bone.


----------



## PoliticalEye

Min wage was never meant to be a living wage. It was supposed to be a wage for people in High School and College Students not as a lifetime career. If you want more you can get more skills or education or work more then one job. Millions of people have done this and moved up.


----------



## Andylusion

PoliticalEye said:


> Min wage was never meant to be a living wage. It was supposed to be a wage for people in High School and College Students not as a lifetime career. If you want more you can get more skills or education or work more then one job. Millions of people have done this and moved up.



You can even just move up from the unskilled job, without anything.

A few year back I worked as contract (outsourced) InfoTech support.  My company sent me out to a large customer, which was a big financial institution.   I asked my boss (at that company), what big education he had to get there.   He gave me this strange smile, and said actually he had no education at all.

He started out in the mail room.  Then a position opened up at on-call tech support.   This is where you read the computer screen, and ask questions, type in the answers, and give people whatever answer the computer spits out.

From there, when a spot opened up for a floor tech in the IT department, he applied and got it.  Then he asked the manager if he could stay over, and learn his job.   The manager agreed (of course), and when that manager moved on, he was given his job.

Now imagine that!   Asking your manager, if you can stay over after work.... UNPAID.... in order to volunteer to do your bosses job for him.

But.... that's how you move up without having a degree, without certifications, without getting an education.

The problem is, all the McEmployee dingbats, they want the reward of getting paid more, but they don't want to have to work for any of it.

They don't want to actually ask their boss for more responsibility... they just want paid like they have more responsibility.

They don't want to actually take on more work, they just want paid like they do more work.

They would NEVER offer to do their bosses work for him, in order to learn what they need to know to move, they just want paid like they have moved up.

And this is why ultimately, they will end up neither moving up or advancing, nor will they really get paid more.   They will either lose their jobs, or inflation caused by the minimum wage, will make their increased pay meaningless.

We know this because that's what happened in the 1990s, and in 2009.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

PoliticalEye said:


> Min wage was never meant to be a living wage. It was supposed to be a wage for people in High School and College Students not as a lifetime career.



Can you provide any proof of your assertion that the Federal Minimum Wage, first signed into law by FDR in 1938, was intended for "people in High School and College Students" ?


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Androw said:


> A few year back I worked as contract (outsourced) InfoTech support.  My company sent me out to a large customer, which was a big financial institution.   I asked my boss (at that company), what big education he had to get there.   He gave me this strange smile, and said actually he had no education at all.


This is anecdotal. No substance.




Androw said:


> But.... that's how you move up without having a degree, without certifications, without getting an education.


And there's no other way, according to you.  No one, in your depiction of world, has ever followed any other path like seniority in a union.
Answer will be in the form of an argument from incredulity, moving on.




Androw said:


> The problem is, all the *McEmployee dingbats*, they want the reward of getting paid more, but they don't want to have to work for any of it.


Appeal to spite.  What is with the spite towards fast food workers?



Androw said:


> They don't want to actually take on more work, they just want paid like they do more work.


Appeal to spite.  

I think your grammar would be better if you could not strike the keyboard with such force when describing your spite towards the fast food worker.  Did a fast food worker break up with you or something?



Androw said:


> We know this because that's what happened in the 1990s, and in 2009.


Pushing aside that correlation does not equal causation, can you at least substantiate this claim with evidence of a direct and unequivocal correlation between increases to the minimum wage and an increased rate of inflation specifically through the 1990s and 2009?
I ask because the average inflation rate for fiscal years 2000-2007 was %2.84. The fiscal year 2007 was particularly bad. The minimum wage was increased in the years 2007-2009, after the inflation happened.  The average inflation rate for fiscal years 2008-2013, which includes the higher minimum wage, was 1.73%.  The fiscal year 2008 had an inflation rate of 0.03%.  This data is readily available to anyone who can click on the following link:
Google
This data conflicts directly with your claim, and would indicate that you are putting the cart before the horse.


----------



## Againsheila

Uncensored2008 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know anything at all about me?  I'm a homemaker.  I don't belong to a union.  Even when I was working for the DOD I didn't belong to a union.  I did belong to a union when I was working for United Airlines, but that was the Machinist union, not the SEIU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You propagate Union lies, which is the usual behavior of government leeches.
> 
> Unions in America are a monopoly - names may vary, but the AFL/CIO run all the unions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care if Walmart gets a union or not, I want them to pay a living wage.  In the richest country in the world, the lowest paid worker should make a living wage and everything should go up from there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should ask stores where you shop to raise prices, or volunteer to pay double and ask that half of the difference go to the employees, and the rest to the union bosses.
> 
> When I buy something, I shop for the lowest price. Do you search the Internet to make sure you pay the highest price for like items?
> 
> When I bought my first Rebel, I got it from Walmart because they were $100 cheaper than Bestbuy - Walmart pays their employees more than Bestbuy does - would you have bought at the higher price? When I bought my 5Si, I bought from TigerDirect, because they were the cheapest by far. I have no idea what Tiger pays their employees - and couldn't care less...
Click to expand...


I don't know what a "Rebel" is, but I know that when we were ultra poor, my husband bought a computer at Walmart and it was so filled with adware that I will pay double for a computer anywhere rather than buying one from Walmart again.

I guess you get what you pay for.

BTW, I shop at Walmart only because it's the only store in the area that sells velcro fasten shoes.  My severely autistic adult son can't tie shoes.


----------



## Andylusion

Againsheila said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know anything at all about me?  I'm a homemaker.  I don't belong to a union.  Even when I was working for the DOD I didn't belong to a union.  I did belong to a union when I was working for United Airlines, but that was the Machinist union, not the SEIU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You propagate Union lies, which is the usual behavior of government leeches.
> 
> Unions in America are a monopoly - names may vary, but the AFL/CIO run all the unions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care if Walmart gets a union or not, I want them to pay a living wage.  In the richest country in the world, the lowest paid worker should make a living wage and everything should go up from there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should ask stores where you shop to raise prices, or volunteer to pay double and ask that half of the difference go to the employees, and the rest to the union bosses.
> 
> When I buy something, I shop for the lowest price. Do you search the Internet to make sure you pay the highest price for like items?
> 
> When I bought my first Rebel, I got it from Walmart because they were $100 cheaper than Bestbuy - Walmart pays their employees more than Bestbuy does - would you have bought at the higher price? When I bought my 5Si, I bought from TigerDirect, because they were the cheapest by far. I have no idea what Tiger pays their employees - and couldn't care less...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what a "Rebel" is, but I know that when we were ultra poor, my husband bought a computer at Walmart and it was so filled with adware that I will pay double for a computer anywhere rather than buying one from Walmart again.
> 
> I guess you get what you pay for.
> 
> BTW, I shop at Walmart only because it's the only store in the area that sells velcro fasten shoes.  My severely autistic adult son can't tie shoes.
Click to expand...


I know several people who have purchased computers from Walmart, and you are the first that I personally have heard that the computer came installed with adware.

Of course it takes only seconds (if you have an internet connection), to end up with thousands of adware on your comp.  Especially if you let your child use the computer, because they often click on things that look flashy, and companies know that.

Further, removing unwanted adware is just not that difficult, if you are willing to take the time to download and installed free adware protection and removal software.

Basically 15 to 30 minutes, is worth several hundred dollars.   That's a pretty good trade if you ask me.   But to each his own.   Keep people like me employed.

As for me... I know several people that have worked at Walmart, and in each case, they couldn't find another similar job, that paid even the same, let alone more than Walmart.   Not to mention stock investment, and education reimbursement.

Additionally, I shop at Walmart regularly, because the prices are lower.    For example, the fan that is next to me right now, at my local store was $32.   At Walmart it was $20.99.

The sweeper I use to sweep the floors here, at my local store was over $60.   At Walmart the exact same sweeper, was $42.

Now there are a few things that are slightly more expensive.  But my experience is, nine times out of ten, things are cheaper, and significantly cheaper, at Walmart.


----------



## beagle9

Androw said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You propagate Union lies, which is the usual behavior of government leeches.
> 
> Unions in America are a monopoly - names may vary, but the AFL/CIO run all the unions.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should ask stores where you shop to raise prices, or volunteer to pay double and ask that half of the difference go to the employees, and the rest to the union bosses.
> 
> When I buy something, I shop for the lowest price. Do you search the Internet to make sure you pay the highest price for like items?
> 
> When I bought my first Rebel, I got it from Walmart because they were $100 cheaper than Bestbuy - Walmart pays their employees more than Bestbuy does - would you have bought at the higher price? When I bought my 5Si, I bought from TigerDirect, because they were the cheapest by far. I have no idea what Tiger pays their employees - and couldn't care less...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what a "Rebel" is, but I know that when we were ultra poor, my husband bought a computer at Walmart and it was so filled with adware that I will pay double for a computer anywhere rather than buying one from Walmart again.
> 
> I guess you get what you pay for.
> 
> BTW, I shop at Walmart only because it's the only store in the area that sells velcro fasten shoes.  My severely autistic adult son can't tie shoes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know several people who have purchased computers from Walmart, and you are the first that I personally have heard that the computer came installed with adware.
> 
> Of course it takes only seconds (if you have an internet connection), to end up with thousands of adware on your comp.  Especially if you let your child use the computer, because they often click on things that look flashy, and companies know that.
> 
> Further, removing unwanted adware is just not that difficult, if you are willing to take the time to download and installed free adware protection and removal software.
> 
> Basically 15 to 30 minutes, is worth several hundred dollars.   That's a pretty good trade if you ask me.   But to each his own.   Keep people like me employed.
> 
> As for me... I know several people that have worked at Walmart, and in each case, they couldn't find another similar job, that paid even the same, let alone more than Walmart.   Not to mention stock investment, and education reimbursement.
> 
> Additionally, I shop at Walmart regularly, because the prices are lower.    For example, the fan that is next to me right now, at my local store was $32.   At Walmart it was $20.99.
> 
> The sweeper I use to sweep the floors here, at my local store was over $60.   At Walmart the exact same sweeper, was $42.
> 
> Now there are a few things that are slightly more expensive.  But my experience is, nine times out of ten, things are cheaper, and significantly cheaper, at Walmart.
Click to expand...

I wonder if you were a citizen of another country like Mexico for example, would you be one to justify that system also ?


----------



## beagle9

Anyone coming to the site, and experiencing stuff like not being able to type because your computer just won't let you when here ? I have been running into this lately, but not sure why.

I noticed that at the bottom of this page, there is an add video, and it seems that when that video was running, well hardly nothing on my machine worked. Hmmmm.


----------



## JohnA

Defiant1 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has someone figured out the magic formula to define a "living" wage?
> 
> Or should each employee be paid according to how much money they need to "live?"
Click to expand...


 true no one has fiqured it out yet
 a young single person living  at home could live on the minimum  wage
 a person DOING  the same job same  tenure   should  they  be paid more cus they have 3 kids
  LIKELY they will
 claim food stamps what  ever the mnimum wage is    

 lesson   pay what the job is worth not what the  employee  ...NEEDS ,,,,,


----------



## Andylusion

beagle9 said:


> Anyone coming to the site, and experiencing stuff like not being able to type because your computer just won't let you when here ? I have been running into this lately, but not sure why.
> 
> I noticed that at the bottom of this page, there is an add video, and it seems that when that video was running, well hardly nothing on my machine worked. Hmmmm.



Yes sir.   You are exactly right.   There is a video at the bottom of the page, which grinds most web browsers I have tried, to a complete halt.

The solution is to install AdBlock Plus.   Then after it is installed, come back to the page, and put your mouse over the video.   Just above the video a tab labeled "Block" will appear.

Click "block", and it will come up with a window to block the advertisement.   Click Add.    The video will disappear.

Be aware, sometimes you will have to do this more than once.   It may require you to block the add three times, before AdBlock Plus will permanently block that video from coming up.

However once done, it rarely comes back.  I thought about complaining to the Forum admin... but this is a free service, and they are getting paid for displaying the ads on their page....  so....  you can demand a refund if you want....

Good luck.  Go find adblock plus.  It's a great firefox plug in, even without this.     Also I would recommend getting EasyList   EasyList is a subscription that AdBlock Plus uses to block ads.


----------



## Andylusion

beagle9 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what a "Rebel" is, but I know that when we were ultra poor, my husband bought a computer at Walmart and it was so filled with adware that I will pay double for a computer anywhere rather than buying one from Walmart again.
> 
> I guess you get what you pay for.
> 
> BTW, I shop at Walmart only because it's the only store in the area that sells velcro fasten shoes.  My severely autistic adult son can't tie shoes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know several people who have purchased computers from Walmart, and you are the first that I personally have heard that the computer came installed with adware.
> 
> Of course it takes only seconds (if you have an internet connection), to end up with thousands of adware on your comp.  Especially if you let your child use the computer, because they often click on things that look flashy, and companies know that.
> 
> Further, removing unwanted adware is just not that difficult, if you are willing to take the time to download and installed free adware protection and removal software.
> 
> Basically 15 to 30 minutes, is worth several hundred dollars.   That's a pretty good trade if you ask me.   But to each his own.   Keep people like me employed.
> 
> As for me... I know several people that have worked at Walmart, and in each case, they couldn't find another similar job, that paid even the same, let alone more than Walmart.   Not to mention stock investment, and education reimbursement.
> 
> Additionally, I shop at Walmart regularly, because the prices are lower.    For example, the fan that is next to me right now, at my local store was $32.   At Walmart it was $20.99.
> 
> The sweeper I use to sweep the floors here, at my local store was over $60.   At Walmart the exact same sweeper, was $42.
> 
> Now there are a few things that are slightly more expensive.  But my experience is, nine times out of ten, things are cheaper, and significantly cheaper, at Walmart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wonder if you were a citizen of another country like Mexico for example, would you be one to justify that system also ?
Click to expand...


Are you suggesting that people in other countries do not want more goods at a lower price?

Standard of living, is based on the ability to get goods at a lower price.  Countries which subvert that system, often end up with lower standards of living.... obviously because if I have to pay twice as much for food, then I can't spend as much on other things.   If I have to pay twice as much for a car, then I have less for other things... or I don't get the car.

This is true everywhere in the world.  Yes, I would advocate the same everywhere.


----------



## beagle9

Androw said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know several people who have purchased computers from Walmart, and you are the first that I personally have heard that the computer came installed with adware.
> 
> Of course it takes only seconds (if you have an internet connection), to end up with thousands of adware on your comp.  Especially if you let your child use the computer, because they often click on things that look flashy, and companies know that.
> 
> Further, removing unwanted adware is just not that difficult, if you are willing to take the time to download and installed free adware protection and removal software.
> 
> Basically 15 to 30 minutes, is worth several hundred dollars.   That's a pretty good trade if you ask me.   But to each his own.   Keep people like me employed.
> 
> As for me... I know several people that have worked at Walmart, and in each case, they couldn't find another similar job, that paid even the same, let alone more than Walmart.   Not to mention stock investment, and education reimbursement.
> 
> Additionally, I shop at Walmart regularly, because the prices are lower.    For example, the fan that is next to me right now, at my local store was $32.   At Walmart it was $20.99.
> 
> The sweeper I use to sweep the floors here, at my local store was over $60.   At Walmart the exact same sweeper, was $42.
> 
> Now there are a few things that are slightly more expensive.  But my experience is, nine times out of ten, things are cheaper, and significantly cheaper, at Walmart.
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if you were a citizen of another country like Mexico for example, would you be one to justify that system also ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that people in other countries do not want more goods at a lower price?
> 
> Standard of living, is based on the ability to get goods at a lower price.  Countries which subvert that system, often end up with lower standards of living.... obviously because if I have to pay twice as much for food, then I can't spend as much on other things.   If I have to pay twice as much for a car, then I have less for other things... or I don't get the car.
> 
> This is true everywhere in the world.  Yes, I would advocate the same everywhere.
Click to expand...

No what I'm talking about is the style or types of systems that they have, in which creates the super rich and sadly for the masses mostly the super poor and/or poor.

Would you defend Mexico's system of government and their set up in that nation, in which is controlled by and run by whom again ? Now why is there so many coming across our southern border for work at such cheap pay for their labor, I mean if it is that they are in a nation that was run differently than that ?

Minimum wage should be an entrance pay.

A living wage should be based upon a structured pay grade system that is custom to the type businesses that are being operated individually.

A living wage should also be structured with a percentage paid on the successes beyond the flat rates that a company has set in their ladder pay structure, where as this gives employee's the incentive to pull harder and work smarter to make the company a complete sucess in the market place. 

A company should be run as a family, and not some sort of hard nosed place where people go to feel as if they are some sort of modern day slaves instead of someone that is respected and appreciated for being there and on the job.


----------



## Againsheila

JohnA said:


> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has someone figured out the magic formula to define a "living" wage?
> 
> Or should each employee be paid according to how much money they need to "live?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> true no one has fiqured it out yet
> a young single person living  at home could live on the minimum  wage
> a person DOING  the same job same  tenure   should  they  be paid more cus they have 3 kids
> LIKELY they will
> claim food stamps what  ever the mnimum wage is
> 
> lesson   pay what the job is worth not what the  employee  ...NEEDS ,,,,,
Click to expand...


The lowest paid job in the richest country in the world is worth a living wage.


----------



## Againsheila

beagle9 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if you were a citizen of another country like Mexico for example, would you be one to justify that system also ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that people in other countries do not want more goods at a lower price?
> 
> Standard of living, is based on the ability to get goods at a lower price.  Countries which subvert that system, often end up with lower standards of living.... obviously because if I have to pay twice as much for food, then I can't spend as much on other things.   If I have to pay twice as much for a car, then I have less for other things... or I don't get the car.
> 
> This is true everywhere in the world.  Yes, I would advocate the same everywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No what I'm talking about is the style or types of systems that they have, in which creates the super rich and sadly for the masses mostly the super poor and/or poor.
> 
> Would you defend Mexico's system of government and their set up in that nation, in which is controlled by and run by whom again ? Now why is there so many coming across our southern border for work at such cheap pay for their labor, I mean if it is that they are in a nation that was run differently than that ?
> 
> Minimum wage should be an entrance pay.
> 
> A living wage should be based upon a structured pay grade system that is custom to the type businesses that are being operated individually.
> 
> A living wage should also be structured with a percentage paid on the successes beyond the flat rates that a company has set in their ladder pay structure, where as this gives employee's the incentive to pull harder and work smarter to make the company a complete sucess in the market place.
> 
> A company should be run as a family, and not some sort of hard nosed place where people go to feel as if they are some sort of modern day slaves instead of someone that is respected and appreciated for being there and on the job.
Click to expand...


Minimum wage should have the same spending power it had when it was started and it should be indexed for inflation.


----------



## beagle9

Againsheila said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that people in other countries do not want more goods at a lower price?
> 
> Standard of living, is based on the ability to get goods at a lower price.  Countries which subvert that system, often end up with lower standards of living.... obviously because if I have to pay twice as much for food, then I can't spend as much on other things.   If I have to pay twice as much for a car, then I have less for other things... or I don't get the car.
> 
> This is true everywhere in the world.  Yes, I would advocate the same everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> No what I'm talking about is the style or types of systems that they have, in which creates the super rich and sadly for the masses mostly the super poor and/or poor.
> 
> Would you defend Mexico's system of government and their set up in that nation, in which is controlled by and run by whom again ? Now why is there so many coming across our southern border for work at such cheap pay for their labor, I mean if it is that they are in a nation that was run differently than that ?
> 
> Minimum wage should be an entrance pay.
> 
> A living wage should be based upon a structured pay grade system that is custom to the type businesses that are being operated individually.
> 
> A living wage should also be structured with a percentage paid on the successes beyond the flat rates that a company has set in their ladder pay structure, where as this gives employee's the incentive to pull harder and work smarter to make the company a complete sucess in the market place.
> 
> A company should be run as a family, and not some sort of hard nosed place where people go to feel as if they are some sort of modern day slaves instead of someone that is respected and appreciated for being there and on the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Minimum wage should have the same spending power it had when it was started and it should be indexed for inflation.
Click to expand...

We need the dollar to be worth far more than what it's worth across the board right now in this nation, and just look at these gasoline prices, where as that would be a great place to start helping the situation out again.  When a person goes to the store to fill up a 5 gal. jug for lawn mower gas, and it cost them almost $20.00, then Houston we have a serious problem in this nation. Talk a bout a dollar almost being rendered worthless, I mean wow.  And this is just one area where the dollar is under attack for it's value going down the tubes for us. The rich man can deal with it, because he has enough of them dollars to just keep laying them down when someone demands it, but for most of us not so much anymore.


----------



## jasonnfree

This is a long thread so I don't know if anyone posted this link but I'll post it.  FDR had to deal with republicans who never give a damn for anyone but those of extreme wealth.   The same objections used by republicans  in the 1930's are used today, except now the fat cats have convinced republican working stiffs that what's in the best interest of the romneys and coke brothers is also in the best interest of the working man.

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/07/f-d-r-makes-the-case-for-the-minimum-wage/


----------



## priceless

sameech said:


> What happens is we end up with inflation due to too much money being in circulation.  Personally, I am surprised it has not happened yet since the vast amount of money is now electronic.  Probably the only reason it hasn't happened is that the capital markets are holding onto it.  We have selective run away inflation on real estate, stocks, and college tuition.  I am not sure if that is good or bad that the inflation is being contained to certain sectors.


Inflation is not really contained as much as you think.  If you work for low to moderate income, you may be able to get by as long as your pay-raises keep up with inflation but if they don't, or if you end up on a fixed income by retiring, you are facing a time-limited retirement where you either have to die or come up with a new source of income after a couple decades.

It's ironic that the fiscal stimulus is supposed to help maintain the economy so that the poor and elderly can get access to needed income but the inflation that results is what ends up getting them.  Presumably there are economic restructuring reforms that need to occur to prevent the need for fiscal stimulus and the inflation it causes, but the stimulus staves off the need for such reforms by bailing out those who fail to cut their spending to more sustainable levels.


----------



## sameech

priceless said:


> Inflation is not really contained as much as you think.  If you work for low to moderate income, you may be able to get by as long as your pay-raises keep up with inflation but if they don't, or if you end up on a fixed income by retiring, you are facing a time-limited retirement where you either have to die or come up with a new source of income after a couple decades.
> 
> It's ironic that the fiscal stimulus is supposed to help maintain the economy so that the poor and elderly can get access to needed income but the inflation that results is what ends up getting them.  Presumably there are economic restructuring reforms that need to occur to prevent the need for fiscal stimulus and the inflation it causes, but the stimulus staves off the need for such reforms by bailing out those who fail to cut their spending to more sustainable levels.



This is part of the reason I am okay with not raising minimum wage.  It is a matter of who you want to help, and who you are willing to screw.


----------



## Andylusion

beagle9 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if you were a citizen of another country like Mexico for example, would you be one to justify that system also ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that people in other countries do not want more goods at a lower price?
> 
> Standard of living, is based on the ability to get goods at a lower price.  Countries which subvert that system, often end up with lower standards of living.... obviously because if I have to pay twice as much for food, then I can't spend as much on other things.   If I have to pay twice as much for a car, then I have less for other things... or I don't get the car.
> 
> This is true everywhere in the world.  Yes, I would advocate the same everywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No what I'm talking about is the style or types of systems that they have, in which creates the super rich and sadly for the masses mostly the super poor and/or poor.
> 
> Would you defend Mexico's system of government and their set up in that nation, in which is controlled by and run by whom again ? Now why is there so many coming across our southern border for work at such cheap pay for their labor, I mean if it is that they are in a nation that was run differently than that ?
> 
> Minimum wage should be an entrance pay.
> 
> A living wage should be based upon a structured pay grade system that is custom to the type businesses that are being operated individually.
> 
> A living wage should also be structured with a percentage paid on the successes beyond the flat rates that a company has set in their ladder pay structure, where as this gives employee's the incentive to pull harder and work smarter to make the company a complete sucess in the market place.
> 
> A company should be run as a family, and not some sort of hard nosed place where people go to feel as if they are some sort of modern day slaves instead of someone that is respected and appreciated for being there and on the job.
Click to expand...


*No what I'm talking about is the style or types of systems that they have, in which creates the super rich and sadly for the masses mostly the super poor and/or poor.*

I'm talking about Capitalism.    Under Capitalism, people get rich because they make wise choices with their money.  My parents are millionaires.   I just found out over the weekend, it's now a fact.  They have saved and invested, and have property, now over a net worth of one million.      They were public school teachers.   They own two homes, a lake house, a boat, stocks, mutual funds, and cold hard cash, plus some CDs.

The difference between them, and other people who are broke, is not that they had six figure incomes.  They never had that.   Combined they likely didn't have that.      The reason they are millionaires, is because they were wise with money.

That's capitalism.  Wise investments.  Wise savings.   Wise purchases.

If you are talking about some other system, where the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer because of government policy, instead of personal choice.... I'm against that.

But under Capitalism where the rich get richer by choice, and the poor get poorer by choice... Yeah I support that.   I think if you are stupid, and blow all your money, you should be poor.

*Would you defend Mexico's system of government and their set up in that nation, in which is controlled by and run by whom again ? Now why is there so many coming across our southern border for work at such cheap pay for their labor, I mean if it is that they are in a nation that was run differently than that ?*

I have no idea what the setup of the Mexico system is.   I will say that from what I've been hearing lately, the primary motivation for illegal immigration into the US, is because of cartel violence, and because of corruption of the police.

Neither of which is due to their economic system.

*Minimum wage should be an entrance pay.

A living wage should be based upon a structured pay grade system that is custom to the type businesses that are being operated individually.

A living wage should also be structured with a percentage paid on the successes beyond the flat rates that a company has set in their ladder pay structure, where as this gives employee's the incentive to pull harder and work smarter to make the company a complete sucess in the market place. *

The minimum wage *IS* an entrance pay.   Not even fast food joints pay minimum wage to full time employees.     It's usually only part time employees that have been there less than 6 months, that work for minimum wage.

While the idea of automatic pay grade increases based on increased productivity, seems nice and nifty in theory, in practice there are jobs where it's simply not possible to "pull harder and work smarter".

Whopper Flopping is not a job that can be 'improved upon'.   You flip the burger over.   Then you flip the burger over.

No amount of experience, or training, is going to make "flip the burger over" any better or worse.    You can either do it..... or you can't.

There is no increased benefit that can be had, and thus no increased profit to the company.   Thus there is no major increase in pay, other than perhaps the standard 15¢ yearly raise for showing up on time, and staying for your entire shift.

*A company should be run as a family, and not some sort of hard nosed place where people go to feel as if they are some sort of modern day slaves instead of someone that is respected and appreciated for being there and on the job.*

The only people that think companies should be run like a family, are people who have never run so much as a lemonade stand.

And the reason why is because customers don't care if your company is run "life a family".  What customers care about, is does the product or service work, and is it cost effective.

I can list you two small companies right now, that no longer exist.   The reason they no longer exist is because the owners ran the company like family.   They employed and kept lazy people, who did barely enough to get by..... oh but they were treating them like family.   They never came down and said we have to make ends meet or we're out of business, and thus they went out of business.

When *YOU* are the owner of a business, you can run it any way you want.   Until then SHUT UP.   When it's *YOUR* house that is going to be foreclosed, and all *YOUR* cars repo'd, and *YOUR* entire life is flushed down the drain....... and you still want to run the company like a big ol happy family, with no preasure....  Then you can come back and preach to all of us how companies should be run like family.

Pretty easy to stand your soap box preaching, when you have never been faced with the challenge of making payroll, and figuring out how to keep the doors open without losing your house.

I have never worked at any company which treated me all that bad.   Most of the people who claim companies treat them bad, often are complaining because they are not given a raise, when they have done nothing to earn a raise.   Your raise, is effective when you are.

The only place I have ever worked, where I was treated terribly, was oddly, a mom&pop shop.   The owner of this tiny little gas station, treated me like crap, and I simply walked up to him, and said "I'm not going to work here any more.  I'm going home"  And that was the end of my job there.   I fired my employer.

In Capitalism, I can do that.  In socialism, you can't.   The government of China (prior to 78) says "you were in the rice patties", and that is where you work, until you die.  You are born poor, live poor, and die poor.  No hope of changing anything.

And by the way, there were rich people in China then.  They just all were part of the Communist party, and worked in the government.

That's your system of rich get richer, and poor get poorer, enforced by government.


----------



## Andylusion

Againsheila said:


> JohnA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has someone figured out the magic formula to define a "living" wage?
> 
> Or should each employee be paid according to how much money they need to "live?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> true no one has fiqured it out yet
> a young single person living  at home could live on the minimum  wage
> a person DOING  the same job same  tenure   should  they  be paid more cus they have 3 kids
> LIKELY they will
> claim food stamps what  ever the mnimum wage is
> 
> lesson   pay what the job is worth not what the  employee  ...NEEDS ,,,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The lowest paid job in the richest country in the world is worth a living wage.
Click to expand...


No, it's not.     See it's real easy for you to say that, when it's not you paying those wages.  

But if a guy mows your lawn for you, and then says "I want $100 per cut, because 'The lowest paid job in the richest country in the world is worth a living wage'"  Are you going to pay him $100 to mow your lawn?

Nope.  Most won't.   Very very few are going to pay out $200 every month, to cut a small urban lawn.

When you go to McDonald's and the price for a value meal is $25, are you going to pay it?

But but that burger flipper deserves a living wage!

No, you are not going to pay $25, when you could buy an entire pound of ground beef at the store for $3.

See?   When you are not the one shelling out the cash, it's easy to say how others should be paid more.    Little different when you are paying those wages huh?


----------



## Andylusion

Againsheila said:


> Minimum wage should have the same spending power it had when it was started and it should be indexed for inflation.



That has already been tried, and it was a disaster.

Greece did exactly that.  They instituted a minimum wage, and indexed it to inflation with automatic increases.

Want to know what happened?

In 2008, the unemployment rate actually FELL.

In July of 2008, they increased the minimum wage, indexed to inflation.

Unemployment started to climb.

In 2009, they increased the minimum wage again, and unemployment continued to climb higher.

The World Bank at this time, predicted unemployment would fall 2011, and the economy would recover.   Remember, these are those completely trust worthy government economists, just like Obama's economics team that predicted the stimulus would keep unemployment under 6%.

In 2011, they increased the minimum wage again.  Not only did the unemployment rate not fall... but it continue to climb, but not only did it continued to climbed, but faster than before.

In 2012, the Greek government finally figured out the absolute BS lies about how minimum wage spurs growth, and doesn't harm employment.   They announced that in order to stop harming the economy, and encourage employment... they were going to cut the minimum wage, and end the indexing to inflation.

In July of 2012, the minimum wage in Greece was cut 20%.  Massive cut.

Unemployment started to slow down, and level off in 2013, and by July of 2013, unemployment started to fall.


*Bottom line gal.....   *

We've tried it your way.   It was a failure of epic proportions.   Following your plan, nearly destroyed the entire country of Greece.

Bad plan.  It will be decades for Greece to recover from the bad policies leftists put in place.  (unless they completely switch over to a capitalist system, but I doubt the leftists in Greece have learned enough from their failures to do that)


----------



## Andylusion

beagle9 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No what I'm talking about is the style or types of systems that they have, in which creates the super rich and sadly for the masses mostly the super poor and/or poor.
> 
> Would you defend Mexico's system of government and their set up in that nation, in which is controlled by and run by whom again ? Now why is there so many coming across our southern border for work at such cheap pay for their labor, I mean if it is that they are in a nation that was run differently than that ?
> 
> Minimum wage should be an entrance pay.
> 
> A living wage should be based upon a structured pay grade system that is custom to the type businesses that are being operated individually.
> 
> A living wage should also be structured with a percentage paid on the successes beyond the flat rates that a company has set in their ladder pay structure, where as this gives employee's the incentive to pull harder and work smarter to make the company a complete sucess in the market place.
> 
> A company should be run as a family, and not some sort of hard nosed place where people go to feel as if they are some sort of modern day slaves instead of someone that is respected and appreciated for being there and on the job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Minimum wage should have the same spending power it had when it was started and it should be indexed for inflation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need the dollar to be worth far more than what it's worth across the board right now in this nation, and just look at these gasoline prices, where as that would be a great place to start helping the situation out again.  When a person goes to the store to fill up a 5 gal. jug for lawn mower gas, and it cost them almost $20.00, then Houston we have a serious problem in this nation. Talk a bout a dollar almost being rendered worthless, I mean wow.  And this is just one area where the dollar is under attack for it's value going down the tubes for us. The rich man can deal with it, because he has enough of them dollars to just keep laying them down when someone demands it, but for most of us not so much anymore.
Click to expand...


Yes.... but people are also not being paid in dimes anymore either.

Inflation is natural to any currency, and is absolutely unavoidable.

But here's the kicker....   if you really don't want to have inflation, the absolute best possible way to avoid inflation, is to avoid giving government a reason to inflate the currency.

Well what motivation is there for government to inflate currency?   There's only one.

Debt.

The primary reason government prints out cash, is because they have bills they can't pay.

The key is to not have those bills.    Social Security.  Medicare.  Medicaid.  Infrastructure spending.  All the various departments of everything.   Interest on existing debt.

You cut all that crap out, cut spending down, and start paying off all the debts we already owe... and the need to have the Treasury start printing out dollars, goes away real fast.   The currency will stabilized, and even deflate.

But that requires all the leftards, and even the right-wingers, to cut spending on things the government isn't supposed to be doing anyway.  No more cash for clunkers, or bank bailouts.


----------



## Andylusion

jasonnfree said:


> This is a long thread so I don't know if anyone posted this link but I'll post it.  FDR had to deal with republicans who never give a damn for anyone but those of extreme wealth.   The same objections used by republicans  in the 1930's are used today, except now the fat cats have convinced republican working stiffs that what's in the best interest of the romneys and coke brothers is also in the best interest of the working man.
> 
> http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/07/f-d-r-makes-the-case-for-the-minimum-wage/



Yeah, and FDR was wrong then, and the Republicans are still right.

Maybe you missed the memo, but FDR screwed the hell out of this country.    If the Republicans had been able to stop the New Deal, and stop FDR Jr, Herbert Hoover before him, there would never have been a great depression.


----------



## Againsheila

Androw said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnA said:
> 
> 
> 
> true no one has fiqured it out yet
> a young single person living  at home could live on the minimum  wage
> a person DOING  the same job same  tenure   should  they  be paid more cus they have 3 kids
> LIKELY they will
> claim food stamps what  ever the mnimum wage is
> 
> lesson   pay what the job is worth not what the  employee  ...NEEDS ,,,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lowest paid job in the richest country in the world is worth a living wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not.     See it's real easy for you to say that, when it's not you paying those wages.
> 
> But if a guy mows your lawn for you, and then says "I want $100 per cut, because 'The lowest paid job in the richest country in the world is worth a living wage'"  Are you going to pay him $100 to mow your lawn?
> 
> Nope.  Most won't.   Very very few are going to pay out $200 every month, to cut a small urban lawn.
> 
> When you go to McDonald's and the price for a value meal is $25, are you going to pay it?
> 
> But but that burger flipper deserves a living wage!
> 
> No, you are not going to pay $25, when you could buy an entire pound of ground beef at the store for $3.
> 
> See?   When you are not the one shelling out the cash, it's easy to say how others should be paid more.    Little different when you are paying those wages huh?
Click to expand...


Number one, the guy who mows my lawn gets $20, $30 if he also does the trimming.  It takes about an hour so that's a living wage, and he's a kid.  Number two, I don't eat at McDonalds, you couldn't pay me to eat there.  I eat a Denny's, or Village Inn and guess what?  Yep, they pay a living wage.

Did you read the OP?  They could raise the Walmart's workers pay to a living wage and it would cost you a whopping penny more on the dollar.


----------



## priceless

sameech said:


> priceless said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is part of the reason I am okay with not raising minimum wage.  It is a matter of who you want to help, and who you are willing to screw.
> 
> 
> 
> Food stamps and other non-monetary forms of currency would help reduce inflation.  If a certain selection of goods and services were available free of charge to everyone, currency-based commerce would be reserved for non-essential goods and services, which would reduce the ability of predatory lenders to prey on future income of low-wage workers.
> 
> Why not eliminate minimum-wage laws altogether and replace them with basic welfare guarantees?  Then let people work for whatever wages the market offers them for premium goods and services if they choose to do so.  Would that be somehow less of a free-market than putting a floor on wages?
Click to expand...


----------



## Ernie S.

There is no such thing as free food. Someone has to produce it. They have to be paid for their labor. The food has to be shipped and distributed.

Sorry guy. I bought food for my kids, working 2 jobs at times. Now it's your turn.


----------



## sameech

priceless said:


> *Food stamps and other non-monetary forms of currency would help reduce inflation.*  If a certain selection of goods and services were available free of charge to everyone, currency-based commerce would be reserved for non-essential goods and services, which would reduce the ability of predatory lenders to prey on future income of low-wage workers.
> 
> Why not eliminate minimum-wage laws altogether and replace them with basic welfare guarantees?  Then let people work for whatever wages the market offers them for premium goods and services if they choose to do so.  Would that be somehow less of a free-market than putting a floor on wages?



I am skeptical of the validity of the first part of your post.  "Free of charge" would lead to a lot of waste and those suppliers would still need to be paid so that they could in turn pay their workers who could in turn afford goods and services, essential or otherwise.  We wouldn't even be able to keep grocery stores stocked if food were free.  It is hard enough for them to keep them stocked when they have a really good sale.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Mertex said:


> Yep, Economists have.



You misspelled "Marxists," comrade.



> Google is your friend.



Reality is not your acquaintance.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Againsheila said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lowest paid job in the richest country in the world is worth a living wage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not.     See it's real easy for you to say that, when it's not you paying those wages.
> 
> But if a guy mows your lawn for you, and then says "I want $100 per cut, because 'The lowest paid job in the richest country in the world is worth a living wage'"  Are you going to pay him $100 to mow your lawn?
> 
> Nope.  Most won't.   Very very few are going to pay out $200 every month, to cut a small urban lawn.
> 
> When you go to McDonald's and the price for a value meal is $25, are you going to pay it?
> 
> But but that burger flipper deserves a living wage!
> 
> No, you are not going to pay $25, when you could buy an entire pound of ground beef at the store for $3.
> 
> See?   When you are not the one shelling out the cash, it's easy to say how others should be paid more.    Little different when you are paying those wages huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Number one, the guy who mows my lawn gets $20, $30 if he also does the trimming.  It takes about an hour so that's a living wage, and he's a kid.  Number two, I don't eat at McDonalds, you couldn't pay me to eat there.  I eat a Denny's, or Village Inn and guess what?  Yep, they pay a living wage.
> 
> Did you read the OP?  They could raise the Walmart's workers pay to a living wage and it would cost you a whopping penny more on the dollar.
Click to expand...


  Thats not a living wage. Unless of course you want to pay him in the winter when the grass doesnt grow.


----------



## Againsheila

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not.     See it's real easy for you to say that, when it's not you paying those wages.
> 
> But if a guy mows your lawn for you, and then says "I want $100 per cut, because 'The lowest paid job in the richest country in the world is worth a living wage'"  Are you going to pay him $100 to mow your lawn?
> 
> Nope.  Most won't.   Very very few are going to pay out $200 every month, to cut a small urban lawn.
> 
> When you go to McDonald's and the price for a value meal is $25, are you going to pay it?
> 
> But but that burger flipper deserves a living wage!
> 
> No, you are not going to pay $25, when you could buy an entire pound of ground beef at the store for $3.
> 
> See?   When you are not the one shelling out the cash, it's easy to say how others should be paid more.    Little different when you are paying those wages huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Number one, the guy who mows my lawn gets $20, $30 if he also does the trimming.  It takes about an hour so that's a living wage, and he's a kid.  Number two, I don't eat at McDonalds, you couldn't pay me to eat there.  I eat a Denny's, or Village Inn and guess what?  Yep, they pay a living wage.
> 
> Did you read the OP?  They could raise the Walmart's workers pay to a living wage and it would cost you a whopping penny more on the dollar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats not a living wage. Unless of course you want to pay him in the winter when the grass doesnt grow.
Click to expand...


Are we demanding that you pay minimum wage workers for hours not worked?  No we are demanding a living wage for the hours they work.  That was a nice try though. 

Not one answer to the fact that a living wage at Walmart would cost you a whopping one penny on the dollar.  How much were you claiming it would cost?  $25 for a burger at McDonalds?


----------



## RKMBrown

Ernie S. said:


> There is no such thing as free food. Someone has to produce it. They have to be paid for their labor. The food has to be shipped and distributed.
> 
> Sorry guy. I bought food for my kids, working 2 jobs at times. Now it's your turn.



Minor nit.  I can harvest tons of food off my ranch it's pretty much free for the taking. I wouldn't pay myself to harvest berries, wild pigs, deer, pecans, ... To me that stuff is pretty much free food for the taking.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Againsheila said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Number one, the guy who mows my lawn gets $20, $30 if he also does the trimming.  It takes about an hour so that's a living wage, and he's a kid.  Number two, I don't eat at McDonalds, you couldn't pay me to eat there.  I eat a Denny's, or Village Inn and guess what?  Yep, they pay a living wage.
> 
> Did you read the OP?  They could raise the Walmart's workers pay to a living wage and it would cost you a whopping penny more on the dollar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not a living wage. Unless of course you want to pay him in the winter when the grass doesnt grow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are we demanding that you pay minimum wage workers for hours not worked?  No we are demanding a living wage for the hours they work.  That was a nice try though.
> 
> Not one answer to the fact that a living wage at Walmart would cost you a whopping one penny on the dollar.  How much were you claiming it would cost?  $25 for a burger at McDonalds?
Click to expand...


 Must everything be explained to you? Where did the kid get the lawn mower,the weed eater,the gas,the oil the maintenance on his equipment. And lets say he mows four or five lawns a day. You do realize a mower isnt going to last long when it's used that often right? A decent mower for commercial use is going to run AT LEAST six hundred bucks.
  I'b be willing to bet it's mommy and daddies mower. And no matter what you say his annual income is going to suck because he's not mowing grass year round.
Dont be such a simpleton.


----------



## sameech

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Must everything be explained to you? Where did the kid get the lawn mower,the weed eater,the gas,the oil the maintenance on his equipment. And lets say he mows four or five lawns a day. You do realize a mower isnt going to last long when it's used that often right? A decent mower for commercial use is going to run AT LEAST six hundred bucks.
> I'b be willing to bet it's mommy and daddies mower. And no matter what you say his annual income is going to suck because he's not mowing grass year round.
> Dont be such a simpleton.



When I did commercial landscaping and maintenance, our contracts for businesses were a minimum 12 month contract at a fixed monthly price.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Againsheila said:


> Are we demanding that you pay minimum wage workers for hours not worked?  No we are demanding a living wage for the hours they work.  That was a nice try though.
> 
> *Not one answer to the fact that a living wage at Walmart would cost you a whopping one penny on the dollar.*  How much were you claiming it would cost?  $25 for a burger at McDonalds?



That is not a fact, it is a fabrication created by your union. It's based on absolutely nothing, it just sounds good as a slogan.

What is the standard gross margin that Walmart seeks? What are the labor, material, and overhead components? . Walmart starts at $9.18 an hour, what would a 250% increase in labor cost do to prices? 

You can tell whatever tales you like, but they fall apart under even cursory examination.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

sameech said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Must everything be explained to you? Where did the kid get the lawn mower,the weed eater,the gas,the oil the maintenance on his equipment. And lets say he mows four or five lawns a day. You do realize a mower isnt going to last long when it's used that often right? A decent mower for commercial use is going to run AT LEAST six hundred bucks.
> I'b be willing to bet it's mommy and daddies mower. And no matter what you say his annual income is going to suck because he's not mowing grass year round.
> Dont be such a simpleton.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I did commercial landscaping and maintenance, our contracts for businesses were a minimum 12 month contract at a fixed monthly price.
Click to expand...


  This is some kid with a lawnmower she's talking about. And I'm no stranger to lawn care cost. I spend $260.00 a month during the summer. But that includes everything from mulch,tree trimming,changing out the flowers in the beds 4 or 5 times a year,pretty much everything.You'd be hard pressed to find a homeowner willing to pay for lawn maintenance year round though.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sameech said:


> When I did commercial landscaping and maintenance, our contracts for businesses were a minimum 12 month contract at a fixed monthly price.



My gardener charges a flat $50 a month. A truckload of Mexicans show up once a week, mow the lawn, blow leaves in the pool, and leave the gate open so the dogs get out. They are in and out in about 15 minutes. One guy mows, another edges, and another blows the clippings around. 

They do a crappy job, but for $12 a week, what can you expect? I use them because they are cheap enough that it isn't worth it to do it myself. Much more and I'd mow my own damned lawn...


----------



## Zmrzlina

Defiant1 said:


> Has someone figured out the magic formula to define a "living" wage?



Paying full time employees enough that they don't qualify for social services would be a start.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Zmrzlina said:


> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has someone figured out the magic formula to define a "living" wage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paying full time employees enough that they don't qualify for social services would be a start.
Click to expand...


How much would that be?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Zmrzlina said:


> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has someone figured out the magic formula to define a "living" wage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paying full time employees enough that they don't qualify for social services would be a start.
Click to expand...


 A single person making $7.25 working full time already makes too much to qualify for social services.

Try again comrade...


----------



## sameech

Uncensored2008 said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I did commercial landscaping and maintenance, our contracts for businesses were a minimum 12 month contract at a fixed monthly price.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My gardener charges a flat $50 a month. A truckload of Mexicans show up once a week, mow the lawn, blow leaves in the pool, and leave the gate open so the dogs get out. They are in and out in about 15 minutes. One guy mows, another edges, and another blows the clippings around.
> 
> They do a crappy job, but for $12 a week, what can you expect? I use them because they are cheap enough that it isn't worth it to do it myself. Much more and I'd mow my own damned lawn...
Click to expand...


It takes me seven bucks for gas to mow my yard once (2 gallons), so you are getting a sweet deal


----------



## Zmrzlina

Uncensored2008 said:


> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has someone figured out the magic formula to define a "living" wage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paying full time employees enough that they don't qualify for social services would be a start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A single person making $7.25 working full time already makes too much to qualify for social services.
> 
> Try again comrade...
Click to expand...


Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance - Forbes


----------



## Againsheila

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not a living wage. Unless of course you want to pay him in the winter when the grass doesnt grow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we demanding that you pay minimum wage workers for hours not worked?  No we are demanding a living wage for the hours they work.  That was a nice try though.
> 
> Not one answer to the fact that a living wage at Walmart would cost you a whopping one penny on the dollar.  How much were you claiming it would cost?  $25 for a burger at McDonalds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Must everything be explained to you? Where did the kid get the lawn mower,the weed eater,the gas,the oil the maintenance on his equipment. And lets say he mows four or five lawns a day. You do realize a mower isnt going to last long when it's used that often right? A decent mower for commercial use is going to run AT LEAST six hundred bucks.
> I'b be willing to bet it's mommy and daddies mower. And no matter what you say his annual income is going to suck because he's not mowing grass year round.
> Dont be such a simpleton.
Click to expand...


Again, no one is requesting a living wage for one hour of work.  We are requesting a living hourly wage.  How many times are you going to ignore the point that giving all Walmart workers a wage so they don't have to depend on our tax dollars would only cost us a penny on the dollar at the check stand?  Your $25 dollar burger was so off the mark as to be laughable.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sameech said:


> It takes me seven bucks for gas to mow my yard once (2 gallons), so you are getting a sweet deal



That must be quite a yard.

My front lawn is all they do. My back yard is all concrete - massive pool and the rest is deck and patio.

I'd guess the lawn is 40 x 20 or so - it doesn't take that much gas.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Zmrzlina said:


> Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance - Forbes



40 Niños for each working chica can do that...

Forbes is dishonest - such a claim is that if these people didn't work at Walmart, they wouldn't collect foodstamps - which is patently false.


----------



## sameech

Uncensored2008 said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes me seven bucks for gas to mow my yard once (2 gallons), so you are getting a sweet deal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That must be quite a yard.
> 
> My front lawn is all they do. My back yard is all concrete - massive pool and the rest is deck and patio.
> 
> I'd guess the lawn is 40 x 20 or so - it doesn't take that much gas.
Click to expand...


about an acre and a half of grass.  When it is hitting on 100 in july and august, I am usually "Screw the back half--the zoning enforcement people can't see it."


----------



## Uncensored2008

sameech said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes me seven bucks for gas to mow my yard once (2 gallons), so you are getting a sweet deal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That must be quite a yard.
> 
> My front lawn is all they do. My back yard is all concrete - massive pool and the rest is deck and patio.
> 
> I'd guess the lawn is 40 x 20 or so - it doesn't take that much gas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> about an acre and a half of grass.  When it is hitting on 100 in july and august, I am usually "Screw the back half--the zoning enforcement people can't see it."
Click to expand...


Yeah, my entire lot is 1/3rd of an acre, front, back, and house. In California, this is a big lot....

I'm guessing you have a riding mower?


----------



## priceless

sameech said:


> I am skeptical of the validity of the first part of your post.  "Free of charge" would lead to a lot of waste and those suppliers would still need to be paid so that they could in turn pay their workers who could in turn afford goods and services, essential or otherwise.  We wouldn't even be able to keep grocery stores stocked if food were free.  It is hard enough for them to keep them stocked when they have a really good sale.


I guess the purpose of the food stamps is to keep track of how much each household gets of certain commodities for free so that they don't waste food.  You would also limit it to certain foods and if people want more special foods, they would need to pay for those with money.  

Food isn't the only commodity that drives inflation through fiscal stimulus.  What about housing?  What could be done to guarantee housing so that minimum wage laws could be ended?  

Wouldn't it be better to provide people with minimum welfare guarantees and then deregulate wages completely than to regulate wages for the sake of maintaining markets for people to pay for their own welfare?  Direct assistance is less susceptible than income to exploitation through predatory lending and other practices.  You can cheat someone out of their rent money but it's harder to cheat them out of their housing.


----------



## RKMBrown

sameech said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes me seven bucks for gas to mow my yard once (2 gallons), so you are getting a sweet deal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That must be quite a yard.
> 
> My front lawn is all they do. My back yard is all concrete - massive pool and the rest is deck and patio.
> 
> I'd guess the lawn is 40 x 20 or so - it doesn't take that much gas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> about an acre and a half of grass.  When it is hitting on 100 in july and august, I am usually "Screw the back half--the zoning enforcement people can't see it."
Click to expand...


Acre & a half... that sucks to big for a walk behind to small for a real tractor with a pull behind 6'-8' deck.  Once a quarter or so I pull a bush hog around my pasture & trails.  Have a walk behind for some grass around the house but it's fairly tame I only seem to have to cut it about twelve times a year.  We don't water it, so it gets to be a nice pretty brown when it's cold and/or dry out.


----------



## sameech

Uncensored2008 said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That must be quite a yard.
> 
> My front lawn is all they do. My back yard is all concrete - massive pool and the rest is deck and patio.
> 
> I'd guess the lawn is 40 x 20 or so - it doesn't take that much gas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> about an acre and a half of grass.  When it is hitting on 100 in july and august, I am usually "Screw the back half--the zoning enforcement people can't see it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, my entire lot is 1/3rd of an acre, front, back, and house. In California, this is a big lot....
> 
> I'm guessing you have a riding mower?
Click to expand...


oh heck yeah I have a riding mower.


----------



## sameech

RKMBrown said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That must be quite a yard.
> 
> My front lawn is all they do. My back yard is all concrete - massive pool and the rest is deck and patio.
> 
> I'd guess the lawn is 40 x 20 or so - it doesn't take that much gas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> about an acre and a half of grass.  When it is hitting on 100 in july and august, I am usually "Screw the back half--the zoning enforcement people can't see it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acre & a half... that sucks to big for a walk behind to small for a real tractor with a pull behind 6'-8' deck.  Once a quarter or so I pull a bush hog around my pasture & trails.  Have a walk behind for some grass around the house but it's fairly tame I only seem to have to cut it about twelve times a year.  We don't water it, so it gets to be a nice pretty brown when it's cold and/or dry out.
Click to expand...


My lot (well technically two lots) is just shy of 2 acres but has a few trees around the fringes, then I have a garden and the footprint of the house/driveway.  I don't water mine unless I am seeding other than my garden.  In the spring I have to mow every week but in the summer I can usually go 2-3 weeks easy.  I like to keep the frontage neatly trimmed because we have these roving zoning patrols that get worked up if your grass is long, but beyond that, I don't sweat it that much.


----------



## beagle9

Androw said:


> Are you suggesting that people in other countries do not want more goods at a lower price?



No, not suggesting that at all, *but* what I can't help wondering is this "at what price will people ask for those cheaper goods to come to them or are they even asking for that at all", and are they actually asking it for it at any price that is the lowest one, especially when they know what is attached to that idea or way of thinking ? 

What type of suffering will people allow or endure in order to get those lowest prices available to them, whether in this nation and/or in the other countries/nations ? We have seen that preview already, and it hasn't been pretty at all at times has it ? "NIke" as I remember was just one example among many problems found in all of this over time. It was also involving sweat shop labor or modern day slavery found in the producing of these goods abroad. I don't think the people are searching for the lowest price per-sae, but more so of a fair price instead is all they want I think really. People know a fair and just price when they see it, and if they have to they will take two more weeks in order to get the money, instead of wanting it right away if they know it will be worth the wait.  



Androw said:


> * A standard of living, is based on the ability to get goods at lower prices. * Countries which subvert that system, often end up with lower standards of living.... obviously because if I have to pay twice as much for food, then I can't spend as much on other things.   If I have to pay twice as much for a car, then I have less for other things... or I don't get the car.
> 
> This is true everywhere in the world.  Yes, I would advocate the same everywhere.



Ok, but it's also based upon the value of the dollar for the most part, but in a class system like we have today in America, where as the gap is growing bigger and bigger or was growing bigger and bigger during the bubble or better times for some, but not so for many others as it should have been.  I saw that the poor can be held down with a lower valued dollar in such a system that is geared for a class system to work well in such ways. 

Especially if they have only a few dollars given them for their services, while on the other hand the rich have plenty of dollars in which they have gained in many different ways/methods (i.e. maybe good in some ways, but not so good in others), so what they do, is they stack them up quickly in order to get ahead, therefore making their value far greater in society than those for whom they see easily being held back in a system in which they could easily control in this way. Not all rich are bad, so don't get me wrong about that, but the balance has tipped the scales over time, therefore causing an out of balance situation to grow until we possibly have reached a point of no return. It is also producing the likes of these killers I think in society, where as hollywood has stepped in and is filling the idle minds with terrible stuff, and then the government has been paying the way for many, only to unleash what they have become in society or to show as to what kind of a product of such a society in which they have become has been loosed on us.


----------



## sameech

priceless said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am skeptical of the validity of the first part of your post.  "Free of charge" would lead to a lot of waste and those suppliers would still need to be paid so that they could in turn pay their workers who could in turn afford goods and services, essential or otherwise.  We wouldn't even be able to keep grocery stores stocked if food were free.  It is hard enough for them to keep them stocked when they have a really good sale.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the purpose of the food stamps is to keep track of how much each household gets of certain commodities for free so that they don't waste food.  You would also limit it to certain foods and if people want more special foods, they would need to pay for those with money.
> 
> Food isn't the only commodity that drives inflation through fiscal stimulus.  What about housing?  What could be done to guarantee housing so that minimum wage laws could be ended?
> 
> Wouldn't it be better to provide people with minimum welfare guarantees and then deregulate wages completely than to regulate wages for the sake of maintaining markets for people to pay for their own welfare?  Direct assistance is less susceptible than income to exploitation through predatory lending and other practices.  You can cheat someone out of their rent money but it's harder to cheat them out of their housing.
Click to expand...


The system like you seem to envision might work well in a small place like Cuba, but I just do not see how it could even be logistically possible in a nation as large as the US in both population and geography.  I cannot answer your question because it is just too extreme to even consider even remotely practical.  We need a society less dependent on the government, not one that is subject to its will for every single critical decision in life.


----------



## priceless

sameech said:


> The system like you seem to envision might work well in a small place like Cuba, but I just do not see how it could even be logistically possible in a nation as large as the US in both population and geography.  I cannot answer your question because it is just too extreme to even consider even remotely practical.  We need a society less dependent on the government, not one that is subject to its will for every single critical decision in life.



There is no such thing as a national-level system in the US.  There is only the US dollar and the capacity to tax and spend through various institutions.  The problem is that ideologues have figured out that they can translate any social problem into an impetus for pumping more fiscal stimulus into circulation.  Then they fail to acknowledge that practically all social problems are either caused or exacerbated by competition for the circulating money as people do whatever it takes to get money instead of focusing on doing what is right and what is effective and efficient in the absence of the monetary incentive.

Non-monetary (i.e. direct) solutions to problems are needed.  Continuing to throw money at the economy is only making it worse.


----------



## sameech

priceless said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> The system like you seem to envision might work well in a small place like Cuba, but I just do not see how it could even be logistically possible in a nation as large as the US in both population and geography.  I cannot answer your question because it is just too extreme to even consider even remotely practical.  We need a society less dependent on the government, not one that is subject to its will for every single critical decision in life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a national-level system in the US.  There is only the US dollar and the capacity to tax and spend through various institutions.  The problem is that ideologues have figured out that they can translate any social problem into an impetus for pumping more fiscal stimulus into circulation.  Then they fail to acknowledge that practically all social problems are either caused or exacerbated by competition for the circulating money as people do whatever it takes to get money instead of focusing on doing what is right and what is effective and efficient in the absence of the monetary incentive.
> 
> Non-monetary (i.e. direct) solutions to problems are needed.  Continuing to throw money at the economy is only making it worse.
Click to expand...


I'll take the _Great Gatsby_ version of economics over the _Zen and the_ _Art of Motorcycle Maintenance_ version if those are my only two choices.


----------



## alan1

Againsheila said:


> Number one, the guy who mows my lawn gets $20, $30 if he also does the trimming.  It takes about an hour so that's a living wage, and he's a kid.  Number two, I don't eat at McDonalds, you couldn't pay me to eat there.  I eat a Denny's, or Village Inn and guess what?  Yep, they pay a living wage.
> 
> Did you read the OP?  They could raise the Walmart's workers pay to a living wage and it would cost you a whopping penny more on the dollar.



Is it really a living wage?
First of all, $30 an hour is 50% more than $20, that is quite a wide price range you claim to pay.  
But, lets go beyond that, and assume $30 for your yard and everybody else yard.  You said he is a kid, does this "kid" spend 5 days a week and 40 hours a day mowing lawns?  Lets assume he spends 40 hours a week (8 hours a day) making his "living wage".  Now then, he can't possibly be mowing lawns for 8 hours a day in an 8 hour day of work.  He has to travel from one house to the next house.  He has to spend time drumming up business.  In reality, he may mow five yards a day on the high end.  That's 5 yards times $30 per yard for an hour per yard and it equals $150 per day  We have now reduced his pay to $18.75 per hour.
But wait, there is more.
He has to pay for the gas to run his lawnmower. He also has to pay for the gas for his truck to get him and his lawnmower from one house to the next house.  He has to pay for the lawnmower and the maintenance of it.  He has to pay for his truck and its maintenance to get him from job to job.  He has to pay for his trimmer and the gas to run that.  Remember now, you only pay him $30 if he does the trimming also, so I'm guessing you usually only pay him $20.

But still, I'm assuming the $30.  You think you are paying him a living wage for the $30 for the hour he is at your house.  In fact, the guy is probably making about $11 an hour after all his travel in an 8 hour day and the expenses for his equipment and supplies.  Not to mention that he probably has to satisfy 50 different customers/homeowners a month if mowing lawns is the business that supports his family.

Your shortsighted view that you are paying him $20 or $30 an hour and that is a "living wage" is kind of funny.  But not 'funny' haha kind of funny.


----------



## Againsheila

alan1 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Number one, the guy who mows my lawn gets $20, $30 if he also does the trimming.  It takes about an hour so that's a living wage, and he's a kid.  Number two, I don't eat at McDonalds, you couldn't pay me to eat there.  I eat a Denny's, or Village Inn and guess what?  Yep, they pay a living wage.
> 
> Did you read the OP?  They could raise the Walmart's workers pay to a living wage and it would cost you a whopping penny more on the dollar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it really a living wage?
> First of all, $30 an hour is 50% more than $20, that is quite a wide price range you claim to pay.
> But, lets go beyond that, and assume $30 for your yard and everybody else yard.  You said he is a kid, does this "kid" spend 5 days a week and 40 hours a day mowing lawns?  Lets assume he spends 40 hours a week (8 hours a day) making his "living wage".  Now then, he can't possibly be mowing lawns for 8 hours a day in an 8 hour day of work.  He has to travel from one house to the next house.  He has to spend time drumming up business.  In reality, he may mow five yards a day on the high end.  That's 5 yards times $30 per yard for an hour per yard and it equals $150 per day  We have now reduced his pay to $18.75 per hour.
> But wait, there is more.
> He has to pay for the gas to run his lawnmower. He also has to pay for the gas for his truck to get him and his lawnmower from one house to the next house.  He has to pay for the lawnmower and the maintenance of it.  He has to pay for his truck and its maintenance to get him from job to job.  He has to pay for his trimmer and the gas to run that.  Remember now, you only pay him $30 if he does the trimming also, so I'm guessing you usually only pay him $20.
> 
> But still, I'm assuming the $30.  You think you are paying him a living wage for the $30 for the hour he is at your house.  In fact, the guy is probably making about $11 an hour after all his travel in an 8 hour day and the expenses for his equipment and supplies.  Not to mention that he probably has to satisfy 50 different customers/homeowners a month if mowing lawns is the business that supports his family.
> 
> Your shortsighted view that you are paying him $20 or $30 an hour and that is a "living wage" is kind of funny.  But not 'funny' haha kind of funny.
Click to expand...


He lives next door, and he's too young to drive.  I paid him $30 last week, he forgot to do the trimming so I paid him $20 this week.  He did the trimming.  Next week, if he does the trimming also, I will pay him the $30.  Ours is a difficult yard and there is a lot of trimming, hence the extra $10.

Still you are avoiding the point and going off on a tangent about what a terrible person I am for paying the kid who mows my lawn between $20 and $30 for an hours work.  Why do you object to paying a penny on the dollar more so people don't have to depend on food stamps to live?


----------



## SAYIT

alan1 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Number one, the guy who mows my lawn gets $20, $30 if he also does the trimming.  It takes about an hour so that's a living wage, and he's a kid.  Number two, I don't eat at McDonalds, you couldn't pay me to eat there.  I eat a Denny's, or Village Inn and guess what?  Yep, they pay a living wage.
> 
> Did you read the OP?  They could raise the Walmart's workers pay to a living wage and it would cost you a whopping penny more on the dollar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it really a living wage?
> First of all, $30 an hour is 50% more than $20, that is quite a wide price range you claim to pay.
> But, lets go beyond that, and assume $30 for your yard and everybody else yard.  You said he is a kid, does this "kid" spend 5 days a week and 40 hours a day mowing lawns?  Lets assume he spends 40 hours a week (8 hours a day) making his "living wage".  Now then, he can't possibly be mowing lawns for 8 hours a day in an 8 hour day of work.  He has to travel from one house to the next house.  He has to spend time drumming up business.  In reality, he may mow five yards a day on the high end.  That's 5 yards times $30 per yard for an hour per yard and it equals $150 per day  We have now reduced his pay to $18.75 per hour.
> But wait, there is more.
> He has to pay for the gas to run his lawnmower. He also has to pay for the gas for his truck to get him and his lawnmower from one house to the next house.  He has to pay for the lawnmower and the maintenance of it.  He has to pay for his truck and its maintenance to get him from job to job.  He has to pay for his trimmer and the gas to run that.  Remember now, you only pay him $30 if he does the trimming also, so I'm guessing you usually only pay him $20.
> 
> But still, I'm assuming the $30.  You think you are paying him a living wage for the $30 for the hour he is at your house.  In fact, the guy is probably making about $11 an hour after all his travel in an 8 hour day and the expenses for his equipment and supplies.  Not to mention that he probably has to satisfy 50 different customers/homeowners a month if mowing lawns is the business that supports his family.
> 
> Your shortsighted view that you are paying him $20 or $30 an hour and that is a "living wage" is kind of funny.  But not 'funny' haha kind of funny.
Click to expand...


While I appreciate your attempt to explain a simple biz model to a liberal/socialist, you must know your knowledge is falling on deaf ears. They are convinced that the tools of capitalism are all free to those who own them, including gas.
15 minutes after reading your post she will still be saying the $20-$30 she pays per hr is all profit to her landscaper. Carry on.


----------



## Againsheila

SAYIT said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Number one, the guy who mows my lawn gets $20, $30 if he also does the trimming.  It takes about an hour so that's a living wage, and he's a kid.  Number two, I don't eat at McDonalds, you couldn't pay me to eat there.  I eat a Denny's, or Village Inn and guess what?  Yep, they pay a living wage.
> 
> Did you read the OP?  They could raise the Walmart's workers pay to a living wage and it would cost you a whopping penny more on the dollar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it really a living wage?
> First of all, $30 an hour is 50% more than $20, that is quite a wide price range you claim to pay.
> But, lets go beyond that, and assume $30 for your yard and everybody else yard.  You said he is a kid, does this "kid" spend 5 days a week and 40 hours a day mowing lawns?  Lets assume he spends 40 hours a week (8 hours a day) making his "living wage".  Now then, he can't possibly be mowing lawns for 8 hours a day in an 8 hour day of work.  He has to travel from one house to the next house.  He has to spend time drumming up business.  In reality, he may mow five yards a day on the high end.  That's 5 yards times $30 per yard for an hour per yard and it equals $150 per day  We have now reduced his pay to $18.75 per hour.
> But wait, there is more.
> He has to pay for the gas to run his lawnmower. He also has to pay for the gas for his truck to get him and his lawnmower from one house to the next house.  He has to pay for the lawnmower and the maintenance of it.  He has to pay for his truck and its maintenance to get him from job to job.  He has to pay for his trimmer and the gas to run that.  Remember now, you only pay him $30 if he does the trimming also, so I'm guessing you usually only pay him $20.
> 
> But still, I'm assuming the $30.  You think you are paying him a living wage for the $30 for the hour he is at your house.  In fact, the guy is probably making about $11 an hour after all his travel in an 8 hour day and the expenses for his equipment and supplies.  Not to mention that he probably has to satisfy 50 different customers/homeowners a month if mowing lawns is the business that supports his family.
> 
> Your shortsighted view that you are paying him $20 or $30 an hour and that is a "living wage" is kind of funny.  But not 'funny' haha kind of funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I appreciate your attempt to explain a simple biz model to a liberal/socialist, you must know your knowledge is falling on deaf ears. They are convinced that the tools of capitalism are all free to those who own them, including gas.
> 15 minutes after reading your post she will still be saying the $20-$30 she pays per hr is all profit to her landscaper. Carry on.
Click to expand...


It's certainly all profit to the kid next door.  His dad even pays for the gas and provides the mower.  And before you say it, we bought our two cars from him so yes, I think we paid for the gas his kid uses to mow our lawn.


----------



## SAYIT

Againsheila said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it really a living wage?
> First of all, $30 an hour is 50% more than $20, that is quite a wide price range you claim to pay.
> But, lets go beyond that, and assume $30 for your yard and everybody else yard.  You said he is a kid, does this "kid" spend 5 days a week and 40 hours a day mowing lawns?  Lets assume he spends 40 hours a week (8 hours a day) making his "living wage".  Now then, he can't possibly be mowing lawns for 8 hours a day in an 8 hour day of work.  He has to travel from one house to the next house.  He has to spend time drumming up business.  In reality, he may mow five yards a day on the high end.  That's 5 yards times $30 per yard for an hour per yard and it equals $150 per day  We have now reduced his pay to $18.75 per hour.
> But wait, there is more.
> He has to pay for the gas to run his lawnmower. He also has to pay for the gas for his truck to get him and his lawnmower from one house to the next house.  He has to pay for the lawnmower and the maintenance of it.  He has to pay for his truck and its maintenance to get him from job to job.  He has to pay for his trimmer and the gas to run that.  Remember now, you only pay him $30 if he does the trimming also, so I'm guessing you usually only pay him $20.
> 
> But still, I'm assuming the $30.  You think you are paying him a living wage for the $30 for the hour he is at your house.  In fact, the guy is probably making about $11 an hour after all his travel in an 8 hour day and the expenses for his equipment and supplies.  Not to mention that he probably has to satisfy 50 different customers/homeowners a month if mowing lawns is the business that supports his family.
> 
> Your shortsighted view that you are paying him $20 or $30 an hour and that is a "living wage" is kind of funny.  But not 'funny' haha kind of funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I appreciate your attempt to explain a simple biz model to a liberal/socialist, you must know your knowledge is falling on deaf ears. They are convinced that the tools of capitalism are all free to those who own them, including gas.
> 15 minutes after reading your post she will still be saying the $20-$30 she pays per hr is all profit to her landscaper. Carry on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's certainly all profit to the kid next door.  His dad even pays for the gas and provides the mower.  And before you say it, we bought our two cars from him so yes, I think we paid for the gas his kid uses to mow our lawn.
Click to expand...


But it's not a living wage (whatever that is) for the kid. The costs to his daddy still diminish the profit and as soon as he runs out of next door neighbors those costs will rise dramatically. Alan pointed out the gaping hole in your "living wage" fantasy (the silliness of multiplying it by 40 hrs) and, as predicted, you still post as if you haven't had it explained to you.
BTW, do you not understand what will happen to all those who are more valuable to Walmart who make something above the current min wage but less than the "living wage" you promote? Do you not understand that they do will have to be paid more? Certainly the OP doesn't account for them. How about all the smaller companies in America? What will happen to them? Frankly, I believe you may be well intentioned but you can see only as far as what makes you feel good.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

alan1 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Number one, the guy who mows my lawn gets $20, $30 if he also does the trimming.  It takes about an hour so that's a living wage, and he's a kid.  Number two, I don't eat at McDonalds, you couldn't pay me to eat there.  I eat a Denny's, or Village Inn and guess what?  Yep, they pay a living wage.
> 
> Did you read the OP?  They could raise the Walmart's workers pay to a living wage and it would cost you a whopping penny more on the dollar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it really a living wage?
> First of all, $30 an hour is 50% more than $20, that is quite a wide price range you claim to pay.
> But, lets go beyond that, and assume $30 for your yard and everybody else yard.  You said he is a kid, does this "kid" spend 5 days a week and 40 hours a day mowing lawns?  Lets assume he spends 40 hours a week (8 hours a day) making his "living wage".  Now then, he can't possibly be mowing lawns for 8 hours a day in an 8 hour day of work.  He has to travel from one house to the next house.  He has to spend time drumming up business.  In reality, he may mow five yards a day on the high end.  That's 5 yards times $30 per yard for an hour per yard and it equals $150 per day  We have now reduced his pay to $18.75 per hour.
> But wait, there is more.
> He has to pay for the gas to run his lawnmower. He also has to pay for the gas for his truck to get him and his lawnmower from one house to the next house.  He has to pay for the lawnmower and the maintenance of it.  He has to pay for his truck and its maintenance to get him from job to job.  He has to pay for his trimmer and the gas to run that.  Remember now, you only pay him $30 if he does the trimming also, so I'm guessing you usually only pay him $20.
> 
> But still, I'm assuming the $30.  You think you are paying him a living wage for the $30 for the hour he is at your house.  In fact, the guy is probably making about $11 an hour after all his travel in an 8 hour day and the expenses for his equipment and supplies.  Not to mention that he probably has to satisfy 50 different customers/homeowners a month if mowing lawns is the business that supports his family.
> 
> Your shortsighted view that you are paying him $20 or $30 an hour and that is a "living wage" is kind of funny.  But not 'funny' haha kind of funny.
Click to expand...


 Dont bother,I already tried to explain the cost of doing business,but she's a simpleton who doesnt understand overhead. It's actually kind of depressing to tell you the truth.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Againsheila said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Number one, the guy who mows my lawn gets $20, $30 if he also does the trimming.  It takes about an hour so that's a living wage, and he's a kid.  Number two, I don't eat at McDonalds, you couldn't pay me to eat there.  I eat a Denny's, or Village Inn and guess what?  Yep, they pay a living wage.
> 
> Did you read the OP?  They could raise the Walmart's workers pay to a living wage and it would cost you a whopping penny more on the dollar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it really a living wage?
> First of all, $30 an hour is 50% more than $20, that is quite a wide price range you claim to pay.
> But, lets go beyond that, and assume $30 for your yard and everybody else yard.  You said he is a kid, does this "kid" spend 5 days a week and 40 hours a day mowing lawns?  Lets assume he spends 40 hours a week (8 hours a day) making his "living wage".  Now then, he can't possibly be mowing lawns for 8 hours a day in an 8 hour day of work.  He has to travel from one house to the next house.  He has to spend time drumming up business.  In reality, he may mow five yards a day on the high end.  That's 5 yards times $30 per yard for an hour per yard and it equals $150 per day  We have now reduced his pay to $18.75 per hour.
> But wait, there is more.
> He has to pay for the gas to run his lawnmower. He also has to pay for the gas for his truck to get him and his lawnmower from one house to the next house.  He has to pay for the lawnmower and the maintenance of it.  He has to pay for his truck and its maintenance to get him from job to job.  He has to pay for his trimmer and the gas to run that.  Remember now, you only pay him $30 if he does the trimming also, so I'm guessing you usually only pay him $20.
> 
> But still, I'm assuming the $30.  You think you are paying him a living wage for the $30 for the hour he is at your house.  In fact, the guy is probably making about $11 an hour after all his travel in an 8 hour day and the expenses for his equipment and supplies.  Not to mention that he probably has to satisfy 50 different customers/homeowners a month if mowing lawns is the business that supports his family.
> 
> Your shortsighted view that you are paying him $20 or $30 an hour and that is a "living wage" is kind of funny.  But not 'funny' haha kind of funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He lives next door, and he's too young to drive.  I paid him $30 last week, he forgot to do the trimming so I paid him $20 this week.  He did the trimming.  Next week, if he does the trimming also, I will pay him the $30.  Ours is a difficult yard and there is a lot of trimming, hence the extra $10.
> 
> Still you are avoiding the point and going off on a tangent about what a terrible person I am for paying the kid who mows my lawn between $20 and $30 for an hours work.  Why do you object to paying a penny on the dollar more so people don't have to depend on food stamps to live?
Click to expand...


  Well I guess it is a living wage then. CONSIDERING HE LIVES WITH HIS PARENTS!!!!  WTF is wrong with you? That you even brought up the neighbor kid as an example is pathetic. 
I pay my yard guys $65.00 a week,you cheap ass capitalist pig!!! Why are you ripping of the poor? He should go on strike and force you to pay more...wait,WHAT? You dont provide insurance and a 401k? No paid vacation??? He needs at least 4 weeks a year or it's not fair.

Seriously....   Were you dropped on your head as a kid?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Againsheila said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it really a living wage?
> First of all, $30 an hour is 50% more than $20, that is quite a wide price range you claim to pay.
> But, lets go beyond that, and assume $30 for your yard and everybody else yard.  You said he is a kid, does this "kid" spend 5 days a week and 40 hours a day mowing lawns?  Lets assume he spends 40 hours a week (8 hours a day) making his "living wage".  Now then, he can't possibly be mowing lawns for 8 hours a day in an 8 hour day of work.  He has to travel from one house to the next house.  He has to spend time drumming up business.  In reality, he may mow five yards a day on the high end.  That's 5 yards times $30 per yard for an hour per yard and it equals $150 per day  We have now reduced his pay to $18.75 per hour.
> But wait, there is more.
> He has to pay for the gas to run his lawnmower. He also has to pay for the gas for his truck to get him and his lawnmower from one house to the next house.  He has to pay for the lawnmower and the maintenance of it.  He has to pay for his truck and its maintenance to get him from job to job.  He has to pay for his trimmer and the gas to run that.  Remember now, you only pay him $30 if he does the trimming also, so I'm guessing you usually only pay him $20.
> 
> But still, I'm assuming the $30.  You think you are paying him a living wage for the $30 for the hour he is at your house.  In fact, the guy is probably making about $11 an hour after all his travel in an 8 hour day and the expenses for his equipment and supplies.  Not to mention that he probably has to satisfy 50 different customers/homeowners a month if mowing lawns is the business that supports his family.
> 
> Your shortsighted view that you are paying him $20 or $30 an hour and that is a "living wage" is kind of funny.  But not 'funny' haha kind of funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I appreciate your attempt to explain a simple biz model to a liberal/socialist, you must know your knowledge is falling on deaf ears. They are convinced that the tools of capitalism are all free to those who own them, including gas.
> 15 minutes after reading your post she will still be saying the $20-$30 she pays per hr is all profit to her landscaper. Carry on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's certainly all profit to the kid next door.  His dad even pays for the gas and provides the mower.  And before you say it, we bought our two cars from him so yes, I think we paid for the gas his kid uses to mow our lawn.
Click to expand...



 I'm damn near speechless at your total lack of understanding about how things work economically. I gotta think your just yanking my chain because no one is this stupid in real life outside of a mental institution.


----------



## sameech

Againsheila said:


> He lives next door, and he's too young to drive.  I paid him $30 last week, he forgot to do the trimming so I paid him $20 this week.  He did the trimming.  Next week, if he does the trimming also, I will pay him the $30.  Ours is a difficult yard and there is a lot of trimming, hence the extra $10.
> 
> Still you are avoiding the point and going off on a tangent about what a terrible person I am for paying the kid who mows my lawn between $20 and $30 for an hours work.  Why do you object to paying a penny on the dollar more so people don't have to depend on food stamps to live?



I applaud you on many levels.  You are helping instill a work ethic in the kid, you are helping him empower himself with a trade that he can fall back on or expand into a real business someday, and you are teaching him that he must do what he is paid to do in order to be paid.  That said, it is not really an example of a "living wage" situation.  If anything, it is an example of how prices are set.  You are willing to pay it and he is willing to do it for that price.  That is no different than what happens in the larger market at McDonald's that will start the kid off at Minimum Wage if he is willing to do it.  Otherwise they will find someone else who will just as you would need to find someone else to mow your grass if he was not willing to do it at a price you were willing to pay.


----------



## Againsheila

SAYIT said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I appreciate your attempt to explain a simple biz model to a liberal/socialist, you must know your knowledge is falling on deaf ears. They are convinced that the tools of capitalism are all free to those who own them, including gas.
> 15 minutes after reading your post she will still be saying the $20-$30 she pays per hr is all profit to her landscaper. Carry on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's certainly all profit to the kid next door.  His dad even pays for the gas and provides the mower.  And before you say it, we bought our two cars from him so yes, I think we paid for the gas his kid uses to mow our lawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it's not a living wage (whatever that is) for the kid. The costs to his daddy still diminish the profit and as soon as he runs out of next door neighbors those costs will rise dramatically. Alan pointed out the gaping hole in your "living wage" fantasy (the silliness of multiplying it by 40 hrs) and, as predicted, you still post as if you haven't had it explained to you.
> BTW, do you not understand what will happen to all those who are more valuable to Walmart who make something above the current min wage but less than the "living wage" you promote? Do you not understand that they do will have to be paid more? Certainly the OP doesn't account for them. How about all the smaller companies in America? What will happen to them? Frankly, I believe you may be well intentioned but you can see only as far as what makes you feel good.
Click to expand...


ONE PENNY more on the dollar.  ONE PENNY!!!  You are so cheep you can't pay a blasted penny so that someone else doesn't have to rely on food stamps and our tax dollars.

Again, no one is demanding we pay a living wage for someone working an hour a week.  We are demanding a fair living wage per hour of work.  You're just made that I pay the kid who mows my lawn more than the average Walmart worker makes in an hour.  More than double what they make in an hour.


----------



## Ernie S.

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it really a living wage?
> First of all, $30 an hour is 50% more than $20, that is quite a wide price range you claim to pay.
> But, lets go beyond that, and assume $30 for your yard and everybody else yard.  You said he is a kid, does this "kid" spend 5 days a week and 40 hours a day mowing lawns?  Lets assume he spends 40 hours a week (8 hours a day) making his "living wage".  Now then, he can't possibly be mowing lawns for 8 hours a day in an 8 hour day of work.  He has to travel from one house to the next house.  He has to spend time drumming up business.  In reality, he may mow five yards a day on the high end.  That's 5 yards times $30 per yard for an hour per yard and it equals $150 per day  We have now reduced his pay to $18.75 per hour.
> But wait, there is more.
> He has to pay for the gas to run his lawnmower. He also has to pay for the gas for his truck to get him and his lawnmower from one house to the next house.  He has to pay for the lawnmower and the maintenance of it.  He has to pay for his truck and its maintenance to get him from job to job.  He has to pay for his trimmer and the gas to run that.  Remember now, you only pay him $30 if he does the trimming also, so I'm guessing you usually only pay him $20.
> 
> But still, I'm assuming the $30.  You think you are paying him a living wage for the $30 for the hour he is at your house.  In fact, the guy is probably making about $11 an hour after all his travel in an 8 hour day and the expenses for his equipment and supplies.  Not to mention that he probably has to satisfy 50 different customers/homeowners a month if mowing lawns is the business that supports his family.
> 
> Your shortsighted view that you are paying him $20 or $30 an hour and that is a "living wage" is kind of funny.  But not 'funny' haha kind of funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He lives next door, and he's too young to drive.  I paid him $30 last week, he forgot to do the trimming so I paid him $20 this week.  He did the trimming.  Next week, if he does the trimming also, I will pay him the $30.  Ours is a difficult yard and there is a lot of trimming, hence the extra $10.
> 
> Still you are avoiding the point and going off on a tangent about what a terrible person I am for paying the kid who mows my lawn between $20 and $30 for an hours work.  Why do you object to paying a penny on the dollar more so people don't have to depend on food stamps to live?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I guess it is a living wage then. CONSIDERING HE LIVES WITH HIS PARENTS!!!!  WTF is wrong with you? That you even brought up the neighbor kid as an example is pathetic.
> I pay my yard guys $65.00 a week,you cheap ass capitalist pig!!! Why are you ripping of the poor? He should go on strike and force you to pay more...wait,WHAT? You dont provide insurance and a 401k? No paid vacation??? He needs at least 4 weeks a year or it's not fair.
> 
> Seriously....   Were you dropped on your head as a kid?
Click to expand...


You're getting ripped off. I pay my yard guy 10 beers at my bar.


----------



## Ernie S.

Maybe I should kick in a few more for the trimming that I do now. I already drink for free.


----------



## Againsheila

HereWeGoAgain said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Number one, the guy who mows my lawn gets $20, $30 if he also does the trimming.  It takes about an hour so that's a living wage, and he's a kid.  Number two, I don't eat at McDonalds, you couldn't pay me to eat there.  I eat a Denny's, or Village Inn and guess what?  Yep, they pay a living wage.
> 
> Did you read the OP?  They could raise the Walmart's workers pay to a living wage and it would cost you a whopping penny more on the dollar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it really a living wage?
> First of all, $30 an hour is 50% more than $20, that is quite a wide price range you claim to pay.
> But, lets go beyond that, and assume $30 for your yard and everybody else yard.  You said he is a kid, does this "kid" spend 5 days a week and 40 hours a day mowing lawns?  Lets assume he spends 40 hours a week (8 hours a day) making his "living wage".  Now then, he can't possibly be mowing lawns for 8 hours a day in an 8 hour day of work.  He has to travel from one house to the next house.  He has to spend time drumming up business.  In reality, he may mow five yards a day on the high end.  That's 5 yards times $30 per yard for an hour per yard and it equals $150 per day  We have now reduced his pay to $18.75 per hour.
> But wait, there is more.
> He has to pay for the gas to run his lawnmower. He also has to pay for the gas for his truck to get him and his lawnmower from one house to the next house.  He has to pay for the lawnmower and the maintenance of it.  He has to pay for his truck and its maintenance to get him from job to job.  He has to pay for his trimmer and the gas to run that.  Remember now, you only pay him $30 if he does the trimming also, so I'm guessing you usually only pay him $20.
> 
> But still, I'm assuming the $30.  You think you are paying him a living wage for the $30 for the hour he is at your house.  In fact, the guy is probably making about $11 an hour after all his travel in an 8 hour day and the expenses for his equipment and supplies.  Not to mention that he probably has to satisfy 50 different customers/homeowners a month if mowing lawns is the business that supports his family.
> 
> Your shortsighted view that you are paying him $20 or $30 an hour and that is a "living wage" is kind of funny.  But not 'funny' haha kind of funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dont bother,I already tried to explain the cost of doing business,but she's a simpleton who doesnt understand overhead. It's actually kind of depressing to tell you the truth.
Click to expand...


My macro economics class was exceeded in it's boringness only by my micro economics class.

Put the money in the hands of the people who spend it and our economy improves and we all do better.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Againsheila said:


> My macro economics class was exceeded in it's boringness only by my micro economics class.
> 
> Put the money in the hands of the people who spend it and our economy improves and we all do better.



So, you send every dime you get to Obama?

How's that working out for you?


----------



## Againsheila

Uncensored2008 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> My macro economics class was exceeded in it's boringness only by my micro economics class.
> 
> Put the money in the hands of the people who spend it and our economy improves and we all do better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you send every dime you get to Obama?
> 
> How's that working out for you?
Click to expand...


So you completely missed the OP.  The whole point of this thread is that if we pay the lowest paid workers at Walmart enough, they don't have to get foodstamps and all it will cost us is less than a penny on the dollar.  Our taxes would be LESS.  It's a win/win.  But no, you and the others have to complain about raising the minimum wage and keep every tight fisted penny you have because hording your money is much more important to you than paying less in taxes especially when it means that someone else won't have to depend on the government teat.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Ernie S. said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> He lives next door, and he's too young to drive.  I paid him $30 last week, he forgot to do the trimming so I paid him $20 this week.  He did the trimming.  Next week, if he does the trimming also, I will pay him the $30.  Ours is a difficult yard and there is a lot of trimming, hence the extra $10.
> 
> Still you are avoiding the point and going off on a tangent about what a terrible person I am for paying the kid who mows my lawn between $20 and $30 for an hours work.  Why do you object to paying a penny on the dollar more so people don't have to depend on food stamps to live?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I guess it is a living wage then. CONSIDERING HE LIVES WITH HIS PARENTS!!!!  WTF is wrong with you? That you even brought up the neighbor kid as an example is pathetic.
> I pay my yard guys $65.00 a week,you cheap ass capitalist pig!!! Why are you ripping of the poor? He should go on strike and force you to pay more...wait,WHAT? You dont provide insurance and a 401k? No paid vacation??? He needs at least 4 weeks a year or it's not fair.
> 
> Seriously....   Were you dropped on your head as a kid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're getting ripped off. I pay my yard guy 10 beers at my bar.
Click to expand...


  I pay it gladly. They do the mulch,tree trimming,replace the flowers in the beds 4 or 5 times a year,fertilize,pull weeds,maintain the sprinkler systems. And they aren't inebriated when they do it. In other words I dont have to do jack shit other then tell them what to do.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

sameech said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> He lives next door, and he's too young to drive.  I paid him $30 last week, he forgot to do the trimming so I paid him $20 this week.  He did the trimming.  Next week, if he does the trimming also, I will pay him the $30.  Ours is a difficult yard and there is a lot of trimming, hence the extra $10.
> 
> Still you are avoiding the point and going off on a tangent about what a terrible person I am for paying the kid who mows my lawn between $20 and $30 for an hours work.  Why do you object to paying a penny on the dollar more so people don't have to depend on food stamps to live?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I applaud you on many levels.  You are helping instill a work ethic in the kid, you are helping him empower himself with a trade that he can fall back on or expand into a real business someday, and you are teaching him that he must do what he is paid to do in order to be paid.  That said, it is not really an example of a "living wage" situation.  If anything, it is an example of how prices are set.  You are willing to pay it and he is willing to do it for that price.  That is no different than what happens in the larger market at McDonald's that will start the kid off at Minimum Wage if he is willing to do it.  Otherwise they will find someone else who will just as you would need to find someone else to mow your grass if he was not willing to do it at a price you were willing to pay.
Click to expand...


 He wont likely be able to turn it into a business unfortunately. Illegals and immigrants have that market cornered.
   I do agree wholeheartedly with you that it teaches the kid a valuable lesson about work. Unfortunately that lesson has been taken away from our children. Just like most min wage jobs.


----------



## sameech

HereWeGoAgain said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> He lives next door, and he's too young to drive.  I paid him $30 last week, he forgot to do the trimming so I paid him $20 this week.  He did the trimming.  Next week, if he does the trimming also, I will pay him the $30.  Ours is a difficult yard and there is a lot of trimming, hence the extra $10.
> 
> Still you are avoiding the point and going off on a tangent about what a terrible person I am for paying the kid who mows my lawn between $20 and $30 for an hours work.  Why do you object to paying a penny on the dollar more so people don't have to depend on food stamps to live?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I applaud you on many levels.  You are helping instill a work ethic in the kid, you are helping him empower himself with a trade that he can fall back on or expand into a real business someday, and you are teaching him that he must do what he is paid to do in order to be paid.  That said, it is not really an example of a "living wage" situation.  If anything, it is an example of how prices are set.  You are willing to pay it and he is willing to do it for that price.  That is no different than what happens in the larger market at McDonald's that will start the kid off at Minimum Wage if he is willing to do it.  Otherwise they will find someone else who will just as you would need to find someone else to mow your grass if he was not willing to do it at a price you were willing to pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He wont likely be able to turn it into a business unfortunately. Illegals and immigrants have that market cornered.
> I do agree wholeheartedly with you that it teaches the kid a valuable lesson about work. Unfortunately that lesson has been taken away from our children. Just like most min wage jobs.
Click to expand...


Depends on where one lives.  There are several small landscaping/maintenance businesses in my area that are either run by whites or blacks.  None that I know of that are owned and operated by immigrants.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

sameech said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> I applaud you on many levels.  You are helping instill a work ethic in the kid, you are helping him empower himself with a trade that he can fall back on or expand into a real business someday, and you are teaching him that he must do what he is paid to do in order to be paid.  That said, it is not really an example of a "living wage" situation.  If anything, it is an example of how prices are set.  You are willing to pay it and he is willing to do it for that price.  That is no different than what happens in the larger market at McDonald's that will start the kid off at Minimum Wage if he is willing to do it.  Otherwise they will find someone else who will just as you would need to find someone else to mow your grass if he was not willing to do it at a price you were willing to pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He wont likely be able to turn it into a business unfortunately. Illegals and immigrants have that market cornered.
> I do agree wholeheartedly with you that it teaches the kid a valuable lesson about work. Unfortunately that lesson has been taken away from our children. Just like most min wage jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on where one lives.  There are several small landscaping/maintenance businesses in my area that are either run by whites or blacks.  None that I know of that are owned and operated by immigrants.
Click to expand...


  Dont worry,they're headed your way. It's only a matter of time.


----------



## sameech

HereWeGoAgain said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> He wont likely be able to turn it into a business unfortunately. Illegals and immigrants have that market cornered.
> I do agree wholeheartedly with you that it teaches the kid a valuable lesson about work. Unfortunately that lesson has been taken away from our children. Just like most min wage jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on where one lives.  There are several small landscaping/maintenance businesses in my area that are either run by whites or blacks.  None that I know of that are owned and operated by immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dont worry,they're headed your way. It's only a matter of time.
Click to expand...


We have a lot of immigrants in my area.  They just haven't gone into the landscaping thing.  Most of the Hispanic ones are construction or ag workers and the Asian ones are more into restaurants/boutiques, and the Middle Eastern ones seem to have acquired just about every convenience store in the area except for 1 hold out.


----------



## Bush92

Raising minimum wage is not the answer.Block all Chinese goods coming into the U.S. as well as seal off border with Mexico and you will have millions of blue collar jobs return to the United States.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Bush92 said:


> Raising minimum wage is not the answer.Block all Chinese goods coming into the U.S. as well as seal off border with Mexico and you will have millions of blue collar jobs return to the United States.



   You could limit Chinese imports but if you block them altogether product prices will go up.
   But getting rid of all the illegals would do wonders no doubt. Although that would drive up costs as well. But it would be worth it to put Americans back to work.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Againsheila said:


> So you completely missed the OP.  The whole point of this thread is that if we pay the lowest paid workers at Walmart enough, they don't have to get foodstamps and all it will cost us is less than a penny on the dollar.  Our taxes would be LESS.  It's a win/win.  But no, you and the others have to complain about raising the minimum wage and keep every tight fisted penny you have because hording your money is much more important to you than paying less in taxes especially when it means that someone else won't have to depend on the government teat.



If we just give every person in the world $10 million, then everyone would be rich....

Like your plan, it's a stupid/stupid...


----------



## Uncensored2008

sameech said:


> We have a lot of immigrants in my area.  They just haven't gone into the landscaping thing.  Most of the Hispanic ones are construction or ag workers and the Asian ones are more into restaurants/boutiques, and the Middle Eastern ones seem to have acquired just about every convenience store in the area except for 1 hold out.



My "gardener" is Mexican, but speaks English well - I'm sure he is legal and was probably born here.

Of course I've never seen him push a mower, his crew does that, he doesn't come with them when they do my yard - not a one of them utter a word of English, they're all wetbacks. 

That's business in California, the boss is American, the crew are illegals.


----------



## sameech

Uncensored2008 said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a lot of immigrants in my area.  They just haven't gone into the landscaping thing.  Most of the Hispanic ones are construction or ag workers and the Asian ones are more into restaurants/boutiques, and the Middle Eastern ones seem to have acquired just about every convenience store in the area except for 1 hold out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My "gardener" is Mexican, but speaks English well - I'm sure he is legal and was probably born here.
> 
> Of course I've never seen him push a mower, his crew does that, he doesn't come with them when they do my yard - not a one of them utter a word of English, they're all wetbacks.
> 
> That's business in California, the boss is American, the crew are illegals.
Click to expand...


I saw that a lot when I lived in Northern Virginia/DC.  Apparently the enlightened left likes their yards to be mowed on the cheap too, but not so much further south where I am now.


----------



## Mathbud1

I can't find the post right now, but a either in this thread or the other one about fast food workers striking someone posted a link to an article that made an ironic point.

Raising minimum wage doesn't help older poor people who are using minimum wage to support their family. It really makes getting a job more attractive for the teenagers from the more affluent areas though. Why keep a tired old guy around when you can get a strong-backed teen to do the menial labor? The teen doesn't need a job because he has mommy and daddy to pay his bills, but if it pays enough it just became much more attractive.

So raising minimum wage isn't going to magically save all the poor people living off minimum wage jobs. It will probably just drive them out of the job altogether.


----------



## priceless

sameech said:


> I'll take the _Great Gatsby_ version of economics over the _Zen and the_ _Art of Motorcycle Maintenance_ version if those are my only two choices.


what does that mean?


----------



## sameech

priceless said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take the _Great Gatsby_ version of economics over the _Zen and the_ _Art of Motorcycle Maintenance_ version if those are my only two choices.
> 
> 
> 
> what does that mean?
Click to expand...


I would rather have what we have with great inequities and excesses than have some system where we have less money and far fewer goods, jobs, etc.


----------



## priceless

sameech said:


> I would rather have what we have with great inequities and excesses than have some system where we have less money and far fewer goods, jobs, etc.


Too many assumptions and not enough specifics for a good economic discussion.  Basically you're just assuming a status quo and defending it against change.  That always makes for bad discussion/politics.


----------



## sameech

priceless said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would rather have what we have with great inequities and excesses than have some system where we have less money and far fewer goods, jobs, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Too many assumptions and not enough specifics for a good economic discussion.  Basically you're just assuming a status quo and defending it against change.  That always makes for bad discussion/politics.
Click to expand...


Well when you come up with an idea that isn't worse than communism in practice, let me know.  Otherwise, yes, I will prefer the status quo over standing in line for toilet paper.  My bowels are not as hardy as some people's.


----------



## alan1

Againsheila said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Number one, the guy who mows my lawn gets $20, $30 if he also does the trimming.  It takes about an hour so that's a living wage, and he's a kid.  Number two, I don't eat at McDonalds, you couldn't pay me to eat there.  I eat a Denny's, or Village Inn and guess what?  Yep, they pay a living wage.
> 
> Did you read the OP?  They could raise the Walmart's workers pay to a living wage and it would cost you a whopping penny more on the dollar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it really a living wage?
> First of all, $30 an hour is 50% more than $20, that is quite a wide price range you claim to pay.
> But, lets go beyond that, and assume $30 for your yard and everybody else yard.  You said he is a kid, does this "kid" spend 5 days a week and 40 hours a day mowing lawns?  Lets assume he spends 40 hours a week (8 hours a day) making his "living wage".  Now then, he can't possibly be mowing lawns for 8 hours a day in an 8 hour day of work.  He has to travel from one house to the next house.  He has to spend time drumming up business.  In reality, he may mow five yards a day on the high end.  That's 5 yards times $30 per yard for an hour per yard and it equals $150 per day  We have now reduced his pay to $18.75 per hour.
> But wait, there is more.
> He has to pay for the gas to run his lawnmower. He also has to pay for the gas for his truck to get him and his lawnmower from one house to the next house.  He has to pay for the lawnmower and the maintenance of it.  He has to pay for his truck and its maintenance to get him from job to job.  He has to pay for his trimmer and the gas to run that.  Remember now, you only pay him $30 if he does the trimming also, so I'm guessing you usually only pay him $20.
> 
> But still, I'm assuming the $30.  You think you are paying him a living wage for the $30 for the hour he is at your house.  In fact, the guy is probably making about $11 an hour after all his travel in an 8 hour day and the expenses for his equipment and supplies.  Not to mention that he probably has to satisfy 50 different customers/homeowners a month if mowing lawns is the business that supports his family.
> 
> Your shortsighted view that you are paying him $20 or $30 an hour and that is a "living wage" is kind of funny.  But not 'funny' haha kind of funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He lives next door, and he's too young to drive.  I paid him $30 last week, he forgot to do the trimming so I paid him $20 this week.  He did the trimming.  Next week, if he does the trimming also, I will pay him the $30.  Ours is a difficult yard and there is a lot of trimming, hence the extra $10.
> 
> Still you are avoiding the point and going off on a tangent about what a terrible person I am for paying the kid who mows my lawn between $20 and $30 for an hours work.  Why do you object to paying a penny on the dollar more so people don't have to depend on food stamps to live?
Click to expand...


I don't object to it and I never accused you being a terrible person, what ever gave you that idea?
I was merely explaining how for that kind of work, $20-$30 isn't a living wage if somebody is trying to support themselves or a family.  now then, you did explain that it was the kid next door, so he obviously isn't trying to support himself or a family.  He's also not collecting food stamps.  Then, you claim I am going off on a tangent when it was you that brought up your neighbor kid, not me.

The going rate in my area for a yard my size runs $50-60.  Neighborhood kids used to do it for cheaper than that, but they didn't do a good job so I hired an adult to do it for the going rate.  When it comes time to fertilize, throw down some more seed or aerate he charges me more.  Sometimes I trim my own hedges, sometimes I pay him to do it.  The guy I've got now does a great job.  I've recommended him to some friends and coworkers and he's picked some of them up as clients also.

My yard man is actually a good example of what this thread is about.  He's not out there demanding a living wage, he's out there trying to earn one.  He knocked on my door looking for business.  He works hard.  He does a great job.  A few weeks ago, some idiot hit my mailbox post with their car (lots of people practice driving in my neighborhood because the DMV does their on-the-road tests in my neighborhood), I didn't have time to repair it that weekend.  The next time Chris mowed my yard, he took the time to repair it.  He told me no charge, it was a thank you for me recommending him to other clients.  That is exactly the type of person that is going above and beyond instead of just expecting a "living wage".  I gave him an extra $20 because I know he probably spent 45 minutes to an hour repairing it (I've done the repair myself many times and I know how long it takes).  At first he didn't want to take the extra money, he said it was a slow day for him anyways, and he had the time.  

That same type of attitude holds true for somebody working at Walmart or in fast food or in corporate America or landscaping, you go above and beyond and you will get promoted and you will make more money, I've seen it be true for the 40 years I've been in the workforce.  People don't get paid more money just because they think they should be paid more, they get paid more because they've done something to earn it and because they provide extra value to their employer.


----------



## Againsheila

alan1 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it really a living wage?
> First of all, $30 an hour is 50% more than $20, that is quite a wide price range you claim to pay.
> But, lets go beyond that, and assume $30 for your yard and everybody else yard.  You said he is a kid, does this "kid" spend 5 days a week and 40 hours a day mowing lawns?  Lets assume he spends 40 hours a week (8 hours a day) making his "living wage".  Now then, he can't possibly be mowing lawns for 8 hours a day in an 8 hour day of work.  He has to travel from one house to the next house.  He has to spend time drumming up business.  In reality, he may mow five yards a day on the high end.  That's 5 yards times $30 per yard for an hour per yard and it equals $150 per day  We have now reduced his pay to $18.75 per hour.
> But wait, there is more.
> He has to pay for the gas to run his lawnmower. He also has to pay for the gas for his truck to get him and his lawnmower from one house to the next house.  He has to pay for the lawnmower and the maintenance of it.  He has to pay for his truck and its maintenance to get him from job to job.  He has to pay for his trimmer and the gas to run that.  Remember now, you only pay him $30 if he does the trimming also, so I'm guessing you usually only pay him $20.
> 
> But still, I'm assuming the $30.  You think you are paying him a living wage for the $30 for the hour he is at your house.  In fact, the guy is probably making about $11 an hour after all his travel in an 8 hour day and the expenses for his equipment and supplies.  Not to mention that he probably has to satisfy 50 different customers/homeowners a month if mowing lawns is the business that supports his family.
> 
> Your shortsighted view that you are paying him $20 or $30 an hour and that is a "living wage" is kind of funny.  But not 'funny' haha kind of funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He lives next door, and he's too young to drive.  I paid him $30 last week, he forgot to do the trimming so I paid him $20 this week.  He did the trimming.  Next week, if he does the trimming also, I will pay him the $30.  Ours is a difficult yard and there is a lot of trimming, hence the extra $10.
> 
> Still you are avoiding the point and going off on a tangent about what a terrible person I am for paying the kid who mows my lawn between $20 and $30 for an hours work.  Why do you object to paying a penny on the dollar more so people don't have to depend on food stamps to live?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't object to it and I never accused you being a terrible person, what ever gave you that idea?
> I was merely explaining how for that kind of work, $20-$30 isn't a living wage if somebody is trying to support themselves or a family.  now then, you did explain that it was the kid next door, so he obviously isn't trying to support himself or a family.  He's also not collecting food stamps.  Then, you claim I am going off on a tangent when it was you that brought up your neighbor kid, not me.
> 
> The going rate in my area for a yard my size runs $50-60.  Neighborhood kids used to do it for cheaper than that, but they didn't do a good job so I hired an adult to do it for the going rate.  When it comes time to fertilize, throw down some more seed or aerate he charges me more.  Sometimes I trim my own hedges, sometimes I pay him to do it.  The guy I've got now does a great job.  I've recommended him to some friends and coworkers and he's picked some of them up as clients also.
> 
> My yard man is actually a good example of what this thread is about.  He's not out there demanding a living wage, he's out there trying to earn one.  He knocked on my door looking for business.  He works hard.  He does a great job.  A few weeks ago, some idiot hit my mailbox post with their car (lots of people practice driving in my neighborhood because the DMV does their on-the-road tests in my neighborhood), I didn't have time to repair it that weekend.  The next time Chris mowed my yard, he took the time to repair it.  He told me no charge, it was a thank you for me recommending him to other clients.  That is exactly the type of person that is going above and beyond instead of just expecting a "living wage".  I gave him an extra $20 because I know he probably spent 45 minutes to an hour repairing it (I've done the repair myself many times and I know how long it takes).  At first he didn't want to take the extra money, he said it was a slow day for him anyways, and he had the time.
> 
> That same type of attitude holds true for somebody working at Walmart or in fast food or in corporate America or landscaping, you go above and beyond and you will get promoted and you will make more money, I've seen it be true for the 40 years I've been in the workforce.  People don't get paid more money just because they think they should be paid more, they get paid more because they've done something to earn it and because they provide extra value to their employer.
Click to expand...


I've seen just the opposite.  Especially in government jobs.  You do a good job you are never going to advance.  Plus there isn't anywhere to advance today, by outsourcing and insourcing, we've removed too many rungs on the ladder.


----------



## alan1

sameech said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> He lives next door, and he's too young to drive.  I paid him $30 last week, he forgot to do the trimming so I paid him $20 this week.  He did the trimming.  Next week, if he does the trimming also, I will pay him the $30.  Ours is a difficult yard and there is a lot of trimming, hence the extra $10.
> 
> Still you are avoiding the point and going off on a tangent about what a terrible person I am for paying the kid who mows my lawn between $20 and $30 for an hours work.  Why do you object to paying a penny on the dollar more so people don't have to depend on food stamps to live?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I applaud you on many levels.  You are helping instill a work ethic in the kid, you are helping him empower himself with a trade that he can fall back on or expand into a real business someday, and you are teaching him that he must do what he is paid to do in order to be paid.  That said, it is not really an example of a "living wage" situation.  If anything, it is an example of how prices are set.  You are willing to pay it and he is willing to do it for that price.  That is no different than what happens in the larger market at McDonald's that will start the kid off at Minimum Wage if he is willing to do it.  Otherwise they will find someone else who will just as you would need to find someone else to mow your grass if he was not willing to do it at a price you were willing to pay.
Click to expand...


That is very libertarian of you, and very factual of you.
Nobody is forced to work for minimum wage or for a wage they find unacceptable.  Wages are a negotiation between an employer (somebody willing to pay for labor) and an employee (somebody willing to offer labor for a wage).  We often pay for stuff we don't want to do ourselves.  I buy bacon at a grocery store because I don't want to raise a pig, kill a pig, clean a pig, cut a pig up, build a smokehouse, cut down trees to build the smokehouse and for the smoking, or all the other things that are required so I can eat bacon.  I'm more than willing to pay for hog ranchers, butchers, smokers and tree-cutters to do that work for me.  But, there is only so much I will pay for bacon, if the rancher, butcher, smoker, smokehouse builder and tree-cutter all earned $50 an hour I probably wouldn't buy bacon or raise, butcher and smoke my own hogs for the bacon, I'd go without bacon.


----------



## alan1

Againsheila said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's certainly all profit to the kid next door.  His dad even pays for the gas and provides the mower.  And before you say it, we bought our two cars from him so yes, I think we paid for the gas his kid uses to mow our lawn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not a living wage (whatever that is) for the kid. The costs to his daddy still diminish the profit and as soon as he runs out of next door neighbors those costs will rise dramatically. Alan pointed out the gaping hole in your "living wage" fantasy (the silliness of multiplying it by 40 hrs) and, as predicted, you still post as if you haven't had it explained to you.
> BTW, do you not understand what will happen to all those who are more valuable to Walmart who make something above the current min wage but less than the "living wage" you promote? Do you not understand that they do will have to be paid more? Certainly the OP doesn't account for them. How about all the smaller companies in America? What will happen to them? Frankly, I believe you may be well intentioned but you can see only as far as what makes you feel good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ONE PENNY more on the dollar.  ONE PENNY!!!  You are so cheep you can't pay a blasted penny so that someone else doesn't have to rely on food stamps and our tax dollars.
> 
> Again, no one is demanding we pay a living wage for someone working an hour a week.  We are demanding a fair living wage per hour of work.  You're just made that I pay the kid who mows my lawn more than the average Walmart worker makes in an hour.  More than double what they make in an hour.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the Walmart workers won't mind if you tip them since you feel so strongly about this.  I certainly don't mind if you want to tip them for the for the service you receive.  What's holding you back?


----------



## sameech

alan1 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not a living wage (whatever that is) for the kid. The costs to his daddy still diminish the profit and as soon as he runs out of next door neighbors those costs will rise dramatically. Alan pointed out the gaping hole in your "living wage" fantasy (the silliness of multiplying it by 40 hrs) and, as predicted, you still post as if you haven't had it explained to you.
> BTW, do you not understand what will happen to all those who are more valuable to Walmart who make something above the current min wage but less than the "living wage" you promote? Do you not understand that they do will have to be paid more? Certainly the OP doesn't account for them. How about all the smaller companies in America? What will happen to them? Frankly, I believe you may be well intentioned but you can see only as far as what makes you feel good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ONE PENNY more on the dollar.  ONE PENNY!!!  You are so cheep you can't pay a blasted penny so that someone else doesn't have to rely on food stamps and our tax dollars.
> 
> Again, no one is demanding we pay a living wage for someone working an hour a week.  We are demanding a fair living wage per hour of work.  You're just made that I pay the kid who mows my lawn more than the average Walmart worker makes in an hour.  More than double what they make in an hour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure the Walmart workers won't mind if you tip them since you feel so strongly about this.  I certainly don't mind if you want to tip them for the for the service you receive.  What's holding you back?
Click to expand...


They'd probably be fired if they took it.  Regardless, the problem with that evil Walmart argument is that in my area, the "living wage" is below Walmart's average wage nationally, not to mention that paying a person enough to survive on part-time work is unfair to full-time workers.


----------



## alan1

Mathbud1 said:


> I can't find the post right now, but a either in this thread or the other one about fast food workers striking someone posted a link to an article that made an ironic point.
> 
> Raising minimum wage doesn't help older poor people who are using minimum wage to support their family. It really makes getting a job more attractive for the teenagers from the more affluent areas though. Why keep a tired old guy around when you can get a strong-backed teen to do the menial labor? The teen doesn't need a job because he has mommy and daddy to pay his bills, but if it pays enough it just became much more attractive.
> 
> So raising minimum wage isn't going to magically save all the poor people living off minimum wage jobs. It will probably just drive them out of the job altogether.



I wonder how many adults me, my brother and my two sisters put out of a low paying job during our teen years that were supporting a family just so we could buy a crappy car, beer and pot.  We all had low paying jobs, but I don't think any of us ever had minimum wage jobs in our teens.


----------



## alan1

Againsheila said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> He lives next door, and he's too young to drive.  I paid him $30 last week, he forgot to do the trimming so I paid him $20 this week.  He did the trimming.  Next week, if he does the trimming also, I will pay him the $30.  Ours is a difficult yard and there is a lot of trimming, hence the extra $10.
> 
> Still you are avoiding the point and going off on a tangent about what a terrible person I am for paying the kid who mows my lawn between $20 and $30 for an hours work.  Why do you object to paying a penny on the dollar more so people don't have to depend on food stamps to live?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't object to it and I never accused you being a terrible person, what ever gave you that idea?
> I was merely explaining how for that kind of work, $20-$30 isn't a living wage if somebody is trying to support themselves or a family.  now then, you did explain that it was the kid next door, so he obviously isn't trying to support himself or a family.  He's also not collecting food stamps.  Then, you claim I am going off on a tangent when it was you that brought up your neighbor kid, not me.
> 
> The going rate in my area for a yard my size runs $50-60.  Neighborhood kids used to do it for cheaper than that, but they didn't do a good job so I hired an adult to do it for the going rate.  When it comes time to fertilize, throw down some more seed or aerate he charges me more.  Sometimes I trim my own hedges, sometimes I pay him to do it.  The guy I've got now does a great job.  I've recommended him to some friends and coworkers and he's picked some of them up as clients also.
> 
> My yard man is actually a good example of what this thread is about.  He's not out there demanding a living wage, he's out there trying to earn one.  He knocked on my door looking for business.  He works hard.  He does a great job.  A few weeks ago, some idiot hit my mailbox post with their car (lots of people practice driving in my neighborhood because the DMV does their on-the-road tests in my neighborhood), I didn't have time to repair it that weekend.  The next time Chris mowed my yard, he took the time to repair it.  He told me no charge, it was a thank you for me recommending him to other clients.  That is exactly the type of person that is going above and beyond instead of just expecting a "living wage".  I gave him an extra $20 because I know he probably spent 45 minutes to an hour repairing it (I've done the repair myself many times and I know how long it takes).  At first he didn't want to take the extra money, he said it was a slow day for him anyways, and he had the time.
> 
> That same type of attitude holds true for somebody working at Walmart or in fast food or in corporate America or landscaping, you go above and beyond and you will get promoted and you will make more money, I've seen it be true for the 40 years I've been in the workforce.  People don't get paid more money just because they think they should be paid more, they get paid more because they've done something to earn it and because they provide extra value to their employer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen just the opposite.  *Especially in government jobs*.  You do a good job you are never going to advance.  Plus there isn't anywhere to advance today, by outsourcing and insourcing, we've removed too many rungs on the ladder.
Click to expand...


Wow, so your solution to your supposed problem is more government.
And why do you think that makes sense?


----------



## alan1

sameech said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> ONE PENNY more on the dollar.  ONE PENNY!!!  You are so cheep you can't pay a blasted penny so that someone else doesn't have to rely on food stamps and our tax dollars.
> 
> Again, no one is demanding we pay a living wage for someone working an hour a week.  We are demanding a fair living wage per hour of work.  You're just made that I pay the kid who mows my lawn more than the average Walmart worker makes in an hour.  More than double what they make in an hour.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure the Walmart workers won't mind if you tip them since you feel so strongly about this.  I certainly don't mind if you want to tip them for the for the service you receive.  What's holding you back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They'd probably be fired if they took it.  Regardless, the problem with that evil Walmart argument is that in my area, the "living wage" is below Walmart's average wage nationally, not to mention that paying a person enough to survive on part-time work is unfair to full-time workers.
Click to expand...

Why do you think they'd be fired because somebody tipped them?
I hope that was a facetious or joking comment.
Somethings are unclear on internet message boards.


----------



## Againsheila

alan1 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not a living wage (whatever that is) for the kid. The costs to his daddy still diminish the profit and as soon as he runs out of next door neighbors those costs will rise dramatically. Alan pointed out the gaping hole in your "living wage" fantasy (the silliness of multiplying it by 40 hrs) and, as predicted, you still post as if you haven't had it explained to you.
> BTW, do you not understand what will happen to all those who are more valuable to Walmart who make something above the current min wage but less than the "living wage" you promote? Do you not understand that they do will have to be paid more? Certainly the OP doesn't account for them. How about all the smaller companies in America? What will happen to them? Frankly, I believe you may be well intentioned but you can see only as far as what makes you feel good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ONE PENNY more on the dollar.  ONE PENNY!!!  You are so cheep you can't pay a blasted penny so that someone else doesn't have to rely on food stamps and our tax dollars.
> 
> Again, no one is demanding we pay a living wage for someone working an hour a week.  We are demanding a fair living wage per hour of work.  You're just made that I pay the kid who mows my lawn more than the average Walmart worker makes in an hour.  More than double what they make in an hour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure the Walmart workers won't mind if you tip them since you feel so strongly about this.  I certainly don't mind if you want to tip them for the for the service you receive.  What's holding you back?
Click to expand...


Several things, the main one being that I think everyone should be paid a living wage.  If I have to give them a tip as well, then they aren't being paid enough.  And yes, I think we should even stop tipping waitresses and pay them a living wage instead.  The price should be in the price of the food, not an added expense.

Interesting that you'd rather our tax dollars provide for these people than force the people who hire them to pay a living wage.

It's easy to say they aren't being forced to work for those wages but we all know that's not true.  One of the reasons our immigration is so high is to keep our economy flush with workers in order to lower our wages.  Then we subsidize those workers with food stamps which they spend at Walmart further inflating their coffers with our tax dollars.   It would be better to pay that extra penny for every dollar spent.  

Have you read our history?  Do the words "company store" mean anything to you?


----------



## Againsheila

alan1 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't object to it and I never accused you being a terrible person, what ever gave you that idea?
> I was merely explaining how for that kind of work, $20-$30 isn't a living wage if somebody is trying to support themselves or a family.  now then, you did explain that it was the kid next door, so he obviously isn't trying to support himself or a family.  He's also not collecting food stamps.  Then, you claim I am going off on a tangent when it was you that brought up your neighbor kid, not me.
> 
> The going rate in my area for a yard my size runs $50-60.  Neighborhood kids used to do it for cheaper than that, but they didn't do a good job so I hired an adult to do it for the going rate.  When it comes time to fertilize, throw down some more seed or aerate he charges me more.  Sometimes I trim my own hedges, sometimes I pay him to do it.  The guy I've got now does a great job.  I've recommended him to some friends and coworkers and he's picked some of them up as clients also.
> 
> My yard man is actually a good example of what this thread is about.  He's not out there demanding a living wage, he's out there trying to earn one.  He knocked on my door looking for business.  He works hard.  He does a great job.  A few weeks ago, some idiot hit my mailbox post with their car (lots of people practice driving in my neighborhood because the DMV does their on-the-road tests in my neighborhood), I didn't have time to repair it that weekend.  The next time Chris mowed my yard, he took the time to repair it.  He told me no charge, it was a thank you for me recommending him to other clients.  That is exactly the type of person that is going above and beyond instead of just expecting a "living wage".  I gave him an extra $20 because I know he probably spent 45 minutes to an hour repairing it (I've done the repair myself many times and I know how long it takes).  At first he didn't want to take the extra money, he said it was a slow day for him anyways, and he had the time.
> 
> That same type of attitude holds true for somebody working at Walmart or in fast food or in corporate America or landscaping, you go above and beyond and you will get promoted and you will make more money, I've seen it be true for the 40 years I've been in the workforce.  People don't get paid more money just because they think they should be paid more, they get paid more because they've done something to earn it and because they provide extra value to their employer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen just the opposite.  *Especially in government jobs*.  You do a good job you are never going to advance.  Plus there isn't anywhere to advance today, by outsourcing and insourcing, we've removed too many rungs on the ladder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, so your solution to your supposed problem is more government.
> And why do you think that makes sense?
Click to expand...


We already have a minimum wage, make it worth what it was when it started and I'll stop complaining, deal?


----------



## alan1

Againsheila said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen just the opposite.  *Especially in government jobs*.  You do a good job you are never going to advance.  Plus there isn't anywhere to advance today, by outsourcing and insourcing, we've removed too many rungs on the ladder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, so your solution to your supposed problem is more government.
> And why do you think that makes sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We already have a minimum wage, make it worth what it was when it started and I'll stop complaining, deal?
Click to expand...

You didn't explain why it makes sense.
Request denied.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. ~ Albert Einstein


----------



## JohnA

Againsheila said:


> JohnA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has someone figured out the magic formula to define a "living" wage?
> 
> Or should each employee be paid according to how much money they need to "live?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> true no one has fiqured it out yet
> a young single person living  at home could live on the minimum  wage
> a person DOING  the same job same  tenure   should  they  be paid more cus they have 3 kids
> LIKELY they will
> claim food stamps what  ever the mnimum wage is
> 
> lesson   pay what the job is worth not what the  employee  ...NEEDS ,,,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The lowest paid job in the richest country in the world is worth a living wage.
Click to expand...

 Your still NOT add ressing the question who decides what is a living wage what is okay for one is not for another 
even with high paid  jobs take athletes for example some live well some are broke within years ..should we pay them more cus they live beyond their 

  means


----------



## JohnA

sameech said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> I applaud you on many levels.  You are helping instill a work ethic in the kid, you are helping him empower himself with a trade that he can fall back on or expand into a real business someday, and you are teaching him that he must do what he is paid to do in order to be paid.  That said, it is not really an example of a "living wage" situation.  If anything, it is an example of how prices are set.  You are willing to pay it and he is willing to do it for that price.  That is no different than what happens in the larger market at McDonald's that will start the kid off at Minimum Wage if he is willing to do it.  Otherwise they will find someone else who will just as you would need to find someone else to mow your grass if he was not willing to do it at a price you were willing to pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He wont likely be able to turn it into a business unfortunately. Illegals and immigrants have that market cornered.
> I do agree wholeheartedly with you that it teaches the kid a valuable lesson about work. Unfortunately that lesson has been taken away from our children. Just like most min wage jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on where one lives.  There are several small landscaping/maintenance businesses in my area that are either run by whites or blacks.  None that I know of that are owned and operated by immigrants.
Click to expand...

but are the worker who do the heavy work immigrants many are


----------



## JohnA

I read many posts about how low walmarts wage stacture is .



  the darling of the left  who died a few  years back  steve( apple )  jobs  PAID  MIN WAGE TO A LOT OF HIS EMPLOYEES  AND OUTSOURCED  MOST OF IT   why no complaint t about him ?   he is one democrat of many who pay min to employees at least be consistant


----------



## Ernie S.

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I guess it is a living wage then. CONSIDERING HE LIVES WITH HIS PARENTS!!!!  WTF is wrong with you? That you even brought up the neighbor kid as an example is pathetic.
> I pay my yard guys $65.00 a week,you cheap ass capitalist pig!!! Why are you ripping of the poor? He should go on strike and force you to pay more...wait,WHAT? You dont provide insurance and a 401k? No paid vacation??? He needs at least 4 weeks a year or it's not fair.
> 
> Seriously....   Were you dropped on your head as a kid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're getting ripped off. I pay my yard guy 10 beers at my bar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I pay it gladly. They do the mulch,tree trimming,replace the flowers in the beds 4 or 5 times a year,fertilize,pull weeds,maintain the sprinkler systems. And they aren't inebriated when they do it. In other words I dont have to do jack shit other then tell them what to do.
Click to expand...


Oh hell I won't pay him in advance, but I got tight again. I did the trimming myself today. He actually made. out like a bandit. He found a $10 on the lawn, only slightly mangled by the mower.


----------



## SAYIT

Againsheila said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> He lives next door, and he's too young to drive.  I paid him $30 last week, he forgot to do the trimming so I paid him $20 this week.  He did the trimming.  Next week, if he does the trimming also, I will pay him the $30.  Ours is a difficult yard and there is a lot of trimming, hence the extra $10.
> 
> Still you are avoiding the point and going off on a tangent about what a terrible person I am for paying the kid who mows my lawn between $20 and $30 for an hours work.  Why do you object to paying a penny on the dollar more so people don't have to depend on food stamps to live?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't object to it and I never accused you being a terrible person, what ever gave you that idea?
> I was merely explaining how for that kind of work, $20-$30 isn't a living wage if somebody is trying to support themselves or a family.  now then, you did explain that it was the kid next door, so he obviously isn't trying to support himself or a family.  He's also not collecting food stamps.  Then, you claim I am going off on a tangent when it was you that brought up your neighbor kid, not me.
> 
> The going rate in my area for a yard my size runs $50-60.  Neighborhood kids used to do it for cheaper than that, but they didn't do a good job so I hired an adult to do it for the going rate.  When it comes time to fertilize, throw down some more seed or aerate he charges me more.  Sometimes I trim my own hedges, sometimes I pay him to do it.  The guy I've got now does a great job.  I've recommended him to some friends and coworkers and he's picked some of them up as clients also.
> 
> My yard man is actually a good example of what this thread is about.  He's not out there demanding a living wage, he's out there trying to earn one.  He knocked on my door looking for business.  He works hard.  He does a great job.  A few weeks ago, some idiot hit my mailbox post with their car (lots of people practice driving in my neighborhood because the DMV does their on-the-road tests in my neighborhood), I didn't have time to repair it that weekend.  The next time Chris mowed my yard, he took the time to repair it.  He told me no charge, it was a thank you for me recommending him to other clients.  That is exactly the type of person that is going above and beyond instead of just expecting a "living wage".  I gave him an extra $20 because I know he probably spent 45 minutes to an hour repairing it (I've done the repair myself many times and I know how long it takes).  At first he didn't want to take the extra money, he said it was a slow day for him anyways, and he had the time.
> 
> That same type of attitude holds true for somebody working at Walmart or in fast food or in corporate America or landscaping, you go above and beyond and you will get promoted and you will make more money, I've seen it be true for the 40 years I've been in the workforce.  People don't get paid more money just because they think they should be paid more, they get paid more because they've done something to earn it and because they provide extra value to their employer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen just the opposite.  Especially in government jobs.  You do a good job you are never going to advance.  Plus there isn't anywhere to advance today, by outsourcing and insourcing, we've removed too many rungs on the ladder.
Click to expand...


The thing is, biz has a natural way of weeding out the inefficient and unnecessary. We no longer need the ice man so the job has been eliminated ... probably with much leftist hand-wringing. 
Workers are forced to develop marketable skills or become the next ice man. We all need a "living wage" (whatever that is) but only those whose productivity warrants it have a real chance at earning it. Like most biz owners, I'm not in biz to provide jobs or "living wages" but rather to satisfy my customer base and my employees either help with that function or get off my bus. Simple, eh?


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

alan1 said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> I applaud you on many levels.  You are helping instill a work ethic in the kid, you are helping him empower himself with a trade that he can fall back on or expand into a real business someday, and you are teaching him that he must do what he is paid to do in order to be paid.  That said, it is not really an example of a "living wage" situation.  If anything, it is an example of how prices are set.  You are willing to pay it and he is willing to do it for that price.  That is no different than what happens in the larger market at McDonald's that will start the kid off at Minimum Wage if he is willing to do it.  Otherwise they will find someone else who will just as you would need to find someone else to mow your grass if he was not willing to do it at a price you were willing to pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is very libertarian of you, and very factual of you.
> Nobody is forced to work for minimum wage or for a wage they find unacceptable.  Wages are a negotiation between an employer (somebody willing to pay for labor) and an employee (somebody willing to offer labor for a wage).  We often pay for stuff we don't want to do ourselves.  I buy bacon at a grocery store because I don't want to raise a pig, kill a pig, clean a pig, cut a pig up, build a smokehouse, cut down trees to build the smokehouse and for the smoking, or all the other things that are required so I can eat bacon.  I'm more than willing to pay for hog ranchers, butchers, smokers and tree-cutters to do that work for me.  But, there is only so much I will pay for bacon, if the rancher, butcher, smoker, smokehouse builder and tree-cutter all earned $50 an hour I probably wouldn't buy bacon or raise, butcher and smoke my own hogs for the bacon, I'd go without bacon.
Click to expand...


You're right about going without bacon.  When food production was much more labor intensive, and required a much larger percentage of the population to work on farms, food was more expensive and you probably would do without bacon at least more frequently than now.  That's exactly right.  It is not simply a matter of each stage of food production paying higher wages but rather the total cost of that food production.  If each stage required ten fold the number of manhours, either wages would plummet or food would get more expensive or a combination thereof.  We live in a wonderful time where bacon is cheap and plentiful and conveniently available.  In how many periods of history could so many people eat meat from multiple animals at the same time (bacon cheeseburger), in such portions, and with such frequency?

That part about 
_"Nobody is forced to work for minimum wage or for a wage they find unacceptable.  Wages are a negotiation between an employer (somebody willing to pay for labor) and an employee (somebody willing to offer labor for a wage)."_
is not entirely true.  Because it is not entirely true, labor unions were born.  Because it is not entirely true, we have a minimum wage.

"...the exploitation of a class of workers who are in *an unequal position with respect to bargaining power*, and are thus relatively defenceless against the denial of a living wage, is not only detrimental to their health and wellbeing, but casts a direct burden for their support upon the community. What these workers lose in wages, the taxpayers are called upon to pay. The bare cost of living must be met."
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 US 379 - 1937


----------



## bayoubill

syrenn said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiabloBlanco said:
> 
> 
> 
> So 3 who hate the poor and want to force them to go to college or school of some kind to rack up more debt instead of letting them earn a decent wage at a job they enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I've ever met anyone who enjoyed their min wage job or would want it as a career.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, i think they DO enjoy their minimum wage jobs.
> 
> they just what to be paid MORE for the very little that they do.
> 
> Tell me, what walmart greeter doesn't want $15 an hour?
Click to expand...


and for what they do, why the fuck does a Walmart greeter deserve more'n, say, $2 per hour...?  jes' askin'...


----------



## sameech

alan1 said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure the Walmart workers won't mind if you tip them since you feel so strongly about this.  I certainly don't mind if you want to tip them for the for the service you receive.  What's holding you back?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They'd probably be fired if they took it.  Regardless, the problem with that evil Walmart argument is that in my area, the "living wage" is below Walmart's average wage nationally, not to mention that paying a person enough to survive on part-time work is unfair to full-time workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you think they'd be fired because somebody tipped them?.
Click to expand...


I don't know that they would be, but it would not surprise me in the least.  Some businesses discourage the tipping of employees because it might either lead to employees always having their hand out or to some customers not willing to tip made to feel uncomfortable. 


> I hope that was a facetious or joking comment.
> Somethings are unclear on internet message boards.



No I wasn't.  What would make you think it was fair?


----------



## sameech

JohnA said:


> but are the worker who do the heavy work immigrants many are



Not that I am aware of.  Like I indicated, in my area, one mostly sees immigrant labor either working on farms as seasonal workers or working for out of town construction companies doing projects in town who bring their workers with them.  I think there is still a racial boas against hiring immigrants even for back-breaking labor in my area.


----------



## RKMBrown

sameech said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> about an acre and a half of grass.  When it is hitting on 100 in july and august, I am usually "Screw the back half--the zoning enforcement people can't see it."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acre & a half... that sucks to big for a walk behind to small for a real tractor with a pull behind 6'-8' deck.  Once a quarter or so I pull a bush hog around my pasture & trails.  Have a walk behind for some grass around the house but it's fairly tame I only seem to have to cut it about twelve times a year.  We don't water it, so it gets to be a nice pretty brown when it's cold and/or dry out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My lot (well technically two lots) is just shy of 2 acres but has a few trees around the fringes, then I have a garden and the footprint of the house/driveway.  I don't water mine unless I am seeding other than my garden.  In the spring I have to mow every week but in the summer I can usually go 2-3 weeks easy.  I like to keep the frontage neatly trimmed because we have these roving zoning patrols that get worked up if your grass is long, but beyond that, I don't sweat it that much.
Click to expand...


Zoning patrols... heh  They'd need an airplane, satellite, or a uav to check out my zoning compliance


----------



## HenryBHough

RKMBrown said:


> Zoning patrols... heh  They'd need an airplane, satellite, or a uav to check out my zoning compliance



FAA is in the process of setting up rules for commercial drone flights and local governments are already salivating over how they're gonna rake in big bucks through using them to raise property assessments.


----------



## Againsheila

JohnA said:


> I read many posts about how low walmarts wage stacture is .
> 
> 
> 
> the darling of the left  who died a few  years back  steve( apple )  jobs  PAID  MIN WAGE TO A LOT OF HIS EMPLOYEES  AND OUTSOURCED  MOST OF IT   why no complaint t about him ?   he is one democrat of many who pay min to employees at least be consistant



All employers should be paying a living wage to all their employees.  If you don't make enough to pay a living wage, you really don't make enough to hire anybody.  

Let's raise the minimum wage to the purchasing power it had when it started, index it for inflation, and then the debate will be over.


----------



## sameech

RKMBrown said:


> Zoning patrols... heh  They'd need an airplane, satellite, or a uav to check out my zoning compliance



LOL.  To be honest, I fear they will be doing drone variants with cameras on RC planes before too much longer.  

I put hedge rows running three feet back from the front corners of my house running to the property lines just to piss them off.  Since it is not a fence under the code and they also cannot regulate height of shrubbery except on the front and these are technically on the side, it makes it impossible for them to spy into my backyard.  there is nothing much back there to see, but they sure do hate that they can't always see in people's backyards.

My city is crazy with zoning enforcement.  One time I unloaded the stuff from the bed of my truck when I was going to help somebody move some things.  Sure enough, a couple days later I got the letter requiring me to mitigate the improperly stored items in my yard within so many days or I would be charged.   

A man a few streets over built this sharp set up for his grape vines that was in view because he lives on a corner lot.  They tried to make him tear it down because he did not get a permit to build a structure.  He instead ripped the little copper roof/awning type feature off the top so it would not be a "structure" but a "fence" under the code.  It was a shame because it really was a nice feature that made the area seem much more attractive than just posts and lattice.


----------



## Againsheila

sameech said:


> JohnA said:
> 
> 
> 
> but are the worker who do the heavy work immigrants many are
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I am aware of.  Like I indicated, in my area, one mostly sees immigrant labor either working on farms as seasonal workers or working for out of town construction companies doing projects in town who bring their workers with them.  I think there is still a racial boas against hiring immigrants even for back-breaking labor in my area.
Click to expand...


When I got bids on my roof, I asked all the bidders if they used e-verify.  Not one of them did.  I ended up getting a friend to do it for less than 1/2 of all the bidders and their illegal alien help.  I will not have an illegal in my home or on my property.  I've read too many stories about their getting hurt and suing the homeowners.  It's the holy grail for them.  A ticket home and enough money to support them the rest of their lives.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sameech said:


> They'd probably be fired if they took it.  Regardless, the problem with that evil Walmart argument is that in my area, the "living wage" is below Walmart's average wage nationally, not to mention that paying a person enough to survive on part-time work is unfair to full-time workers.



"Living wage" == "Union."

The unions are desperate to rob and rape Walmart to refill the empty coffers. SEIU is on the verge of catastrophe due to unfunded pension liabilities. They see the rape and pillage of Walmart and other profitable retailers as their salvation.

I wonder how the Unions will attack Amazon?  Per dollar of goods sold, Walmart employs 3.2 times as many people as Amazon. Amazon uses mostly robots. Jeff Bezos is an ultra-left Obamabot who has the lowest payroll per dollar spent  of any retail operation - and no union.

Bezos, No Fan of Unions, Gets 1,200 Union Workers at Washington Post | Xconomy


----------



## sameech

Againsheila said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnA said:
> 
> 
> 
> but are the worker who do the heavy work immigrants many are
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I am aware of.  Like I indicated, in my area, one mostly sees immigrant labor either working on farms as seasonal workers or working for out of town construction companies doing projects in town who bring their workers with them.  I think there is still a racial boas against hiring immigrants even for back-breaking labor in my area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I got bids on my roof, I asked all the bidders if they used e-verify.  Not one of them did.  I ended up getting a friend to do it for less than 1/2 of all the bidders and their illegal alien help.  I will not have an illegal in my home or on my property.  I've read too many stories about their getting hurt and suing the homeowners.  It's the holy grail for them.  A ticket home and enough money to support them the rest of their lives.
Click to expand...


That is certainly reasonable if your state would allow such a lawsuit to prevail.  My state is much more strict about such things in the sense that unless you knew of a hidden defect that caused the injury, the homeowner is usually safe from claims whether they be a worker, a guest, or a trespasser.  Doesn't keep you from being sued with the hope your insurance pays out, but it certainly makes your odds of losing much slimmer.


----------



## Againsheila

Zombie_Pundit said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> I applaud you on many levels.  You are helping instill a work ethic in the kid, you are helping him empower himself with a trade that he can fall back on or expand into a real business someday, and you are teaching him that he must do what he is paid to do in order to be paid.  That said, it is not really an example of a "living wage" situation.  If anything, it is an example of how prices are set.  You are willing to pay it and he is willing to do it for that price.  That is no different than what happens in the larger market at McDonald's that will start the kid off at Minimum Wage if he is willing to do it.  Otherwise they will find someone else who will just as you would need to find someone else to mow your grass if he was not willing to do it at a price you were willing to pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is very libertarian of you, and very factual of you.
> Nobody is forced to work for minimum wage or for a wage they find unacceptable.  Wages are a negotiation between an employer (somebody willing to pay for labor) and an employee (somebody willing to offer labor for a wage).  We often pay for stuff we don't want to do ourselves.  I buy bacon at a grocery store because I don't want to raise a pig, kill a pig, clean a pig, cut a pig up, build a smokehouse, cut down trees to build the smokehouse and for the smoking, or all the other things that are required so I can eat bacon.  I'm more than willing to pay for hog ranchers, butchers, smokers and tree-cutters to do that work for me.  But, there is only so much I will pay for bacon, if the rancher, butcher, smoker, smokehouse builder and tree-cutter all earned $50 an hour I probably wouldn't buy bacon or raise, butcher and smoke my own hogs for the bacon, I'd go without bacon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right about going without bacon.  When food production was much more labor intensive, and required a much larger percentage of the population to work on farms, food was more expensive and you probably would do without bacon at least more frequently than now.  That's exactly right.  It is not simply a matter of each stage of food production paying higher wages but rather the total cost of that food production.  If each stage required ten fold the number of manhours, either wages would plummet or food would get more expensive or a combination thereof.  We live in a wonderful time where bacon is cheap and plentiful and conveniently available.  In how many periods of history could so many people eat meat from multiple animals at the same time (bacon cheeseburger), in such portions, and with such frequency?
> 
> That part about
> _"Nobody is forced to work for minimum wage or for a wage they find unacceptable.  Wages are a negotiation between an employer (somebody willing to pay for labor) and an employee (somebody willing to offer labor for a wage)."_
> is not entirely true.  Because it is not entirely true, labor unions were born.  Because it is not entirely true, we have a minimum wage.
> 
> "...the exploitation of a class of workers who are in *an unequal position with respect to bargaining power*, and are thus relatively defenceless against the denial of a living wage, is not only detrimental to their health and wellbeing, but casts a direct burden for their support upon the community. What these workers lose in wages, the taxpayers are called upon to pay. The bare cost of living must be met."
> West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 US 379 - 1937
Click to expand...


bacon is cheap and plentiful?!?  When is the last time you bought bacon?


----------



## Uncensored2008

bayoubill said:


> and for what they do, why the fuck does a Walmart greeter deserve more'n, say, $2 per hour...?  jes' askin'...



Because Sheila has an unfunded pension - Walmart MUST be forced into the union so that Walmart employees will pay for her to retire at 50.


----------



## Againsheila

Uncensored2008 said:


> bayoubill said:
> 
> 
> 
> and for what they do, why the fuck does a Walmart greeter deserve more'n, say, $2 per hour...?  jes' askin'...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because Sheila has an unfunded pension - Walmart MUST be forced into the union so that Walmart employees will pay for her to retire at 50.
Click to expand...


Bulcrap!  We have sacrificed so we would have money when we retire.   You think this is about me?   Have I really struck you as being so selfish?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Againsheila said:


> Bulcrap!  We have sacrificed so we would have money when we retire.   You think this is about me?   Have I really struck you as being so selfish?



Honestly, yes you have. When I see people demanding "to each according to their need," as you do, it is ALWAYS a scheme to feather their own nest.


----------



## Ernie S.

Againsheila said:


> JohnA said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read many posts about how low walmarts wage stacture is .
> 
> 
> 
> the darling of the left  who died a few  years back  steve( apple )  jobs  PAID  MIN WAGE TO A LOT OF HIS EMPLOYEES  AND OUTSOURCED  MOST OF IT   why no complaint t about him ?   he is one democrat of many who pay min to employees at least be consistant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All employers should be paying a living wage to all their employees.  If you don't make enough to pay a living wage, you really don't make enough to hire anybody.
> 
> Let's raise the minimum wage to the purchasing power it had when it started, index it for inflation, and then the debate will be over.
Click to expand...

Define "living wage"

Should a high school kid who works 3 hours a day after school be paid a living wage what ever THAT is? Should a bagger at Win Dixie be paid as much as a plumber?
I own a small business. I generally spend 12 plus hours a day there. Since I bought the place, I've gone 4 months with just one single day off. I do not draw a salary. Should I be forced to pay myself? How much?


----------



## RKMBrown

Uncensored2008 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bulcrap!  We have sacrificed so we would have money when we retire.   You think this is about me?   Have I really struck you as being so selfish?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, yes you have. When I see people demanding "to each according to their need," as you do, it is ALWAYS a scheme to feather their own nest.
Click to expand...

If they want socialism so bad why don't they just create a socialist club where everyone can join in and share their wealth with their other club mates.


----------



## Againsheila

Uncensored2008 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bulcrap!  We have sacrificed so we would have money when we retire.   You think this is about me?   Have I really struck you as being so selfish?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, yes you have. When I see people demanding "to each according to their need," as you do, it is ALWAYS a scheme to feather their own nest.
Click to expand...


Well, you're wrong.  I volunteer at my friend's church giving out lunches to the homeless once a week, I volunteer at our local theater, I'm a member of a non academic sorority that raises funds to fight cancer.  I give a whole lot of my self.  Demanding a living wage for the lowest paid workers in the richest country in the world is not selfish, it's sensible.
Plus, it's economically sound.  Put the money in the hands of the people who will spend it and that enriches our economy.


----------



## Againsheila

Ernie S. said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnA said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read many posts about how low walmarts wage stacture is .
> 
> 
> 
> the darling of the left  who died a few  years back  steve( apple )  jobs  PAID  MIN WAGE TO A LOT OF HIS EMPLOYEES  AND OUTSOURCED  MOST OF IT   why no complaint t about him ?   he is one democrat of many who pay min to employees at least be consistant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All employers should be paying a living wage to all their employees.  If you don't make enough to pay a living wage, you really don't make enough to hire anybody.
> 
> Let's raise the minimum wage to the purchasing power it had when it started, index it for inflation, and then the debate will be over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define "living wage"
> 
> Should a high school kid who works 3 hours a day after school be paid a living wage what ever THAT is? Should a bagger at Win Dixie be paid as much as a plumber?
> I own a small business. I generally spend 12 plus hours a day there. Since I bought the place, I've gone 4 months with just one single day off. I do not draw a salary. Should I be forced to pay myself? How much?
Click to expand...


The CEO got a huge raise. You didn't. Here's why.

Nearly 45 percent of U.S. workers who earned less than $10.10 an hour last year had either attended college or had graduated, according to an analysis by John Schmitt, a senior economist at the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research


----------



## RKMBrown

Againsheila said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bulcrap!  We have sacrificed so we would have money when we retire.   You think this is about me?   Have I really struck you as being so selfish?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, yes you have. When I see people demanding "to each according to their need," as you do, it is ALWAYS a scheme to feather their own nest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you're wrong.  I volunteer at my friend's church giving out lunches to the homeless once a week, I volunteer at our local theater, I'm a member of a non academic sorority that raises funds to fight cancer.  I give a whole lot of my self.  Demanding a living wage for the lowest paid workers in the richest country in the world is not selfish, it's sensible.
> Plus, it's economically sound.  Put the money in the hands of the people who will spend it and that enriches our economy.
Click to expand...

So we should take your assets and redistribute them into the hands of people that will enrich our economy?  Or do you mean to say that we should only redistribute other peoples assets and not yours?


----------



## sameech

Uncensored2008 said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> They'd probably be fired if they took it.  Regardless, the problem with that evil Walmart argument is that in my area, the "living wage" is below Walmart's average wage nationally, not to mention that paying a person enough to survive on part-time work is unfair to full-time workers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Living wage" == "Union."
> 
> The unions are desperate to rob and rape Walmart to refill the empty coffers. SEIU is on the verge of catastrophe due to unfunded pension liabilities. They see the rape and pillage of Walmart and other profitable retailers as their salvation.
> 
> I wonder how the Unions will attack Amazon?  Per dollar of goods sold, Walmart employs 3.2 times as many people as Amazon. Amazon uses mostly robots. Jeff Bezos is an ultra-left Obamabot who has the lowest payroll per dollar spent  of any retail operation - and no union.
> 
> Bezos, No Fan of Unions, Gets 1,200 Union Workers at Washington Post | Xconomy
Click to expand...


Sure but even beyond that, there is room for some middle ground.  My thinking is pretty linear on this:  My cost of gas, electric, natural gas have gone up in recent years, so I assume most people's have as well (technically I am even paying less than market rate for electric which is an issue my city grapples with but it still has risen).  In that atmosphere, I think some increase in minimum wage is appropriate.   what that increase should be is more circumspect.  Certainly not to $15 per hour--that is just a passive aggressive ultimatum to make people think $10.10 an hour is a bargain they can settle for.  75 cent steps over a couple or three years should be enough to keep up the purchasing power of MW without destroying too many jobs at once and creating too much price inflation


----------



## RKMBrown

Againsheila said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> All employers should be paying a living wage to all their employees.  If you don't make enough to pay a living wage, you really don't make enough to hire anybody.
> 
> Let's raise the minimum wage to the purchasing power it had when it started, index it for inflation, and then the debate will be over.
> 
> 
> 
> Define "living wage"
> 
> Should a high school kid who works 3 hours a day after school be paid a living wage what ever THAT is? Should a bagger at Win Dixie be paid as much as a plumber?
> I own a small business. I generally spend 12 plus hours a day there. Since I bought the place, I've gone 4 months with just one single day off. I do not draw a salary. Should I be forced to pay myself? How much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The CEO got a huge raise. You didn't. Here's why.
> 
> Nearly 45 percent of U.S. workers who earned less than $10.10 an hour last year had either attended college or had graduated, according to an analysis by John Schmitt, a senior economist at the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research
Click to expand...


So by that number I take it that 55% of the people making less than 10.10 an hour did not graduate HS, and of the 45% that did graduate at least 1 person in the survey had at least a two year degree in art appreciation and at least one other person in the survey attended a portion of a class at college.


----------



## Ernie S.

RKMBrown said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bulcrap!  We have sacrificed so we would have money when we retire.   You think this is about me?   Have I really struck you as being so selfish?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, yes you have. When I see people demanding "to each according to their need," as you do, it is ALWAYS a scheme to feather their own nest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they want socialism so bad why don't they just create a socialist club where everyone can join in and share their wealth with their other club mates.
Click to expand...


We called them "communes" in the late 60's. They didn't work because some people are lazy and want the others to provide for them while they sit on their asses. Some are industrious and have skills. They carry more than their share of the load until the lazy crowd decides they must organize in order to ensure they will get an even share (living wage) for their less than even contribution.


----------



## Ernie S.

Againsheila said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> All employers should be paying a living wage to all their employees.  If you don't make enough to pay a living wage, you really don't make enough to hire anybody.
> 
> Let's raise the minimum wage to the purchasing power it had when it started, index it for inflation, and then the debate will be over.
> 
> 
> 
> Define "living wage"
> 
> Should a high school kid who works 3 hours a day after school be paid a living wage what ever THAT is? Should a bagger at Win Dixie be paid as much as a plumber?
> I own a small business. I generally spend 12 plus hours a day there. Since I bought the place, I've gone 4 months with just one single day off. I do not draw a salary. Should I be forced to pay myself? How much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The CEO got a huge raise. You didn't. Here's why.
> 
> Nearly 45 percent of U.S. workers who earned less than $10.10 an hour last year had either attended college or had graduated, according to an analysis by John Schmitt, a senior economist at the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research
Click to expand...

Oh yes! The evil CEO straw man comes out now. I am the CEO of my corporation. Am I evil because I don't pay *myself* a "living wage"?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Againsheila said:


> Well, you're wrong.  I volunteer at my friend's church giving out lunches to the homeless once a week, I volunteer at our local theater, I'm a member of a non academic sorority that raises funds to fight cancer.  I give a whole lot of my self.  Demanding a living wage for the lowest paid workers in the richest country in the world is not selfish, it's sensible.
> Plus, it's economically sound.  Put the money in the hands of the people who will spend it and that enriches our economy.



RK asked why you don't start a commune and share all you have with the poor? 

I didn't see an answer?


----------



## sameech

Againsheila said:


> Nearly 45 percent of U.S. workers who earned less than $10.10 an hour last year had either attended college or had graduated, according to an analysis by John Schmitt, a senior economist at the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research



This is probably an indication of other things, notably that colleges are over-utilized economically and/or that there is a gross misalignment between what people are majoring in and the need for those particular skill sets.  If a million history majors were swept up in the rapture, there would still be too many left behind for them to all have employment in their field.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sameech said:


> This is probably an indication of other things, notably that colleges are over-utilized economically and/or that there is a gross misalignment between what people are majoring in and the need for those particular skill sets.  If a million history majors were swept up in the rapture, there would still be too many left behind for them to all have employment in their field.



Part of this is what we call a "college."  Beauty School and Plumbing Schools are now deemed "colleges." 

I know I'm an old bastard, but in my way of thinking, if it isn't accredited and doesn't offer a bachelors, it ain't a college. A certificate in muffler repair isn't a college education. Real colleges call themselves universities, and trade schools call themselves colleges. Azusa Pacific is a nice college, but they have one campus and one major offered - they are a college. They are accredited and offer a bachelors program, but they are a college. Universities are multi-campus, multi-discipline affairs. BUT to differentiate themselves from the trade schools they claim to be a university.

The degradation of language....


----------



## Againsheila

Ernie S. said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define "living wage"
> 
> Should a high school kid who works 3 hours a day after school be paid a living wage what ever THAT is? Should a bagger at Win Dixie be paid as much as a plumber?
> I own a small business. I generally spend 12 plus hours a day there. Since I bought the place, I've gone 4 months with just one single day off. I do not draw a salary. Should I be forced to pay myself? How much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The CEO got a huge raise. You didn't. Here's why.
> 
> Nearly 45 percent of U.S. workers who earned less than $10.10 an hour last year had either attended college or had graduated, according to an analysis by John Schmitt, a senior economist at the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh yes! The evil CEO straw man comes out now. I am the CEO of my corporation. Am I evil because I don't pay *myself* a "living wage"?
Click to expand...


Did you read the quote?  nearly 45 percent of workers in our country who make $10.10 an hour or less have at least some college or a college degree.  Nearly half of our workers are educated enough to be paid more yet they aren't.  Why?  Because the jobs aren't there and the spending power of minimum wage, which they are forced on, has gone down.  Raise it so that it has the same spending power it had when it was started, then index it for inflation and our whole country will be better for it.


----------



## Againsheila

Uncensored2008 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you're wrong.  I volunteer at my friend's church giving out lunches to the homeless once a week, I volunteer at our local theater, I'm a member of a non academic sorority that raises funds to fight cancer.  I give a whole lot of my self.  Demanding a living wage for the lowest paid workers in the richest country in the world is not selfish, it's sensible.
> Plus, it's economically sound.  Put the money in the hands of the people who will spend it and that enriches our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RK asked why you don't start a commune and share all you have with the poor?
> 
> I didn't see an answer?
Click to expand...


It's amazing how many people want to make this about me.  Read the OP, a lousy penny more on the dollar and those people won't have to rely on food stamps to make ends meet.  Why do you ignore that?  What is it with you people?  You are against the food stamp program yet you have no problem with a company like Walmart making out be because of it.  They pay their workers so little, they have to rely on food stamps which they then turn around and spend at Walmart.  Do you not see how bad that is for our country?  For those people?  For our taxes?


----------



## Againsheila

sameech said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nearly 45 percent of U.S. workers who earned less than $10.10 an hour last year had either attended college or had graduated, according to an analysis by John Schmitt, a senior economist at the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably an indication of other things, notably that colleges are over-utilized economically and/or that there is a gross misalignment between what people are majoring in and the need for those particular skill sets.  If a million history majors were swept up in the rapture, there would still be too many left behind for them to all have employment in their field.
Click to expand...


My niece got her degree in Environmental studies.  Even with the disaster that is Fukishima she can't get a job in her field.  She had to go back to school and get a degree in pharmacology and she still doesn't make much more than minimum wage and she has $thousands in college loans.


----------



## Againsheila




----------



## RKMBrown

Againsheila said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you're wrong.  I volunteer at my friend's church giving out lunches to the homeless once a week, I volunteer at our local theater, I'm a member of a non academic sorority that raises funds to fight cancer.  I give a whole lot of my self.  Demanding a living wage for the lowest paid workers in the richest country in the world is not selfish, it's sensible.
> Plus, it's economically sound.  Put the money in the hands of the people who will spend it and that enriches our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RK asked why you don't start a commune and share all you have with the poor?
> 
> I didn't see an answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's amazing how many people want to make this about me.  Read the OP, a lousy penny more on the dollar and those people won't have to rely on food stamps to make ends meet.  Why do you ignore that?  What is it with you people?  You are against the food stamp program yet you have no problem with a company like Walmart making out be because of it.  They pay their workers so little, they have to rely on food stamps which they then turn around and spend at Walmart.  Do you not see how bad that is for our country?  For those people?  For our taxes?
Click to expand...


Do you have any scrap of evidence that shows most of the workers at walmart are on food stamps, or are you just making stuff up?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Againsheila said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nearly 45 percent of U.S. workers who earned less than $10.10 an hour last year had either attended college or had graduated, according to an analysis by John Schmitt, a senior economist at the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably an indication of other things, notably that colleges are over-utilized economically and/or that there is a gross misalignment between what people are majoring in and the need for those particular skill sets.  If a million history majors were swept up in the rapture, there would still be too many left behind for them to all have employment in their field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My niece got her degree in Environmental studies.  Even with the disaster that is Fukishima she can't get a job in her field.  She had to go back to school and get a degree in pharmacology and she still doesn't make much more than minimum wage and she has $thousands in college loans.
Click to expand...


  Environmental studies? She might as well have taken underwater basket weaving.
Why didnt you steer her in a better direction?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Againsheila said:


>



 Starting pay is 11.50 an hour. And they dont hire dumbfucks and slackers. Which eliminates most low wage workers. 
  The thing you have to remember is not all workers are willing to make a commitment to a job. Those that are succeed,whether they work at Costco,Micky D's. Or a fortune 500 company.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Againsheila said:


> It's amazing how many people want to make this about me.  Read the OP, a lousy penny more on the dollar and those people won't have to rely on food stamps to make ends meet.



The problem is that the OP is a lie. It isn't even in the same zip code as factual. Your claim is that labor and overhead on products is 1% - a laughably ignorant claim.

Think about this; Walmart has a target GM of 3% - 97 cents of cost for every dollar spent. Sounds horrible, but is actually pretty typical for retail - food stores are often at less than 2%

So for the lie that the Union thugs tell to be true. then labor would have to be less than 1/3 of one percent. Why? Well, because overhead is calculated as a percent of labor, perhaps 150% - ergo in order for the effect of increase to only be 1 penny, then the labor AND overhead increase would have to add to only 1% - meaning labor could only be 0.33%

See, the shit your spewing is meant to motivate the ignorant and uneducated, anyone with even a smidgen of knowledge in finance or economics is going to laugh and call you a liar. Because your claim really is that fucking stupid.



> Why do you ignore that?  What is it with you people?



I didn't ignore it, I called it for what it is, a fucking lie by greedy unions looking to rape and pillage.



> You are against the food stamp program yet you have no problem with a company like Walmart making out be because of it.  They pay their workers so little, they have to rely on food stamps which they then turn around and spend at Walmart.  Do you not see how bad that is for our country?  For those people?  For our taxes?



I'd like evidence that Walmart has ever been granted one penny in food stamps?  

This is just more Union lies. Food stamps are now giving to 50% of Americans, which has not a fucking thing to do with Walmart. Anyone with a household income under $53,000 a year is eligible for Food Stamps under Obama. The Food Stamps are given to illegals and to those who vote democrat.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Againsheila said:


> My niece got her degree in Environmental studies.  Even with the disaster that is Fukishima she can't get a job in her field.  She had to go back to school and get a degree in pharmacology and she still doesn't make much more than minimum wage and she has $thousands in college loans.



The problem with a degree in underwater basket weaving is there is no demand for baskets woven underwater.

Ethnic studies are just as bad.


----------



## Luissa

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Starting pay is 11.50 an hour. And they dont hire dumbfucks and slackers. Which eliminates most low wage workers.
> 
> The thing you have to remember is not all workers are willing to make a commitment to a job. Those that are succeed,whether they work at Costco,Micky D's. Or a fortune 500 company.
Click to expand...



Do you know this for a fact, or do you just assume that about low wage workers? 
Plus aren't happier employees more productive?


----------



## Luissa

I have great benefits at my job now, I work hard so I don't lose my job. Which probably why they offer great benefits..hmmm weird.


----------



## sameech

Uncensored2008 said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably an indication of other things, notably that colleges are over-utilized economically and/or that there is a gross misalignment between what people are majoring in and the need for those particular skill sets.  If a million history majors were swept up in the rapture, there would still be too many left behind for them to all have employment in their field.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Part of this is what we call a "college."  Beauty School and Plumbing Schools are now deemed "colleges."
> 
> I know I'm an old bastard, but in my way of thinking, if it isn't accredited and doesn't offer a bachelors, it ain't a college. A certificate in muffler repair isn't a college education. Real colleges call themselves universities, and trade schools call themselves colleges. Azusa Pacific is a nice college, but they have one campus and one major offered - they are a college. They are accredited and offer a bachelors program, but they are a college. Universities are multi-campus, multi-discipline affairs. BUT to differentiate themselves from the trade schools they claim to be a university.
> 
> The degradation of language....
Click to expand...


Not all Universities are multi-campus.  There really is no practical difference in the US between a college and a university other than some universities group their departments as "colleges" and universities usually have terminal degrees and do serious research.


----------



## sameech

Againsheila said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nearly 45 percent of U.S. workers who earned less than $10.10 an hour last year had either attended college or had graduated, according to an analysis by John Schmitt, a senior economist at the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably an indication of other things, notably that colleges are over-utilized economically and/or that there is a gross misalignment between what people are majoring in and the need for those particular skill sets.  If a million history majors were swept up in the rapture, there would still be too many left behind for them to all have employment in their field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My niece got her degree in Environmental studies.  Even with the disaster that is Fukishima she can't get a job in her field.  She had to go back to school and get a degree in pharmacology and she still doesn't make much more than minimum wage and she has $thousands in college loans.
Click to expand...


I have no idea what that degree is oriented toward really.  I think sometimes you need to have a specific career in mind and a tie-in to get you into that field after you graduate.  I would probably go to grad school before I sought a second undergrad if that were my situation though,


----------



## Againsheila

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably an indication of other things, notably that colleges are over-utilized economically and/or that there is a gross misalignment between what people are majoring in and the need for those particular skill sets.  If a million history majors were swept up in the rapture, there would still be too many left behind for them to all have employment in their field.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My niece got her degree in Environmental studies.  Even with the disaster that is Fukishima she can't get a job in her field.  She had to go back to school and get a degree in pharmacology and she still doesn't make much more than minimum wage and she has $thousands in college loans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Environmental studies? She might as well have taken underwater basket weaving.
> Why didnt you steer her in a better direction?
Click to expand...


You know, once upon a time, with a college education, you could get a job practically anywhere, and it didn't matter what your degree was, as long as you had one.  Not so today.  No, we've shipped our well paying jobs overseas and just to make it worse, we've brought in guest workers and illegals to take our jobs here and keep our wages low.


----------



## sameech

Againsheila said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> My niece got her degree in Environmental studies.  Even with the disaster that is Fukishima she can't get a job in her field.  She had to go back to school and get a degree in pharmacology and she still doesn't make much more than minimum wage and she has $thousands in college loans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Environmental studies? She might as well have taken underwater basket weaving.
> Why didnt you steer her in a better direction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, once upon a time, with a college education, you could get a job practically anywhere, and it didn't matter what your degree was, as long as you had one.  Not so today.  No, we've shipped our well paying jobs overseas and just to make it worse, we've brought in guest workers and illegals to take our jobs here and keep our wages low.
Click to expand...


Depends on your idea of well-paying.  We have low-end jobs, and high-end jobs still.  It is the in-between jobs that are screwed.


----------



## Mathbud1

Againsheila said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> My niece got her degree in Environmental studies.  Even with the disaster that is Fukishima she can't get a job in her field.  She had to go back to school and get a degree in pharmacology and she still doesn't make much more than minimum wage and she has $thousands in college loans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Environmental studies? She might as well have taken underwater basket weaving.
> Why didnt you steer her in a better direction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, once upon a time, with a college education, you could get a job practically anywhere, and it didn't matter what your degree was, as long as you had one.  Not so today.  No, we've shipped our well paying jobs overseas and just to make it worse, we've brought in guest workers and illegals to take our jobs here and keep our wages low.
Click to expand...


And yet you want our lowest wages to go up again. What was it again that caused the jobs to ship overseas? The low price of labor here right? Oh wait....

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## Noomi

Againsheila said:


>



A company that looks after its employees. How refreshing.


----------



## Manonthestreet

and how many small mom and pop shops can afford that........ wave your magic wands and watch your job laser blow more people into poverty.


----------



## Noomi

Many 'mom and pop' stores earn a lot more than you might think.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Remember when libs would bleat how bad Walmart was for wiping out mom and pops..now they praise Costco for same thing.


----------



## Noomi

Manonthestreet said:


> Remember when libs would bleat how bad Walmart was for wiping out mom and pops..now they praise Costco for same thing.



So you think that Costco should pay its workers less money so that 'mom and pop' stores can compete?


----------



## Manonthestreet

Did I say that? Point was libs seem to have a short memory and arent very consistant.  Libs seem to think mom and pop should pony up to Costco levels it seems without the advantages Costco has on them, bargaining power with suppliers being one. Where does this nonsense originate that conservatives are just itching to cut everyones pay...what we dont have jobs? We're all CEO's So much bs


----------



## Manonthestreet

BTW Panera Bread CEO is a big lib who claims we need to pay the so called living wage but he wont do it unless everyone else is forced to and he has alrdy purchased the computers to do away with big hunk of his work force.....


----------



## Ernie S.

Noomi said:


> Many 'mom and pop' stores earn a lot more than you might think.



I own a mom and pop "store" My wife and I have yet to draw a dime of salary.

Yes. Some earn a comfortable living, but most just get by. Asking them to give their employees a 50% raise would put a great many out of business. Would you rather make $7 or $0?


----------



## Noomi

Ernie S. said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many 'mom and pop' stores earn a lot more than you might think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I own a mom and pop "store" My wife and I have yet to draw a dime of salary.
> 
> Yes. Some earn a comfortable living, but most just get by. Asking them to give their employees a 50% raise would put a great many out of business. Would you rather make $7 or $0?
Click to expand...


If I couldn't pay my employes a decent wage, I shouldn't be in business.


----------



## G.T.

martybegan said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would stop them from buying stupid crap and still needing food stamps?
Click to expand...


This is a stupid comment. Food stamps are based off of income, not "income left over after you've blown some of it."


----------



## RKMBrown

Noomi said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember when libs would bleat how bad Walmart was for wiping out mom and pops..now they praise Costco for same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think that Costco should pay its workers less money so that 'mom and pop' stores can compete?
Click to expand...


Yeah, she's a lib alright.


----------



## RKMBrown

Noomi said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many 'mom and pop' stores earn a lot more than you might think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I own a mom and pop "store" My wife and I have yet to draw a dime of salary.
> 
> Yes. Some earn a comfortable living, but most just get by. Asking them to give their employees a 50% raise would put a great many out of business. Would you rather make $7 or $0?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I couldn't pay my employes a decent wage, I shouldn't be in business.
Click to expand...


More evidence of the backwards thinking of libs.


----------



## hadit

The bottom line question is:

Why do businesses exist?

1.  To function as social engineering tools.  If so, then they should be playgrounds for social engineers to attempt the perfect controlled society.  Labor's cost should be disconnected from labor's value to the company, and compensation set by central planners.
2.  To provide goods and services for those who wish to purchase them.  If so, they should function solely as means to generate profit for their owners and stakeholders.  Labor's cost should be solely a function of labor's value to the company, and compensation set by market forces.


----------



## Ernie S.

Noomi said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many 'mom and pop' stores earn a lot more than you might think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I own a mom and pop "store" My wife and I have yet to draw a dime of salary.
> 
> Yes. Some earn a comfortable living, but most just get by. Asking them to give their employees a 50% raise would put a great many out of business. Would you rather make $7 or $0?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I couldn't pay my employes a decent wage, I shouldn't be in business.
Click to expand...

That's YOUR decision to make. I pay my employees well; as well as any similar business in the area, but most are service staff so don't fall under minimum wage.
I do pay what we call shift pay and they usually earn about 3 times that in tips. I'd say they average $20/hour.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Againsheila said:


> You know, once upon a time, with a college education, you could get a job practically anywhere, and it didn't matter what your degree was, as long as you had one.



Once upon a time, legitimate institutions didn't offer worthless degrees such as "Ethnic Studies"

Outside of teaching, who is going to pay a person to hate white people? What value does a professional racist provide?

"Environmental studies" is another completely worthless degree - the graduate is qualified to ask "you want fries with that?" and really nothing more.



> Not so today.  No, we've shipped our well paying jobs overseas and just to make it worse, we've brought in guest workers and illegals to take our jobs here and keep our wages low.



No one ever paid naval gazers - it's just that colleges didn't used to offer these worthless courses of study.


----------



## Uncensored2008

G.T. said:


> This is a stupid comment. Food stamps are based off of income, not "income left over after you've blown some of it."



And what is the income threshold for a family of 4?

$53,000

But go ahead and blame Walmart - public employees NEED to rape Walmart to fund their retirements...


----------



## Uncensored2008

Noomi said:


> Many 'mom and pop' stores earn a lot more than you might think.



Noomi - I don't know what grade you finished in Australia, but you have the equivalent of a 2nd grade American education. You really should keep quiet on these subjects that you lack any semblance of grasp of, you are embarrassing yourself.


----------



## HenryBHough

When my family closed the little grocery store many years ago he had more money in deadbeat accounts owed him than he got for the remaining stock and fixtures.  He wouldn't turn any of it over to collection; just wrapped each stack of charge slips in plastic and put them in a closet.

Most of the deadbeats are actually dead today.  If they were alive I believe I'd be tempted to send each one of them an IRS 1099 so they could be forced to at least pay taxes on the income they had.  Yes, not paying bills IS stealing and income from theft IS taxable.

These days Mom & Pop stores, where they exist, are almost always cash and carry.  But there are still a few out there who are willing to help neighbors in need.  For which they WILL be punished.


----------



## Againsheila

Mathbud1 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Environmental studies? She might as well have taken underwater basket weaving.
> Why didnt you steer her in a better direction?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, once upon a time, with a college education, you could get a job practically anywhere, and it didn't matter what your degree was, as long as you had one.  Not so today.  No, we've shipped our well paying jobs overseas and just to make it worse, we've brought in guest workers and illegals to take our jobs here and keep our wages low.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you want our lowest wages to go up again. What was it again that caused the jobs to ship overseas? The low price of labor here right? Oh wait....
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Nice try, but changes in our corporate laws as well as tax incentives sent our jobs overseas.


----------



## Againsheila

Manonthestreet said:


> Remember when libs would bleat how bad Walmart was for wiping out mom and pops..now they praise Costco for same thing.



No, Costco is praised for the way it treats it's workers.


----------



## KissMy

RKMBrown said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I own a mom and pop "store" My wife and I have yet to draw a dime of salary.
> 
> Yes. Some earn a comfortable living, but most just get by. Asking them to give their employees a 50% raise would put a great many out of business. Would you rather make $7 or $0?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I couldn't pay my employes a decent wage, I shouldn't be in business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More evidence of the backwards thinking of libs.
Click to expand...


You stupid republicans believe in taxing others & hiring government workers to redistribute that taxed revenue to underpaid workers of big box retailers.

It is clearly more efficient to raise the minimum wage to have the employer directly pay their employee so we can get rid of government workers & lower taxes. But Republicans are only for Big Government & Big Business.

Stupid Republicans balloon government spending. They subsidize only big business with carried interest tax loopholes, dividend tax breaks & lower effective tax rates. They punish workers & destroy jobs with higher effective tax rates & payroll taxes collected to subsidize rich tax loopholes & dividend tax cuts.


----------



## Ernie S.

Why do we need to do either? What's wrong with paying your own way in life? Is that a Conservative only concept?


----------



## Mathbud1

Againsheila said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, once upon a time, with a college education, you could get a job practically anywhere, and it didn't matter what your degree was, as long as you had one.  Not so today.  No, we've shipped our well paying jobs overseas and just to make it worse, we've brought in guest workers and illegals to take our jobs here and keep our wages low.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you want our lowest wages to go up again. What was it again that caused the jobs to ship overseas? The low price of labor here right? Oh wait....
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try, but changes in our corporate laws as well as tax incentives sent our jobs overseas.
Click to expand...


What changes specifically? And what tax incentives specifically?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## beagle9

Noomi said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many 'mom and pop' stores earn a lot more than you might think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I own a mom and pop "store" My wife and I have yet to draw a dime of salary.
> 
> Yes. Some earn a comfortable living, but most just get by. Asking them to give their employees a 50% raise would put a great many out of business. Would you rather make $7 or $0?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I couldn't pay my employes a decent wage, I shouldn't be in business.
Click to expand...

Yes you should, because your wage structure would be pertaining to your business, and it may be different than others just as it should be representitive of you in the market place for what you and your company does or represents.  As well your employee make up may be different (young teens starting out maybe), and then moving on to bigger and better things once out grown your place. 

Lets say your business is an arcade business, and all you have is teens working there, otherwise with the exception of maybe the clean up personel who comes in later, now should you be forced to pay your young folks $15 dollars and hour for monitoring the activities of other teens playing games and eating pop corn, and also giving out change to the patrons by a federal government order you should pay that to them ? The answer is NOPE! 

Minimum wage is or should be an entrance wage & training wage only, and it shouldn't last for more than 3 to 6 months after training is completed, then companies should have a structured pay grade system that is custom to their business and their employee skill sets. Minimum start, 3 to six months a raise, and then after one year another raise + some benefits like one week of vacation maybe added, and then after 3 years another raise with maybe the second week of vacation added, and then after 5 years aother raise  where a milestone is reached, therefore prompting a celebration party where as on and on it all goes you see.  

It should not be that an employee is found working at a company for 1 year or more at minimum wage, unless they are teens who will depart the company/arcade after a few summers of work there maybe. I even think that they should be entitled to some sort of raise while there also, but maybe according to their age and time as well as their work ethic and loyalty to be celebrated while there in this way.

Adults should be treated with respect and they should be paid above minimum wages once complete training and show that they are going to remain at their jobs or post as needed. They should be found to be in a structured pay grade system in each company according to it's make up, and it should be that they are found being treated well at all levels in which they had chosen to remain at their post while at the company worked for. Companies should all have a structured pay system that is in accordance with their type of company and according to their successes in the market place.  NO GREED should move companies to not operate in a fair and decent manor towards their employee's who help them make it in the market place in which they have chosen to venture in too. 

The only role that the government should play in all of this, is insuring that their is a starting point/minimum wage that is acceptable through consensus by most all business leaders in agreement upon, and then they (the government) should maybe check in from time to time just to see if companies are treating their employee's decent and fair while working at these companies. If they find that abuse is taking place in a company against it's employee's, then it (the government) should try and shame them into doing what is right, but not intervene in a dictatorial way.  One thing about the rich, is they want the nation to look upon them as heroe's when placed out in the open, and not as villans when they are exposed for what they may be doing to others.


----------



## Noomi

Wrong. If you start a business and want to hire someone to help you out, you either pay them a decent wage, or do the work yourself. If you can't afford to pay someone to help you out, your business sucks. If you can't do the extra work yourself, your business sucks and you need to go back to the drawing board.

No way do you have the right to exploit people just because you are too stupid to work out how to make your business flourish.


----------



## Mathbud1

Noomi said:


> Wrong. If you start a business and want to hire someone to help you out, you either pay them a decent wage, or do the work yourself. If you can't afford to pay someone to help you out, your business sucks. If you can't do the extra work yourself, your business sucks and you need to go back to the drawing board.
> 
> No way do you have the right to exploit people just because you are too stupid to work out how to make your business flourish.



How is it exploiting someone if they are willing to accept the wage you offer? They aren't any worse off than they were before you created the job are they?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## Noomi

Mathbud1 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. If you start a business and want to hire someone to help you out, you either pay them a decent wage, or do the work yourself. If you can't afford to pay someone to help you out, your business sucks. If you can't do the extra work yourself, your business sucks and you need to go back to the drawing board.
> 
> No way do you have the right to exploit people just because you are too stupid to work out how to make your business flourish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it exploiting someone if they are willing to accept the wage you offer? They aren't any worse off than they were before you created the job are they?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


They are naively accepting a low wage because they have nothing else. But they should be paid more.


----------



## Noomi

I guess the people earning a dollar a day in the sweat factories in Asia are not being exploited, because they are better off than they were?


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Mathbud1 said:


> How is it exploiting someone if they are willing to accept the wage you offer? They aren't any worse off than they were before you created the job are they?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk



So if a 5-year old child were willing to work 18 hours a day in a dimly lit coal mine... that's okay because of "liberty of contract"?


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Noomi said:


> I guess the people earning a dollar a day in the sweat factories in Asia are not being exploited, because they are better off than they were?



Funny thing... that's exactly how the argument goes.  Now make the people in Asia small malnourished children.

In the interest of fairness, Global Labor Arbitrage will eventually improve the situation of those people.  It actually will better their lives as their real wages are forced upward by demand for labor.  Unfortunately there will be a lot of little girls making Nike shoes and iPhone employees leaping from factory windows before those people have the power needed to organize and collectively bargain.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Ernie S. said:


> Why do we need to do either? What's wrong with paying your own way in life? Is that a Conservative only concept?



A conservative concept would be to defend the status quo.  A liberal concept, using the Hayekian definition of liberal (try actually reading The Road to Serfdom instead of listening to Glenn Beck plagiarize it), is laissez-faire.  The status quo is regulated capitalism.


----------



## Ernie S.

Noomi said:


> Wrong. If you start a business and want to hire someone to help you out, you either pay them a decent wage, or do the work yourself. If you can't afford to pay someone to help you out, your business sucks. If you can't do the extra work yourself, your business sucks and you need to go back to the drawing board.
> 
> No way do you have the right to exploit people just because you are too stupid to work out how to make your business flourish.



Look! Over the years, I've owned or managed several businesses. I have paid people anywhere from minimum wage for mopping a floor to over 6 times minimum wage for a MSME with a minor in Physics. I have paid bartenders and wait staff under minimum wage when they make up over the difference in tips. One of my bartenders got her shift pay (which is double the minimum for service workers) plus almost $300 in tips last night. $33.50/hour ain't too shabby, is it?


----------



## Ernie S.

Noomi said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. If you start a business and want to hire someone to help you out, you either pay them a decent wage, or do the work yourself. If you can't afford to pay someone to help you out, your business sucks. If you can't do the extra work yourself, your business sucks and you need to go back to the drawing board.
> 
> No way do you have the right to exploit people just because you are too stupid to work out how to make your business flourish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it exploiting someone if they are willing to accept the wage you offer? They aren't any worse off than they were before you created the job are they?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are naively accepting a low wage because they have nothing else. But they should be paid more.
Click to expand...


They should make themselves worth more to their employer. 
Sorry, Noomi. Flipping burgers isn't worth much because if you quit, I can have someone trained to replace you as quick as you can say, "Do you want fries with that?"
Make yourself valuable. Ask your manager if you can help close the store or inventory supplies. Learn to do something that your co-workers can't do. Learn something that the next guy through the door doesn't know.


----------



## Ernie S.

Zombie_Pundit said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we need to do either? What's wrong with paying your own way in life? Is that a Conservative only concept?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A conservative concept would be to defend the status quo.  A liberal concept, using the Hayekian definition of liberal (try actually reading The Road to Serfdom instead of listening to Glenn Beck plagiarize it), is laissez-faire.  The status quo is regulated capitalism.
Click to expand...


So, you can't answer a simple question. OK, fine.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Ernie S. said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we need to do either? What's wrong with paying your own way in life? Is that a Conservative only concept?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A conservative concept would be to defend the status quo.  A liberal concept, using the Hayekian definition of liberal (try actually reading The Road to Serfdom instead of listening to Glenn Beck plagiarize it), is laissez-faire.  The status quo is regulated capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you can't answer a simple question. OK, fine.
Click to expand...


Oh, don't sulk.  You asked a rhetorical question and you're now upset that I answered it

Q "Is that a Conservative only concept?"
A "No, not really."

Q "What's wrong with paying your own way in life?"
A "No one suggested that was wrong; but I'm sure you'll claim they did and go on to justify paying a pittance to a 5 year old to mine coal with some anecdote about bootstraps and cowboy spurs."

Q "Why do we need to do either?"
A "Because we don't live under laissez-faire capitalism."


----------



## Mathbud1

Noomi said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. If you start a business and want to hire someone to help you out, you either pay them a decent wage, or do the work yourself. If you can't afford to pay someone to help you out, your business sucks. If you can't do the extra work yourself, your business sucks and you need to go back to the drawing board.
> 
> No way do you have the right to exploit people just because you are too stupid to work out how to make your business flourish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it exploiting someone if they are willing to accept the wage you offer? They aren't any worse off than they were before you created the job are they?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are naively accepting a low wage because they have nothing else. But they should be paid more.
Click to expand...


Why would they accept the wage if it did not better their situation? Are they better off making a small amount or no amount at all?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## Mathbud1

Zombie_Pundit said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it exploiting someone if they are willing to accept the wage you offer? They aren't any worse off than they were before you created the job are they?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if a 5-year old child were willing to work 18 hours a day in a dimly lit coal mine... that's okay because of "liberty of contract"?
Click to expand...


I don't believe a child of 5 is capable of making an informed decision about their well-being and as such do not think they should ever be allowed to be used as labor. Even if older children were allowed to work I don't think they should be allowed to work in dangerous situations until they are adults capable of understanding and accepting the risks.

If an adult on the other hand chooses to accept any wage, they must feel that they are better with that wage than without it. An adult should be responsible enough to make a decision like that for themselves. Adults whose mental capacity is such that they cannot understand the risks should be treated as children in this regard.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## Crystalclear

Mathbud1 said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it exploiting someone if they are willing to accept the wage you offer? They aren't any worse off than they were before you created the job are they?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if a 5-year old child were willing to work 18 hours a day in a dimly lit coal mine... that's okay because of "liberty of contract"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe a child of 5 is capable of making an informed decision about their well-being and as such do not think they should ever be allowed to be used as labor. Even if older children were allowed to work I don't think they should be allowed to work in dangerous situations until they are adults capable of understanding and accepting the risks.
> 
> If an adult on the other hand chooses to accept any wage, they must feel that they are better with that wage than without it. An adult should be responsible enough to make a decision like that for themselves. Adults whose mental capacity is such that they cannot understand the risks should be treated as children in this regard.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



A child of 13 years does real good know the difference between a dangerous and safe workplace. They are not stupid, but I do still oppose child labor strongly.


----------



## Mathbud1

Crystalclear said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if a 5-year old child were willing to work 18 hours a day in a dimly lit coal mine... that's okay because of "liberty of contract"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe a child of 5 is capable of making an informed decision about their well-being and as such do not think they should ever be allowed to be used as labor. Even if older children were allowed to work I don't think they should be allowed to work in dangerous situations until they are adults capable of understanding and accepting the risks.
> 
> If an adult on the other hand chooses to accept any wage, they must feel that they are better with that wage than without it. An adult should be responsible enough to make a decision like that for themselves. Adults whose mental capacity is such that they cannot understand the risks should be treated as children in this regard.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A child of 13 years does real good know the difference between a dangerous and safe workplace. They are not stupid, but I do still oppose child labor strongly.
Click to expand...


I'm not entirely opposed to 14 year olds working as long as the job is safe. 14 year olds are currently allowed to work certain jobs in my state and I don't see a problem with that. 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## beagle9

Noomi said:


> Wrong. If you start a business and want to hire someone to help you out, you either pay them a decent wage, or do the work yourself. If you can't afford to pay someone to help you out, your business sucks. If you can't do the extra work yourself, your business sucks and you need to go back to the drawing board.
> 
> No way do you have the right to exploit people just because you are too stupid to work out how to make your business flourish.


Your are wrong in so many ways on this, because everything is fluid in these things, and no two businesses are alike, and no two businesses should pay alike, excpet for a start out pay that is set by a national labor standard (i.e. beginners pay only). After that the governments role should be only to look in on what could constitute abuse of the employee, and then to send a letter of concern out to the company that is doing the abuse. If the company doesn't budge, then just as we do other nations in the world on such things, we could put in place against them maybe "sanctions" that would or could get their attention about what they are doing in this respect. How is it that we know so much about how to tell other nations we are dis-pleased with them in such a way, and we do this without actually going to war with them, but we are dumb founded in how to adress the abuses that take place under our own roof ?

Could it be that the good ole boy club is more connected than people realize here, and that's why? How is it that the companies or businesses can create these trends and/or standard ways of thinking in which they do, but how dare people get together and try and defend themselves against the thinking that seeks to exploit or abuse them as American workers here or even as others who are abroad as foriegn workers in countries that produce goods and services for them back here ?


----------



## beagle9

Mathbud1 said:


> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe a child of 5 is capable of making an informed decision about their well-being and as such do not think they should ever be allowed to be used as labor. Even if older children were allowed to work I don't think they should be allowed to work in dangerous situations until they are adults capable of understanding and accepting the risks.
> 
> If an adult on the other hand chooses to accept any wage, they must feel that they are better with that wage than without it. An adult should be responsible enough to make a decision like that for themselves. Adults whose mental capacity is such that they cannot understand the risks should be treated as children in this regard.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A child of 13 years does real good know the difference between a dangerous and safe workplace. They are not stupid, but I do still oppose child labor strongly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not entirely opposed to 14 year olds working as long as the job is safe. 14 year olds are currently allowed to work certain jobs in my state and I don't see a problem with that.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

14 year olds working should only be working or helping out by their own choices in which is to hang out with mom or dad while they are working at home or on the family farms, and this in so that they may learn something about work or working from their moms or dads in that way, but the age should be at 16 to work for another, and it should be for part time work only while going to school or part time during the summer time maybe. 18 should be when a young person get's their first full time job as it has always been in the past to my understanding of these things.


----------



## Mertex

Mathbud1 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it exploiting someone if they are willing to accept the wage you offer? They aren't any worse off than they were before you created the job are they?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are naively accepting a low wage because they have nothing else. But they should be paid more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would they accept the wage if it did not better their situation? Are they better off making a small amount or no amount at all?
Click to expand...

Not everyone is in a position of being able to be picky.  Still, that's no reason to take advantage of people.


----------



## Mertex

Ernie S. said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it exploiting someone if they are willing to accept the wage you offer? They aren't any worse off than they were before you created the job are they?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are naively accepting a low wage because they have nothing else. But they should be paid more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They should make themselves worth more to their employer.
> Sorry, Noomi. Flipping burgers isn't worth much because if you quit, I can have someone trained to replace you as quick as you can say, "Do you want fries with that?"
Click to expand...

But it costs you more to retrain new people more often than it would to raise their pay by such a small percentage as is being suggested.  And, especially for those companies that are making record business.  Granted, if the company is barely making it, it might not be profitable.


> Make yourself valuable. Ask your manager if you can help close the store or inventory supplies. Learn to do something that your co-workers can't do. Learn something that the next guy through the door doesn't know.



True that if a person shows incentive some managers will recognize it and make it worthwhile, but not all will.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Noomi said:


> Wrong. If you start a business and want to hire someone to help you out, you either pay them a decent wage, or do the work yourself. If you can't afford to pay someone to help you out, your business sucks. If you can't do the extra work yourself, your business sucks and you need to go back to the drawing board.
> 
> No way do you have the right to exploit people just because you are too stupid to work out how to make your business flourish.



 Says the fast food worker who lives with mom.
Surely you dont think yourself an authority when it comes to business?


----------



## Gremlin-USA

hmmm.....

How This Family of 4 Lives Well on Just $14,000 a Year - DailyFinance

Living on $12,000 a year

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/finan...1YWV1BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDOQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkAw--

Of course to live on small amounts of money, one probably cannot:
Buy 200.00 basketball shoes
Have a 500.00 I phone
Smoke Cigarettes
Drink Alcohol
Drive a new car every 2 years
Live in the North where prices are double that of the South 
Wear designer Jeans
Have a 125.00 a month Cable Bill


----------



## hadit

Ernie S. said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it exploiting someone if they are willing to accept the wage you offer? They aren't any worse off than they were before you created the job are they?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are naively accepting a low wage because they have nothing else. But they should be paid more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They should make themselves worth more to their employer.
> Sorry, Noomi. Flipping burgers isn't worth much because if you quit, I can have someone trained to replace you as quick as you can say, "Do you want fries with that?"
> Make yourself valuable. Ask your manager if you can help close the store or inventory supplies. Learn to do something that your co-workers can't do. Learn something that the next guy through the door doesn't know.
Click to expand...


Quite frankly, the average McDonald's could be a totally automated system run by 2 teenagers trained to push the start button.  When it's cheaper to replace burger flippers with robots, they will be replaced.  Basically, they're complaining their way out of a job.


----------



## SAYIT

Mertex said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are naively accepting a low wage because they have nothing else. But they should be paid more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They should make themselves worth more to their employer.
> Sorry, Noomi. Flipping burgers isn't worth much because if you quit, I can have someone trained to replace you as quick as you can say, "Do you want fries with that?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But it costs you more to retrain new people more often than it would to raise their pay by such a small percentage as is being suggested.  And, especially for those companies that are making record business.  Granted, if the company is barely making it, it might not be profitable.
Click to expand...


There is nothing wrong with a national min wage despite the fact that living expenses vary widely. It should be - and currently is - based on market realities ... not some feel-good idea of a "living wage" (whatever that is).
People are paid for their SKILLS and anyone worth more than min wage can get more than min wage. 
How companies disburse their profits and whether they pay more as worker SKILLS improve are their decisions to make ... not mine or yours.


----------



## Ernie S.

Zombie_Pundit said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> A conservative concept would be to defend the status quo.  A liberal concept, using the Hayekian definition of liberal (try actually reading The Road to Serfdom instead of listening to Glenn Beck plagiarize it), is laissez-faire.  The status quo is regulated capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you can't answer a simple question. OK, fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, don't sulk.  You asked a rhetorical question and you're now upset that I answered it
> 
> Q "Is that a Conservative only concept?"
> A "No, not really."
> 
> Q "What's wrong with paying your own way in life?"
> A "No one suggested that was wrong; but I'm sure you'll claim they did and go on to justify paying a pittance to a 5 year old to mine coal with some anecdote about bootstraps and cowboy spurs."
> 
> Q "Why do we need to do either?"
> A "Because we don't live under laissez-faire capitalism."
Click to expand...


Your answer to question 2 is not an answer. No one is suggesting 5 year olds should be mining coal, but you toss it up there to demonize Conservatives.

Answer the question.


If you find yourself in a dead end, minimum wage job, better yourself. Obtain skills that increase your position in the labor market or get a second job. It is not MY responsibility to feed YOUR kids.


----------



## Ernie S.

Mertex said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are naively accepting a low wage because they have nothing else. But they should be paid more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They should make themselves worth more to their employer.
> Sorry, Noomi. Flipping burgers isn't worth much because if you quit, I can have someone trained to replace you as quick as you can say, "Do you want fries with that?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But it costs you more to retrain new people more often than it would to raise their pay by such a small percentage as is being suggested.  And, especially for those companies that are making record business.  Granted, if the company is barely making it, it might not be profitable.
> 
> 
> 
> Make yourself valuable. Ask your manager if you can help close the store or inventory supplies. Learn to do something that your co-workers can't do. Learn something that the next guy through the door doesn't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True that if a person shows incentive some managers will recognize it and make it worthwhile, but not all will.
Click to expand...


It costs me next to nothing to train a guy to cook French fries. Put a measured amount in the basket. Drop them in the oil. Set the timer. When the bell rings, lift the fries out of the oil. Oh and don't stick your face in the hot oil.
If you quit, I can have someone cooking fries in 10 minutes.

When I got out of HS, I worked as a machinist for a couple years before college. This was 1967 when minimum wage was $1.25.
I started at MW but by the end of the week, I was making $2.00. By the end of the month, I was making $4.00.
I have worked for companies that did not recognize extra effort and incentive. In every case, they were union shops where working hard was discouraged.


----------



## Againsheila

Mathbud1 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. If you start a business and want to hire someone to help you out, you either pay them a decent wage, or do the work yourself. If you can't afford to pay someone to help you out, your business sucks. If you can't do the extra work yourself, your business sucks and you need to go back to the drawing board.
> 
> No way do you have the right to exploit people just because you are too stupid to work out how to make your business flourish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it exploiting someone if they are willing to accept the wage you offer? They aren't any worse off than they were before you created the job are they?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


In this economy, they are forced to take whatever jobs they can, it's slavery almost at it's worst.  It means you have to work for starvation wages.  Walmart can easily afford living wages.  We're not talking a small business here that can barely survive, we are talking about the richest family in the county employing people at such low wages that we taxpayers have to provide them with food.


----------



## Againsheila

Ernie S. said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> They should make themselves worth more to their employer.
> Sorry, Noomi. Flipping burgers isn't worth much because if you quit, I can have someone trained to replace you as quick as you can say, "Do you want fries with that?"
> 
> 
> 
> But it costs you more to retrain new people more often than it would to raise their pay by such a small percentage as is being suggested.  And, especially for those companies that are making record business.  Granted, if the company is barely making it, it might not be profitable.
> 
> 
> 
> Make yourself valuable. Ask your manager if you can help close the store or inventory supplies. Learn to do something that your co-workers can't do. Learn something that the next guy through the door doesn't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True that if a person shows incentive some managers will recognize it and make it worthwhile, but not all will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It costs me next to nothing to train a guy to cook French fries. Put a measured amount in the basket. Drop them in the oil. Set the timer. When the bell rings, lift the fries out of the oil. Oh and don't stick your face in the hot oil.
> If you quit, I can have someone cooking fries in 10 minutes.*
> 
> When I got out of HS, I worked as a machinist for a couple years before college. This was 1967 when minimum wage was $1.25.
> I started at MW but by the end of the week, I was making $2.00. By the end of the month, I was making $4.00.
> I have worked for companies that did not recognize extra effort and incentive. In every case, they were union shops where working hard was discouraged.
Click to expand...


Exactly why we need to raise the minimum wage.  For decades small businesses, especially fast food restaurants would fire people anytime they got close to getting a raise or benefits.  If they could, they'd just make them so miserable they'd quit on their own.  So many of them are working two jobs that they'd just change the hours so they'd have to quit on of their jobs.  And sadly, today, we have so many immigrants and adults fighting for those low wage jobs our economy is in really bad shape.


----------



## alan1

Zombie_Pundit said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> I applaud you on many levels.  You are helping instill a work ethic in the kid, you are helping him empower himself with a trade that he can fall back on or expand into a real business someday, and you are teaching him that he must do what he is paid to do in order to be paid.  That said, it is not really an example of a "living wage" situation.  If anything, it is an example of how prices are set.  You are willing to pay it and he is willing to do it for that price.  That is no different than what happens in the larger market at McDonald's that will start the kid off at Minimum Wage if he is willing to do it.  Otherwise they will find someone else who will just as you would need to find someone else to mow your grass if he was not willing to do it at a price you were willing to pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is very libertarian of you, and very factual of you.
> Nobody is forced to work for minimum wage or for a wage they find unacceptable.  Wages are a negotiation between an employer (somebody willing to pay for labor) and an employee (somebody willing to offer labor for a wage).  We often pay for stuff we don't want to do ourselves.  I buy bacon at a grocery store because I don't want to raise a pig, kill a pig, clean a pig, cut a pig up, build a smokehouse, cut down trees to build the smokehouse and for the smoking, or all the other things that are required so I can eat bacon.  I'm more than willing to pay for hog ranchers, butchers, smokers and tree-cutters to do that work for me.  But, there is only so much I will pay for bacon, if the rancher, butcher, smoker, smokehouse builder and tree-cutter all earned $50 an hour I probably wouldn't buy bacon or raise, butcher and smoke my own hogs for the bacon, I'd go without bacon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right about going without bacon.  When food production was much more labor intensive, and required a much larger percentage of the population to work on farms, food was more expensive and you probably would do without bacon at least more frequently than now.  That's exactly right.  It is not simply a matter of each stage of food production paying higher wages but rather the total cost of that food production.  If each stage required ten fold the number of manhours, either wages would plummet or food would get more expensive or a combination thereof.  We live in a wonderful time where bacon is cheap and plentiful and conveniently available.  In how many periods of history could so many people eat meat from multiple animals at the same time (bacon cheeseburger), in such portions, and with such frequency?
Click to expand...

I'm glad that you understand where I was going with that.



Zombie_Pundit said:


> That part about
> _"Nobody is forced to work for minimum wage or for a wage they find unacceptable.  Wages are a negotiation between an employer (somebody willing to pay for labor) and an employee (somebody willing to offer labor for a wage)."_
> is not entirely true.  Because it is not entirely true, labor unions were born.  Because it is not entirely true, we have a minimum wage.
> 
> "...the exploitation of a class of workers who are in *an unequal position with respect to bargaining power*, and are thus relatively defenceless against the denial of a living wage, is not only detrimental to their health and wellbeing, but casts a direct burden for their support upon the community. What these workers lose in wages, the taxpayers are called upon to pay. The bare cost of living must be met."
> West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 US 379 - 1937



Actually, my above statement (that you put in italics) is absolutely true.  Neither you nor anybody else can show me proof that legal slavery or involuntary servitude exists in this country.  A judge can make a cute quote all he want's to, you can interpret it however you want to, but the truth is, nobody is forced to work for a wage they are not willing to work for.
In addition, I would never let a union decide for me (or a company) what the value of my labor is worth.  I am not defenseless when it comes to bargaining power for my talents and skills, I am realistic about it.  I get paid more than my peers because I am worth more to the company.  A union would have us all earn the same compensation.  Some years I negotiate more vacation time and accept a smaller smaller salary increase, unions don't allow for that flexibility.


----------



## alan1

sameech said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> They'd probably be fired if they took it.  Regardless, the problem with that evil Walmart argument is that in my area, the "living wage" is below Walmart's average wage nationally, not to mention that paying a person enough to survive on part-time work is unfair to full-time workers.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think they'd be fired because somebody tipped them?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know that they would be, but it would not surprise me in the least.  Some businesses discourage the tipping of employees because it might either lead to employees always having their hand out or to some customers not willing to tip made to feel uncomfortable.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that was a facetious or joking comment.
> Somethings are unclear on internet message boards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I wasn't.  What would make you think it was fair?
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be fair.  My mistake, I thought you advocating for it.


----------



## Andylusion

Mertex said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are naively accepting a low wage because they have nothing else. But they should be paid more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they accept the wage if it did not better their situation? Are they better off making a small amount or no amount at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not everyone is in a position of being able to be picky.  Still, that's no reason to take advantage of people.
Click to expand...


You are taking advantage of people, when you go to work in expectation of agreed upon payment.

You are talking advantage of people, when you have someone fix your car for an agreed upon payment.

When you go to a cheaper store to buy food, when you replace your TV with a bigger better model, when you buy that triple latte from Starbucks, you are taking advantage of people who are offering a service or product you want.

Why is it when the employer takes advantage of people who want jobs, that's bad, when when it's you taking the products and services those jobs provide, that's good?


----------



## Andylusion

Againsheila said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it costs you more to retrain new people more often than it would to raise their pay by such a small percentage as is being suggested.  And, especially for those companies that are making record business.  Granted, if the company is barely making it, it might not be profitable.
> 
> 
> True that if a person shows incentive some managers will recognize it and make it worthwhile, but not all will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It costs me next to nothing to train a guy to cook French fries. Put a measured amount in the basket. Drop them in the oil. Set the timer. When the bell rings, lift the fries out of the oil. Oh and don't stick your face in the hot oil.
> If you quit, I can have someone cooking fries in 10 minutes.*
> 
> When I got out of HS, I worked as a machinist for a couple years before college. This was 1967 when minimum wage was $1.25.
> I started at MW but by the end of the week, I was making $2.00. By the end of the month, I was making $4.00.
> I have worked for companies that did not recognize extra effort and incentive. In every case, they were union shops where working hard was discouraged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly why we need to raise the minimum wage.  For decades small businesses, especially fast food restaurants would fire people anytime they got close to getting a raise or benefits.  If they could, they'd just make them so miserable they'd quit on their own.  So many of them are working two jobs that they'd just change the hours so they'd have to quit on of their jobs.  And sadly, today, we have so many immigrants and adults fighting for those low wage jobs our economy is in really bad shape.
Click to expand...


What??
"In every case, they were union shops where working hard was discouraged"
Response....
"Exactly why we need to raise the minimum wage"

Huh?


I have been in the low wage market for decades.  I have never earned more than $20K in a single year, in my whole life.

To this day, I have never once, not one time, seen any boss, company, or employeer of any place, fire someone because they were close to getting a raise.

First off, raises are not set in stone to begin with.  If they didn't want to give a raise, they simply wouldn't get it.

The only counter example, would be Unions, where some union contracts require raises at set times.    Well yeah, if a person isn't worth a raise, and some dumb union contract requires they get a raise.... yeah I would fire them too.

The same reason I would fire the guy who changes my oil, if he suddenly demanded $100 for an oil change.    Changing oil isn't worth $100.   Nor is flipping a burger over magically worth $15/hr just because they flipped the burger over for 12 months.


----------



## alan1

Againsheila said:


> JohnA said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read many posts about how low walmarts wage stacture is .
> 
> 
> 
> the darling of the left  who died a few  years back  steve( apple )  jobs  PAID  MIN WAGE TO A LOT OF HIS EMPLOYEES  AND OUTSOURCED  MOST OF IT   why no complaint t about him ?   he is one democrat of many who pay min to employees at least be consistant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All employers should be paying a living wage to all their employees.  If you don't make enough to pay a living wage, you really don't make enough to hire anybody.
> 
> Let's raise the minimum wage to the purchasing power it had when it started, index it for inflation, and then the debate will be over.
Click to expand...


Do you tip every person you feel is underpaid?  Enough of a tip to bring them up to the wage  you feel that they deserve?
Last I looked, nobody is stopping you from doing so.


----------



## alan1

Againsheila said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bulcrap!  We have sacrificed so we would have money when we retire.   You think this is about me?   Have I really struck you as being so selfish?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, yes you have. When I see people demanding "to each according to their need," as you do, it is ALWAYS a scheme to feather their own nest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you're wrong.  I volunteer at my friend's church giving out lunches to the homeless once a week, I volunteer at our local theater, I'm a member of a non academic sorority that raises funds to fight cancer.  I give a whole lot of my self.  Demanding a living wage for the lowest paid workers in the richest country in the world is not selfish, it's sensible.
> Plus, it's economically sound.  Put the money in the hands of the people who will spend it and that enriches our economy.
Click to expand...


Feel free to volunteer all you want to, that is noble.  
Forcing others to volunteer (via law or tax) is tyranny.


----------



## alan1

Againsheila said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> All employers should be paying a living wage to all their employees.  If you don't make enough to pay a living wage, you really don't make enough to hire anybody.
> 
> Let's raise the minimum wage to the purchasing power it had when it started, index it for inflation, and then the debate will be over.
> 
> 
> 
> Define "living wage"
> 
> Should a high school kid who works 3 hours a day after school be paid a living wage what ever THAT is? Should a bagger at Win Dixie be paid as much as a plumber?
> I own a small business. I generally spend 12 plus hours a day there. Since I bought the place, I've gone 4 months with just one single day off. I do not draw a salary. Should I be forced to pay myself? How much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The CEO got a huge raise. You didn't. Here's why.
> 
> Nearly 45 percent of U.S. workers who earned less than $10.10 an hour last year had either attended college or had graduated, according to an analysis by John Schmitt, a senior economist at the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research
Click to expand...


Who gives a shit?
Bill Gates was a college dropout.
Mark Zuckerberg was a college dropout.
Ellen DeGeneres was a college dropout.
Steve Jobs was a college dropout.
Oprah Winfry was a college dropout.


----------



## HenryBHough

Three outta five ain't bad.


----------



## alan1

Againsheila said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The CEO got a huge raise. You didn't. Here's why.
> 
> Nearly 45 percent of U.S. workers who earned less than $10.10 an hour last year had either attended college or had graduated, according to an analysis by John Schmitt, a senior economist at the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes! The evil CEO straw man comes out now. I am the CEO of my corporation. Am I evil because I don't pay *myself* a "living wage"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you read the quote?  nearly 45 percent of workers in our country who make $10.10 an hour or less have at least some college or a college degree.  Nearly half of our workers are educated enough to be paid more yet they aren't.  Why?  Because the jobs aren't there and the spending power of minimum wage, which they are forced on, has gone down.  Raise it so that it has the same spending power it had when it was started, then index it for inflation and our whole country will be better for it.
Click to expand...

Oh the irony.
Yer current signature line is this,
"We have to pass this bill so you can find out what's in it! Nancy Pelosi"


----------



## alan1

Againsheila said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The CEO got a huge raise. You didn't. Here's why.
> 
> Nearly 45 percent of U.S. workers who earned less than $10.10 an hour last year had either attended college or had graduated, according to an analysis by John Schmitt, a senior economist at the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes! The evil CEO straw man comes out now. I am the CEO of my corporation. Am I evil because I don't pay *myself* a "living wage"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you read the quote?  nearly 45 percent of workers in our country who make $10.10 an hour or less have at least some college or a college degree.  Nearly half of our workers are educated enough to be paid more yet they aren't.  Why?  Because the jobs aren't there and the spending power of minimum wage, which they are *forced* on, has gone down.  Raise it so that it has the same spending power it had when it was started, then index it for inflation and our whole country will be better for it.
Click to expand...


Forced?  Really?


----------



## alan1

Againsheila said:


> My niece got her degree in Environmental studies.  Even with the disaster that is Fukishima she can't get a job in her field.  She had to go back to school and get a degree in pharmacology and she still doesn't make much more than minimum wage and she has $thousands in college loans.



Well, since we want to act like personal anecdotes are important.........
My youngest daughter has merely a high school education, thus no college debt, and is making $48k a year working for an insurance company (after leaving the bank).  She's 24 years old.
Yer niece sounds kind of dumb if she has two degrees and still works for crap wages.  Maybe she should sue the college for educational malpractice.


----------



## Againsheila

beagle9 said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> 
> A child of 13 years does real good know the difference between a dangerous and safe workplace. They are not stupid, but I do still oppose child labor strongly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not entirely opposed to 14 year olds working as long as the job is safe. 14 year olds are currently allowed to work certain jobs in my state and I don't see a problem with that.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 14 year olds working should only be working or helping out by their own choices in which is to hang out with mom or dad while they are working at home or on the family farms, and this in so that they may learn something about work or working from their moms or dads in that way, but the age should be at 16 to work for another, and it should be for part time work only while going to school or part time during the summer time maybe. 18 should be when a young person get's their first full time job as it has always been in the past to my understanding of these things.
Click to expand...


When I was 12, I started working in the berry fields, the only job available to people under 16.  When my sister was 10, she started babysitting, by the time I was 10, that was considered illegal.  I'm not so sure we shouldn't have our children working, as long as the environment is safe  Let them go back to picking berries in the field, nothing dangerous about that, and we can send the illegals packing.


----------



## alan1

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Starting pay is 11.50 an hour. And they dont hire dumbfucks and slackers. Which eliminates most low wage workers.
> The thing you have to remember is not all workers are willing to make a commitment to a job. Those that are succeed,whether they work at Costco,Micky D's. Or a fortune 500 company.
Click to expand...


$11.50 an hour is slightly less than $24k a year.
Cute picture, but way less in salary than the caption in it.
Dummies probably believe the caption.


----------



## Againsheila

Androw said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they accept the wage if it did not better their situation? Are they better off making a small amount or no amount at all?
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone is in a position of being able to be picky.  Still, that's no reason to take advantage of people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are taking advantage of people, when you go to work in expectation of agreed upon payment.
> 
> You are talking advantage of people, when you have someone fix your car for an agreed upon payment.
> 
> When you go to a cheaper store to buy food, when you replace your TV with a bigger better model, when you buy that triple latte from Starbucks, you are taking advantage of people who are offering a service or product you want.
> 
> Why is it when the employer takes advantage of people who want jobs, that's bad, when when it's you taking the products and services those jobs provide, that's good?
Click to expand...


I don't think you know the definition of "taking advantage."


----------



## Againsheila

alan1 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Starting pay is 11.50 an hour. And they dont hire dumbfucks and slackers. Which eliminates most low wage workers.
> The thing you have to remember is not all workers are willing to make a commitment to a job. Those that are succeed,whether they work at Costco,Micky D's. Or a fortune 500 company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> $11.50 an hour is slightly less than $24k a year.
> Cute picture, but way less in salary than the caption in it.
> Dummies probably believe the caption.
Click to expand...


I'm sure that's an average, which means some workers are paid more and some are paid less.  Even so, they start at far better than what Walmart starts it's employees at and I haven't seen an unhappy Costco employee yet.  They are always cheerful and ready to help.  You need help in Walmart you have to practically tackle someone, and that's if you can find them.  Yes, I buy Velcro fasten shoes at Walmart for my son who is 27 and can't tie his own shoes.


----------



## alan1

Noomi said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many 'mom and pop' stores earn a lot more than you might think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I own a mom and pop "store" My wife and I have yet to draw a dime of salary.
> 
> Yes. Some earn a comfortable living, but most just get by. Asking them to give their employees a 50% raise would put a great many out of business. Would you rather make $7 or $0?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I couldn't pay my employes a decent wage, I shouldn't be in business.
Click to expand...


You don't own a business.
You work at McDonalds.
If you don't like your wage, then quit.
Feel free to start your own burger business, pay your employees a "decent wage" and drive McDonalds out of business with your better business model.
Nobody is stopping you.


----------



## SAYIT

Againsheila said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. If you start a business and want to hire someone to help you out, you either pay them a decent wage, or do the work yourself. If you can't afford to pay someone to help you out, your business sucks. If you can't do the extra work yourself, your business sucks and you need to go back to the drawing board.
> 
> No way do you have the right to exploit people just because you are too stupid to work out how to make your business flourish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it exploiting someone if they are willing to accept the wage you offer? They aren't any worse off than they were before you created the job are they?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In this economy, they are forced to take whatever jobs they can, it's slavery almost at it's worst.  It means you have to work for starvation wages...
Click to expand...


Please, please stop the incessant socialist whining! You're making my eyes bleed. 
Have some compassion!


----------



## alan1

Againsheila said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, once upon a time, with a college education, you could get a job practically anywhere, and it didn't matter what your degree was, as long as you had one.  Not so today.  No, we've shipped our well paying jobs overseas and just to make it worse, we've brought in guest workers and illegals to take our jobs here and keep our wages low.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you want our lowest wages to go up again. What was it again that caused the jobs to ship overseas? The low price of labor here right? Oh wait....
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try, but changes in our corporate laws as well as tax incentives sent our jobs overseas.
Click to expand...

Move overseas and take your jobs back.


----------



## alan1

Noomi said:


> Wrong. If you start a business and want to hire someone to help you out, you either pay them a decent wage, or do the work yourself. If you can't afford to pay someone to help you out, your business sucks. If you can't do the extra work yourself, your business sucks and you need to go back to the drawing board.
> 
> No way do you have the right to exploit people just because you are too stupid to work out how to make your business flourish.



You work at McDonalds.
Are you being exploited?
Or are you to stupid to find a better job/own a McDonalds franchise.


----------



## alan1

Zombie_Pundit said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the people earning a dollar a day in the sweat factories in Asia are not being exploited, because they are better off than they were?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing... that's exactly how the argument goes.  Now make the people in Asia small malnourished children.
> 
> In the interest of fairness, Global Labor Arbitrage will eventually improve the situation of those people.  It actually will better their lives as their real wages are forced upward by demand for labor.  Unfortunately there will be a lot of little girls making Nike shoes and iPhone employees leaping from factory windows before those people have the power needed to organize and collectively bargain.
Click to expand...




Zombie_Pundit said:


> So if a 5-year old child were willing to work 18 hours a day in a dimly lit coal mine... that's okay because of "liberty of contract"?


Yep, that is exactly how the argument goes.
Liberals pose unrealistic extremes as their argument.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

alan1 said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> That part about
> _"Nobody is forced to work for minimum wage or for a wage they find unacceptable.  Wages are a negotiation between an employer (somebody willing to pay for labor) and an employee (somebody willing to offer labor for a wage)."_ [-alan1]
> is not entirely true.  Because it is not entirely true, labor unions were born.  Because it is not entirely true, we have a minimum wage.
> 
> "...the exploitation of a class of workers who are in *an unequal position with respect to bargaining power*, and are thus relatively defenceless against the denial of a living wage, is not only detrimental to their health and wellbeing, but casts a direct burden for their support upon the community. What these workers lose in wages, the taxpayers are called upon to pay. The bare cost of living must be met."
> West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 US 379 - 1937
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, my above statement (that you put in italics) is absolutely true.  Neither you nor anybody else can show me proof that legal slavery or involuntary servitude exists in this country.  A judge can make a cute quote all he want's to, you can interpret it however you want to, but the truth is, nobody is forced to work for a wage they are not willing to work for.
> In addition, I would never let a union decide for me (or a company) what the value of my labor is worth.  I am not defenseless when it comes to bargaining power for my talents and skills, I am realistic about it.  I get paid more than my peers because I am worth more to the company.  A union would have us all earn the same compensation.  Some years I negotiate more vacation time and accept a smaller smaller salary increase, unions don't allow for that flexibility.
Click to expand...


You cite a common problem with labor unions.  How about strikes and disruptions to basic services and production?  There are a number of problems with labor unions.  
"§ 202. Congressional finding and declaration of policy 
(a) The *Congress finds that the existence*, in industries engaged in commerce or in 
the production of goods for commerce, *of labor conditions detrimental to the 
maintenance of the minimum standard of living* necessary for health, efficiency, and 
general well-being of workers 

(4) *leads to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free 
flow of goods in commerce*; and "

How's that for a "cute quote".

The thing is that the quote is not "cute".  It is explicitly and masterfully calculated.  

_You keep using this word "force", I don't think it means what you think it means._  Sure, no one is de jure "owned".  But what happens when no one will offer you any employment with a wage that can meet bare necessities?  The old argument was "liberty of contract" (aka "freedom of contract") meaning that a worker is free to choose employment with a wage below that which would sustain the employee.  That argument was extremely prevalent in the late 19th century and early twentieth, so much so as to lead to disaster like the Great Triangle Fire. 
Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Who, in the end, championed these women burned to death?  Who was there to address the crowd at the memorial.  A socialist agitator, that's who.  And why not?  Why shouldn't the workers listen to a socialist agitator after burying *one hundred forty six* burned corpses in one day?

*Codifying certain basic labor provisions into law strips the power out of any socialist rhetoric*.  And also prevents scores of young women from burning to death, there's that benefit too.

You quote from The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.  I wonder what the Loonies would do if they had to bury over a hundred women in one day.

The fact is that this is not the early twentieth century, this is the twenty-first century; and in general, freedom of contract is almost entirely unprotected under modern constitutional law.  That quote you find so cute was the last nail in the coffin of the robber baron.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Ernie S. said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you can't answer a simple question. OK, fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, don't sulk.  You asked a rhetorical question and you're now upset that I answered it
> 
> Q "Is that a Conservative only concept?"
> A "No, not really."
> 
> Q "What's wrong with paying your own way in life?"
> A "No one suggested that was wrong; but I'm sure you'll claim they did and go on to justify paying a pittance to a 5 year old to mine coal with some anecdote about bootstraps and cowboy spurs."
> 
> Q "Why do we need to do either?"
> A "Because we don't live under laissez-faire capitalism."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your answer to question 2 is not an answer. No one is suggesting 5 year olds should be mining coal, but you toss it up there to demonize Conservatives.
> 
> Answer the question.
> 
> 
> If you find yourself in a dead end, minimum wage job, better yourself. Obtain skills that increase your position in the labor market or get a second job. It is not MY responsibility to feed YOUR kids.
Click to expand...


Come down from your high horse.  If you speak in hyperbole, then it is fairgame to answer in hyperbole.  If you offer only rhetoric, then it is fairgame to respond with opposing rhetoric.


----------



## Ernie S.

Againsheila said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it costs you more to retrain new people more often than it would to raise their pay by such a small percentage as is being suggested.  And, especially for those companies that are making record business.  Granted, if the company is barely making it, it might not be profitable.
> 
> 
> True that if a person shows incentive some managers will recognize it and make it worthwhile, but not all will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It costs me next to nothing to train a guy to cook French fries. Put a measured amount in the basket. Drop them in the oil. Set the timer. When the bell rings, lift the fries out of the oil. Oh and don't stick your face in the hot oil.
> If you quit, I can have someone cooking fries in 10 minutes.*
> 
> When I got out of HS, I worked as a machinist for a couple years before college. This was 1967 when minimum wage was $1.25.
> I started at MW but by the end of the week, I was making $2.00. By the end of the month, I was making $4.00.
> I have worked for companies that did not recognize extra effort and incentive. In every case, they were union shops where working hard was discouraged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly why we need to raise the minimum wage.  For decades small businesses, especially fast food restaurants would fire people anytime they got close to getting a raise or benefits.  If they could, they'd just make them so miserable they'd quit on their own.  So many of them are working two jobs that they'd just change the hours so they'd have to quit on of their jobs.  And sadly, today, we have so many immigrants and adults fighting for those low wage jobs our economy is in really bad shape.
Click to expand...


Firstly, get rid of illegal immigrants. Secondly, if you stand out to your employer and do your job well, your job should be safe, providing you get along with coworkers and customers. Most people who get canned come raise time are either slackers or obnoxious SOB's.


----------



## alan1

Mertex said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are naively accepting a low wage because they have nothing else. But they should be paid more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they accept the wage if it did not better their situation? Are they better off making a small amount or no amount at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not everyone is in a position of being able to be picky.  Still, that's no reason to take advantage of people.
Click to expand...


Everyone is in a position to pick and choose what work they are willing to do for what pay they are willing to accept for said work.  The exception being people that are mentally retarded..


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Androw said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they accept the wage if it did not better their situation? Are they better off making a small amount or no amount at all?
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone is in a position of being able to be picky.  Still, that's no reason to take advantage of people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are taking advantage of people, when you go to work in expectation of agreed upon payment.
Click to expand...


Are we pretending that "to take advantage of [a person]" is not a derogatory description of an action synonymous with "bamboozle"?

I didn't get the memo.



No, you are not taking advantage of anyone when you pick up your paycheck, unless you have lied about hours worked.

No, you are not taking advantage of anyone when the local mechanic fixes your car for a predetermined price.



Androw said:


> Why is it when the employer takes advantage of people who want jobs, that's bad, when when it's you taking the products and services those jobs provide, that's good?


I think what you're trying to say is that an employer, as anyone else, wants to find the best service for the lowest price.  Right.  And we have a price control called the minimum wage which puts an absolute minimum on that price.


----------



## alan1

Againsheila said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. If you start a business and want to hire someone to help you out, you either pay them a decent wage, or do the work yourself. If you can't afford to pay someone to help you out, your business sucks. If you can't do the extra work yourself, your business sucks and you need to go back to the drawing board.
> 
> No way do you have the right to exploit people just because you are too stupid to work out how to make your business flourish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it exploiting someone if they are willing to accept the wage you offer? They aren't any worse off than they were before you created the job are they?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In this economy,* they are forced to take whatever jobs they can*, it's slavery almost at it's worst.  It means you have to work for starvation wages.  Walmart can easily afford living wages.  We're not talking a small business here that can barely survive, we are talking about the richest family in the county employing people at such low wages that we taxpayers have to provide them with food.
Click to expand...

Nobody is forced to do any job.
The only* force* I see is the force of the government from do-gooders like you that think I should support somebody else with the fruits of my labor.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Androw said:


> I have been in the low wage market for decades.  I have never earned more than $20K in a single year, in my whole life.




That's some sort of appeal to poverty... but if true... I'm sorry.



Androw said:


> First off, raises are not set in stone to begin with.  If they didn't want to give a raise, they simply wouldn't get it.



Why do you build such altars to the glory of your bosses, man?  Look, wanna know how to get a big raise? Quit!  Withhold your services!  Just do it, man!
If you are too difficult to replace, you'll get a bigger share of the pie. 
I have found that coming back as a contractor really fattens the wallet.
For those whose services can be too easily replaced, thats where collective bargaining and strikes come into play.


----------



## alan1

Againsheila said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Starting pay is 11.50 an hour. And they dont hire dumbfucks and slackers. Which eliminates most low wage workers.
> The thing you have to remember is not all workers are willing to make a commitment to a job. Those that are succeed,whether they work at Costco,Micky D's. Or a fortune 500 company.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $11.50 an hour is slightly less than $24k a year.
> Cute picture, but way less in salary than the caption in it.
> Dummies probably believe the caption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure that's an average, which means some workers are paid more and some are paid less.  Even so, they start at far better than what Walmart starts it's employees at and I haven't seen an unhappy Costco employee yet.  They are always cheerful and ready to help.  You need help in Walmart you have to practically tackle someone, and that's if you can find them.  Yes, I buy Velcro fasten shoes at Walmart for my son who is 27 and can't tie his own shoes.
Click to expand...


I don't understand why people like you want to use the government as your "enforcer".
If you don't like WalMart (or some other company), stop giving them your business, it's that simple.
WalMart isn't the only place that sells velcro shoes, so quite trying to claim that as a crutch.
https://www.google.com/webhp?source...spv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=where can I buy velcro shoes


----------



## Andylusion

Againsheila said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone is in a position of being able to be picky.  Still, that's no reason to take advantage of people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are taking advantage of people, when you go to work in expectation of agreed upon payment.
> 
> You are talking advantage of people, when you have someone fix your car for an agreed upon payment.
> 
> When you go to a cheaper store to buy food, when you replace your TV with a bigger better model, when you buy that triple latte from Starbucks, you are taking advantage of people who are offering a service or product you want.
> 
> Why is it when the employer takes advantage of people who want jobs, that's bad, when when it's you taking the products and services those jobs provide, that's good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you know the definition of "taking advantage."
Click to expand...


1. take advantage of,
a. to make use of for gain: to take advantage of an opportunity.

I gained from buying my car.  I gain from buying food from the store.  I gain from having employment.   I gain from having a refrigerator, electricity, running water.  I gain from having an oil change at walmart for only $16.

That is the whole point of Free-market Capitalism.   We all mutually benefit from each other.   If we didn't..... we would not do it.   If I have a TV for sale for $100, and you want a TV and have $100, we engage in trade.

You trade me the $100, for the TV.    If the TV was not a larger gain to you, than the $100, you wouldn't buy the TV.   If the $100 was not a gain to me, over the TV, then I wouldn't trade the TV for it.

If there was no advantage for you in that situation, you wouldn't do it.  If there was no advantage for me in that situation, I wouldn't do it.

Both of us benefit from taking advantage of the offer the other is giving.

The same is true of every company.   If I did not benefit from my employment, I would stop being employed there. I would fire my employer.

I had a job a few years back that simply paid too little.  Far too little.   I talked with my employer, and found that he couldn't charge more to the customer for the deliveries I was making, thus he could pay me more for those deliveries.    The deal was beneficial for my employer, but not for me.

What did I do?  I fired my employer.  I looked for another job.  I found another job.  I turned in my two weeks notice.  I fired him, and hired a new employer to sell my labor to, in an arrangement that was more mutually beneficial.

The problem is, you claim that somehow the arrangement was 'unfair'.   There was nothing unfair about it.  I agreed to work for an agreed pay.  It turned out, that to me, it was not mutually beneficial.

But there were, and are to this day, people that work for that company and LOVE it.  They LOVE what they are doing.   To them, it is mutually beneficial.

Neither me, nor they, are treated unfairly.   That's where you and I have our disagreement.  You believe that you know better than the employee, and the employer, what is 'fair'.   'Fair' is a subjective term.  You can ask 10 people what fair is, and end up with 11 different answers.

I think it's not your call.   Just my opinion.  I think what is fair, is what the employee, and the employer agree to, and no one else has a right to determine arbitrarily what is fair for anyone else but themselves.

I have no idea how America got so puking nosy into everyone elses business, but it's always funny when those same nosy busy bodies, have someone butt into their business, and then they freak out.   The vast majority, if not all, the people on this forum who think they know what is fair for everyone else, if you start telling them what is 'fair' for them in their life, and they start screaming "who are you to judge!!".... well.... stop being in our business too.   Practice what you preach.


----------



## HenryBHough

Wisely was it said:  "You can't cheat an honest man".

Wasn't PC to say "man or woman or undecided" at the time but the thought was surely there.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Androw said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are *taking advantage of people*, when you go to work in expectation of agreed upon payment.
> 
> You are *talking advantage of people* [ *sic* ], when you have someone fix your car for an agreed upon payment.
> 
> When you go to a cheaper store to buy food, when you replace your TV with a bigger better model, when you buy that triple latte from Starbucks, you are taking advantage of people who are offering a service or product you want.
> 
> Why is it when the employer takes advantage of people who want jobs, that's bad, when when it's you taking the products and services those jobs provide, that's good?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you know the definition of "taking advantage."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. take advantage of,
> a. to make use of for gain: to take advantage of an opportunity.
Click to expand...


10.
take advantage of,
a.
to make use of for gain: to take advantage of an opportunity.
b.
to impose upon, especially unfairly, as by exploiting a weakness: *to take advantage of someone*.



Androw said:


> I gained from buying my car.  I gain from buying food from the store.  I gain from having employment.   I gain from having a refrigerator, electricity, running water.  I gain from having an oil change at walmart for only $16.


That's not taking advantage of *people*.  You cannot change our common language because you, Androw, decide it sounds better.



Androw said:


> That is the whole point of Free-market Capitalism.   We all mutually benefit from each other.   If we didn't..... we would not do it.   If I have a TV for sale for $100, and you want a TV and have $100, we engage in trade.


Well, that's more the point of regulated capitalism, and we must make sure the vast majority have a stake in the system.



Androw said:


> If there was no advantage for you in that situation, you wouldn't do it.  If there was no advantage for me in that situation, I wouldn't do it.


That's not taking advantage of *people*.  You cannot change our common language because you, Androw, decide it sounds better.



Androw said:


> I had a job a few years back that simply paid too little.  Far too little.   I talked with my employer, and found that he couldn't charge more to the customer for the deliveries I was making, thus he could pay me more for those deliveries.    The deal was beneficial for my employer, but not for me.
> 
> What did I do?  I fired my employer.  I looked for another job.  I found another job.  I turned in my two weeks notice.  I fired him, and hired a new employer to sell my labor to, in an arrangement that was more mutually beneficial.


Well, that's a cute way of looking at it but wildly inaccurate.  What did you pay for your employer's unemployment benefits?  Did you terminate at fault or no fault?



Androw said:


> You believe that you know better than the employee, and the employer, what is 'fair'.   'Fair' is a subjective term.  You can ask 10 people what fair is, and end up with 11 different answers.


Uhm, that's why the minimum wage is supposed to ride above poverty.  That's an objective measure.  The only question then is how far above poverty.



Androw said:


> I have no idea how America got so puking nosy into everyone elses business,


If you mean by way of the FLSA, things were pretty dire before that piece of legislation.


----------



## Andylusion

Againsheila said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Starting pay is 11.50 an hour. And they dont hire dumbfucks and slackers. Which eliminates most low wage workers.
> The thing you have to remember is not all workers are willing to make a commitment to a job. Those that are succeed,whether they work at Costco,Micky D's. Or a fortune 500 company.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $11.50 an hour is slightly less than $24k a year.
> Cute picture, but way less in salary than the caption in it.
> Dummies probably believe the caption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure that's an average, which means some workers are paid more and some are paid less.  Even so, they start at far better than what Walmart starts it's employees at and I haven't seen an unhappy Costco employee yet.  They are always cheerful and ready to help.  You need help in Walmart you have to practically tackle someone, and that's if you can find them.  Yes, I buy Velcro fasten shoes at Walmart for my son who is 27 and can't tie his own shoes.
Click to expand...


No, not so much.  I have had friends that work there, and the truth is, they pay far more than the average pay for the same job.

The problem with this Costco thing, is that Costco is a completely different type of business.   







I apologize for not finding a better picture.  The internet is hit and miss, and I don't intend to go to Costco and stand around all day just to take a photo.

This is a photo from costco.  Notice the wide isles?   Wonder why?  Because if you look at far end of this picture, what do you see?   A gas powered fork lift.   The isles at Costco are wide to accommodate a fork lift moving around.

Whats my point?    

Walmart has a team of people stocking shelves by hand.  They come out with a small cart, or a single hand truck and skid of stuff, and they manually put them on the shelves.

Costco has a few guys, running gas powered fork lifts, moving tens of thousands of dollars worth of merchandise every hour.

So they hire fewer people, to move multiple times as much product to the shelves.

Just the reduction in the number of low-wage employees needed, would make the average wage, higher.

But since their productivity is higher too, they can pay them more because they are moving more goods.

This is why Costco has less than half the number of employees per sqare foot of retail space.

Costco pays more ... because it can

Do you see Costco greeters?  Not really.  They have help staff, that are there to help you get your massive carts.....






But not really a person just sitting there saying hi as you walk in, and offering you a weekly special flyer.

Do you see people wax and buffing out the tiled floor at Costco?  Of course not.  It's not tiled.

Additionally, you don't see people walking into Costco, to buy a $3 deli sandwich, bottle of coke, and a snickers, like you do at Walmart.   You see people loading up with several thousand dollars worth of bulk food.

Well of course if you are moving more goods, you can pay employees more, because the value generated from the labor (thousands per cashier per customer), is much greater.

Fewer total employees, higher value productivity, equals higher pay.

BY THE WAY..........

For those of you who continuously talk about how without the holy grail of minimum wage, companies will always pay everyone 1¢ an hour.....   The fact Costco does pay more than Walmart when they have absolutely no requirement at all do to do so....... proves your BS wrong.  Shut up.

Lastly, notice how Costco has jumped on the pro-minimum wage wagon lately?    Do you think Costco is supporting raising the minimum wage for altruistic reasons?

Of course not.  There are two specific reasons Costco is supporting the minimum wage.    Reason number one, it won't affect them fiscally, but it will give them positive media and government benefits.   Reason number two, it will affect their competition who can't pay as much, and will be hindered by the legislation.

In short, Costco will love to have regulations that harm competition, thus increasing their own profit, while at the same time having morons think they are being so benevolent.

Which goes back to what I've said a million times.  The left is the biggest pro-wealthy, pro-corporate, pro-super rich group in government.  Everything they do, harms the consumers, harms employees, and benefits the super rich.   Everything.  Consistently.


----------



## beagle9

hadit said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are naively accepting a low wage because they have nothing else. But they should be paid more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They should make themselves worth more to their employer.
> Sorry, Noomi. Flipping burgers isn't worth much because if you quit, I can have someone trained to replace you as quick as you can say, "Do you want fries with that?"
> Make yourself valuable. Ask your manager if you can help close the store or inventory supplies. Learn to do something that your co-workers can't do. Learn something that the next guy through the door doesn't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite frankly, the average McDonald's could be a totally automated system run by 2 teenagers trained to push the start button.  When it's cheaper to replace burger flippers with robots, they will be replaced.  Basically, they're complaining their way out of a job.
Click to expand...

No not yet, because it's just as you say "if Mcdonalds were ready then they'd do it without pause", so undoubtedly they are not ready, and therefore they need the labor right now in which they have. Nothing wrong with wanting what is worth your time and skill for now, and if they change up later then so be it, but the threats of changing up in order to keep people down should never be a concern of a worker wanting what they deserve right NOW, especially if it is not right what is going on or has been going on for far to long now.


----------



## beagle9

alan1 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. If you start a business and want to hire someone to help you out, you either pay them a decent wage, or do the work yourself. If you can't afford to pay someone to help you out, your business sucks. If you can't do the extra work yourself, your business sucks and you need to go back to the drawing board.
> 
> No way do you have the right to exploit people just because you are too stupid to work out how to make your business flourish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You work at McDonalds.
> Are you being exploited?
> Or are you to stupid to find a better job/own a McDonalds franchise.
Click to expand...

You got something against stupid people as you call them ? There are many people who are less educated or maybe a bit slower than others, but does that mean they should be taken advantage of ?


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

alan1 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. If you start a business and want to hire someone to help you out, you either pay them a decent wage, or do the work yourself. If you can't afford to pay someone to help you out, your business sucks. If you can't do the extra work yourself, your business sucks and you need to go back to the drawing board.
> 
> No way do you have the right to exploit people just because you are too stupid to work out how to make your business flourish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You work at McDonalds.
> Are you being exploited?
> Or are you to stupid to find a better job/*own a McDonalds franchise*.
Click to expand...


How does one start a McDee's Franchise?
How to Open a McDonald's Franchise: 5 Steps (with Pictures)
Step 1)




Secure at least *$500,000 of non-borrowed personal resources*, which will cover the down payment and initial franchising fees.
There's more money needed after this...  the steps cannot specify an exact amount because that will depend on many factors.  The steps do specify that you need to purchase and build the actual restaurant.  That initial $500K just just for McCorp.


----------



## Andylusion

beagle9 said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. If you start a business and want to hire someone to help you out, you either pay them a decent wage, or do the work yourself. If you can't afford to pay someone to help you out, your business sucks. If you can't do the extra work yourself, your business sucks and you need to go back to the drawing board.
> 
> No way do you have the right to exploit people just because you are too stupid to work out how to make your business flourish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You work at McDonalds.
> Are you being exploited?
> Or are you to stupid to find a better job/own a McDonalds franchise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got something against stupid people as you call them ? There are many people who are less educated or maybe a bit slower than others, but does that mean they should be taken advantage of ?
Click to expand...


You would rather have them unemployed, unable to find any work?

You realize this is exactly how Apartheid started in South Africa?

The African blacks, who had poor education, and little if any skills, were able to get jobs because they were willing to work for less money than White South Africans.

Well the Unions hated this, because it was under cutting their labor rates.

The Unions pushed for, and got, a government minimum wage.

Now business had no reason to hire less educated, less skilled people (again typically blacks), because they couldn't hire them for less money than whites.

That solved the low-wage problem at the minimum wage level, but it didn't stop black from under cutting jobs slightly above the minimum wage level.

That's when the Unions pushed for the government to ban blacks from jobs completely.

A low wage is your foot-in-the-door entrance into the job market, for those who are unskilled, slow, or less educated.

If you raise the minimum wage, you are simply going to get those people laid off, and unemployed, just like what happened in South Africa, just like what happened in Greece, just like what happened in the US during the 2007 to 2009 minimum wage hike.

I just read that in 2007 and before, Walmart had 338 employees per store.  By 2010, after the minimum wage went from $5.25 to $7.25, the average number of employees per store, dropped to 270.

A loss of roughly 70 employees per walmart store, were lost.    I believe because of the minimum wage.    There is no example that I am aware of, where a hike in the minimum wage didn't result in lost jobs, and increased prices.

I was actually working at Wendy's back when the minimum wage went up in the 1990s.   The very first thing they did, was fire 3 people from the store.   The second thing was they started raising prices bit by bit over the next few years.

So tons of people lose their jobs, and are now earning zero, while those that are still working, find their wages are not worth as much because everything costs more.

This is the long term effects of minimum wage.  It never works.  It always harms.


----------



## Ernie S.

alan1 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. If you start a business and want to hire someone to help you out, you either pay them a decent wage, or do the work yourself. If you can't afford to pay someone to help you out, your business sucks. If you can't do the extra work yourself, your business sucks and you need to go back to the drawing board.
> 
> No way do you have the right to exploit people just because you are too stupid to work out how to make your business flourish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You work at McDonalds.
> Are you being exploited?
> Or are you to stupid to find a better job/own a McDonalds franchise.
Click to expand...


I find it comical that people get "trapped in dead end jobs". Geeeze people! You were looking for a job when you found that one. You know how to fill out an application. Either make yourself worth more to your present employer or find a better paying job.
There are 2 gas stations across the street from each other about 2 miles from my house. One charges $3.439 for a gallon of Shell and the other charges $3.499 for a gallon of Texaco. Where would you, Sheila and Noomi, buy your gasoline? I know where I stop.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Androw said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You work at McDonalds.
> Are you being exploited?
> Or are you to stupid to find a better job/own a McDonalds franchise.
> 
> 
> 
> You got something against stupid people as you call them ? There are many people who are less educated or maybe a bit slower than others, but does that mean they should be taken advantage of ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would rather have them unemployed, unable to find any work?
> 
> *You realize this is exactly how Apartheid started in South Africa?*
> 
> ...
> 
> Well the Unions hated this, because it was under cutting their labor rates.
> 
> The Unions pushed for, and got, a government minimum wage.
> 
> ...
> 
> That's when the Unions pushed for the government to ban blacks from jobs completely.
Click to expand...


STOP

Did you seriously just blame apartheid in South Africa on minimum wage laws?

Apartheid was codified in 1948.
South Africa had no Minimum Wage until 1997.
Check your facts!


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Androw said:


> You would rather have them unemployed, unable to find any work?
> 
> *You realize this is exactly how Apartheid started in South Africa?*
> 
> The African blacks, who had poor education, and little if any skills, were able to get jobs because they were willing to work for less money than White South Africans.
> 
> Well the Unions hated this, because it was under cutting their labor rates.
> 
> The Unions pushed for, and got, a government minimum wage.
> 
> Now business had no reason to hire less educated, less skilled people (again typically blacks), because they couldn't hire them for less money than whites.
> 
> That solved the low-wage problem at the minimum wage level, but it didn't stop black from under cutting jobs slightly above the minimum wage level.
> 
> That's when the Unions pushed for the government to ban blacks from jobs completely.
> 
> A low wage is your foot-in-the-door entrance into the job market, for those who are unskilled, slow, or less educated.
> 
> If you raise the minimum wage, you are simply going to get those people laid off, and unemployed, just like what happened in South Africa, just like what happened in Greece, just like what happened in the US during the 2007 to 2009 minimum wage hike.
> 
> I just read that in 2007 and before, Walmart had 338 employees per store.  By 2010, after the minimum wage went from $5.25 to $7.25, the average number of employees per store, dropped to 270.
> 
> A loss of roughly 70 employees per walmart store, were lost.    I believe because of the minimum wage.    There is no example that I am aware of, where a hike in the minimum wage didn't result in lost jobs, and increased prices.
> 
> I was actually working at Wendy's back when the minimum wage went up in the 1990s.   The very first thing they did, was fire 3 people from the store.   The second thing was they started raising prices bit by bit over the next few years.
> 
> So tons of people lose their jobs, and are now earning zero, while those that are still working, find their wages are not worth as much because everything costs more.
> 
> This is the long term effects of minimum wage.  It never works.  It always harms.



You are *badly* misquoting your radical rightwing masters.

not even they are this... what's the "clean" word I'm looking for?

On The Historically Racist Motivations Behind Minimum Wage - Forbes
_In South Africa *during the era of apartheid*, white labor unions urged that a minimum-wage law be applied to all races, to keep black workers from taking jobs... _​The above link is absolute bunk, BTW.  But at least it has its dates right.


----------



## Noomi

Ernie S. said:


> There are 2 gas stations across the street from each other about 2 miles from my house. One charges $3.439 for a gallon of Shell and the other charges $3.499 for a gallon of Texaco. Where would you, Sheila and Noomi, buy your gasoline? I know where I stop.



There is barely a difference, and I would go to the servo in which I get the better service.

FYI, I only go to a local chain for my petrol. They can charge up to three to four cents more per litre, but I don't mind. Why? Because they know me and I have always gotten good service - and sometimes, service is more important than saving a few dollars.


----------



## Andylusion

Ernie S. said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. If you start a business and want to hire someone to help you out, you either pay them a decent wage, or do the work yourself. If you can't afford to pay someone to help you out, your business sucks. If you can't do the extra work yourself, your business sucks and you need to go back to the drawing board.
> 
> No way do you have the right to exploit people just because you are too stupid to work out how to make your business flourish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You work at McDonalds.
> Are you being exploited?
> Or are you to stupid to find a better job/own a McDonalds franchise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it comical that people get "trapped in dead end jobs". Geeeze people! You were looking for a job when you found that one. You know how to fill out an application. Either make yourself worth more to your present employer or find a better paying job.
> There are 2 gas stations across the street from each other about 2 miles from my house. One charges $3.439 for a gallon of Shell and the other charges $3.499 for a gallon of Texaco. Where would you, Sheila and Noomi, buy your gasoline? I know where I stop.
Click to expand...


Actually, that's just it.    These idiots were likely not really 'looking' for a job.

Most of the ultra-low-end jobs, never advertise for jobs.   They are simply in a constant state of hiring.

When I got my job at Advance Auto Parts, they didn't have a sign "now hiring", I was buying wipers blades for my car, and asked if they were hiring.  The manager gave me an application, and the following week I was hired.

The jobs that worth having, are the ones you have to look for.    If you want any kind of decent job, you have to call up places, ask for interviews, drive to job location and introduce yourself.   You have to talk to friends, relatives, co-workers, and ask around to various people, and actually engage in the process of 'looking for a job'.

People don't want to do that.   So they go to places that have no standards, and require no effort to get employed, and then are shocked they can't earn $50,000 a year at such an easy job to get.


----------



## Andylusion

Noomi said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are 2 gas stations across the street from each other about 2 miles from my house. One charges $3.439 for a gallon of Shell and the other charges $3.499 for a gallon of Texaco. Where would you, Sheila and Noomi, buy your gasoline? I know where I stop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is barely a difference, and I would go to the servo in which I get the better service.
> 
> FYI, I only go to a local chain for my petrol. They can charge up to three to four cents more per litre, but I don't mind. Why? Because they know me and I have always gotten good service - and sometimes, service is more important than saving a few dollars.
Click to expand...


Perhaps things are different in your country, but here...  at least in my area, there is no service.

No service at all.

I drive up to a fuel pump kiosk, that accepts a credit card.







Top left of the pump, is where you put in your credit card.

You then fuel your car yourself, and drive away.

You never see any employee of the station, unless you want to buy something from the quick-mart.

So between two gas stations, I'm going to the cheapest one.

Now in places where service matters, then I would agree.  Good service is worth a few dollars for sure.   If you go to a restaurant, and the service is terrible, saving a few bucks doesn't work.  You are going to go to a place that has good service, or you are not going.

But even then, the price still has to be low enough to justify going.   Yeah, you can pay your waiters $50,000 a year, and get great quality service.   But if the price is too high, no customers are going to show up.

Then all the waiters making $50,000 are unemployed, making zero.   There is a trade off, where better service at a higher cost, doesn't work.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Noomi said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are 2 gas stations across the street from each other about 2 miles from my house. One charges $3.439 for a gallon of Shell and the other charges $3.499 for a gallon of Texaco. Where would you, Sheila and Noomi, buy your gasoline? I know where I stop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is barely a difference, and I would go to the servo in which I get the better service.
> 
> FYI, I only go to a local chain for my petrol. They can charge up to three to four cents more per litre, but I don't mind. Why? Because they know me and I have always gotten good service - and sometimes, service is more important than saving a few dollars.
Click to expand...


  What service? We pump our own gas.


----------



## HenryBHough

In The People's Republic of Oregon it is forbidden to pump your own gas. By law - with nasty penalties for even trying.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are 2 gas stations across the street from each other about 2 miles from my house. One charges $3.439 for a gallon of Shell and the other charges $3.499 for a gallon of Texaco. Where would you, Sheila and Noomi, buy your gasoline? I know where I stop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is barely a difference, and I would go to the servo in which I get the better service.
> 
> FYI, I only go to a local chain for my petrol. They can charge up to three to four cents more per litre, but I don't mind. Why? Because they know me and I have always gotten good service - and sometimes, service is more important than saving a few dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What service? *We pump our own gas.*
Click to expand...


Not in New Jersey


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Noomi said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are 2 gas stations across the street from each other about 2 miles from my house. One charges $3.439 for a gallon of Shell and the other charges $3.499 for a gallon of Texaco. Where would you, Sheila and Noomi, buy your gasoline? I know where I stop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is barely a difference, and I would go to the servo in which I get the better service.
> 
> FYI, I only go to a local chain for my petrol. They can charge up to three to four cents more per litre, but I don't mind. Why? Because they know me and I have always gotten good service - and sometimes, service is more important than saving a few dollars.
Click to expand...


In some states the legislature eliminated the requirement that there be an attendant at each active pump.  This means no one has to pump your fuel for you anymore.  The legislature was under pressure from distribution companies demanding that they be allowed to make refueling stations relatively unattended and relatively automatic.  To put this another way: "robots took the jobs" or more like "vending machines took the jobs".
In some areas there must be one attendant, usually in a hovel of a store, who has an all-off switch in case something goes wrong.  In some areas, there's no attendant and the gas pumps run with no one at the switch caveat emptor.   

So why the change to an automated "vending machine" approach?
Because it was cheaper.
Some here will tell you that if the gas station attendants had only bowed and scraped a little lower for their masters, or if the pittance paid could be even more of a pittance, then this change would not happen.  It is a lie.  The automated system is simply cheaper than a team of humans ever could be.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Zombie_Pundit said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is barely a difference, and I would go to the servo in which I get the better service.
> 
> FYI, I only go to a local chain for my petrol. They can charge up to three to four cents more per litre, but I don't mind. Why? Because they know me and I have always gotten good service - and sometimes, service is more important than saving a few dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What service? *We pump our own gas.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not in New Jersey
Click to expand...


  I realize that some states think their citizens are incompetent boobs and dont trust them to pump gas.
    Not many thank God.


----------



## Ernie S.

Noomi said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are 2 gas stations across the street from each other about 2 miles from my house. One charges $3.439 for a gallon of Shell and the other charges $3.499 for a gallon of Texaco. Where would you, Sheila and Noomi, buy your gasoline? I know where I stop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is barely a difference, and I would go to the servo in which I get the better service.
> 
> FYI, I only go to a local chain for my petrol. They can charge up to three to four cents more per litre, but I don't mind. Why? Because they know me and I have always gotten good service - and sometimes, service is more important than saving a few dollars.
Click to expand...

Service at a service station? Unheard of here. You drive up, stick your credit card in the slot and pump your gas.
If you want a soda or a pack of smokes you walk inside and hand money to someone who doesn't want to be there.
All things being equal, it's stupid to buy 24 gallons of gasoline and pay $1.44 more because someone once smiled at you.

Same goes for employees. An employee flipping burgers for $7.85/hour will not flip any more at $10.10. He's still a burger flipper, and if he's still making $7.85/hour flipping burgers at 30, it's not his employer's fault.


----------



## Ernie S.

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> What service? *We pump our own gas.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not in New Jersey
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I realize that some states think their citizens are incompetent boobs and dont trust them to pump gas.
> Not many thank God.
Click to expand...


I've been to New Jersey. Good call on the part of the State Legislature, I'd say


----------



## alan1

Androw said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You work at McDonalds.
> Are you being exploited?
> Or are you to stupid to find a better job/own a McDonalds franchise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it comical that people get "trapped in dead end jobs". Geeeze people! You were looking for a job when you found that one. You know how to fill out an application. Either make yourself worth more to your present employer or find a better paying job.
> There are 2 gas stations across the street from each other about 2 miles from my house. One charges $3.439 for a gallon of Shell and the other charges $3.499 for a gallon of Texaco. Where would you, Sheila and Noomi, buy your gasoline? I know where I stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that's just it.    These idiots were likely not really 'looking' for a job.
> 
> Most of the ultra-low-end jobs, never advertise for jobs.   They are simply in a constant state of hiring.
> 
> When I got my job at Advance Auto Parts, they didn't have a sign "now hiring", I was buying wipers blades for my car, and asked if they were hiring.  The manager gave me an application, and the following week I was hired.
> 
> The jobs that worth having, are the ones you have to look for.    If you want any kind of decent job, you have to call up places, ask for interviews, drive to job location and introduce yourself.   You have to talk to friends, relatives, co-workers, and ask around to various people, and actually engage in the process of 'looking for a job'.
> 
> People don't want to do that.   So they go to places that have no standards, and require no effort to get employed, and then are shocked they can't earn $50,000 a year at such an easy job to get.
Click to expand...


I just don't understand the mindset of people that think they should get paid more simply for doing the exact same job day after day and year after year.

Anecdotal Alert!

When my youngest daughter was 16, she got a job at a local chain restaurant that is semi-fast food (I think they call it fast-casual these days).  I believe the minimum wage at the time was around $7.00/hour.  She started at $8.00/hour taking orders at the cash register and waiting tables, so she got tips also.  She got regular raises although they were small.

After she graduated high school, she went looking for better paying work.  She got a job as a bank teller at one of the largest banks in the US.  She worked hard, learned more about the banking industry and eventually got promoted to Lead Teller.  She continued to work hard and learn more and eventually got a job in their auto loan processing department.  She worked hard, learned more about the industry and received raises.

The problem that I saw, was that both her and her fiance worked for the same bank and they both worked in loan departments (he was in mortgage loans).  Big personal financial risk to have both income earners at the same company and doing similar jobs, so I suggested to them they both look for work elsewhere and the first one to get a different job should switch jobs to reduce their overall financial risk.

My daughter got a job offer working for one of the largest life insurance companies in the US, and it came with a significant raise.  She took it.

Now then, she could have continued working as a waitress making low wages and trying to demand a "living wage", but she chose to better herself through hard work and learning more so that she was more valuable to employers.

Her stats are.......
24 years old.
Female.
Zero college education.
Cushy office job.
$44,000 salary plus benefits.
Fiance makes more money than her.
Will be married June 8th.

People can sit around sniveling about things like being paid a "living wage", or they can go out and make things happen for themselves like both my daughters have done (the elder is slightly lower on the economic scale, but she's doing well for herself).  I'd feel like a failure as a parent if either of my children were still working minimum wage jobs in their mid 20's or depending upon me for financial support.  The opportunities are out there.  Waiting for government to give one opportunity is a losing game.


----------



## alan1

Ernie S. said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are 2 gas stations across the street from each other about 2 miles from my house. One charges $3.439 for a gallon of Shell and the other charges $3.499 for a gallon of Texaco. Where would you, Sheila and Noomi, buy your gasoline? I know where I stop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is barely a difference, and I would go to the servo in which I get the better service.
> 
> FYI, I only go to a local chain for my petrol. They can charge up to three to four cents more per litre, but I don't mind. Why? Because they know me and I have always gotten good service - and sometimes, service is more important than saving a few dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Service at a service station? Unheard of here. You drive up, stick your credit card in the slot and pump your gas.
> If you want a soda or a pack of smokes you walk inside and hand money to someone who doesn't want to be there.
> All things being equal, it's stupid to buy 24 gallons of gasoline and pay $1.44 more because someone once smiled at you.
> 
> Same goes for employees. An employee flipping burgers for $7.85/hour will not flip any more at $10.10. He's still a burger flipper, and if he's still making $7.85/hour flipping burgers at 30, it's not his employer's fault.
Click to expand...


He can flip them more often, but they still take the same amount of time to cook through.  Paying the burger flipper more will not make the burgers cook faster.
Asking, "Do you want fries with that" isn't more successful to the business simply because the person asking is being paid more.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

alan1 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it comical that people get "trapped in dead end jobs". Geeeze people! You were looking for a job when you found that one. You know how to fill out an application. Either make yourself worth more to your present employer or find a better paying job.
> There are 2 gas stations across the street from each other about 2 miles from my house. One charges $3.439 for a gallon of Shell and the other charges $3.499 for a gallon of Texaco. Where would you, Sheila and Noomi, buy your gasoline? I know where I stop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that's just it.    These idiots were likely not really 'looking' for a job.
> 
> Most of the ultra-low-end jobs, never advertise for jobs.   They are simply in a constant state of hiring.
> 
> When I got my job at Advance Auto Parts, they didn't have a sign "now hiring", I was buying wipers blades for my car, and asked if they were hiring.  The manager gave me an application, and the following week I was hired.
> 
> The jobs that worth having, are the ones you have to look for.    If you want any kind of decent job, you have to call up places, ask for interviews, drive to job location and introduce yourself.   You have to talk to friends, relatives, co-workers, and ask around to various people, and actually engage in the process of 'looking for a job'.
> 
> People don't want to do that.   So they go to places that have no standards, and require no effort to get employed, and then are shocked they can't earn $50,000 a year at such an easy job to get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just don't understand the mindset of people that think they should get paid more simply for doing the exact same job day after day and year after year.
> 
> Anecdotal Alert!
> 
> When my youngest daughter was 16, she got a job at a local chain restaurant that is semi-fast food (I think they call it fast-casual these days).  I believe the minimum wage at the time was around $7.00/hour.  She started at $8.00/hour taking orders at the cash register and waiting tables, so she got tips also.  She got regular raises although they were small.
> 
> After she graduated high school, she went looking for better paying work.  She got a job as a bank teller at one of the largest banks in the US.  She worked hard, learned more about the banking industry and eventually got promoted to Lead Teller.  She continued to work hard and learn more and eventually got a job in their auto loan processing department.  She worked hard, learned more about the industry and received raises.
> 
> The problem that I saw, was that both her and her fiance worked for the same bank and they both worked in loan departments (he was in mortgage loans).  Big personal financial risk to have both income earners at the same company and doing similar jobs, so I suggested to them they both look for work elsewhere and the first one to get a different job should switch jobs to reduce their overall financial risk.
> 
> My daughter got a job offer working for one of the largest life insurance companies in the US, and it came with a significant raise.  She took it.
> 
> Now then, she could have continued working as a waitress making low wages and trying to demand a "living wage", but she chose to better herself through hard work and learning more so that she was more valuable to employers.
> 
> Her stats are.......
> 24 years old.
> Female.
> Zero college education.
> Cushy office job.
> $44,000 salary plus benefits.
> Fiance makes more money than her.
> Will be married June 8th.
> 
> People can sit around sniveling about things like being paid a "living wage", or they can go out and make things happen for themselves like both my daughters have done (the elder is slightly lower on the economic scale, but she's doing well for herself).  I'd feel like a failure as a parent if either of my children were still working minimum wage jobs in their mid 20's or depending upon me for financial support.  The opportunities are out there.  Waiting for government to give one opportunity is a losing game.
Click to expand...


  You mean your daughters actually applied themselves?


----------



## Andylusion

Ernie S. said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not in New Jersey
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that some states think their citizens are incompetent boobs and dont trust them to pump gas.
> Not many thank God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been to New Jersey. Good call on the part of the State Legislature, I'd say
Click to expand...


Really?   Why?   Are you saying the people of New Jersey really are too incompetent to pump their own gas?


----------



## Andylusion

alan1 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is barely a difference, and I would go to the servo in which I get the better service.
> 
> FYI, I only go to a local chain for my petrol. They can charge up to three to four cents more per litre, but I don't mind. Why? Because they know me and I have always gotten good service - and sometimes, service is more important than saving a few dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> Service at a service station? Unheard of here. You drive up, stick your credit card in the slot and pump your gas.
> If you want a soda or a pack of smokes you walk inside and hand money to someone who doesn't want to be there.
> All things being equal, it's stupid to buy 24 gallons of gasoline and pay $1.44 more because someone once smiled at you.
> 
> Same goes for employees. An employee flipping burgers for $7.85/hour will not flip any more at $10.10. He's still a burger flipper, and if he's still making $7.85/hour flipping burgers at 30, it's not his employer's fault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He can flip them more often, but they still take the same amount of time to cook through.  Paying the burger flipper more will not make the burgers cook faster.
> Asking, "Do you want fries with that" isn't more successful to the business simply because the person asking is being paid more.
Click to expand...


And even if you could somehow 'will them' to cook faster, you have no control on the number of customers, or what they want.   If 10 customers come in, and they all want fried chicken, you cooking burgers quicker doesn't benefit the company any more.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Ernie S. said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not in New Jersey
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that some states think their citizens are incompetent boobs and dont trust them to pump gas.
> Not many thank God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been to New Jersey. Good call on the part of the State Legislature, I'd say
Click to expand...


New Jersey isn't so bad.  It has... pine barrens?


----------



## Politico

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> What service? *We pump our own gas.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not in New Jersey
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I realize that some states think their citizens are incompetent boobs and dont trust them to pump gas.
> Not many thank God.
Click to expand...


That has nothing to do with it. It is a farcical way to create fictitious jobs.



Androw said:


> Really?   Why?   Are you saying the people of New Jersey really are too incompetent to pump their own gas?



Well from what I have seen...in any case again not the reason.


----------



## auditor0007

Defiant1 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has someone figured out the magic formula to define a "living" wage?
> 
> Or should each employee be paid according to how much money they need to "live?"
Click to expand...


Let's say that if your rent costs you close to or more than half of your monthly net earnings, then you are probably not making a living wage, basing this on a person working full-time and going with the lowest reasonable amount for rent in that area.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Noomi said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is barely a difference, and I would go to the servo in which I get the better service.
> 
> FYI, I only go to a local chain for my petrol. They can charge up to three to four cents more per litre, but I don't mind. Why? Because they know me and I have always gotten good service - and sometimes, service is more important than saving a few dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> Service at a service station? Unheard of here. You drive up, stick your credit card in the slot and pump your gas.
> If you want a soda or a pack of smokes you walk inside and hand money to someone who doesn't want to be there.
> All things being equal, it's stupid to buy 24 gallons of gasoline and pay $1.44 more because someone once smiled at you.
> 
> Same goes for employees. An employee flipping burgers for $7.85/hour will not flip any more at $10.10. He's still a burger flipper, and if he's still making $7.85/hour flipping burgers at 30, it's not his employer's fault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I wouldn't be going to any of those stations.
> The one I go to has you greeted with people who are happy to see you.
> 
> And I think you are stupid to pay less for shit service, rather than a little more for good service. Your attitude needs to change.
Click to expand...


What part of "we pump our own gas" dont you understand?
I would think you'd be a little more thrifty considering you're always complaining about being broke and you work in fast food.


----------



## tn5421

Asclepias said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is being a greeter worth $15 dollars an hour?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you rather have Wal-mart pay the employ $15 an hour or the tax payer pay for food stamps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither to be honest.  I dont want the cost passed on to me by Walmart raising prices like McDonalds is doing.  *I worked 2 jobs and went to school to make ends meet. Other people can do the same.*
Click to expand...



No, you'd just get hit with crushing debt if you tried that today.




sameech said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are you getting your figures.  Today's minimum wage won't even support one person at the poverty level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 40 hrs x $7.25 x 52 weeks=$15,080.
> 
> FPL 1 person=$11,670
> 2 person HH=$15,730
> 3 person HH=$19,790
> 
> (url scrubbed)
Click to expand...


Your mistake was assuming business let their people work 40 hours a week.  Most places where I live absolutely refuse to work you more than 28 hours a week at the absolute most, and its been that way for years (with 32 hours instead of 28, that was recent).



Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Since we have essentially created a large underclass through lowered standards, lowered expectations, excuses and political correctness, we probably have no choice but to increase the minimum wage.  When you create such a class of people, you are responsible for it.  Too late now, they're *all over* the place.  A true national tragedy, there is no excuse for what has been done to them:  (url scrubbed)Confident Idiots: American Students Growing More Confident, Less Capable[/url]
> 
> So, now, that said, I'd like to know how we're going to deal with the following.  *WARNING:  REAL WORLD QUESTION COMING UP, NOT A THEORETICAL EXERCISE TO BE CONSIDERED ONLY BY ACADEMIC THEORISTS IN THE ADMINISTRATION:*
> 
> Let's say we have a person who is currently making $8.00 an hour.  We increase their hourly wage to $15.00.  Great.  Now they have a "living wage".  What do we do for the people who are making:
> 
> 
> $8.50
> $8.75
> $9.00
> $9.25
> $9.50
> $9.75
> $10.00
> $10.25
> $10.50
> $10.75
> $11.00
> $11.25
> ... and on and on, let's say, up to $25.00 an hour?
> 
> If you're going to be "fair", everyone else's wage has to increase by that same 90%, correct?  And if you're answer is "no", tell us precisely how you're going to break the news to these people, those Americans who have worked their way up, who have put out extra effort, increased their skillset on their own time.  *How, precisely, do you plan to break the news to these Americans that they're now down to the minimum wage with those who have put out ZERO extra effort and sacrifice?*
> 
> Please explain.  Oh, and while you're at it,  please describe *any potential negative ramifications in an intensely and increasingly competitive global business environment.*
> 
> So, now that we have agreed to increase the minimum wage to a $15.00 "living wage", please continue.  *Since I'm sure you have thought this through,* I'm sure you can knock this one out of the park.  Ready, set, go!
> 
> Looking forward to it, thanks.  I have a bunch of business clients who could use some of your guidance.
> 
> .



You can sit here and act smug all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a real problem.  I don't think a big increase in minimum wage is the answer, though.



Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> So we're pretending that someone who can only get 30 MW hours at one job can't add a job?
> 
> .



It's not 'pretending', most businesses will schedule at the most random times to make sure you can't adequately predict your schedule or make having 2 jobs work without informing them.  And of course if you don't put down availability as 'any time, any day' you simply won't get interviewed unless you are overqualified.



I also find myself shocked that a large portion of the posters in this thread are passively condoning three options for the 'perpetually poor'.  Those options being 'Government Assistance/Dependance' or 'Die' or 'Work up to 120 hours a week and barely survive'.

It's almost like you think poor people don't deserve the ability to survive.

When minimum wage was first introduced, it was introduced with the idea that you could support a small family on it while working 40 hours a week. (yourself, spouse, one kid)[citation needed]


----------



## SAYIT

tn5421 said:


> When minimum wage was first introduced, it was introduced with the idea that you could support a small family on it while working 40 hours a week. (yourself, spouse, one kid)[citation needed]



So when making such a baseless claim simply adding [citation needed] suffices for substantiation? How about providing the citation?


----------



## sameech

tn5421 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your mistake was assuming business let their people work 40 hours a week.  Most places where I live absolutely refuse to work you more than 28 hours a week at the absolute most, and its been that way for years (with 32 hours instead of 28, that was recent).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 28 hours puts them at $10.5K and if they are single, the EITC would push them to $11K just under the poverty line.  If someone is working only 28 hours a week, they could still find just temp work to put them over the threshold or could get other jobs.  It isn't like we should expect someone making MW to be able to afford a middle class lifestyle.
Click to expand...


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Politico said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not in New Jersey
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that some states think their citizens are incompetent boobs and dont trust them to pump gas.
> Not many thank God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with it. It is a farcical way to create fictitious jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?   Why?   Are you saying the people of New Jersey really are too incompetent to pump their own gas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well from what I have seen...in any case again not the reason.
Click to expand...


  I understand that. But do they actually say it? I wouldnt think telling people that "we only do this to create unnecessary expenses that cost you money" would go over to well.


----------



## Mathbud1

Noomi said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is barely a difference, and I would go to the servo in which I get the better service.
> 
> FYI, I only go to a local chain for my petrol. They can charge up to three to four cents more per litre, but I don't mind. Why? Because they know me and I have always gotten good service - and sometimes, service is more important than saving a few dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> Service at a service station? Unheard of here. You drive up, stick your credit card in the slot and pump your gas.
> If you want a soda or a pack of smokes you walk inside and hand money to someone who doesn't want to be there.
> All things being equal, it's stupid to buy 24 gallons of gasoline and pay $1.44 more because someone once smiled at you.
> 
> Same goes for employees. An employee flipping burgers for $7.85/hour will not flip any more at $10.10. He's still a burger flipper, and if he's still making $7.85/hour flipping burgers at 30, it's not his employer's fault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I wouldn't be going to any of those stations.
> The one I go to has you greeted with people who are happy to see you.
> 
> And I think you are stupid to pay less for shit service, rather than a little more for good service. Your attitude needs to change.
Click to expand...


You wouldn't have a choice here. There are NO gas stations in my area that actually have an attendant pump gas. You either pump it yourself or go without fuel. And why should I care if I am not being serviced at the gas station? If it cuts my cost in fuel, I'm all for pumping the gas myself. It can also be much faster if I do it myself rather than having to wait for an attendant to get to me when the station is busy. I also load my own groceries into the car even though my grocery store offers the service for free.


----------



## Mathbud1

SAYIT said:


> tn5421 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When minimum wage was first introduced, it was introduced with the idea that you could support a small family on it while working 40 hours a week. (yourself, spouse, one kid)[citation needed]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when making such a baseless claim simply adding [citation needed] suffices for substantiation? How about providing the citation?
Click to expand...


Probably a copy and paste directly from Wikipedia. The "Citation Needed" flag didn't seem to give them any pause in using it though.


----------



## hadit

Androw said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are 2 gas stations across the street from each other about 2 miles from my house. One charges $3.439 for a gallon of Shell and the other charges $3.499 for a gallon of Texaco. Where would you, Sheila and Noomi, buy your gasoline? I know where I stop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is barely a difference, and I would go to the servo in which I get the better service.
> 
> FYI, I only go to a local chain for my petrol. They can charge up to three to four cents more per litre, but I don't mind. Why? Because they know me and I have always gotten good service - and sometimes, service is more important than saving a few dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps things are different in your country, but here...  at least in my area, there is no service.
> 
> No service at all.
> 
> I drive up to a fuel pump kiosk, that accepts a credit card.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Top left of the pump, is where you put in your credit card.
> 
> You then fuel your car yourself, and drive away.
> 
> You never see any employee of the station, unless you want to buy something from the quick-mart.
> 
> So between two gas stations, I'm going to the cheapest one.
> 
> Now in places where service matters, then I would agree.  Good service is worth a few dollars for sure.   If you go to a restaurant, and the service is terrible, saving a few bucks doesn't work.  You are going to go to a place that has good service, or you are not going.
> 
> But even then, the price still has to be low enough to justify going.   Yeah, you can pay your waiters $50,000 a year, and get great quality service.   But if the price is too high, no customers are going to show up.
> 
> Then all the waiters making $50,000 are unemployed, making zero.   There is a trade off, where better service at a higher cost, doesn't work.
Click to expand...


The fallacy of the MW can be exposed by a simple experiment.  If raising the MW to $10/hour is a good thing, why not just raise it to $50/hour and eliminate poverty altogether?  I'll let the MW activists attempt to answer that one.


----------



## beagle9

Mathbud1 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Service at a service station? Unheard of here. You drive up, stick your credit card in the slot and pump your gas.
> If you want a soda or a pack of smokes you walk inside and hand money to someone who doesn't want to be there.
> All things being equal, it's stupid to buy 24 gallons of gasoline and pay $1.44 more because someone once smiled at you.
> 
> Same goes for employees. An employee flipping burgers for $7.85/hour will not flip any more at $10.10. He's still a burger flipper, and if he's still making $7.85/hour flipping burgers at 30, it's not his employer's fault.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I wouldn't be going to any of those stations.
> The one I go to has you greeted with people who are happy to see you.
> 
> And I think you are stupid to pay less for shit service, rather than a little more for good service. Your attitude needs to change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wouldn't have a choice here. There are NO gas stations in my area that actually have an attendant pump gas. You either pump it yourself or go without fuel. And why should I care if I am not being serviced at the gas station?* If it cuts my cost in fuel,* I'm all for pumping the gas myself. It can also be much faster if I do it myself rather than having to wait for an attendant to get to me when the station is busy. I also load my own groceries into the car even though my grocery store offers the service for free.
Click to expand...


Your fallacy is that it's somehow cutting your cost, when really it's only saving those stations the added expenses of providing the luxury service that is usually offered to you as a bonus when doing business there, but because you do it yourself for them instead, I ask who is looking at who as the fool ? How do you like working for free, and still paying high prices ?


----------



## alan1

beagle9 said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then I wouldn't be going to any of those stations.
> The one I go to has you greeted with people who are happy to see you.
> 
> And I think you are stupid to pay less for shit service, rather than a little more for good service. Your attitude needs to change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't have a choice here. There are NO gas stations in my area that actually have an attendant pump gas. You either pump it yourself or go without fuel. And why should I care if I am not being serviced at the gas station?* If it cuts my cost in fuel,* I'm all for pumping the gas myself. It can also be much faster if I do it myself rather than having to wait for an attendant to get to me when the station is busy. I also load my own groceries into the car even though my grocery store offers the service for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your fallacy is that it's somehow cutting your cost, when really it's only saving those stations the added expenses of providing the luxury service that is usually offered to you as a bonus when doing business there, but because you do it yourself for them instead, I ask who is looking at who as the fool ? How do you like working for free, and still paying high prices ?
Click to expand...


Actually, what happened was that OPEC formed, and the price of gas started rising pretty quickly in the 1970's.  Service stations started offering the option of self-service or full-service.  Full-service usually ran 7-10 cents a gallon more than self-service (which coincidentally was also about 7-10%).  It didn't take long for most people to start switching to self-service.  Less people using full-service also resulted in less people working at service stations.  And guess who the people were that got fired?  It was the 15-20 year old unskilled young people that pumped gas and in between customers, they were learning a trade called auto mechanics.  Being an auto mechanic at a mom and pop service station used to pay a pretty decent wage (much more than minimum wage).  Eventually, in most states, the 'Service Station" disappeared and was replaced by self-service with a convenience store attached.

Now, to be perfectly realistic, I'm not sure the whole pump gas and learn how to be a mechanic would work in this day and age.  Automobiles have become much more complex than they were 20+ years ago.  I doubt a person could learn good automotive mechanics simply from on the job training these days.  But 20, 30, 40 years ago, they could build a decent paying career with that as their start.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

hadit said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is barely a difference, and I would go to the servo in which I get the better service.
> 
> FYI, I only go to a local chain for my petrol. They can charge up to three to four cents more per litre, but I don't mind. Why? Because they know me and I have always gotten good service - and sometimes, service is more important than saving a few dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps things are different in your country, but here...  at least in my area, there is no service.
> 
> No service at all.
> 
> I drive up to a fuel pump kiosk, that accepts a credit card.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Top left of the pump, is where you put in your credit card.
> 
> You then fuel your car yourself, and drive away.
> 
> You never see any employee of the station, unless you want to buy something from the quick-mart.
> 
> So between two gas stations, I'm going to the cheapest one.
> 
> Now in places where service matters, then I would agree.  Good service is worth a few dollars for sure.   If you go to a restaurant, and the service is terrible, saving a few bucks doesn't work.  You are going to go to a place that has good service, or you are not going.
> 
> But even then, the price still has to be low enough to justify going.   Yeah, you can pay your waiters $50,000 a year, and get great quality service.   But if the price is too high, no customers are going to show up.
> 
> Then all the waiters making $50,000 are unemployed, making zero.   There is a trade off, where better service at a higher cost, doesn't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fallacy of the MW can be exposed by a simple experiment.  If raising the MW to $10/hour is a good thing, why not just raise it to $50/hour and eliminate poverty altogether?  I'll let the MW activists attempt to answer that one.
Click to expand...


  Good luck.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

hadit said:


> The fallacy of the MW can be exposed by a simple experiment.  If raising the MW to $10/hour is a good thing, why not just raise it to $50/hour and eliminate poverty altogether?  I'll let the MW activists attempt to answer that one.


You assume all those who support raising the minimum wage think doing so will eliminate poverty.
Some of us are simply realistic. 
Some of us understand the terms money wage, real wage and inflation.  Do you?


----------



## Ernie S.

Mathbud1 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Service at a service station? Unheard of here. You drive up, stick your credit card in the slot and pump your gas.
> If you want a soda or a pack of smokes you walk inside and hand money to someone who doesn't want to be there.
> All things being equal, it's stupid to buy 24 gallons of gasoline and pay $1.44 more because someone once smiled at you.
> 
> Same goes for employees. An employee flipping burgers for $7.85/hour will not flip any more at $10.10. He's still a burger flipper, and if he's still making $7.85/hour flipping burgers at 30, it's not his employer's fault.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I wouldn't be going to any of those stations.
> The one I go to has you greeted with people who are happy to see you.
> 
> And I think you are stupid to pay less for shit service, rather than a little more for good service. Your attitude needs to change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wouldn't have a choice here. There are NO gas stations in my area that actually have an attendant pump gas. You either pump it yourself or go without fuel. And why should I care if I am not being serviced at the gas station? If it cuts my cost in fuel, I'm all for pumping the gas myself. It can also be much faster if I do it myself rather than having to wait for an attendant to get to me when the station is busy. I also load my own groceries into the car even though my grocery store offers the service for free.
Click to expand...

Did she delete her post? I went back to reply when I saw it quoted in your post, but Poof! Noomi. Us rednecks in Alabama are smart enough to pump our own gas without setting shit on fire. I can't help it if you people down under can't figure it out.
There are buttons on gas pumps here to push if you're handicapped. I suppose an attendant will eventually come to help you, but at night, there is usually only one person on duty so they will have to wait until the store is empty before they can pump your gas.


----------



## Ernie S.

beagle9 said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then I wouldn't be going to any of those stations.
> The one I go to has you greeted with people who are happy to see you.
> 
> And I think you are stupid to pay less for shit service, rather than a little more for good service. Your attitude needs to change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't have a choice here. There are NO gas stations in my area that actually have an attendant pump gas. You either pump it yourself or go without fuel. And why should I care if I am not being serviced at the gas station?* If it cuts my cost in fuel,* I'm all for pumping the gas myself. It can also be much faster if I do it myself rather than having to wait for an attendant to get to me when the station is busy. I also load my own groceries into the car even though my grocery store offers the service for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your fallacy is that it's somehow cutting your cost, when really it's only saving those stations the added expenses of providing the luxury service that is usually offered to you as a bonus when doing business there, but because you do it yourself for them instead, I ask who is looking at who as the fool ? How do you like working for free, and still paying high prices ?
Click to expand...


Do you understand the concept of overhead? Stations where you pump your own gas do not have to pay 3 or 4 people to stand behind your car and manage a hose while you text your boy/girl friend.
Newark, New Jersey where customers are too dumb to pump gas averages about $3.50/gallon. Mobile, AL where we've mastered the art, $3.30.


----------



## Politico

SAYIT said:


> tn5421 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When minimum wage was first introduced, it was introduced with the idea that you could support a small family on it while working 40 hours a week. (yourself, spouse, one kid)[citation needed]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when making such a baseless claim simply adding [citation needed] suffices for substantiation? How about providing the citation?
Click to expand...


Baseless? How about you quit the silliness and look up what the guy who thought the whole thing up said?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

beagle9 said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then I wouldn't be going to any of those stations.
> The one I go to has you greeted with people who are happy to see you.
> 
> And I think you are stupid to pay less for shit service, rather than a little more for good service. Your attitude needs to change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't have a choice here. There are NO gas stations in my area that actually have an attendant pump gas. You either pump it yourself or go without fuel. And why should I care if I am not being serviced at the gas station?* If it cuts my cost in fuel,* I'm all for pumping the gas myself. It can also be much faster if I do it myself rather than having to wait for an attendant to get to me when the station is busy. I also load my own groceries into the car even though my grocery store offers the service for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your fallacy is that it's somehow cutting your cost, when really it's only saving those stations the added expenses of providing the luxury service that is usually offered to you as a bonus when doing business there, but because you do it yourself for them instead, I ask who is looking at who as the fool ? How do you like working for free, and still paying high prices ?
Click to expand...


  Are you trying to make pumping gas sound arduous. Really? And if you dont think prices wouldnt go up if they added another employee or two you're nuts. Whether you payed at the pump or at the slushy machine you'd be paying more.


----------



## beagle9

alan1 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't have a choice here. There are NO gas stations in my area that actually have an attendant pump gas. You either pump it yourself or go without fuel. And why should I care if I am not being serviced at the gas station?* If it cuts my cost in fuel,* I'm all for pumping the gas myself. It can also be much faster if I do it myself rather than having to wait for an attendant to get to me when the station is busy. I also load my own groceries into the car even though my grocery store offers the service for free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your fallacy is that it's somehow cutting your cost, when really it's only saving those stations the added expenses of providing the luxury service that is usually offered to you as a bonus when doing business there, but because you do it yourself for them instead, I ask who is looking at who as the fool ? How do you like working for free, and still paying high prices ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, what happened was that OPEC formed, and the price of gas started rising pretty quickly in the 1970's.  Service stations started offering the option of self-service or full-service.  Full-service usually ran 7-10 cents a gallon more than self-service (which coincidentally was also about 7-10%).  It didn't take long for most people to start switching to self-service.  Less people using full-service also resulted in less people working at service stations.  And guess who the people were that got fired?  It was the 15-20 year old unskilled young people that pumped gas and in between customers, they were learning a trade called auto mechanics.  Being an auto mechanic at a mom and pop service station used to pay a pretty decent wage (much more than minimum wage).  Eventually, in most states, the 'Service Station" disappeared and was replaced by self-service with a convenience store attached.
> 
> Now, to be perfectly realistic, I'm not sure the whole pump gas and learn how to be a mechanic would work in this day and age.  *Automobiles have become much more complex than they were 20+ years ago.  I doubt a person could learn good automotive mechanics simply from on the job training these days. * But 20, 30, 40 years ago, they could build a decent paying career with that as their start.
Click to expand...


Peoples ability to reason and learn has developed greatly over the years, and that is the very reason things have become as complex as they are today, especially when they are given the chance, and so I will still believe that the things that people assume people can't do anymore is just wrong today. Kids are in rebellion these days because they don't have the opportunities of the past offered them no more, and it's not because they aren't smart enough, but it's more so that greed has replaced the things in which we all held dear in the learning processes of life, therefore leaving them to wither on the vine, and then to simply die.  They are supposed to be the potential replacements for the old who will need them someday in order to retire, but yet they can't find themselves anymore because of it all........ Shameful....


----------



## Noomi

I never said we had people who actually pump the gas for you. We have people behind the counter that take your money for your petrol - but a lot of people would almost certainly pay extra for someone to pump the gas. I remember those days, and miss them.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Noomi said:


> I never said we had people who actually pump the gas for you. We have people behind the counter that take your money for your petrol - but a lot of people would almost certainly pay extra for someone to pump the gas. I remember those days, and miss them.




   We have these things called credit cards. They give them to the financially mature in America,maybe you've heard of them.
  They're little flat rectangle things you stick in the gas pump so you dont have to go inside. They're really handy.

   They also allow you to get gas even when the store is closed!! Pretty amazing huh?
The wonders of modern tech.....


----------



## Mathbud1

Noomi said:


> I never said we had people who actually pump the gas for you. We have people behind the counter that take your money for your petrol - but a lot of people would almost certainly pay extra for someone to pump the gas. I remember those days, and miss them.



You can walk inside to pay if you really want to. Sometimes it's nice if you want to pick up an overpriced snack. I prefer to get out of there much quicker than that though.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## Uncensored2008

Zombie_Pundit said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fallacy of the MW can be exposed by a simple experiment.  If raising the MW to $10/hour is a good thing, why not just raise it to $50/hour and eliminate poverty altogether?  I'll let the MW activists attempt to answer that one.
> 
> 
> 
> You assume all those who support raising the minimum wage think doing so will eliminate poverty.
> Some of us are simply realistic.
> Some of us understand the terms money wage, real wage and inflation.  Do you?
Click to expand...


So your goal isn't to improve the lives of the low end workers, but rather to eliminate their jobs and force them on to welfare?


----------



## Ernie S.

So, you will pay 3 or 4 cents more/liter of gasoline because the guy inside smiled at you. OK if attention is that important to you, I guess you can shop where ever you want.
I have a pretty bar maid with really big hooters, but I don't charge more for a beer when she's on duty.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Ernie S. said:


> So, you will pay 3 or 4 cents more/liter of gasoline because the guy inside smiled at you. OK if attention is that important to you, I guess you can shop where ever you want.
> I have a pretty bar maid with really big hooters, but I don't charge more for a beer when she's on duty.



It's cheaper than $500 for an evening with a Gigolo...  

Maybe Noomi has limited options...


----------



## beagle9

Mathbud1 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said we had people who actually pump the gas for you. We have people behind the counter that take your money for your petrol - but a lot of people would almost certainly pay extra for someone to pump the gas. I remember those days, and miss them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can walk inside to pay if you really want to. Sometimes it's nice if you want to pick up an overpriced snack. I prefer to get out of there much quicker than that though.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes and if it was my store, I would have refused the new pump technology on people with your kind of attitudes for sure. You sound as a *cheapscape *who will use a facility at it's bear minimum, just so you can ride away feeling as if you took advantage of the technology, yet you will never step inside to do business with the store in which is providing you the technology and the convienence it offers you. WOW!


Hmmm, A side note to the site - These adds at the bottom of the page are interupting badly the experience here now, and in fact they are causing the computers to run slow and even lock up. Might want to look into it.


----------



## beagle9

Ernie S. said:


> So, you will pay 3 or 4 cents more/liter of gasoline because the guy inside smiled at you. OK if attention is that important to you, I guess you can shop where ever you want.
> *I have a pretty bar maid with really big hooters, but I don't charge more for a beer when she's on duty*.



Wow you may be a complete idiot to your bar maid then, because she is probably knocking down the tips, but here you are refusing to make your money on the added attraction that she is bringing to the experience found in it all?  Wow !

5 cents more on a beer for a beautiful female who makes the customers feel right at home, and in which they wouldn't even bat an eye lid at for the extra cents being charged, but you say NO or won't even try it ?  Lets say then that (she gets two cents of it and you get three), and she brings great bartending services while they are coming to your business to relax and have good conversation to boot, so whats wrong with that ? No wonder no one can get a raise these days with thinking like you have... Sheesh ! 

You sure your a business man ?


----------



## beagle9

There is the value of the dollar, and then there is the competition on where you will spend that dollar at, then there are the services and great things offered at different companies if you spend that dollar in one place or the other wit them, but what has happened is that the top unionized together in thought of how to get your dollar for the least amount of services (you pump your gas, because we don't do that anymore) and did away as much as possible with the quality of their services along with the quality of their products while convincing us that we must use more and more of our dollars to get the same services and products that we had gotten from them years before. Technology is supposed to make us more richer and not more poorer, but we see the latter instead of the former as being the case.

Then you have their defenders who will defend being ripped off by them like the fools in which they have sadly become. This is why common working class Americans get no respect anymore, because we look like complete fools to those who are out to do us in and do us wrong. Then we are letting them get away with it to boot. Who has destroyed the value of the dollar over time and why ? We are still considered the richest nation in the world, but our dollar won't hardly by a loaf of bread anymore these days ?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

beagle9 said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said we had people who actually pump the gas for you. We have people behind the counter that take your money for your petrol - but a lot of people would almost certainly pay extra for someone to pump the gas. I remember those days, and miss them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can walk inside to pay if you really want to. Sometimes it's nice if you want to pick up an overpriced snack. I prefer to get out of there much quicker than that though.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes and if it was my store, I would have refused the new pump technology on people with your kind of attitudes for sure. You sound as a *cheapscape *who will use a facility at it's bear minimum, just so you can ride away feeling as if you took advantage of the technology, yet you will never step inside to do business with the store in which is providing you the technology and the convienence it offers you. WOW!
> 
> 
> Hmmm, A side note to the site - These adds at the bottom of the page are interupting badly the experience here now, and in fact they are causing the computers to run slow and even lock up. Might want to look into it.
Click to expand...


  If you ran a gas station with pumps that didnt have credit card capability you'd be out of business in a month.


----------



## beagle9

HereWeGoAgain said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can walk inside to pay if you really want to. Sometimes it's nice if you want to pick up an overpriced snack. I prefer to get out of there much quicker than that though.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and if it was my store, I would have refused the new pump technology on people with your kind of attitudes for sure. You sound as a *cheapscape *who will use a facility at it's bear minimum, just so you can ride away feeling as if you took advantage of the technology, yet you will never step inside to do business with the store in which is providing you the technology and the convienence it offers you. WOW!
> 
> 
> Hmmm, A side note to the site - These adds at the bottom of the page are interupting badly the experience here now, and in fact they are causing the computers to run slow and even lock up. Might want to look into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you ran a gas station with pumps that didnt have credit card capability you'd be out of business in a month.
Click to expand...

And you know why that is ? It's not because the citizens would put you out of business, but you would be forced out by your competitors who would use the good ole boy system to crush you because you are breaking the union in which they have created. You see they get together and only allow certain services and things at certain prices, but here a rogue owner is trying to do more, and to give someone more bang for their buck until he or she becomes an ameba to the good ole boy club, and then a target to be run out of business somehow or the other....... The citizens should be ashamed that they have allowed this to happen to them over time.


----------



## beagle9

Why would people not want better for their money, and their money to do great things for them when they use it ? It can't be just a one sided deal like it had become over time.


----------



## Uncensored2008

beagle9 said:


> Yes and if it was my store, I would have refused the new pump technology on people with your kind of attitudes for sure. You sound as a *cheapscape *who will use a facility at it's bear minimum, just so you can ride away feeling as if you took advantage of the technology, yet you will never step inside to do business with the store in which is providing you the technology and the convienence it offers you. WOW!
> 
> 
> Hmmm, A side note to the site - These adds at the bottom of the page are interupting badly the experience here now, and in fact they are causing the computers to run slow and even lock up. Might want to look into it.



Funny thing, you talk about taking advantage, yet I notice you're not a contributing member here....


----------



## beagle9

Funny, I thought the site should be paying me instead of me paying them.. 

You mean you ain't been getting your money's worth ?


----------



## beagle9

HereWeGoAgain said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't have a choice here. There are NO gas stations in my area that actually have an attendant pump gas. You either pump it yourself or go without fuel. And why should I care if I am not being serviced at the gas station?* If it cuts my cost in fuel,* I'm all for pumping the gas myself. It can also be much faster if I do it myself rather than having to wait for an attendant to get to me when the station is busy. I also load my own groceries into the car even though my grocery store offers the service for free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your fallacy is that it's somehow cutting your cost, when really it's only saving those stations the added expenses of providing the luxury service that is usually offered to you as a bonus when doing business there, but because you do it yourself for them instead, I ask who is looking at who as the fool ? How do you like working for free, and still paying high prices ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make pumping gas sound arduous. Really? And if you dont think prices wouldnt go up if they added another employee or two you're nuts. Whether you payed at the pump or at the slushy machine you'd be paying more.
Click to expand...

Look in the early days the reason we had all the services and quality in products that we did have thrown at us, was because of the competition in small businesses who wanted our loyalty and devotion to them badly, and it just showed how far they could go in order to get your business, and to still make a decent living and profit to boot. That's all changed now, and it's more about how they can get out of us *all the money they can,* and for as less as they can give it back to us in services and quality these days, so don't patronize me because I ain't that easily fooled.


----------



## SAYIT

HereWeGoAgain said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't have a choice here. There are NO gas stations in my area that actually have an attendant pump gas. You either pump it yourself or go without fuel. And why should I care if I am not being serviced at the gas station?* If it cuts my cost in fuel,* I'm all for pumping the gas myself. It can also be much faster if I do it myself rather than having to wait for an attendant to get to me when the station is busy. I also load my own groceries into the car even though my grocery store offers the service for free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your fallacy is that it's somehow cutting your cost, when really it's only saving those stations the added expenses of providing the luxury service that is usually offered to you as a bonus when doing business there, but because you do it yourself for them instead, I ask who is looking at who as the fool ? How do you like working for free, and still paying high prices ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make pumping gas sound arduous. Really? And if you dont think prices wouldnt go up if they added another employee or two you're nuts. Whether you payed at the pump or at the slushy machine you'd be paying more.
Click to expand...


Really? 
You mean those extra employees wouldn't volunteer their services for the privilege of pumping my gas? How 'bout BEAGLE's gas? Yours? No? 
The silly, half-assed reasoning of the socialist POV constantly amuses me.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

beagle9 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and if it was my store, I would have refused the new pump technology on people with your kind of attitudes for sure. You sound as a *cheapscape *who will use a facility at it's bear minimum, just so you can ride away feeling as if you took advantage of the technology, yet you will never step inside to do business with the store in which is providing you the technology and the convienence it offers you. WOW!
> 
> 
> Hmmm, A side note to the site - These adds at the bottom of the page are interupting badly the experience here now, and in fact they are causing the computers to run slow and even lock up. Might want to look into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you ran a gas station with pumps that didnt have credit card capability you'd be out of business in a month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you know why that is ? It's not because the citizens would put you out of business, but you would be forced out by your competitors who would use the good ole boy system to crush you because you are breaking the union in which they have created. You see they get together and only allow certain services and things at certain prices, but here a rogue owner is trying to do more, and to give someone more bang for their buck until he or she becomes an ameba to the good ole boy club, and then a target to be run out of business somehow or the other....... The citizens should be ashamed that they have allowed this to happen to them over time.
Click to expand...


  Nooooo...it's about convenience. I refuse to stop at a station I have to go inside to pay for gas. And if it's raining I dont get wet. It's really not an issue though,the only gas stations that don't have pay at the pump are ancient places out in the boonies. Those I dont mind going into because they usually have character or the people working there are characters.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

beagle9 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your fallacy is that it's somehow cutting your cost, when really it's only saving those stations the added expenses of providing the luxury service that is usually offered to you as a bonus when doing business there, but because you do it yourself for them instead, I ask who is looking at who as the fool ? How do you like working for free, and still paying high prices ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make pumping gas sound arduous. Really? And if you dont think prices wouldnt go up if they added another employee or two you're nuts. Whether you payed at the pump or at the slushy machine you'd be paying more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look in the early days the reason we had all the services and quality in products that we did have thrown at us, was because of the competition in small businesses who wanted our loyalty and devotion to them badly, and it just showed how far they could go in order to get your business, and to still make a decent living and profit to boot. That's all changed now, and it's more about how they can get out of us *all the money they can,* and for as less as they can give it back to us in services and quality these days, so don't patronize me because I ain't that easily fooled.
Click to expand...


  Look,if you're to afraid or not smart enough to pump your own gas just say so.
I mean some chicks can be pretty dingy. (no offense to capable women out there)


----------



## beagle9

HereWeGoAgain said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make pumping gas sound arduous. Really? And if you dont think prices wouldnt go up if they added another employee or two you're nuts. Whether you payed at the pump or at the slushy machine you'd be paying more.
> 
> 
> 
> Look in the early days the reason we had all the services and quality in products that we did have thrown at us, was because of the competition in small businesses who wanted our loyalty and devotion to them badly, and it just showed how far they could go in order to get your business, and to still make a decent living and profit to boot. That's all changed now, and it's more about how they can get out of us *all the money they can,* and for as less as they can give it back to us in services and quality these days, so don't patronize me because I ain't that easily fooled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look,if you're to afraid or not smart enough to pump your own gas just say so.
> I mean some chicks can be pretty dingy. (no offense to capable women out there)
Click to expand...

This is how you finally read all the things that people are discussing here ? Are you really this dingy, that you have decided that this is all you have left in speak for the thread now ? It apears that all you have is foolish interpretations and/or insinuations that make you look a fool when speaking in this way. 

Just sayin !


----------



## beagle9

HereWeGoAgain said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you ran a gas station with pumps that didnt have credit card capability you'd be out of business in a month.
> 
> 
> 
> And you know why that is ? It's not because the citizens would put you out of business, but you would be forced out by your competitors who would use the good ole boy system to crush you because you are breaking the union in which they have created. You see they get together and only allow certain services and things at certain prices, but here a rogue owner is trying to do more, and to give someone more bang for their buck until he or she becomes an ameba to the good ole boy club, and then a target to be run out of business somehow or the other....... The citizens should be ashamed that they have allowed this to happen to them over time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nooooo...it's about convenience. I refuse to stop at a station I have to go inside to pay for gas. And if it's raining I dont get wet. It's really not an issue though,the only gas stations that don't have pay at the pump are ancient places out in the boonies. Those I dont mind going into because they usually have character or the people working there are characters.
Click to expand...

It's cool that you are saying to the idiot corps that you are going to just use them in the most minimal way possible, and this because they no longer offer character or pay for character to be a part of their establisment anymore... Good for you, as you may be helping others to realize that people & services do matter, and if that was recognized once again, then you just might be prompted to engage more and pay more into a system that pleases you instead of teases you out of your money.


----------



## beagle9

SAYIT said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your fallacy is that it's somehow cutting your cost, when really it's only saving those stations the added expenses of providing the luxury service that is usually offered to you as a bonus when doing business there, but because you do it yourself for them instead, I ask who is looking at who as the fool ? How do you like working for free, and still paying high prices ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make pumping gas sound arduous. Really? And if you dont think prices wouldnt go up if they added another employee or two you're nuts. Whether you payed at the pump or at the slushy machine you'd be paying more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> You mean those extra employees wouldn't volunteer their services for the privilege of pumping my gas? How 'bout BEAGLE's gas? Yours? No?
> The silly, half-assed reasoning of the socialist POV constantly amuses me.
Click to expand...

So your saying that what the old timers had done, and for what they had created back in the day when the nation was at it's greatest and finest hours, were just socialist pieces of crap who didn't understand a thing about the value of a dollar, and how when we would spend a dollar that their companies would compete for that dollar in many ways in which lifted the nation up ?  It was all just their imagination now or ours ?  What's wrong with the committing of great services and quality of products, where as this should be as job one in America once again ? I think it would be great because it created a strong nation and a durable one in times gone by.   

Sadly it's not so much today as so many corps had become rapist instead of good capitalist as they should have remained as such, but they sadly have let their greed get the best of them, and now the defenders of greed are hammering their selfish clients case for them.  Just sayin..


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

beagle9 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you know why that is ? It's not because the citizens would put you out of business, but you would be forced out by your competitors who would use the good ole boy system to crush you because you are breaking the union in which they have created. You see they get together and only allow certain services and things at certain prices, but here a rogue owner is trying to do more, and to give someone more bang for their buck until he or she becomes an ameba to the good ole boy club, and then a target to be run out of business somehow or the other....... The citizens should be ashamed that they have allowed this to happen to them over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nooooo...it's about convenience. I refuse to stop at a station I have to go inside to pay for gas. And if it's raining I dont get wet. It's really not an issue though,the only gas stations that don't have pay at the pump are ancient places out in the boonies. Those I dont mind going into because they usually have character or the people working there are characters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's cool that you are saying to the idiot corps that you are going to just use them in the most minimal way possible, and this because they no longer offer character or pay for character to be a part of their establisment anymore... Good for you, as you may be helping others to realize that people & services do matter, and if that was recognized once again, then you just might be prompted to engage more and pay more into a system that pleases you instead of teases you out of your money.
Click to expand...


  God you're a doofus. It's called convenience.
If you're so fired up about meeting the workers why dont you stop at the refineries before you buy your gas and see how their day is going?
 You're a first class nut job...seriously get help.


----------



## Mathbud1

beagle9 said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said we had people who actually pump the gas for you. We have people behind the counter that take your money for your petrol - but a lot of people would almost certainly pay extra for someone to pump the gas. I remember those days, and miss them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can walk inside to pay if you really want to. Sometimes it's nice if you want to pick up an overpriced snack. I prefer to get out of there much quicker than that though.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes and if it was my store, I would have refused the new pump technology on people with your kind of attitudes for sure. You sound as a *cheapscape *who will use a facility at it's bear minimum, just so you can ride away feeling as if you took advantage of the technology, yet you will never step inside to do business with the store in which is providing you the technology and the convienence it offers you. WOW!
> 
> 
> Hmmm, A side note to the site - These adds at the bottom of the page are interupting badly the experience here now, and in fact they are causing the computers to run slow and even lock up. Might want to look into it.
Click to expand...


I'm a "cheapscape" for wanting to get home to my family faster rather than wasting time at the gas station?

Or is it that I'm a "cheapscape" for not wanting to spend my hard earned money on garbage food at a Quick Stop when I can get much healthier food cheaper at the grocery store.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Mathbud1 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can walk inside to pay if you really want to. Sometimes it's nice if you want to pick up an overpriced snack. I prefer to get out of there much quicker than that though.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and if it was my store, I would have refused the new pump technology on people with your kind of attitudes for sure. You sound as a *cheapscape *who will use a facility at it's bear minimum, just so you can ride away feeling as if you took advantage of the technology, yet you will never step inside to do business with the store in which is providing you the technology and the convienence it offers you. WOW!
> 
> 
> Hmmm, A side note to the site - These adds at the bottom of the page are interupting badly the experience here now, and in fact they are causing the computers to run slow and even lock up. Might want to look into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a "cheapscape" for wanting to get home to my family faster rather than wasting time at the gas station?
> 
> Or is it that I'm a "cheapscape" for not wanting to spend my hard earned money on garbage food at a Quick Stop when I can get much healthier food cheaper at the grocery store.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


  I've come to the conclusion that Beagle is mentally disturbed or rides a bicycle.


----------



## beagle9

HereWeGoAgain said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nooooo...it's about convenience. I refuse to stop at a station I have to go inside to pay for gas. And if it's raining I dont get wet. It's really not an issue though,the only gas stations that don't have pay at the pump are ancient places out in the boonies. Those I dont mind going into because they usually have character or the people working there are characters.
> 
> 
> 
> It's cool that you are saying to the idiot corps that you are going to just use them in the most minimal way possible, and this because they no longer offer character or pay for character to be a part of their establisment anymore... Good for you, as you may be helping others to realize that people & services do matter, and if that was recognized once again, then you just might be prompted to engage more and pay more into a system that pleases you instead of teases you out of your money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God you're a dumb fuck. It's called convenience.
> If you're so fired up about meeting the workers why dont you stop at the refineries before you buy your gas and see how their day is going?
> You're a first class nut job...seriously get help.
Click to expand...

No I am an old timer for whom I think if you new me, you might give me a little more respect than what you do.

I understand though, I mean that you are living in a world that has now been long since removed from the good old days for which we had known, and that probably you may never know and/or experience in your life other than maybe in the books you might read. 

It's sad what this nation has become, and what it is bringing up in mentalities now.


----------



## SAYIT

beagle9 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make pumping gas sound arduous. Really? And if you dont think prices wouldnt go up if they added another employee or two you're nuts. Whether you payed at the pump or at the slushy machine you'd be paying more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> You mean those extra employees wouldn't volunteer their services for the privilege of pumping my gas? How 'bout BEAGLE's gas? Yours? No?
> The silly, half-assed reasoning of the socialist POV constantly amuses me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your saying that what the old timers had done, and for what they had created back in the day when the nation was at it's greatest and finest hours, were just socialist pieces of crap who didn't understand a thing about the value of a dollar, and how when we would spend a dollar that their companies would compete for that dollar in many ways in which lifted the nation up ?  It was all just their imagination now or ours ?  What's wrong with the committing of great services and quality of products, where as this should be as job one in America once again ? I think it would be great because it created a strong nation and a durable one in times gone by.
> 
> Sadly it's not so much today as so many corps had become rapist instead of good capitalist as they should have remained as such, but they sadly have let their greed get the best of them, and now the defenders of greed are hammering their selfish clients case for them.  Just sayin..
Click to expand...


Huh? Please explain how your response relates to the fact that adding gas pump jocks requires paying them for their services and that, in turn, means higher gas prices. Must we bring back the ice man also? Milk and bread deliveries? How 'bout black & white TV? Woo.


----------



## beagle9

Mathbud1 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can walk inside to pay if you really want to. Sometimes it's nice if you want to pick up an overpriced snack. I prefer to get out of there much quicker than that though.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and if it was my store, I would have refused the new pump technology on people with your kind of attitudes for sure. You sound as a *cheapscape *who will use a facility at it's bear minimum, just so you can ride away feeling as if you took advantage of the technology, yet you will never step inside to do business with the store in which is providing you the technology and the convienence it offers you. WOW!
> 
> 
> Hmmm, A side note to the site - These adds at the bottom of the page are interupting badly the experience here now, and in fact they are causing the computers to run slow and even lock up. Might want to look into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a "cheapscape" for wanting to get home to my family faster rather than wasting time at the gas station?
> 
> Or is it that I'm a "cheapscape" for not wanting to spend my hard earned money on garbage food at a Quick Stop when I can get much healthier food cheaper at the grocery store.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Should I even answer something as dumb as this in which you have written ? I'm sorry but you sound desperate writing something like this... No one is this stupid to try and answer such bull crap in the way that you have written this out.. Come on man, you can get more creative than this can't you ? Try and hide what you are up to just a little bit better ok, then maybe we might bite....LOL


----------



## Ernie S.

beagle9 said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said we had people who actually pump the gas for you. We have people behind the counter that take your money for your petrol - but a lot of people would almost certainly pay extra for someone to pump the gas. I remember those days, and miss them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can walk inside to pay if you really want to. Sometimes it's nice if you want to pick up an overpriced snack. I prefer to get out of there much quicker than that though.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes and if it was my store, I would have refused the new pump technology on people with your kind of attitudes for sure. You sound as a *cheapscape *who will use a facility at it's bear minimum, just so you can ride away feeling as if you took advantage of the technology, yet you will never step inside to do business with the store in which is providing you the technology and the convienence it offers you. WOW!
> 
> 
> Hmmm, A side note to the site - *These adds at the bottom of the page are interupting badly the experience here now, and in fact they are causing the computers to run slow and even lock up.* Might want to look into it.
Click to expand...


What ads? Oh! You might want to look into becoming a contributing member or purchasing a better computer.

NO! You may *not* raise my taxes to pay for it.


----------



## beagle9

SAYIT said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> You mean those extra employees wouldn't volunteer their services for the privilege of pumping my gas? How 'bout BEAGLE's gas? Yours? No?
> The silly, half-assed reasoning of the socialist POV constantly amuses me.
> 
> 
> 
> So your saying that what the old timers had done, and for what they had created back in the day when the nation was at it's greatest and finest hours, were just socialist pieces of crap who didn't understand a thing about the value of a dollar, and how when we would spend a dollar that their companies would compete for that dollar in many ways in which lifted the nation up ?  It was all just their imagination now or ours ?  What's wrong with the committing of great services and quality of products, where as this should be as job one in America once again ? I think it would be great because it created a strong nation and a durable one in times gone by.
> 
> Sadly it's not so much today as so many corps had become rapist instead of good capitalist as they should have remained as such, but they sadly have let their greed get the best of them, and now the defenders of greed are hammering their selfish clients case for them.  Just sayin..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh? Please explain how your response relates to the fact that adding gas pump jocks requires paying them for their services and that, in turn, means higher gas prices. Must we bring back the ice man also? Milk and bread deliveries? How 'bout black & white TV? Woo.
Click to expand...

Would you have a problem with someone bringing you ice, bread and milk to your doorstep, I mean if a company could afford to do it in a competitive way again, and in a way in which kept the price down to you, and also made them a profit to boot ?  What if it brought back that old feeling of American quality and services to your community in which you live again, would you be against it ? Sounds convienent enough to me, and you say you are all for convienence right ?

I sure wouldn't turn it down, but you would see it as a threat maybe to who and to what in your world vision of things ?


----------



## beagle9

ernie s. said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you can walk inside to pay if you really want to. Sometimes it's nice if you want to pick up an overpriced snack. I prefer to get out of there much quicker than that though.
> 
> Sent from my sch-i545 using tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> yes and if it was my store, i would have refused the new pump technology on people with your kind of attitudes for sure. You sound as a *cheapscape *who will use a facility at it's bear minimum, just so you can ride away feeling as if you took advantage of the technology, yet you will never step inside to do business with the store in which is providing you the technology and the convienence it offers you. Wow!
> 
> 
> Hmmm, a side note to the site - *these adds at the bottom of the page are interupting badly the experience here now, and in fact they are causing the computers to run slow and even lock up.* might want to look into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what ads? Oh! You might want to look into becoming a contributing member or purchasing a better computer.
> 
> No! You may *not* raise my taxes to pay for it.
Click to expand...

lol


----------



## beagle9

herewegoagain said:


> mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes and if it was my store, i would have refused the new pump technology on people with your kind of attitudes for sure. You sound as a *cheapscape *who will use a facility at it's bear minimum, just so you can ride away feeling as if you took advantage of the technology, yet you will never step inside to do business with the store in which is providing you the technology and the convienence it offers you. Wow!
> 
> 
> Hmmm, a side note to the site - these adds at the bottom of the page are interupting badly the experience here now, and in fact they are causing the computers to run slow and even lock up. Might want to look into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'm a "cheapscape" for wanting to get home to my family faster rather than wasting time at the gas station?
> 
> Or is it that i'm a "cheapscape" for not wanting to spend my hard earned money on garbage food at a quick stop when i can get much healthier food cheaper at the grocery store.
> 
> Sent from my sch-i545 using tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i've come to the conclusion that beagle is mentally disturbed or rides a bicycle.
Click to expand...

lol


----------



## BobPlumb

I like bicycles.


----------



## Mathbud1

beagle9 said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and if it was my store, I would have refused the new pump technology on people with your kind of attitudes for sure. You sound as a *cheapscape *who will use a facility at it's bear minimum, just so you can ride away feeling as if you took advantage of the technology, yet you will never step inside to do business with the store in which is providing you the technology and the convienence it offers you. WOW!
> 
> 
> Hmmm, A side note to the site - These adds at the bottom of the page are interupting badly the experience here now, and in fact they are causing the computers to run slow and even lock up. Might want to look into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a "cheapscape" for wanting to get home to my family faster rather than wasting time at the gas station?
> 
> Or is it that I'm a "cheapscape" for not wanting to spend my hard earned money on garbage food at a Quick Stop when I can get much healthier food cheaper at the grocery store.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should I even answer something as dumb as this in which you have written ? I'm sorry but you sound desperate writing something like this... No one is this stupid to try and answer such bull crap in the way that you have written this out.. Come on man, you can get more creative than this can't you ? Try and hide what you are up to just a little bit better ok, then maybe we might bite....LOL
Click to expand...


You called me a "cheapscape." I am merely trying to understand what you thought made me a cheapskate (which is what I assume you actually meant.) Since the only things I commented on in the post to which you were responding were getting out of the gas station fast and the poor quality food, I thought it a safe assumption that you were referring to one of those two ideas. So which one was it?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## Mathbud1

beagle9 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your saying that what the old timers had done, and for what they had created back in the day when the nation was at it's greatest and finest hours, were just socialist pieces of crap who didn't understand a thing about the value of a dollar, and how when we would spend a dollar that their companies would compete for that dollar in many ways in which lifted the nation up ?  It was all just their imagination now or ours ?  What's wrong with the committing of great services and quality of products, where as this should be as job one in America once again ? I think it would be great because it created a strong nation and a durable one in times gone by.
> 
> Sadly it's not so much today as so many corps had become rapist instead of good capitalist as they should have remained as such, but they sadly have let their greed get the best of them, and now the defenders of greed are hammering their selfish clients case for them.  Just sayin..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? Please explain how your response relates to the fact that adding gas pump jocks requires paying them for their services and that, in turn, means higher gas prices. Must we bring back the ice man also? Milk and bread deliveries? How 'bout black & white TV? Woo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you have a problem with someone bringing you ice, bread and milk to your doorstep, I mean if a company could afford to do it in a competitive way again, and in a way in which kept the price down to you, and also made them a profit to boot ?  What if it brought back that old feeling of American quality and services to your community in which you live again, would you be against it ? Sounds convienent enough to me, and you say you are all for convienence right ?
> 
> I sure wouldn't turn it down, but you would see it as a threat maybe to who and to what in your world vision of things ?
Click to expand...


Who says we see it as a threat? If the price was right, sure I'd love the convenience. What I won't do is pay a premium price for the service.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## SAYIT

beagle9 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your saying that what the old timers had done, and for what they had created back in the day when the nation was at it's greatest and finest hours, were just socialist pieces of crap who didn't understand a thing about the value of a dollar, and how when we would spend a dollar that their companies would compete for that dollar in many ways in which lifted the nation up ?  It was all just their imagination now or ours ?  What's wrong with the committing of great services and quality of products, where as this should be as job one in America once again ? I think it would be great because it created a strong nation and a durable one in times gone by.
> 
> Sadly it's not so much today as so many corps had become rapist instead of good capitalist as they should have remained as such, but they sadly have let their greed get the best of them, and now the defenders of greed are hammering their selfish clients case for them.  Just sayin..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? Please explain how your response relates to the fact that adding gas pump jocks requires paying them for their services and that, in turn, means higher gas prices. Must we bring back the ice man also? Milk and bread deliveries? How 'bout black & white TV? Woo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you have a problem with someone bringing you ice, bread and milk to your doorstep, I mean if a company could afford to do it in a competitive way again, and in a way in which kept the price down to you, and also made them a profit to boot ?  What if it brought back that old feeling of American quality and services to your community in which you live again, would you be against it ? Sounds convienent enough to me, and you say you are all for convienence right ?
> 
> I sure wouldn't turn it down, but you would see it as a threat maybe to who and to what in your world vision of things ?
Click to expand...


I have this ridiculous idea that you get what you pay for and you pay for what you get. If you want ice and milk and bread and your meds delivered you still can ... at an added cost. Requiring the rest of us to pay for your convenience is just plain wrong and evidently you just don't get it. Want convenience in your life? Pay for it.


----------



## Ernie S.

beagle9 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you will pay 3 or 4 cents more/liter of gasoline because the guy inside smiled at you. OK if attention is that important to you, I guess you can shop where ever you want.
> *I have a pretty bar maid with really big hooters, but I don't charge more for a beer when she's on duty*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you may be a complete idiot to your bar maid then, because she is probably knocking down the tips, but here you are refusing to make your money on the added attraction that she is bringing to the experience found in it all?  Wow !
> 
> 5 cents more on a beer for a beautiful female who makes the customers feel right at home, and in which they wouldn't even bat an eye lid at for the extra cents being charged, but you say NO or won't even try it ?  Lets say then that (she gets two cents of it and you get three), and she brings great bartending services while they are coming to your business to relax and have good conversation to boot, so whats wrong with that ? No wonder no one can get a raise these days with thinking like you have... Sheesh !
> 
> You sure your a business man ?
Click to expand...


Obviously you know nothing about my business or liquor laws in Alabama.

As a matter of fact, she works 2 day shifts/week and most of that time is at happy hour prices. If I can get people into the place for a couple hours at reduced prices, many will stay when the price goes back to normal.
Yes, there are those that will leave at 6M, but they will be back at 2 tomorrow and spend another 30 bucks.
Regulars pay the bills. Drop ins are profit.
Most customers will tip *more* when they buy a reduced price cocktail. They seem to feel the bartender is doing them a favor. In truth, there are certain "fad drinks" that are cheap as hell to serve but command a high price. These are the drinks you see on the specials board. I am quite happy dropping the price from $6 to $4.50 for a drink that costs me 90 cents to pour. Conversely, I can't charge 25 dollars for a bushwhacker that costs me 7 to pour. I charge $10. I charge $11 for a $3.50 Absinthe because #1, I am one of the few places around that stock it and it's more about theatrics than alcohol.
I've run a few businesses and my partner has been in the bar business for 20 years. We KNOW how to make money with a tavern and we know how drinkers think. You don't. Please keep your "thoughts" to yourself.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

beagle9 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's cool that you are saying to the idiot corps that you are going to just use them in the most minimal way possible, and this because they no longer offer character or pay for character to be a part of their establisment anymore... Good for you, as you may be helping others to realize that people & services do matter, and if that was recognized once again, then you just might be prompted to engage more and pay more into a system that pleases you instead of teases you out of your money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God you're a dumb fuck. It's called convenience.
> If you're so fired up about meeting the workers why dont you stop at the refineries before you buy your gas and see how their day is going?
> You're a first class nut job...seriously get help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I am an old timer for whom I think if you new me, you might give me a little more respect than what you do.
> 
> I understand though, I mean that you are living in a world that has now been long since removed from the good old days for which we had known, and that probably you may never know and/or experience in your life other than maybe in the books you might read.
> 
> It's sad what this nation has become, and what it is bringing up in mentalities now.
Click to expand...


  There's a time and a place for niceties. And in fact I love the ways of small town America and the more personable and simpler life it affords. But when you live in a city with five million people the things you pine for are impossible.
   I grew up in the land you describe,but the city grew up around me over the last forty years. When the objective is no longer making as much money as possible in the shortest period of time possible I'll go back to that life...and the sooner the better.
   In other words,putting up with the crap will make it happen sooner.
I have no desire to get personal with Haji at the local quicki mart because I dont plan on staying.

   I wish you had clarified where you were coming from and we wouldnt have gone down this road in the first place. Because we both want the same thing in life. But to get it these days takes a far different attitude then it did "way back when"

   Here's to living the simple life


----------



## beagle9

Mathbud1 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? Please explain how your response relates to the fact that adding gas pump jocks requires paying them for their services and that, in turn, means higher gas prices. Must we bring back the ice man also? Milk and bread deliveries? How 'bout black & white TV? Woo.
> 
> 
> 
> Would you have a problem with someone bringing you ice, bread and milk to your doorstep, I mean if a company could afford to do it in a competitive way again, and in a way in which kept the price down to you, and also made them a profit to boot ?  What if it brought back that old feeling of American quality and services to your community in which you live again, would you be against it ? Sounds convienent enough to me, and you say you are all for convienence right ?
> 
> I sure wouldn't turn it down, but you would see it as a threat maybe to who and to what in your world vision of things ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who says we see it as a threat? If the price was right, sure I'd love the convenience. *What I won't do is pay a premium price for the service.*
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Now how can you make this statement embolded above, if you don't know what all would be involved in the service or the products you would be recieving in the service ? They may be premium products and premium services involved, so in that case would you be willing to pay what it's worth all due to the convienence of it (maybe all your grocieries delivered) or not ? Umm is your pre-conceptions before knowing what you would be getting along with the service you would be getting simply more evidence found in your words that you are a cheap skate and don't know it maybe ?


----------



## Ernie S.

beagle9 said:


> Funny, I thought the site should be paying me instead of me paying them..
> 
> You mean you ain't been getting your money's worth ?



If I want to talk to idiots, I can go back to the bar a few minutes before closing time.

No, I do not pay for drunken comedy routines. They pay me for providing then their venue and fuel.


----------



## beagle9

Ernie S. said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you will pay 3 or 4 cents more/liter of gasoline because the guy inside smiled at you. OK if attention is that important to you, I guess you can shop where ever you want.
> *I have a pretty bar maid with really big hooters, but I don't charge more for a beer when she's on duty*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you may be a complete idiot to your bar maid then, because she is probably knocking down the tips, but here you are refusing to make your money on the added attraction that she is bringing to the experience found in it all?  Wow !
> 
> 5 cents more on a beer for a beautiful female who makes the customers feel right at home, and in which they wouldn't even bat an eye lid at for the extra cents being charged, but you say NO or won't even try it ?  Lets say then that (she gets two cents of it and you get three), and she brings great bartending services while they are coming to your business to relax and have good conversation to boot, so whats wrong with that ? No wonder no one can get a raise these days with thinking like you have... Sheesh !
> 
> You sure your a business man ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you know nothing about my business or liquor laws in Alabama.
> 
> As a matter of fact, she works 2 day shifts/week and most of that time is at happy hour prices. If I can get people into the place for a couple hours at reduced prices, many will stay when the price goes back to normal.
> Yes, there are those that will leave at 6M, but they will be back at 2 tomorrow and spend another 30 bucks.
> Regulars pay the bills. Drop ins are profit.
> Most customers will tip *more* when they buy a reduced price cocktail. They seem to feel the bartender is doing them a favor. In truth, there are certain "fad drinks" that are cheap as hell to serve but command a high price. These are the drinks you see on the specials board. I am quite happy dropping the price from $6 to $4.50 for a drink that costs me 90 cents to pour. Conversely, I can't charge 25 dollars for a bushwhacker that costs me 7 to pour. I charge $10. I charge $11 for a $3.50 Absinthe because #1, I am one of the few places around that stock it and it's more about theatrics than alcohol.
> I've run a few businesses and my partner has been in the bar business for 20 years. We KNOW how to make money with a tavern and we know how drinkers think. You don't. Please keep your "thoughts" to yourself.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you cleared all that up, because wow I was starting to worry.....NOT !!!!! 

LOL


----------



## Ernie S.

beagle9 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make pumping gas sound arduous. Really? And if you dont think prices wouldnt go up if they added another employee or two you're nuts. Whether you payed at the pump or at the slushy machine you'd be paying more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> You mean those extra employees wouldn't volunteer their services for the privilege of pumping my gas? How 'bout BEAGLE's gas? Yours? No?
> The silly, half-assed reasoning of the socialist POV constantly amuses me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your saying that what the old timers had done, and for what they had created back in the day when the nation was at it's greatest and finest hours, were just socialist pieces of crap who didn't understand a thing about the value of a dollar, and how when we would spend a dollar that their companies would compete for that dollar in many ways in which lifted the nation up ?  It was all just their imagination now or ours ?  What's wrong with the committing of great services and quality of products, where as this should be as job one in America once again ? I think it would be great because it created a strong nation and a durable one in times gone by.
> 
> *Sadly it's not so much today as so many corps had become rapist instead of good capitalist as they should have remained as such, but they sadly have let their greed get the best of them,* and now the defenders of greed are hammering their selfish clients case for them.  Just sayin..
Click to expand...

When you sober up, would you please translate the bolded part above?


----------



## beagle9

Oh well the grandbabies are wanting me to say goodnight to them, so see yall later...


----------



## Ernie S.

beagle9 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's cool that you are saying to the idiot corps that you are going to just use them in the most minimal way possible, and this because they no longer offer character or pay for character to be a part of their establisment anymore... Good for you, as you may be helping others to realize that people & services do matter, and if that was recognized once again, then you just might be prompted to engage more and pay more into a system that pleases you instead of teases you out of your money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God you're a dumb fuck. It's called convenience.
> If you're so fired up about meeting the workers why dont you stop at the refineries before you buy your gas and see how their day is going?
> You're a first class nut job...seriously get help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I am an old timer for whom I think if you new me, you might give me a little more respect than what you do.
> 
> I understand though, I mean that you are living in a world that has now been long since removed from the good old days for which we had known, and that probably you may never know and/or experience in your life other than maybe in the books you might read.
> 
> *It's sad what this nation has become,* and what it is bringing up in mentalities now.
Click to expand...


Old timer? Sad really that you've lived so long and learned so little.
As to the text above that I bolded, I agree. I find you depressing.


----------



## Mathbud1

beagle9 said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you have a problem with someone bringing you ice, bread and milk to your doorstep, I mean if a company could afford to do it in a competitive way again, and in a way in which kept the price down to you, and also made them a profit to boot ?  What if it brought back that old feeling of American quality and services to your community in which you live again, would you be against it ? Sounds convienent enough to me, and you say you are all for convienence right ?
> 
> I sure wouldn't turn it down, but you would see it as a threat maybe to who and to what in your world vision of things ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who says we see it as a threat? If the price was right, sure I'd love the convenience. *What I won't do is pay a premium price for the service.*
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now how can you make this statement embolded above, if you don't know what all would be involved in the service or the products you would be recieving in the service ? They may be premium products and premium services involved, so in that case would you be willing to pay what it's worth all due to the convienence of it (maybe all your grocieries delivered) or not ? Umm is your pre-conceptions before knowing what you would be getting along with the service you would be getting simply more evidence found in your words that you are a cheap skate and don't know it maybe ?
Click to expand...


I don't mind paying a premium price when *I want* a premium product. Most of the time I do mind paying more for the same product or an inferior product out of only convenience.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ernie S.

beagle9 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your saying that what the old timers had done, and for what they had created back in the day when the nation was at it's greatest and finest hours, were just socialist pieces of crap who didn't understand a thing about the value of a dollar, and how when we would spend a dollar that their companies would compete for that dollar in many ways in which lifted the nation up ?  It was all just their imagination now or ours ?  What's wrong with the committing of great services and quality of products, where as this should be as job one in America once again ? I think it would be great because it created a strong nation and a durable one in times gone by.
> 
> Sadly it's not so much today as so many corps had become rapist instead of good capitalist as they should have remained as such, but they sadly have let their greed get the best of them, and now the defenders of greed are hammering their selfish clients case for them.  Just sayin..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? Please explain how your response relates to the fact that adding gas pump jocks requires paying them for their services and that, in turn, means higher gas prices. Must we bring back the ice man also? Milk and bread deliveries? How 'bout black & white TV? Woo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you have a problem with someone bringing you ice, bread and milk to your doorstep, I mean if a company could afford to do it in a competitive way again, and in a way in which kept the price down to you, and also made them a profit to boot ?  What if it brought back that old feeling of American quality and services to your community in which you live again, would you be against it ? Sounds convienent enough to me, and you say you are all for convienence right ?
> 
> I sure wouldn't turn it down, but you would see it as a threat maybe to who and to what in your world vision of things ?
Click to expand...


OK! Now you've got my interest. You seem to think you know so much about business, I have a proposal for you. I own a bar in a city that has 12 or 14 bars and maybe 20 restaurants. I go through about 150 pounds of ice/day. Some of the other business use less, many use more Let's say the average is 250 pounds.
If you can deliver ice at an attractive price, I can get you 20 customers that will buy 5,000 pounds/day, 7 days a week.

How much should I budget for my ice.
Please show me a basic business plan because I'm thinking of investing. What are your start up costs, business license fees, labor costs, water and sewage costs, utilities costs?
What percent return on my investment should I expect? Please hurry! We are desperate for ice here in Foley and I have $250K set aside for your start up.


----------



## Ernie S.

beagle9 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you may be a complete idiot to your bar maid then, because she is probably knocking down the tips, but here you are refusing to make your money on the added attraction that she is bringing to the experience found in it all?  Wow !
> 
> 5 cents more on a beer for a beautiful female who makes the customers feel right at home, and in which they wouldn't even bat an eye lid at for the extra cents being charged, but you say NO or won't even try it ?  Lets say then that (she gets two cents of it and you get three), and she brings great bartending services while they are coming to your business to relax and have good conversation to boot, so whats wrong with that ? No wonder no one can get a raise these days with thinking like you have... Sheesh !
> 
> You sure your a business man ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you know nothing about my business or liquor laws in Alabama.
> 
> As a matter of fact, she works 2 day shifts/week and most of that time is at happy hour prices. If I can get people into the place for a couple hours at reduced prices, many will stay when the price goes back to normal.
> Yes, there are those that will leave at 6M, but they will be back at 2 tomorrow and spend another 30 bucks.
> Regulars pay the bills. Drop ins are profit.
> Most customers will tip *more* when they buy a reduced price cocktail. They seem to feel the bartender is doing them a favor. In truth, there are certain "fad drinks" that are cheap as hell to serve but command a high price. These are the drinks you see on the specials board. I am quite happy dropping the price from $6 to $4.50 for a drink that costs me 90 cents to pour. Conversely, I can't charge 25 dollars for a bushwhacker that costs me 7 to pour. I charge $10. I charge $11 for a $3.50 Absinthe because #1, I am one of the few places around that stock it and it's more about theatrics than alcohol.
> I've run a few businesses and my partner has been in the bar business for 20 years. We KNOW how to make money with a tavern and we know how drinkers think. You don't. Please keep your "thoughts" to yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm glad you cleared all that up, because wow I was starting to worry.....NOT !!!!!
> 
> LOL
Click to expand...


Just trying to educate you. I was unaware that you already knew it all.


----------



## SAYIT

Ernie S. said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? Please explain how your response relates to the fact that adding gas pump jocks requires paying them for their services and that, in turn, means higher gas prices. Must we bring back the ice man also? Milk and bread deliveries? How 'bout black & white TV? Woo.
> 
> 
> 
> Would you have a problem with someone bringing you ice, bread and milk to your doorstep, I mean if a company could afford to do it in a competitive way again, and in a way in which kept the price down to you, and also made them a profit to boot ?  What if it brought back that old feeling of American quality and services to your community in which you live again, would you be against it ? Sounds convienent enough to me, and you say you are all for convienence right ?
> 
> I sure wouldn't turn it down, but you would see it as a threat maybe to who and to what in your world vision of things ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK! Now you've got my interest. You seem to think you know so much about business, I have a proposal for you. I own a bar in a city that has 12 or 14 bars and maybe 20 restaurants. I go through about 150 pounds of ice/day. Some of the other business use less, many use more Let's say the average is 250 pounds.
> If you can deliver ice at an attractive price, I can get you 20 customers that will buy 5,000 pounds/day, 7 days a week.
> 
> How much should I budget for my ice.
> Please show me a basic business plan because I'm thinking of investing. What are your start up costs, business license fees, labor costs, water and sewage costs, utilities costs?
> What percent return on my investment should I expect? Please hurry! We are desperate for ice here in Foley and I have $250K set aside for your start up.
Click to expand...


I don't get the sense that Beagle wants to establish and operate a business but I do believe he wants the pace and gentility of a long gone time in America.
I'm confused as to why anyone with your resources wouldn't simply purchase ice making equip... oh, I get it. 
Never mind.


----------



## BobPlumb

Ernie S. said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? Please explain how your response relates to the fact that adding gas pump jocks requires paying them for their services and that, in turn, means higher gas prices. Must we bring back the ice man also? Milk and bread deliveries? How 'bout black & white TV? Woo.
> 
> 
> 
> Would you have a problem with someone bringing you ice, bread and milk to your doorstep, I mean if a company could afford to do it in a competitive way again, and in a way in which kept the price down to you, and also made them a profit to boot ?  What if it brought back that old feeling of American quality and services to your community in which you live again, would you be against it ? Sounds convienent enough to me, and you say you are all for convienence right ?
> 
> I sure wouldn't turn it down, but you would see it as a threat maybe to who and to what in your world vision of things ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK! Now you've got my interest. You seem to think you know so much about business, I have a proposal for you. I own a bar in a city that has 12 or 14 bars and maybe 20 restaurants. I go through about 150 pounds of ice/day. Some of the other business use less, many use more Let's say the average is 250 pounds.
> If you can deliver ice at an attractive price, I can get you 20 customers that will buy 5,000 pounds/day, 7 days a week.
> 
> How much should I budget for my ice.
> Please show me a basic business plan because I'm thinking of investing. What are your start up costs, business license fees, labor costs, water and sewage costs, utilities costs?
> What percent return on my investment should I expect? Please hurry! We are desperate for ice here in Foley and I have $250K set aside for your start up.
Click to expand...


Wouldn't if be cheaper just to buy an ice maker.  If one is enough for you'd local McDonald's, I'm sure one ice making machine would be enough for a bar.


----------



## Ernie S.

SAYIT said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you have a problem with someone bringing you ice, bread and milk to your doorstep, I mean if a company could afford to do it in a competitive way again, and in a way in which kept the price down to you, and also made them a profit to boot ?  What if it brought back that old feeling of American quality and services to your community in which you live again, would you be against it ? Sounds convienent enough to me, and you say you are all for convienence right ?
> 
> I sure wouldn't turn it down, but you would see it as a threat maybe to who and to what in your world vision of things ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK! Now you've got my interest. You seem to think you know so much about business, I have a proposal for you. I own a bar in a city that has 12 or 14 bars and maybe 20 restaurants. I go through about 150 pounds of ice/day. Some of the other business use less, many use more Let's say the average is 250 pounds.
> If you can deliver ice at an attractive price, I can get you 20 customers that will buy 5,000 pounds/day, 7 days a week.
> 
> How much should I budget for my ice.
> Please show me a basic business plan because I'm thinking of investing. What are your start up costs, business license fees, labor costs, water and sewage costs, utilities costs?
> What percent return on my investment should I expect? Please hurry! We are desperate for ice here in Foley and I have $250K set aside for your start up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't get the sense that Beagle wants to establish and operate a business but I do believe he wants the pace and gentility of a long gone time in America.
> I'm confused as to why anyone with your resources wouldn't simply purchase ice making equip... oh, I get it.
> Never mind.
Click to expand...


My ice maker produces 195 lbs of ice/day and after a $2,100 purchase price, costs about 25 bucks a month for water, electricity and cleaning costs.

As a matter of fact, it was cleaned today for a bottle of Bud Lite.

Really, though, I have to tote 4, 5 gallon buckets of ice to the bar twice every day. I might be willing to pay for someone to deliver it to me, if I didn't have to tote the stuff. (where the hell is that tongue-in-cheek smiley???) 

Really, Beagle I would love to see your business plan, if for nothing else than to see if you have any inkling of what it takes to provide a premium service to customers. I'm guessing you haven't a clue.


----------



## Ernie S.

BobPlumb said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you have a problem with someone bringing you ice, bread and milk to your doorstep, I mean if a company could afford to do it in a competitive way again, and in a way in which kept the price down to you, and also made them a profit to boot ?  What if it brought back that old feeling of American quality and services to your community in which you live again, would you be against it ? Sounds convienent enough to me, and you say you are all for convienence right ?
> 
> I sure wouldn't turn it down, but you would see it as a threat maybe to who and to what in your world vision of things ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK! Now you've got my interest. You seem to think you know so much about business, I have a proposal for you. I own a bar in a city that has 12 or 14 bars and maybe 20 restaurants. I go through about 150 pounds of ice/day. Some of the other business use less, many use more Let's say the average is 250 pounds.
> If you can deliver ice at an attractive price, I can get you 20 customers that will buy 5,000 pounds/day, 7 days a week.
> 
> How much should I budget for my ice.
> Please show me a basic business plan because I'm thinking of investing. What are your start up costs, business license fees, labor costs, water and sewage costs, utilities costs?
> What percent return on my investment should I expect? Please hurry! We are desperate for ice here in Foley and I have $250K set aside for your start up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldn't if be cheaper just to buy an ice maker.  If one is enough for you'd local McDonald's, I'm sure one ice making machine would be enough for a bar.
Click to expand...


That's not the point of my post.


----------



## Ernie S.

Gotta head back to the bar to retrieve my wife who manages "Musicians Take Over" night.
Had an acoustic act tonight. His singer got strep so he worked alone. The wife says she can see why he has a singer in his act, but he plays a mean guitar.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Uncensored2008 said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fallacy of the MW can be exposed by a simple experiment.  If raising the MW to $10/hour is a good thing, why not just raise it to $50/hour and eliminate poverty altogether?  I'll let the MW activists attempt to answer that one.
> 
> 
> 
> You assume all those who support raising the minimum wage think doing so will eliminate poverty.
> Some of us are simply realistic.
> Some of us understand the terms money wage, real wage and inflation.  Do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your goal isn't to improve the lives of the low end workers, but rather to eliminate their jobs and force them on to welfare?
Click to expand...

My goal is to stop you from enslaving children to work in your coal mine.


----------



## SAYIT

Zombie_Pundit said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You assume all those who support raising the minimum wage think doing so will eliminate poverty.
> Some of us are simply realistic.
> Some of us understand the terms money wage, real wage and inflation.  Do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your goal isn't to improve the lives of the low end workers, but rather to eliminate their jobs and force them on to welfare?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My goal is to stop you from enslaving children to work in your coal mine.
Click to expand...


Ah-ha ... knight in shining armor syndrome. It appears your helmet is on waaay too tight and gives you a nasty case of helmet-vision.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

SAYIT said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your goal isn't to improve the lives of the low end workers, but rather to eliminate their jobs and force them on to welfare?
> 
> 
> 
> My goal is to stop you from enslaving children to work in your coal mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah-ha ... knight in shining armor syndrome. It appears your helmet is on waaay too tight and gives you a nasty case of helmet-vision.
Click to expand...


No, just answering hyperbole with hyperbole.  But I doubt you know what that word means.


----------



## Uncensored2008

beagle9 said:


> Funny, I thought the site should be paying me instead of me paying them..
> 
> You mean you ain't been getting your money's worth ?



So, you're not just a free-loader, but a self-entitled one?

Typical union slob.

Public employee union members and 12 year olds, both are sure the world owes them - neither can articulate precisely why....


----------



## Uncensored2008

Zombie_Pundit said:


> My goal is to stop you from enslaving children to work in your coal mine.



Nice comic book mentality.

More evidence that leftism is built on a foundation of stupidity.


----------



## racewright

Living wage  yes that's all that's left, lousy jobs because Big government chases away all good paying jobs and the likes of wall mart and burger king are jobs that can not leave the disgusting business environment that we are stuck with.  Soon government workers will just exchange there pay checks and be stuck holding the bag.


----------



## Andylusion

Uncensored2008 said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> My goal is to stop you from enslaving children to work in your coal mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice comic book mentality.
> 
> More evidence that leftism is built on a foundation of stupidity.
Click to expand...


The ignore feature of this forum was created for specific reason.   You seem to have stumbled onto what of those reasons.


----------



## Andylusion

racewright said:


> Living wage  yes that's all that's left, lousy jobs because Big government chases away all good paying jobs and the likes of wall mart and burger king are jobs that can not leave the disgusting business environment that we are stuck with.  Soon government workers will just exchange there pay checks and be stuck holding the bag.



This is one of the things I just don't get....    If you really want to be a leftist, and bash all the businesses out there, ok.  Go smash GM, go attack Chrysler, go attack Ford, go attack Walmart, and GE, and all the big companies, and smash them into the ground.......

Then.... you want to complain about the lack of jobs.

Am I missing something from the moronic left?    Do any of you leftards grasp that there just could be... just possibly be... maybe a connection between the two?

It's funny because in other countries, they see big business as a benefit to society.   Unions in Germany are extremely pro-corporation... and shockingly they have a low unemployment rate......   You really don't see a connection between the two?   Hello McFly?   Anyone home?


----------



## beagle9

Ernie S. said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> God you're a dumb fuck. It's called convenience.
> If you're so fired up about meeting the workers why dont you stop at the refineries before you buy your gas and see how their day is going?
> You're a first class nut job...seriously get help.
> 
> 
> 
> No I am an old timer for whom I think if you new me, you might give me a little more respect than what you do.
> 
> I understand though, I mean that you are living in a world that has now been long since removed from the good old days for which we had known, and that probably you may never know and/or experience in your life other than maybe in the books you might read.
> 
> *It's sad what this nation has become,* and what it is bringing up in mentalities now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Old timer? Sad really that you've lived so long and learned so little.
> As to the text above that I bolded, I agree. I find you depressing.
Click to expand...

I see you get your wottle feelings hurt easily, so all I can say to you is suck it up soldier or maybe find somewhere else where a person might agree with everything you say or want to say, because it sure ain't here in my postings that you will find such babying and cotteling in which you might expect to find while reading. I'm just sayin.


----------



## alan1

beagle9 said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your fallacy is that it's somehow cutting your cost, when really it's only saving those stations the added expenses of providing the luxury service that is usually offered to you as a bonus when doing business there, but because you do it yourself for them instead, I ask who is looking at who as the fool ? How do you like working for free, and still paying high prices ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what happened was that OPEC formed, and the price of gas started rising pretty quickly in the 1970's.  Service stations started offering the option of self-service or full-service.  Full-service usually ran 7-10 cents a gallon more than self-service (which coincidentally was also about 7-10%).  It didn't take long for most people to start switching to self-service.  Less people using full-service also resulted in less people working at service stations.  And guess who the people were that got fired?  It was the 15-20 year old unskilled young people that pumped gas and in between customers, they were learning a trade called auto mechanics.  Being an auto mechanic at a mom and pop service station used to pay a pretty decent wage (much more than minimum wage).  Eventually, in most states, the 'Service Station" disappeared and was replaced by self-service with a convenience store attached.
> 
> Now, to be perfectly realistic, I'm not sure the whole pump gas and learn how to be a mechanic would work in this day and age.  *Automobiles have become much more complex than they were 20+ years ago.  I doubt a person could learn good automotive mechanics simply from on the job training these days. * But 20, 30, 40 years ago, they could build a decent paying career with that as their start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Peoples ability to reason and learn has developed greatly over the years, and that is the very reason things have become as complex as they are today, especially when they are given the chance, and so I will still believe that the things that people assume people can't do anymore is just wrong today. Kids are in rebellion these days because they don't have the opportunities of the past offered them no more, and it's not because they aren't smart enough, but it's more so that greed has replaced the things in which we all held dear in the learning processes of life, therefore leaving them to wither on the vine, and then to simply die.  They are supposed to be the potential replacements for the old who will need them someday in order to retire, but yet they can't find themselves anymore because of it all........ Shameful....
Click to expand...

It's not because people aren't smart enough.  It really does take a lot more technical skill to perform many auto mechanic functions on a vehicle built in the last ten years than it took twenty (and more) years ago.  Think about it, today's cars have things like heated and cooled seats, rear view cameras, built in GPS and DVD players.  A buddy of mine has a car with programmed keys.  When he gets in the car, it knows it is him and automatically adjusts the driver seat to his preference as opposed to the seat position when his wife's key is used.  In addition to that, the "key" never comes out of his pocket, a sensor detects it by proximity.  A shade tree mechanic can't diagnose and fix problems to those types of systems.
A good mechanic these days is part mechanical engineering, part computer science, part HVAC and part experienced guesser when the diagnostic tool can't figure out what is wrong, plus more.

Hehe, when I was a young man a common saying was that 'everybody needs a good doctor, a good lawyer and a good mechanic'.  I know I spend a lot more time with my mechanic than I do with either my doctor or my lawyer.  But then, they call it "Practicing medicine", and "Practicing law", and they call it "Auto repair".  
Just sayin', the mechanics aren't 'practicing'.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Uncensored2008 said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You assume all those who support raising the minimum wage think doing so will eliminate poverty.
> Some of us are simply realistic.
> Some of us understand the terms money wage, real wage and inflation.  Do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your goal isn't to improve the lives of the low end workers, but rather to eliminate their jobs and force them on to welfare?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My goal is to stop you from enslaving children to work in your coal mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice comic book mentality.
> 
> More evidence that leftism is built on a foundation of stupidity.
Click to expand...


Uncensored2008 just got their poor little feelings hurt.

I am amazed at how thin the skin is on those who have nothing to add to the discussion but absurd hyperbole.  They sure can't take a taste of their own medicine.


----------



## alan1

beagle9 said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and if it was my store, I would have refused the new pump technology on people with your kind of attitudes for sure. You sound as a *cheapscape *who will use a facility at it's bear minimum, just so you can ride away feeling as if you took advantage of the technology, yet you will never step inside to do business with the store in which is providing you the technology and the convienence it offers you. WOW!
> 
> 
> Hmmm, A side note to the site - These adds at the bottom of the page are interupting badly the experience here now, and in fact they are causing the computers to run slow and even lock up. Might want to look into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you ran a gas station with pumps that didnt have credit card capability you'd be out of business in a month.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you know why that is ? It's not because the citizens would put you out of business, but you would be forced out by your competitors who would use the good ole boy system to crush you because you are breaking the union in which they have created. You see they get together and only allow certain services and things at certain prices, but here a rogue owner is trying to do more, and to give someone more bang for their buck until he or she becomes an ameba to the good ole boy club, and then a target to be run out of business somehow or the other....... The citizens should be ashamed that they have allowed this to happen to them over time.
Click to expand...

That "good ole boy" system sure put Microsoft, Apple, Google, Yahoo and other rogues out of business, didn't they?  It offends me that Westinghouse, General Electric, AT&T, Xerox and Hewlett-Packard did that.
Oh wait.
My bad.
They didn't.


----------



## alan1

Ernie S. said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK! Now you've got my interest. You seem to think you know so much about business, I have a proposal for you. I own a bar in a city that has 12 or 14 bars and maybe 20 restaurants. I go through about 150 pounds of ice/day. Some of the other business use less, many use more Let's say the average is 250 pounds.
> If you can deliver ice at an attractive price, I can get you 20 customers that will buy 5,000 pounds/day, 7 days a week.
> 
> How much should I budget for my ice.
> Please show me a basic business plan because I'm thinking of investing. What are your start up costs, business license fees, labor costs, water and sewage costs, utilities costs?
> What percent return on my investment should I expect? Please hurry! We are desperate for ice here in Foley and I have $250K set aside for your start up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get the sense that Beagle wants to establish and operate a business but I do believe he wants the pace and gentility of a long gone time in America.
> I'm confused as to why anyone with your resources wouldn't simply purchase ice making equip... oh, I get it.
> Never mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My ice maker produces 195 lbs of ice/day and after a $2,100 purchase price, costs about 25 bucks a month for water, electricity and cleaning costs.
> 
> As a matter of fact, it was cleaned today for a bottle of Bud Lite.
> 
> Really, though, I have to tote 4, 5 gallon buckets of ice to the bar twice every day. I might be willing to pay for someone to deliver it to me, if I didn't have to tote the stuff. (where the hell is that tongue-in-cheek smiley???)
> 
> Really, Beagle I would love to see your business plan, if for nothing else than to see if you have any inkling of what it takes to provide a premium service to customers. I'm guessing you haven't a clue.
Click to expand...


I'm sure beagle9 will gladly provide all that you request as soon as you promise to pay him enough money for him to pay his staff this mythical "living wage".


----------



## alan1

Zombie_Pundit said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You assume all those who support raising the minimum wage think doing so will eliminate poverty.
> Some of us are simply realistic.
> Some of us understand the terms money wage, real wage and inflation.  Do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your goal isn't to improve the lives of the low end workers, but rather to eliminate their jobs and force them on to welfare?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My goal is to stop you from enslaving children to work in your coal mine.
Click to expand...


Well aren't you quite the accomplished fellow.
You achieved your goal before you were even born. 
You know, back in 1865 when slavery ended in the US.
Admirable


----------



## beagle9

alan1 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what happened was that OPEC formed, and the price of gas started rising pretty quickly in the 1970's.  Service stations started offering the option of self-service or full-service.  Full-service usually ran 7-10 cents a gallon more than self-service (which coincidentally was also about 7-10%).  It didn't take long for most people to start switching to self-service.  Less people using full-service also resulted in less people working at service stations.  And guess who the people were that got fired?  It was the 15-20 year old unskilled young people that pumped gas and in between customers, they were learning a trade called auto mechanics.  Being an auto mechanic at a mom and pop service station used to pay a pretty decent wage (much more than minimum wage).  Eventually, in most states, the 'Service Station" disappeared and was replaced by self-service with a convenience store attached.
> 
> Now, to be perfectly realistic, I'm not sure the whole pump gas and learn how to be a mechanic would work in this day and age.  *Automobiles have become much more complex than they were 20+ years ago.  I doubt a person could learn good automotive mechanics simply from on the job training these days. * But 20, 30, 40 years ago, they could build a decent paying career with that as their start.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peoples ability to reason and learn has developed greatly over the years, and that is the very reason things have become as complex as they are today, especially when they are given the chance, and so I will still believe that the things that people assume people can't do anymore is just wrong today. Kids are in rebellion these days because they don't have the opportunities of the past offered them no more, and it's not because they aren't smart enough, but it's more so that greed has replaced the things in which we all held dear in the learning processes of life, therefore leaving them to wither on the vine, and then to simply die.  They are supposed to be the potential replacements for the old who will need them someday in order to retire, but yet they can't find themselves anymore because of it all........ Shameful....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not because people aren't smart enough.  It really does take a lot more technical skill to perform many auto mechanic functions on a vehicle built in the last ten years than it took twenty (and more) years ago.  Think about it, today's cars have things like heated and cooled seats, rear view cameras, built in GPS and DVD players.  A buddy of mine has a car with programmed keys.  When he gets in the car, it knows it is him and automatically adjusts the driver seat to his preference as opposed to the seat position when his wife's key is used.  In addition to that, the "key" never comes out of his pocket, a sensor detects it by proximity.  A shade tree mechanic can't diagnose and fix problems to those types of systems.
> A good mechanic these days is part mechanical engineering, part computer science, part HVAC and part experienced guesser when the diagnostic tool can't figure out what is wrong, plus more.
> 
> Hehe, when I was a young man a common saying was that 'everybody needs a good doctor, a good lawyer and a good mechanic'.  I know I spend a lot more time with my mechanic than I do with either my doctor or my lawyer.  But then, they call it "Practicing medicine", and "Practicing law", and they call it "Auto repair".
> Just sayin', the mechanics aren't 'practicing'.
Click to expand...

Well your speaking to a mechanic, and once you know the basics of how things work, and how things are built upon like layers on a cake, then it's not so bad peeling back those layers in order to expose what type of secrets they now hold, and this was on top of what was always the foundation of it all from the very beginning. My grandfather once made me laugh as we were working on a huge I-H tractor that had the latest technology built within it, when he laughed and said "HA, them college engineers think they can fool someone like me, but all they did was take this and do that to it, and then take that and do this with it, but in the end it really wasn't as sofisticated as they wanted us to believe it to be". I agreed and we fixed the problem easily that day, and then we laughed and joked about it all the way to the shop.

If I can learn anything, then trust me almost anyone can learn just about anything if they apply themselves. I know because I wasn't the brightest bulb in the room by no stretch of the imagination... Uh Oh (I hope Ernie S. doesn't read this)...LOL


----------



## beagle9

alan1 said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your goal isn't to improve the lives of the low end workers, but rather to eliminate their jobs and force them on to welfare?
> 
> 
> 
> My goal is to stop you from enslaving children to work in your coal mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well aren't you quite the accomplished fellow.
> You achieved your goal before you were even born.
> You know, back in 1865 when slavery ended in the US.
> Admirable
Click to expand...

Good follow up to his words Alan, and hey Zombie you may want to try that again in a different way maybe, because Alan is right on with his response to your words.


----------



## beagle9

alan1 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you ran a gas station with pumps that didnt have credit card capability you'd be out of business in a month.
> 
> 
> 
> And you know why that is ? It's not because the citizens would put you out of business, but you would be forced out by your competitors who would use the good ole boy system to crush you because you are breaking the union in which they have created. You see they get together and only allow certain services and things at certain prices, but here a rogue owner is trying to do more, and to give someone more bang for their buck until he or she becomes an ameba to the good ole boy club, and then a target to be run out of business somehow or the other....... The citizens should be ashamed that they have allowed this to happen to them over time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That "good ole boy" system sure put Microsoft, Apple, Google, Yahoo and other rogues out of business, didn't they?  It offends me that Westinghouse, General Electric, AT&T, Xerox and Hewlett-Packard did that.
> Oh wait.
> My bad.
> They didn't.
Click to expand...

Wow you just listed some of the members of the club... LOL

What happened to the thousands more that should be listed also ? Oh that's right the club is exclusive not inclusive as people might think that it is or maybe they want people to think they are when their not, but hec I don't know I might be dreaming about it all. 

Hmmm seems I remember the government bringing what some sort of an (anti-trust???) lawsuit against Microsoft not so long ago, and they won that suit didn't they ? Didn't Microsoft have to make consessions in that suit or something ? The others have been on the hot seat also haven't they ?


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

alan1 said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your goal isn't to improve the lives of the low end workers, but rather to eliminate their jobs and force them on to welfare?
> 
> 
> 
> My goal is to stop you from enslaving children to work in your coal mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well aren't you quite the accomplished fellow.
> You achieved your goal before you were even born.
> You know, back in 1865 when slavery ended in the US.
> Admirable
Click to expand...


I am a zombie, you know.  It's kind of hard to tell when I was born.
In any case, it is evident that the person to whom I responded would like to repeal a number of laws, and maybe an amendment or two.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

beagle9 said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> My goal is to stop you from enslaving children to work in your coal mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well aren't you quite the accomplished fellow.
> You achieved your goal before you were even born.
> You know, back in 1865 when slavery ended in the US.
> Admirable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good follow up to his words Alan, and hey Zombie you may want to try that again in a different way maybe, because Alan is right on with his response to your words.
Click to expand...

Alan1 is cool.  He actually adds to the discussion.  If he took some umbrage, well, I'll just have to keep it cleaner.


----------



## alan1

beagle9 said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you know why that is ? It's not because the citizens would put you out of business, but you would be forced out by your competitors who would use the good ole boy system to crush you because you are breaking the union in which they have created. You see they get together and only allow certain services and things at certain prices, but here a rogue owner is trying to do more, and to give someone more bang for their buck until he or she becomes an ameba to the good ole boy club, and then a target to be run out of business somehow or the other....... The citizens should be ashamed that they have allowed this to happen to them over time.
> 
> 
> 
> That "good ole boy" system sure put Microsoft, Apple, Google, Yahoo and other rogues out of business, didn't they?  It offends me that Westinghouse, General Electric, AT&T, Xerox and Hewlett-Packard did that.
> Oh wait.
> My bad.
> They didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow you just listed some of the members of the club... LOL
> 
> What happened to the thousands more that should be listed also ? Oh that's right the club is exclusive not inclusive as people might think that it is or maybe they want people to think they are when their not, but hec I don't know I might be dreaming about it all.
> 
> Hmmm seems I remember the government bringing what some sort of an (anti-trust???) lawsuit against Microsoft not so long ago, and they won that suit didn't they ? Didn't Microsoft have to make consessions in that suit or something ? The others have been on the hot seat also haven't they ?
Click to expand...


Yep, the club that was Westinghouse, General Electric, AT&T, Xerox and Hewlett-Packard.  I suppose the new club includes Microsoft, Apple, Google and Yahoo.
It's almost paranoid to claim to call them a "club".  
Disruptive technologies have always leaped and smart companies have always embraced new tech/ideas.
I could have listed thousands more, but I have neither the time nor desire to do so.  Just like I didn't list the extinct companies that failed to adapt.


----------



## alan1

Zombie_Pundit said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well aren't you quite the accomplished fellow.
> You achieved your goal before you were even born.
> You know, back in 1865 when slavery ended in the US.
> Admirable
> 
> 
> 
> Good follow up to his words Alan, and hey Zombie you may want to try that again in a different way maybe, because Alan is right on with his response to your words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alan1 is cool.  He actually adds to the discussion.  If he took some umbrage, well, I'll just have to keep it cleaner.
Click to expand...


And intelligent, and good looking, and a snappy dresser.  Not to mention that ladies love him and men try to emulate him.

No umbrage, simply some disagreement


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

beagle9 said:


> Hmmm, A side note to the site - These adds at the bottom of the page are interupting badly the experience here now, and in fact they are causing the computers to run slow and even lock up. Might want to look into it.


Beagle, set your plugins to not auto-enable.

It's a trick I learned surfing the web when I worked in the Capital helping Abraham Lincoln draft the Emancipation Proclamation...and fight vampires.


----------



## Ernie S.

beagle9 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I am an old timer for whom I think if you new me, you might give me a little more respect than what you do.
> 
> I understand though, I mean that you are living in a world that has now been long since removed from the good old days for which we had known, and that probably you may never know and/or experience in your life other than maybe in the books you might read.
> 
> *It's sad what this nation has become,* and what it is bringing up in mentalities now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old timer? Sad really that you've lived so long and learned so little.
> As to the text above that I bolded, I agree. I find you depressing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you get your wottle feelings hurt easily, so all I can say to you is suck it up soldier or maybe find somewhere else where a person might agree with everything you say or want to say, because it sure ain't here in my postings that you will find such babying and cotteling in which you might expect to find while reading. I'm just sayin.
Click to expand...


First of all, I'm probably very close in age to you. Secondly, you're not intelligent enough to hurt my "wottle???" feelings. As a matter of fact, I laugh at how easily you are made a fool of on a daily basis.

By the way! WTF is "cotteling"?


----------



## Ernie S.

alan1 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get the sense that Beagle wants to establish and operate a business but I do believe he wants the pace and gentility of a long gone time in America.
> I'm confused as to why anyone with your resources wouldn't simply purchase ice making equip... oh, I get it.
> Never mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My ice maker produces 195 lbs of ice/day and after a $2,100 purchase price, costs about 25 bucks a month for water, electricity and cleaning costs.
> 
> As a matter of fact, it was cleaned today for a bottle of Bud Lite.
> 
> Really, though, I have to tote 4, 5 gallon buckets of ice to the bar twice every day. I might be willing to pay for someone to deliver it to me, if I didn't have to tote the stuff. (where the hell is that tongue-in-cheek smiley???)
> 
> Really, Beagle I would love to see your business plan, if for nothing else than to see if you have any inkling of what it takes to provide a premium service to customers. I'm guessing you haven't a clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure beagle9 will gladly provide all that you request as soon as you promise to pay him enough money for him to pay his staff this mythical "living wage".
Click to expand...

He's made no attempt so far... I did say I would invest if he came up with a viable business plan, but unfortunately, it appears he doesn't know what that means, yet he's advising me how to run my business. Yup! He's a Liberal.


----------



## Ernie S.

beagle9 said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you know why that is ? It's not because the citizens would put you out of business, but you would be forced out by your competitors who would use the good ole boy system to crush you because you are breaking the union in which they have created. You see they get together and only allow certain services and things at certain prices, but here a rogue owner is trying to do more, and to give someone more bang for their buck until he or she becomes an ameba to the good ole boy club, and then a target to be run out of business somehow or the other....... The citizens should be ashamed that they have allowed this to happen to them over time.
> 
> 
> 
> That "good ole boy" system sure put Microsoft, Apple, Google, Yahoo and other rogues out of business, didn't they?  It offends me that Westinghouse, General Electric, AT&T, Xerox and Hewlett-Packard did that.
> Oh wait.
> My bad.
> They didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow you just listed some of the members of the club... LOL
> 
> *What happened to the thousands more that should be listed also ?* Oh that's right the club is exclusive not inclusive as people might think that it is or maybe they want people to think they are when their not, but hec I don't know I might be dreaming about it all.
> 
> Hmmm seems I remember the government bringing what some sort of an (anti-trust???) lawsuit against Microsoft not so long ago, and they won that suit didn't they ? Didn't Microsoft have to make consessions in that suit or something ? The others have been on the hot seat also haven't they ?
Click to expand...

They didn't have a viable business plan. Kind of like you.

What's a consession?


----------



## Ernie S.

Zombie_Pundit said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> My goal is to stop you from enslaving children to work in your coal mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well aren't you quite the accomplished fellow.
> You achieved your goal before you were even born.
> You know, back in 1865 when slavery ended in the US.
> Admirable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a zombie, you know.  It's kind of hard to tell when I was born.
> In any case, it is evident that the person to whom I responded would like to repeal a number of laws, and maybe an amendment or two.
Click to expand...

What amendment would that be? Please indicate with quotes how you have arrived at your opinion.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Ernie S. said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That "good ole boy" system sure put Microsoft, Apple, Google, Yahoo and other rogues out of business, didn't they?  It offends me that Westinghouse, General Electric, AT&T, Xerox and Hewlett-Packard did that.
> Oh wait.
> My bad.
> They didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you just listed some of the members of the club... LOL
> 
> *What happened to the thousands more that should be listed also ?* Oh that's right the club is exclusive not inclusive as people might think that it is or maybe they want people to think they are when their not, but hec I don't know I might be dreaming about it all.
> 
> Hmmm seems I remember the government bringing what some sort of an (anti-trust???) lawsuit against Microsoft not so long ago, and they won that suit didn't they ? Didn't Microsoft have to make consessions in that suit or something ? The others have been on the hot seat also haven't they ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didn't have a viable business plan. Kind of like you.
> 
> What's a consession?
Click to expand...

Really?  A misspelling?  That's where this thread has gone.
Maybe that's an improvement over the theory proffered in this thread that minimum wage laws caused apartheid.
Do you have anything to add to a clean discussion on the minimum wage besides your usual hyperbolic vitriol?


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Ernie S. said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well aren't you quite the accomplished fellow.
> You achieved your goal before you were even born.
> You know, back in 1865 when slavery ended in the US.
> Admirable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a zombie, you know.  It's kind of hard to tell when I was born.
> In any case, it is evident that the person to whom I responded would like to repeal a number of laws, and maybe an amendment or two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What amendment would that be? Please indicate with quotes how you have arrived at your opinion.
Click to expand...





Ernie S. said:


> What amendment would that be?


Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But I strongly suspect you and your buddies of also wanting to repeal the 6th, 8th, 9th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, and 24th.  I can only confirm one at the moment.


Ernie S. said:


> Please indicate with quotes how you have arrived at your opinion.


I read your and your buddies' posts.  Don't you people actually read the crazy stuff you write?



Uncensored2008 said:


> I oppose income taxation on principle.





Uncensored2008 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that gets right to the core of it. In my view, you're being bought off with special favors from the state. While I'd never disparage anyone _personally_ for playing the "I got mine" game, I can't advocate for it as policy, especially when it perpetuates government that I consider ultimately corrosive to freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a very effective buy-off, considering I already stated that *I support repeal of the income taxe...*
Click to expand...


----------



## AntiParty

Againsheila said:


> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.



The deceiving thing about this video is that it assumes Wal-Mart "may have to" raise prices to pay it's employee's a living wage.......

What we see today is the top few keeping most and spending some to keep the workers blind. 

Christie Walton is worth $36.7 Billion. Now, did she make all that money herself or was there a team involved that helped her make it?

Do YOU think she will become "unrich" if she allows Wal-Mart to pay a decent wage? Ever do the math on how much 1 billion split to all employee's in one year would do? (Of course this would make her only $35.7 Billion rich, what a struggle)

Big Corporations like Wal-Mart can buy media to convince small minds that their workers don't deserve a raise. And most buy it because we focus on the new workers, not the veteran workers. 

They are also the reason for so much outsourcing. 

America is a Monopoly today. 

So it's time to start wondering why Christie Walton will be so upset when she only makes $35.7 Billion instead of this movement today questioning why Wal-Mart workers should be paid more. It's complete ignorance of business. What if she made only 1 Billion AND THE REST WENT TO HER WORKERS! OMG DRAMA!. SHE WOULD BE SO POOR!


----------



## AntiParty

How much are we willing to sacrifice Christie Waltons lifestyle to ensure the people running the stores that create her profits are compensated to support their family and not receive welfare. 

Anyone who has seen the Documentary on Wal-Mart knows that Wal-Mart pushes it's Managers to give under paid employee's Welfare paper "hand outs" when they ask for a raise. 

Why is it ok that Christie keeps so much yet the tax payers have to compensate for America's biggest employer?


----------



## Andylusion

AntiParty said:


> How much are we willing to sacrifice Christie Waltons lifestyle to ensure the people running the stores that create her profits are compensated to support their family and not receive welfare.
> 
> Anyone who has seen the Documentary on Wal-Mart knows that Wal-Mart pushes it's Managers to give under paid employee's Welfare paper "hand outs" when they ask for a raise.
> 
> Why is it ok that Christie keeps so much yet the tax payers have to compensate for America's biggest employer?



You must be new to the thread, because we covered this already.

First off, you are *NOT* going to sacrifice Christie Walton lifestyle no matter what you do.  There is no law you can make, no regulation you can enforce, that is going to cause Christie Walton the slightest discomfort.

You keep forgetting...  she OWNS this company.  If she and her fellow owners, are not compensated to the degree they wish, they could close the company, walk off with billions, and retire to small island with private servants to spend the rest of their lives in luxury.

Do you want jobs, or not?  Do you want Walmart's 2.1 Million employees employed, or not?

It's like just yesterday, a guy at work was b!tch and moaning about the CEO going out and buying stuff for a work trip to Florida, and how wasteful it was.

Whether it was or not, is irrelevant.  It's not his money.  It's not your money.  It's not your company.   What part of this do you people on the left not get?   It's not yours!   "well blaw blaw blaw"  Doesn't matter.  IT IS NOT YOUR MONEY.

We used to have this concept in America "Nonya".  Nonya business.   You have no right whatsoever to talk about what other people should do with their money.  Nonya.

And we both know right now, that if I came to your home and started complaining "you shouldn't have that, you could feed 15 orphan kids in Uganda with that money!  You shouldn't buy those things.  That's wasteful!  How dare you spend all that money!  Blaw blaw"

If I did that, you would tell me to shut up, and get off your property... AND RIGHTLY SO.   It's none of my business what you do with your money.

How about we start applying those fundamentals to business owners as well?    Nonya business what they do with their money.  How America ended up with such nosy busy-bodies that run around sticking their fingers in everyone's business, is beyond me.  How did we end up with such childish pathetic whiny people in our culture?

*Secondly, and I have said this numerous times, any chain business, is setup so that each individual store is a separate business.*

I don't know why this concept is so hard.   Each store.... is run like a separate business.  If your store doesn't have $10,000 extra, so that you can get a raise, then you can't get a raise.      Doesn't matter what Walmart Corporate has.  They could have TRILLIONS of dollars.

Your individual store has to make, or break payroll on it's own.   Your store has to pay out it expenses alone.   Doesn't matter what Corporate has.   Corporate could have trillions, and if your individual store doesn't have money to pay you more, then it can't pay you more.   Period.

And this last point proves it.

*Thirdly, and this has been mentioned dozens of times, every single time that you try and harm the company, you only harm yourself.*

I said at the very start, you are not going to 'sacrifice Christie Walton's lifestyle', and I meant it.

Every time that you pass a law, the only result is that the people harmed are yourself.

The reason is because every single penny that a company gets, is either by paying employees less, or charging customers more.   And every time you pass a higher minimum wage, that is exactly what happens.

I was working at Wendy's back in the 90s.   After Clinton increased the minimum wage, over the next year or two, Wendy's fired off all their part time employees.    The remaining employees had to cover the jobs the fired employees did.

Further, they slowly over months and month, reduced the portion sizes.   They shrank the size of the small medium and large, and then introduced the "Biggie" size with a higher price.   The Biggie was actually the size of the original large.   Large became the size of the medium, and the Medium the small, and Small was eliminated.    For several years, Wendy's only had a medium, large and Biggie size drinks and fries.

In other words, they increased their prices.

Fast forward to today.   Same thing happened after 2009.   I just read an article just last week, that the average employees per Walmart store in 2007 when the minimum wage was $5.25, was 330 employees per store.

In 2010, when the minimum wage was up to $7.25, the average number of employees per store, was down to 270.

Walmart has 11,000 locations.   That's a loss of 60 jobs per store.  That's over half a million unemployed people that could have had jobs.

Now who 'sacrificed lifestyle' because of that minimum wage increase?   Christie Walton?   Or those half million unemployed?   (hint:  Not Christie.  She's doing fine)

I just read yesterday, the retailers across the country are reducing the net-weight of consumer goods.    So a box of Cherios at the store, now holds less Cherios, for the same price.

Again, who is 'sacrificing lifestyle' because of that minimum wage increase?    Christie Walton?  Or the 300 million people of the US that now have to pay a higher price for goods?  (hint:  Not Christie.)

Minimum wage hurts absolutely everyone, and especially the employees, EXCEPT for the rich and wealthy.

When you try and hurt the rich and wealthy, the only one you hurt is the poor and middle class.  That's the way it ALWAYS works.


----------



## RandallFlagg

Defiant1 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has someone figured out the magic formula to define a "living" wage?
> 
> *Or should each employee be paid according to how much money they need to "live?"*
Click to expand...




This statement will be the hallmark that the murderer Hillary Clinton is going to base her campaign on - I guarantee it. Her statement about "the cancer of inequality" is directed at stupid women in America and none others.

Her "unicorn and rainbow" idea of promising everything to women is all she has to run on. The unfortunate part? It might just work for this weasel of a woman. Appeal to the stupid women. Promise them socialism and "equality" while she goes on making millions.

Stupid, stupid sheep.


----------



## Ernie S.

Zombie_Pundit said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a zombie, you know.  It's kind of hard to tell when I was born.
> In any case, it is evident that the person to whom I responded would like to repeal a number of laws, and maybe an amendment or two.
> 
> 
> 
> What amendment would that be? Please indicate with quotes how you have arrived at your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> But I strongly suspect you and your buddies of also wanting to repeal the 6th, 8th, 9th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, and 24th.  I can only confirm one at the moment.
> 
> I read your and your buddies' posts.  Don't you people actually read the crazy stuff you write?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that gets right to the core of it. In my view, you're being bought off with special favors from the state. While I'd never disparage anyone _personally_ for playing the "I got mine" game, I can't advocate for it as policy, especially when it perpetuates government that I consider ultimately corrosive to freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a very effective buy-off, considering I already stated that *I support repeal of the income taxe...*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The only Amendment I've seen anyone advocate repealing is the 17th. Ya see, Conservatives aren't into groupspeak. I have no control over, no responsibility for and no duty comply with what another Conservative says.
Very possibly, someone on the right has advocated repeal of the 16th.
I don't. I do however advocate a flat tax, or barring that, at the very least, a minimum 5% of gross pay, public assistance included. I advocate ending EITC. EVERYONE pays.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Zombie_Pundit said:


> Uncensored2008 just got their poor little feelings hurt.
> 
> I am amazed at how thin the skin is on those who have nothing to add to the discussion but absurd hyperbole.  They sure can't take a taste of their own medicine.



That leftism is based on ignorance fed from a stream of stupidity doesn't hurt my feelings - it hurts my wallet, but not my feelings...


----------



## Uncensored2008

Zombie_Pundit said:


> I read your and your buddies' posts.  Don't you people actually read the crazy stuff you write?



Nah, you read it off of one of the polyps in your colon... Clearly this is the source of all your ideas...


----------



## beagle9

alan1 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That "good ole boy" system sure put Microsoft, Apple, Google, Yahoo and other rogues out of business, didn't they?  It offends me that Westinghouse, General Electric, AT&T, Xerox and Hewlett-Packard did that.
> Oh wait.
> My bad.
> They didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you just listed some of the members of the club... LOL
> 
> What happened to the thousands more that should be listed also ? Oh that's right the club is exclusive not inclusive as people might think that it is or maybe they want people to think they are when their not, but hec I don't know I might be dreaming about it all.
> 
> Hmmm seems I remember the government bringing what some sort of an (anti-trust???) lawsuit against Microsoft not so long ago, and they won that suit didn't they ? Didn't Microsoft have to make consessions in that suit or something ? The others have been on the hot seat also haven't they ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, the club that was Westinghouse, General Electric, AT&T, Xerox and Hewlett-Packard.  I suppose the new club includes Microsoft, Apple, Google and Yahoo.
> It's almost paranoid to claim to call them a "club".
> Disruptive technologies have always leaped and smart companies have always embraced new tech/ideas.
> I could have listed thousands more, but I have neither the time nor desire to do so.  Just like I didn't list the extinct companies that failed to adapt.
Click to expand...

The companies that failed to adapt eh ? Lets see, oh how about the pharmacy that was run out of business or was attempted to be run out of business by Walmart in a small town for just one of many examples we could find in the monopolizing of the US markets by the club ? Remember Wal-mart dropped it's pharmacutical prices below cost in hopes to hold them there until the little guy crumbled and failed was the case. The little guy caught them at it, and it was on, but of course Wal-mart was to big to feel the punishment or the rage in the situation. Yes there are many more cases to site, but we don't have the time nor the space to do so.


----------



## beagle9

Androw said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much are we willing to sacrifice Christie Waltons lifestyle to ensure the people running the stores that create her profits are compensated to support their family and not receive welfare.
> 
> Anyone who has seen the Documentary on Wal-Mart knows that Wal-Mart pushes it's Managers to give under paid employee's Welfare paper "hand outs" when they ask for a raise.
> 
> Why is it ok that Christie keeps so much yet the tax payers have to compensate for America's biggest employer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be new to the thread, because we covered this already.
> 
> First off, you are *NOT* going to sacrifice Christie Walton lifestyle no matter what you do.  There is no law you can make, no regulation you can enforce, that is going to cause Christie Walton the slightest discomfort.
> 
> You keep forgetting...  she OWNS this company.  If she and her fellow owners, are not compensated to the degree they wish, they could close the company, walk off with billions, and retire to small island with private servants to spend the rest of their lives in luxury.
> 
> Do you want jobs, or not?  Do you want Walmart's 2.1 Million employees employed, or not?
> 
> It's like just yesterday, a guy at work was b!tch and moaning about the CEO going out and buying stuff for a work trip to Florida, and how wasteful it was.
> 
> *Whether it was or not, is irrelevant.  It's not his money.  It's not your money.  It's not your company.   What part of this do you people on the left not get?   It's not yours!   "well blaw blaw blaw"  Doesn't matter.  IT IS NOT YOUR MONEY.*
> 
> We used to have this concept in America "Nonya".  Nonya business.   You have no right whatsoever to talk about what other people should do with their money.  Nonya.
> 
> And we both know right now, that if I came to your home and started complaining "you shouldn't have that, you could feed 15 orphan kids in Uganda with that money!  You shouldn't buy those things.  That's wasteful!  How dare you spend all that money!  Blaw blaw"
> 
> If I did that, you would tell me to shut up, and get off your property... AND RIGHTLY SO.   It's none of my business what you do with your money.
> 
> How about we start applying those fundamentals to business owners as well?    Nonya business what they do with their money.  How America ended up with such nosy busy-bodies that run around sticking their fingers in everyone's business, is beyond me.  How did we end up with such childish pathetic whiny people in our culture?
> 
> *Secondly, and I have said this numerous times, any chain business, is setup so that each individual store is a separate business.*
> 
> I don't know why this concept is so hard.   Each store.... is run like a separate business.  If your store doesn't have $10,000 extra, so that you can get a raise, then you can't get a raise.      Doesn't matter what Walmart Corporate has.  They could have TRILLIONS of dollars.
> 
> Your individual store has to make, or break payroll on it's own.   Your store has to pay out it expenses alone.   Doesn't matter what Corporate has.   Corporate could have trillions, and if your individual store doesn't have money to pay you more, then it can't pay you more.   Period.
> 
> And this last point proves it.
> 
> *Thirdly, and this has been mentioned dozens of times, every single time that you try and harm the company, you only harm yourself.*
> 
> I said at the very start, you are not going to 'sacrifice Christie Walton's lifestyle', and I meant it.
> 
> Every time that you pass a law, the only result is that the people harmed are yourself.
> 
> The reason is because every single penny that a company gets, is either by paying employees less, or charging customers more.   And every time you pass a higher minimum wage, that is exactly what happens.
> 
> I was working at Wendy's back in the 90s.   After Clinton increased the minimum wage, over the next year or two, Wendy's fired off all their part time employees.    The remaining employees had to cover the jobs the fired employees did.
> 
> Further, they slowly over months and month, reduced the portion sizes.   They shrank the size of the small medium and large, and then introduced the "Biggie" size with a higher price.   The Biggie was actually the size of the original large.   Large became the size of the medium, and the Medium the small, and Small was eliminated.    For several years, Wendy's only had a medium, large and Biggie size drinks and fries.
> 
> In other words, they increased their prices.
> 
> Fast forward to today.   Same thing happened after 2009.   I just read an article just last week, that the average employees per Walmart store in 2007 when the minimum wage was $5.25, was 330 employees per store.
> 
> In 2010, when the minimum wage was up to $7.25, the average number of employees per store, was down to 270.
> 
> Walmart has 11,000 locations.   That's a loss of 60 jobs per store.  That's over half a million unemployed people that could have had jobs.
> 
> Now who 'sacrificed lifestyle' because of that minimum wage increase?   Christie Walton?   Or those half million unemployed?   (hint:  Not Christie.  She's doing fine)
> 
> I just read yesterday, the retailers across the country are reducing the net-weight of consumer goods.    So a box of Cherios at the store, now holds less Cherios, for the same price.
> 
> Again, who is 'sacrificing lifestyle' because of that minimum wage increase?    Christie Walton?  Or the 300 million people of the US that now have to pay a higher price for goods?  (hint:  Not Christie.)
> 
> Minimum wage hurts absolutely everyone, and especially the employees, EXCEPT for the rich and wealthy.
> 
> When you try and hurt the rich and wealthy, the only one you hurt is the poor and middle class.  That's the way it ALWAYS works.
Click to expand...


You sit there and say that the money in which is earned and is produced by the workers in which are working there after all is said and done, and in which has helped to make these people rich beyond their wildest dreams ((don't also have a stake in the fairness of the dividing process and/or that it doesn't belong to the workers in some kind of way unless it is mercifully given out to them in the situation, and this by hopefully a fair and just owner or management team that is running the plantation)) ??  It just as well beongs to everyone else who is part of the good ole boy chain or process after it is divided up supposedly, and this in a fair and decent manor or way they would say, so why not the workers to be included (respectfully) in a fair and decent way also ?

So you are an advocate of slavery, where as the master and his minions own the plantation, and how dare a slave even think that the master should be more fair than what he is when passing out the bread crumbs at the end of the day. Now we get it...


----------



## sameech

AntiParty said:


> ......
> Christie Walton is worth $36.7 Billion. Now, did she make all that money herself or was there a team involved that helped her make it?
> 
> Do YOU think she will become "unrich" if she allows Wal-Mart to pay a decent wage? Ever do the math on how much 1 billion split to all employee's in one year would do? (Of course this would make her only $35.7 Billion rich, what a struggle)
> 
> Big Corporations like Wal-Mart can buy media to convince small minds that their workers don't deserve a raise. And most buy it because we focus on the new workers, not the veteran workers.
> 
> They are also the reason for so much outsourcing.
> 
> America is a Monopoly today.
> 
> So it's time to start wondering why Christie Walton will be so upset when she only makes $35.7 Billion instead of this movement today questioning why Wal-Mart workers should be paid more. It's complete ignorance of business. What if she made only 1 Billion AND THE REST WENT TO HER WORKERS! OMG DRAMA!. SHE WOULD BE SO POOR!



Just a few points.  According to  Perry L. Cochell and Rodney C. Zeeb in _Beating the Midas Curse,_, 60% of families lose their wealth by the end of the second generation;  and 90% by the end of the third generation.

Also, the Waltons' wealth comes from stock value.  If they were to double wages, it would primarily come out of the pockets of other investors in the form of lower dividends for Walmart stock.  It isn't like the Walton's actually have 120 billion in cash buried in their back yard.  Their "wealth" is based on what people are willing to pay for the stock, not one what they are willing to pay for Great Value pickles.


----------



## Andylusion

beagle9 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much are we willing to sacrifice Christie Waltons lifestyle to ensure the people running the stores that create her profits are compensated to support their family and not receive welfare.
> 
> Anyone who has seen the Documentary on Wal-Mart knows that Wal-Mart pushes it's Managers to give under paid employee's Welfare paper "hand outs" when they ask for a raise.
> 
> Why is it ok that Christie keeps so much yet the tax payers have to compensate for America's biggest employer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be new to the thread, because we covered this already.
> 
> First off, you are *NOT* going to sacrifice Christie Walton lifestyle no matter what you do.  There is no law you can make, no regulation you can enforce, that is going to cause Christie Walton the slightest discomfort.
> 
> You keep forgetting...  she OWNS this company.  If she and her fellow owners, are not compensated to the degree they wish, they could close the company, walk off with billions, and retire to small island with private servants to spend the rest of their lives in luxury.
> 
> Do you want jobs, or not?  Do you want Walmart's 2.1 Million employees employed, or not?
> 
> It's like just yesterday, a guy at work was b!tch and moaning about the CEO going out and buying stuff for a work trip to Florida, and how wasteful it was.
> 
> *Whether it was or not, is irrelevant.  It's not his money.  It's not your money.  It's not your company.   What part of this do you people on the left not get?   It's not yours!   "well blaw blaw blaw"  Doesn't matter.  IT IS NOT YOUR MONEY.*
> 
> We used to have this concept in America "Nonya".  Nonya business.   You have no right whatsoever to talk about what other people should do with their money.  Nonya.
> 
> And we both know right now, that if I came to your home and started complaining "you shouldn't have that, you could feed 15 orphan kids in Uganda with that money!  You shouldn't buy those things.  That's wasteful!  How dare you spend all that money!  Blaw blaw"
> 
> If I did that, you would tell me to shut up, and get off your property... AND RIGHTLY SO.   It's none of my business what you do with your money.
> 
> How about we start applying those fundamentals to business owners as well?    Nonya business what they do with their money.  How America ended up with such nosy busy-bodies that run around sticking their fingers in everyone's business, is beyond me.  How did we end up with such childish pathetic whiny people in our culture?
> 
> *Secondly, and I have said this numerous times, any chain business, is setup so that each individual store is a separate business.*
> 
> I don't know why this concept is so hard.   Each store.... is run like a separate business.  If your store doesn't have $10,000 extra, so that you can get a raise, then you can't get a raise.      Doesn't matter what Walmart Corporate has.  They could have TRILLIONS of dollars.
> 
> Your individual store has to make, or break payroll on it's own.   Your store has to pay out it expenses alone.   Doesn't matter what Corporate has.   Corporate could have trillions, and if your individual store doesn't have money to pay you more, then it can't pay you more.   Period.
> 
> And this last point proves it.
> 
> *Thirdly, and this has been mentioned dozens of times, every single time that you try and harm the company, you only harm yourself.*
> 
> I said at the very start, you are not going to 'sacrifice Christie Walton's lifestyle', and I meant it.
> 
> Every time that you pass a law, the only result is that the people harmed are yourself.
> 
> The reason is because every single penny that a company gets, is either by paying employees less, or charging customers more.   And every time you pass a higher minimum wage, that is exactly what happens.
> 
> I was working at Wendy's back in the 90s.   After Clinton increased the minimum wage, over the next year or two, Wendy's fired off all their part time employees.    The remaining employees had to cover the jobs the fired employees did.
> 
> Further, they slowly over months and month, reduced the portion sizes.   They shrank the size of the small medium and large, and then introduced the "Biggie" size with a higher price.   The Biggie was actually the size of the original large.   Large became the size of the medium, and the Medium the small, and Small was eliminated.    For several years, Wendy's only had a medium, large and Biggie size drinks and fries.
> 
> In other words, they increased their prices.
> 
> Fast forward to today.   Same thing happened after 2009.   I just read an article just last week, that the average employees per Walmart store in 2007 when the minimum wage was $5.25, was 330 employees per store.
> 
> In 2010, when the minimum wage was up to $7.25, the average number of employees per store, was down to 270.
> 
> Walmart has 11,000 locations.   That's a loss of 60 jobs per store.  That's over half a million unemployed people that could have had jobs.
> 
> Now who 'sacrificed lifestyle' because of that minimum wage increase?   Christie Walton?   Or those half million unemployed?   (hint:  Not Christie.  She's doing fine)
> 
> I just read yesterday, the retailers across the country are reducing the net-weight of consumer goods.    So a box of Cherios at the store, now holds less Cherios, for the same price.
> 
> Again, who is 'sacrificing lifestyle' because of that minimum wage increase?    Christie Walton?  Or the 300 million people of the US that now have to pay a higher price for goods?  (hint:  Not Christie.)
> 
> Minimum wage hurts absolutely everyone, and especially the employees, EXCEPT for the rich and wealthy.
> 
> When you try and hurt the rich and wealthy, the only one you hurt is the poor and middle class.  That's the way it ALWAYS works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sit there and say that the money in which is earned and is produced by the workers in which are working there after all is said and done, and in which has helped to make these people rich beyond their wildest dreams ((don't also have a stake in the fairness of the dividing process and/or that it doesn't belong to the workers in some kind of way unless it is mercifully given out to them in the situation, and this by hopefully a fair and just owner or management team that is running the plantation)) ??  It just as well beongs to everyone else who is part of the good ole boy chain or process after it is divided up supposedly, and this in a fair and decent manor or way they would say, so why not the workers to be included (respectfully) in a fair and decent way also ?
> 
> So you are an advocate of slavery, where as the master and his minions own the plantation, and how dare a slave even think that the master should be more fair than what he is when passing out the bread crumbs at the end of the day. Now we get it...
Click to expand...


Still doesn't matter.   It's not yours.   If I came to your home, and starting telling you, that you shouldn't have this or that, you tell me to get lost, and rightly so.

Nothing else matters.    All that crap you wrote.... doesn't matter.  Not yours.

FAIR is what you and the employer agree on.

If you agree to a wage, and employer pays you that wage, that's fair.

You can't say "well I'll agree to it, and that's not fair and they should pay more".

If I agree to mow your lawn for $35, and then the following week say "That's not fair, I demand $200!".  What are you going to tell me?   Get lost, and rightly so.

We had an agreement.  If I want to end that agreement, and offer a new deal, that's fine but you have the right to reject that.

The money in your pocket, is not mine, that I can make demands.   Right?   Or wrong?

See, if this happened to you, you'd be screaming about it.    But because it's happening to someone else, you think you have a point.   But if the tables were turned, you'd have a fit about it.

And again......   you can not rationally connect this with slavery.   You tell me how many slaves during plantation days, went an applied for a job, and then agreed to a wage?

You can't go fill out an application to get a job, then agree to a wage, and then start screaming "I AM A SLAVE! WAH!"   Bull crap!

This isn't China.  There is no Communist official saying "go work in the rice patty until you die".   You can walk off the job, and nothing will happen.  I know, I've done it.     You can go find another job.  You can learn a skill that pays more.

All that slave crap, is just that.  Turds that need flushed down the drain.   It's not relevant, or intellectually honest.


----------



## beagle9

Androw said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be new to the thread, because we covered this already.
> 
> First off, you are *NOT* going to sacrifice Christie Walton lifestyle no matter what you do.  There is no law you can make, no regulation you can enforce, that is going to cause Christie Walton the slightest discomfort.
> 
> You keep forgetting...  she OWNS this company.  If she and her fellow owners, are not compensated to the degree they wish, they could close the company, walk off with billions, and retire to small island with private servants to spend the rest of their lives in luxury.
> 
> Do you want jobs, or not?  Do you want Walmart's 2.1 Million employees employed, or not?
> 
> It's like just yesterday, a guy at work was b!tch and moaning about the CEO going out and buying stuff for a work trip to Florida, and how wasteful it was.
> 
> *Whether it was or not, is irrelevant.  It's not his money.  It's not your money.  It's not your company.   What part of this do you people on the left not get?   It's not yours!   "well blaw blaw blaw"  Doesn't matter.  IT IS NOT YOUR MONEY.*
> 
> We used to have this concept in America "Nonya".  Nonya business.   You have no right whatsoever to talk about what other people should do with their money.  Nonya.
> 
> And we both know right now, that if I came to your home and started complaining "you shouldn't have that, you could feed 15 orphan kids in Uganda with that money!  You shouldn't buy those things.  That's wasteful!  How dare you spend all that money!  Blaw blaw"
> 
> If I did that, you would tell me to shut up, and get off your property... AND RIGHTLY SO.   It's none of my business what you do with your money.
> 
> How about we start applying those fundamentals to business owners as well?    Nonya business what they do with their money.  How America ended up with such nosy busy-bodies that run around sticking their fingers in everyone's business, is beyond me.  How did we end up with such childish pathetic whiny people in our culture?
> 
> *Secondly, and I have said this numerous times, any chain business, is setup so that each individual store is a separate business.*
> 
> I don't know why this concept is so hard.   Each store.... is run like a separate business.  If your store doesn't have $10,000 extra, so that you can get a raise, then you can't get a raise.      Doesn't matter what Walmart Corporate has.  They could have TRILLIONS of dollars.
> 
> Your individual store has to make, or break payroll on it's own.   Your store has to pay out it expenses alone.   Doesn't matter what Corporate has.   Corporate could have trillions, and if your individual store doesn't have money to pay you more, then it can't pay you more.   Period.
> 
> And this last point proves it.
> 
> *Thirdly, and this has been mentioned dozens of times, every single time that you try and harm the company, you only harm yourself.*
> 
> I said at the very start, you are not going to 'sacrifice Christie Walton's lifestyle', and I meant it.
> 
> Every time that you pass a law, the only result is that the people harmed are yourself.
> 
> The reason is because every single penny that a company gets, is either by paying employees less, or charging customers more.   And every time you pass a higher minimum wage, that is exactly what happens.
> 
> I was working at Wendy's back in the 90s.   After Clinton increased the minimum wage, over the next year or two, Wendy's fired off all their part time employees.    The remaining employees had to cover the jobs the fired employees did.
> 
> Further, they slowly over months and month, reduced the portion sizes.   They shrank the size of the small medium and large, and then introduced the "Biggie" size with a higher price.   The Biggie was actually the size of the original large.   Large became the size of the medium, and the Medium the small, and Small was eliminated.    For several years, Wendy's only had a medium, large and Biggie size drinks and fries.
> 
> In other words, they increased their prices.
> 
> Fast forward to today.   Same thing happened after 2009.   I just read an article just last week, that the average employees per Walmart store in 2007 when the minimum wage was $5.25, was 330 employees per store.
> 
> In 2010, when the minimum wage was up to $7.25, the average number of employees per store, was down to 270.
> 
> Walmart has 11,000 locations.   That's a loss of 60 jobs per store.  That's over half a million unemployed people that could have had jobs.
> 
> Now who 'sacrificed lifestyle' because of that minimum wage increase?   Christie Walton?   Or those half million unemployed?   (hint:  Not Christie.  She's doing fine)
> 
> I just read yesterday, the retailers across the country are reducing the net-weight of consumer goods.    So a box of Cherios at the store, now holds less Cherios, for the same price.
> 
> Again, who is 'sacrificing lifestyle' because of that minimum wage increase?    Christie Walton?  Or the 300 million people of the US that now have to pay a higher price for goods?  (hint:  Not Christie.)
> 
> Minimum wage hurts absolutely everyone, and especially the employees, EXCEPT for the rich and wealthy.
> 
> When you try and hurt the rich and wealthy, the only one you hurt is the poor and middle class.  That's the way it ALWAYS works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sit there and say that the money in which is earned and is produced by the workers in which are working there after all is said and done, and in which has helped to make these people rich beyond their wildest dreams ((don't also have a stake in the fairness of the dividing process and/or that it doesn't belong to the workers in some kind of way unless it is mercifully given out to them in the situation, and this by hopefully a fair and just owner or management team that is running the plantation)) ??  It just as well beongs to everyone else who is part of the good ole boy chain or process after it is divided up supposedly, and this in a fair and decent manor or way they would say, so why not the workers to be included (respectfully) in a fair and decent way also ?
> 
> So you are an advocate of slavery, where as the master and his minions own the plantation, and how dare a slave even think that the master should be more fair than what he is when passing out the bread crumbs at the end of the day. Now we get it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still doesn't matter.   It's not yours.   If I came to your home, and starting telling you, that you shouldn't have this or that, you tell me to get lost, and rightly so.
> 
> Nothing else matters.    All that crap you wrote.... doesn't matter.  Not yours.
> 
> FAIR is what you and the employer agree on.
> 
> If you agree to a wage, and employer pays you that wage, that's fair.
> 
> You can't say "well I'll agree to it, and that's not fair and they should pay more".
> 
> If I agree to mow your lawn for $35, and then the following week say "That's not fair, I demand $200!".  What are you going to tell me?   Get lost, and rightly so.
> 
> We had an agreement.  If I want to end that agreement, and offer a new deal, that's fine but you have the right to reject that.
> 
> The money in your pocket, is not mine, that I can make demands.   Right?   Or wrong?
> 
> See, if this happened to you, you'd be screaming about it.    But because it's happening to someone else, you think you have a point.   But if the tables were turned, you'd have a fit about it.
> 
> And again......   you can not rationally connect this with slavery.   You tell me how many slaves during plantation days, went an applied for a job, and then agreed to a wage?
> 
> You can't go fill out an application to get a job, then agree to a wage, and then start screaming "I AM A SLAVE! WAH!"   Bull crap!
> 
> This isn't China.  There is no Communist official saying "go work in the rice patty until you die".   You can walk off the job, and nothing will happen.  I know, I've done it.     You can go find another job.  You can learn a skill that pays more.
> 
> All that slave crap, is just that.  Turds that need flushed down the drain.   It's not relevant, or intellectually honest.
Click to expand...

You take something simple in concept and in honesty, and then you spin it for your puppet masters like a sell out soldier would do, and for whom is then waiting later for your better fluffy cot to sleep on, and a good hot meal to come very soon afterwards. 

Meanwhile your fellow soldiers are fighting the good fight outside of the trenches like real men do for their freedom, and for their honor. You know what my post meant and how it is to be interpreted correctly, but you act as if it meant something different when you know good and well what it meant.


----------



## Andylusion

beagle9 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sit there and say that the money in which is earned and is produced by the workers in which are working there after all is said and done, and in which has helped to make these people rich beyond their wildest dreams ((don't also have a stake in the fairness of the dividing process and/or that it doesn't belong to the workers in some kind of way unless it is mercifully given out to them in the situation, and this by hopefully a fair and just owner or management team that is running the plantation)) ??  It just as well beongs to everyone else who is part of the good ole boy chain or process after it is divided up supposedly, and this in a fair and decent manor or way they would say, so why not the workers to be included (respectfully) in a fair and decent way also ?
> 
> So you are an advocate of slavery, where as the master and his minions own the plantation, and how dare a slave even think that the master should be more fair than what he is when passing out the bread crumbs at the end of the day. Now we get it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still doesn't matter.   It's not yours.   If I came to your home, and starting telling you, that you shouldn't have this or that, you tell me to get lost, and rightly so.
> 
> Nothing else matters.    All that crap you wrote.... doesn't matter.  Not yours.
> 
> FAIR is what you and the employer agree on.
> 
> If you agree to a wage, and employer pays you that wage, that's fair.
> 
> You can't say "well I'll agree to it, and that's not fair and they should pay more".
> 
> If I agree to mow your lawn for $35, and then the following week say "That's not fair, I demand $200!".  What are you going to tell me?   Get lost, and rightly so.
> 
> We had an agreement.  If I want to end that agreement, and offer a new deal, that's fine but you have the right to reject that.
> 
> The money in your pocket, is not mine, that I can make demands.   Right?   Or wrong?
> 
> See, if this happened to you, you'd be screaming about it.    But because it's happening to someone else, you think you have a point.   But if the tables were turned, you'd have a fit about it.
> 
> And again......   you can not rationally connect this with slavery.   You tell me how many slaves during plantation days, went an applied for a job, and then agreed to a wage?
> 
> You can't go fill out an application to get a job, then agree to a wage, and then start screaming "I AM A SLAVE! WAH!"   Bull crap!
> 
> This isn't China.  There is no Communist official saying "go work in the rice patty until you die".   You can walk off the job, and nothing will happen.  I know, I've done it.     You can go find another job.  You can learn a skill that pays more.
> 
> All that slave crap, is just that.  Turds that need flushed down the drain.   It's not relevant, or intellectually honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You take something simple in concept and in honesty, and then you spin it for your puppet masters like a sell out soldier would do, and for whom is then waiting later for your better fluffy cot to sleep on, and a good hot meal to come very soon afterwards.
> 
> Meanwhile your fellow soldiers are fighting the good fight outside of the trenches like real men do for their freedom, and for their honor. You know what my post meant and how it is to be interpreted correctly, but you act as if it meant something different when you know good and well what it meant.
Click to expand...


I don't care.  You have the right to be wrong.   Good luck with that.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Ernie S. said:


> Ya see, Conservatives aren't into groupspeak. I have no control over, no responsibility for and no duty comply with what another Conservative says.



This is so very telling.  You think that comment was about you.  Here is the context of the statement.


alan1 said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your goal isn't to improve the lives of the low end workers, but rather to eliminate their jobs and force them on to welfare?
> 
> 
> 
> My goal is to stop you from enslaving children to work in your coal mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well aren't you quite the accomplished fellow.
> You achieved your goal before you were even born.
> You know, back in 1865 when slavery ended in the US.
> Admirable
Click to expand...




Ernie S. said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well aren't you quite the accomplished fellow.
> You achieved your goal before you were even born.
> You know, back in 1865 when slavery ended in the US.
> Admirable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a zombie, you know.  It's kind of hard to tell when I was born.
> In any case, it is evident that the person to whom I responded would like to repeal a number of laws, and maybe an amendment or two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What amendment would that be? Please indicate with quotes how you have arrived at your opinion.
Click to expand...


You think I was talking about you.  You didn't bother to click on the little arrows accompanying every quote; you just _assumed _it was all about _you_.  Fascinating.
I understand you so much better now.  You don't care if the minimum wage is raised to keep up with inflation simply because you don't need it.  You only care about things that immediately affect you, like assholes who take extra space from the next lane when they see a motorcyclist in their sideview.  You consider sharing of the road with motorcyclists sacrosanct, not because of general traffic safety, but because it specifically and immediately affects you.
Thank you for sharing this with me.


----------



## AntiParty

Christie Walton Deserves it ALL!

'Merica Never did a thing! Christie will keep the business alive alone if the people demand a decent wage! She can do all the jobs she get's the profits for...

Depressions are fun and appearantly don't teach others the problems that cause them!

List of labor slogans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Andylusion

AntiParty said:


> Christie Walton Deserves it ALL!
> 
> 'Merica Never did a thing! Christie will keep the business alive alone if the people demand a decent wage! She can do all the jobs she get's the profits for...
> 
> Depressions are fun and appearantly don't teach others the problems that cause them!
> 
> List of labor slogans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



That was a dumb post.  If that's the best you got, then you are on the wrong forum.


----------



## sameech

AntiParty said:


> Christie Walton Deserves it ALL!



It isn't about what people "deserve" but about what people have a right to.



> 'Merica Never did a thing! Christie will keep the business alive alone if the people demand a decent wage!



walmart pay is comparable to other big box retailers.



> She can do all the jobs she get's the profits for...



Their profits come from having an innovative business model that others try to emulate.



> Depressions are fun and appearantly don't teach others the problems that cause them!



Sure because lowering dividends and lessening stock prices probably wouldn't be similar to the collapsing stock prices that set off the Great Depression.  All this "living wage" nonsense is a more indirect version of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of June 1930--it prices American goods out of the global market places instead of taxing them out of it, but to the same end.


----------



## AntiParty

sameech said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christie Walton Deserves it ALL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't about what people "deserve" but about what people have a right to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Merica Never did a thing! Christie will keep the business alive alone if the people demand a decent wage!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> walmart pay is comparable to other big box retailers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She can do all the jobs she get's the profits for...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their profits come from having an innovative business model that others try to emulate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depressions are fun and appearantly don't teach others the problems that cause them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure because lowering dividends and lessening stock prices probably wouldn't be similar to the collapsing stock prices that set off the Great Depression.  All this "living wage" nonsense is a more indirect version of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of June 1930--it prices American goods out of the global market places instead of taxing them out of it, but to the same end.
Click to expand...


I don't believe in raising the minimum wage. I simply believe in a fair days pay for a fair days work. 

Sure, it's a good business model. Outsource everything you can and pay your workers as little as possible. Lot's of profit for BUSINESS, not so much gain for America..

Since there is no competition just go down to the port and give a couple desperate people a penny or two and have them work for you. THE WORKERS ARE REPLACEABLE, (R)ight, so treat them and pay them as scum. 

Eventually, the workers are going to wise up and demand their worth. History repeats itself.


----------



## Politico

AntiParty said:


> Christie Walton Deserves it ALL!
> 
> 'Merica Never did a thing! Christie will keep the business alive alone if the people demand a decent wage! She can do all the jobs she get's the profits for...
> 
> Depressions are fun and appearantly don't teach others the problems that cause them!
> 
> List of labor slogans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Bahaha! Christie Walton doesn't do anything but sit back and cash checks.


----------



## sameech

AntiParty said:


> I don't believe in raising the minimum wage. I simply believe in a fair days pay for a fair days work.



So you believe a deli clerk at walmart should get paid more than the college professor because the deli clerk puts more work in?  If not, then you don't really believe that.



> Sure, it's a good business model. Outsource everything you can and pay your workers as little as possible. Lot's of profit for BUSINESS, not so much gain for America..



And this is where the democratic "progressive" argument always breaks down--Walmart is NOT a manufacturer--they are a retailer.  They do not "outsource" everything any more than any other retailer does.  Do you think Kroger makes their own products too?



> Since there is no competition just go down to the port and give a couple desperate people a penny or two and have them work for you. THE WORKERS ARE REPLACEABLE, (R)ight, so treat them and pay them as scum.



We don't have a port in my area.  Individual workers are replaceable.  Perhaps your issue is with those who are willing to work less for their fair pay than for people who are more greedy.




> Eventually, the workers are going to wise up and demand their worth. History repeats itself.



I doubt it, at least not in my lifetime. The democratic party keeps labor pretty neutered. Low wage workers are also low information voters.


----------



## Andylusion

AntiParty said:


> I don't believe in raising the minimum wage. I simply believe in a fair days pay for a fair days work.



Flipping a burger over is worth $15 an hour?   Really?  It's just that hard to flip a burger over in an air conditioned building, with a small freezer full of patties sitting at your feet?     It takes SOOOOO much effort to open that lid, and slap a patty on the grill, and SOOOOOOO much skill and experience to flip the burger over.

I worked at Wendy's back when the minimum wage was $5.25.  I can promise you, flipping a burger over, was worth less than $5.25.   Those people made a killing given how little they did.... *I* did.

That is a fair wage, for an extremely tiny amount of 'work'.

And that's Wendy's and McDonald's, where you actually have to move your hand several inches (at least several), consistently throughout the day.

What about this guy I knew who worked as a security guard for a parking lot?   He sat in a tiny booth, watching TV for 10 hours, 4 days, and then went home.     Just.... sat there.... watching TV.   You think that's worth $15/hr?   Really?

I knew a chick that got a job at a bakery, where she sat in the cash register, watching TV.   At least in her case, on the rare chance someone walked in and bought something, they had to ring them out.    But for 8 hours, just watching day time soap on TV.  That's worth $15?  Or even $7?   Really?  The hardest thing she had to do, was walk to the bathroom.

Again, a fair wage, is what you and the employer agree on.  That's a fair wage.



> Sure, it's a good business model. Outsource everything you can and pay your workers as little as possible. Lot's of profit for BUSINESS, not so much gain for America..



We've covered this too.

The reason outsourcing exists, is because if they didn't outsource, they would close the company down, and instead of several dozen employees losing their jobs, hundreds would lose their jobs.

Do you want NO JOBS, or SOME JOBS?   Those are your options there.

I've worked at several companies that engaged in outsourcing.  My current job has outsourced the production of our CPU boards for our product.

Here were the options.   We could either outsource... or close the company.

I have a job right now, because we outsourced.   Without outsourcing, I'd be unemployed.

I don't understand why you people don't get this.   The vast majority of jobs that exist, are all dependent on outsourcing.    Pick out any job you want, and short of a government job, I bet there is outsourcing involved, that without it, wouldn't exist.



> Eventually, the workers are going to wise up and demand their worth. History repeats itself.



That is happening every single day, constantly year round.   And I'm all in favor of it.

You want to demand what you are worth?   Make yourself worth more.

We had to interns working at my company for the past 10 months.   They got paid very little.

One went back to school, to make herself worth more.  WONDERFUL!

Another got a job at Cisco Corporation, where he'll be making triple his wage here.   AWESOME!

Yet another joined a private engineering firm, and we don't know exactly what he'll make, but the company has lots of room for advancement.   SWEET!!

This is the difference between rich successful people, and whiny b!tchy poor people.

IF you want to sit around and complain about how horrible you are treated and demand government action, and b!tch about the company, fine.  Just remember, you'll still be poor and miserable and complainy later.

75% of all McDonald's franchise owners started off as minimum wage crew members.    How did they end up owners earning $200K a year?   They didn't stand outside with signs, complaining and crying about their wages.  They worked their butt off, just like those three people from my company.   They came, they worked, they learned, they got skills and worked their way up.


----------



## Andylusion

Politico said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christie Walton Deserves it ALL!
> 
> 'Merica Never did a thing! Christie will keep the business alive alone if the people demand a decent wage! She can do all the jobs she get's the profits for...
> 
> Depressions are fun and appearantly don't teach others the problems that cause them!
> 
> List of labor slogans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bahaha! Christie Walton doesn't do anything but sit back and cash checks.
Click to expand...


Doesn't matter.  She owns the company. 

If you had a truck, and someone asked you to rent your truck.   They would pay you to use your vehicle.

BUT!!!  WHY DO YOU GET PAID FOR DOING NOTHING?!?

Cause you own it.    If you didn't get paid for your property, you would sell it off for cash.

If the Waltons didn't get paid for their ownership of the company, they would sell the company off, and 2.2 Million people would be unemployed.   And countless millions would have to pay a higher prices for goods, without Walmart existing.

You seem to forget, the whole reason Walmart employs 2.2 Million people, is because people invested into Walmart.

The reason people have jobs, and the reason customers have cheaper goods, is because of those investors.

The only reason investors put that money into the company, is because they could get a return on their investment.

If you destroy that system, MILLIONS of people will lose their jobs, and fewer jobs will be created in the future.


----------



## Ernie S.

AntiParty said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christie Walton Deserves it ALL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't about what people "deserve" but about what people have a right to.
> 
> 
> 
> walmart pay is comparable to other big box retailers.
> 
> 
> 
> Their profits come from having an innovative business model that others try to emulate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depressions are fun and appearantly don't teach others the problems that cause them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure because lowering dividends and lessening stock prices probably wouldn't be similar to the collapsing stock prices that set off the Great Depression.  All this "living wage" nonsense is a more indirect version of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of June 1930--it prices American goods out of the global market places instead of taxing them out of it, but to the same end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe in raising the minimum wage. I simply believe in a fair days pay for a fair days work.
> 
> Sure, it's a good business model. Outsource everything you can and pay your workers as little as possible. Lot's of profit for BUSINESS, not so much gain for America..
> 
> Since there is no competition just go down to the port and give a couple desperate people a penny or two and have them work for you. THE WORKERS ARE REPLACEABLE, (R)ight, so treat them and pay them as scum.
> 
> *Eventually, the workers are going to wise up and demand their worth.* History repeats itself.
Click to expand...

What is a 16 year old, part time fry cook at McDonald's worth?


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Ernie S. said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in raising the minimum wage. I simply believe in a fair days pay for a fair days work.
> 
> Sure, it's a good business model. Outsource everything you can and pay your workers as little as possible. Lot's of profit for BUSINESS, not so much gain for America..
> 
> Since there is no competition just go down to the port and give a couple desperate people a penny or two and have them work for you. THE WORKERS ARE REPLACEABLE, (R)ight, so treat them and pay them as scum.
> 
> *Eventually, the workers are going to wise up and demand their worth.* History repeats itself.
> 
> 
> 
> What is a 16 year old, part time fry cook at McDonald's worth?
Click to expand...


Not the federal minimum wage.  Did you not know that?


----------



## sameech

Ernie S. said:


> What is a 16 year old, part time fry cook at McDonald's worth?



the same amount as a 45 year married fry cook with 3 kids and a mortgage--minimum wage as long as someone else equally capable is willing to do it at minimum wage


----------



## Andylusion

sameech said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a 16 year old, part time fry cook at McDonald's worth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the same amount as a 45 year married fry cook with 3 kids and a mortgage--minimum wage as long as someone else equally capable is willing to do it at minimum wage
Click to expand...


If you are 45, and working part time, as a fry cook, when you have 3 kids and mortgage..... then you are an idiot.

You could drive truck, and triple your income.  You would mow lawns, and double your income.

You could do anything, and increase your income.

But again, here's the problem.  Are YOU the customer, going to pay $30 for a quarter pounder at McDonald because the fry cook is 45 and has 3 kids and a mortgage?  Of course not.

So apparently he's not worth more.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

sameech said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a 16 year old, part time fry cook at McDonald's worth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the same amount as a 45 year married fry cook with 3 kids and a mortgage--minimum wage as long as someone else equally capable is willing to do it at minimum wage
Click to expand...


I understand the logic, but, since 1997 teenagers in summer jobs have not been eligible for the same federal minimum wage.

http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm
5 A subminimum wage -- $4.25 an hour -- is established for employees under 20 years of age during their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with an employer.​


----------



## sameech

Zombie_Pundit said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a 16 year old, part time fry cook at McDonald's worth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the same amount as a 45 year married fry cook with 3 kids and a mortgage--minimum wage as long as someone else equally capable is willing to do it at minimum wage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand the logic, but, since 1997 teenagers in summer jobs have not been eligible for the same federal minimum wage.
> 
> http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm
> 5 A subminimum wage -- $4.25 an hour -- is established for employees under 20 years of age during their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with an employer.​
Click to expand...


That is the first I have heard of it and outside waitresses, I have never heard of anyone getting paid less than the standard MW.  Interesting.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

sameech said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> the same amount as a 45 year married fry cook with 3 kids and a mortgage--minimum wage as long as someone else equally capable is willing to do it at minimum wage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the logic, but, since 1997 teenagers in summer jobs have not been eligible for the same federal minimum wage.
> 
> http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm
> 5 A subminimum wage -- $4.25 an hour -- is established for employees under 20 years of age during their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with an employer.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the first I have heard of it and outside waitresses, I have never heard of anyone getting paid less than the standard MW.  Interesting.
Click to expand...


It's not such a bad idea.  Does a child need to work, or is a child working part time to learn how to be a responsible adult?  I would think a child should be in school, not working a full time job like some sort of dickensian dystopia.

There are numerous other exceptions to the federal minimum wage law.  Then there is Georgia which actually has a lower state minimum wage and the federal minimum wage is only applicable in certain types of businesses over which the federal government would override states' rights.


----------



## racewright

alan1 said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the correct answer is really yes, then you should be able to start your own discount store and pay employees that living wage.  Then Walmart will have to raise their wages or go out of business to compete with your discount store.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I (let's just say) am 23, have a high school education, made good grades, and a kid. You think I should open my own store?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bill Gates did.
> Steve Jobs did.
> Frank Lloyd Wright did.
> Mark Zuckerberg did.
> 
> Every one of them a college dropout.
> Just sayin'
Click to expand...



Starting to think College is a negative not a positive as today they are taught to hate rich businesses.  My daughter in law and my Granddaughter  Both were given failing grades because of there opinions on being a business owner.  Both are moving up the ladder in business.  Guided by Myself and My son.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

racewright said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> I (let's just say) am 23, have a high school education, made good grades, and a kid. You think I should open my own store?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Gates did.
> Steve Jobs did.
> Frank Lloyd Wright did.
> Mark Zuckerberg did.
> 
> Every one of them a college dropout.
> Just sayin'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Starting to think College is a negative not a positive as today they are taught to hate rich businesses.  My daughter in law and my Granddaughter  Both were given failing grades because of there opinions on being a business owner.  Both are moving up the ladder in business.  Guided by Myself and My son.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of law schools staffed by conservatives with a conservative student body.  That's not to say the mainstay of colleges and universities don't have a liberal bias.  They do.  If colleges, as an aggregate, didn't exhibit this bias then the SCOTUS wouldn't need to keep shutting down their more blatant infringements.  One can easily avoid that bias if one majors in science or engineering or medicine.  No, meteorology is not politically biased.  The debates over policy decisions concerning rising temperatures is a different matter.


----------



## beagle9

sameech said:


> *So you believe a deli clerk at walmart should get paid more than the college professor because the deli clerk puts more work in?  If not, then you don't really believe that.*



I don't think that anyone is saying what you sameech are implying, so why are you implying that someone thinks a Walmart Deli worker should make more or the same as a College Professor when they are not ? People just want to be in a structured pay system that has the standard minimum entrance pay, and then have raises and benefits that are suitable for them to live on as they work their way up in life. The problem is that these companies have been trying to get away from or out of that structured pay system concept over the years, and they are trying to adapt a world view or system of doing things when it comes to the treatment of it's workforces here. They are doing this instead of keeping the type systems that had made this nation strong and secure over the years. 




sameech said:


> *And this is where the democratic "progressive" argument always breaks down--Walmart is NOT a manufacturer--they are a retailer.  They do not "outsource" everything any more than any other retailer does.  Do you think Kroger makes their own products too?*





AntiParty said:


> Since there is no competition just go down to the port and give a couple desperate people a penny or two and have them work for you. THE WORKERS ARE REPLACEABLE, (R)ight, so treat them and pay them as scum.



Walmart is just one link in the chain that has been created, where as they are all working together in this tightly wound chain. So of course Wal-mart isn't doing this just on their own, so sameech is trying to seperate Wal-mart from the chain, but it is a game of smoke and mirrors, and it is obvious in what he attempts to do in that respect.



sameech said:


> *We don't have a port in my area.  Individual workers are replaceable.  Perhaps your issue is with those who are willing to work less for their fair pay than for people who are more greedy.*



Individual workers are replaceable (Yes) and easily so when they have no representation or understanding of what is happening to them, so your view of them as being low information voters is also correct when it comes to this stuff in which they have no representation on or no clue on. More greedy you say, or is it that they are just more wise to what goes on when they know their company could pay them a living wage, but refuses to do so all due to it's extreme appetite for the greed of it's own ?



AntiParty said:


> Eventually, the workers are going to wise up and demand their worth. History repeats itself.





sameech said:


> I doubt it, at least not in my lifetime. The democratic party keeps labor pretty neutered. *Low wage workers are also low information voters*.



Yes and the companies that work low wage workers for years, are glad that these workers are low information voters, because their so called savior Barack sure has lied to them or handled their case in a most idiotic way.  Bottom line is that the workes need representation in some fields of the market place or rather they will get used and trashed by their employers because they have no representation or guidence that could help them from being abused or exploited.


----------



## sameech

beagle9 said:


> I don't think that anyone is saying what you sameech are implying, so why are you implying that someone thinks a Walmart Deli worker should make more or the same as a College Professor when they are not ? People just want to be in a structured pay system that has the standard minimum entrance pay, and then have raises and benefits that are suitable for them to live on as they work their way up in life. The problem is that these companies have been trying to get away from or out of that structured pay system concept over the years, and they are trying to adapt a world view or system of doing things when it comes to the treatment of it's workforces here. They are doing this instead of keeping the type systems that had made this nation strong and secure over the years.



If you are forcing people to pay someone one dime more than the labor supply-demand dictates, then you are interfering in private markets.  There is no justification to do it "just a little" that isn't justification for doing it "quite a bit".  What these companies are doing is adapting to a changing marketplace in a global environment.  What made this country strong was lack of competition, now we have more than enough to justify containing wages/labor costs in order to be competitive.




> Walmart is just one link in the chain that has been created, where as they are all working together in this tightly wound chain. So of course Wal-mart isn't doing this just on their own, so sameech is trying to seperate Wal-mart from the chain, but it is a game of smoke and mirrors, and it is obvious in what he attempts to do in that respect.



oh yes the other democratic fallacy--when forced to confront the truth that Walmart isn't doing anything different than Target, they suddenly shift to the "They are a symbol of all the others we don't ever mention: meme.



> Individual workers are replaceable (Yes) and easily so when they have no representation or understanding of what is happening to them, so your view of them as being low information voters is also correct when it comes to this stuff in which they have no representation on or no clue on. More greedy you say, or is it that they are just more wise to what goes on when they know their company could pay them a living wage, but refuses to do so all due to it's extreme appetite for the greed of it's own ?



walmart workers clearly do not want a union or they would have one already.  


> Yes and the companies that work low wage workers for years, are glad that these workers are low information voters, because their so called savior Barack sure has lied to them or handled their case in a most idiotic way.  Bottom line is that the workes need representation in some fields of the market place or rather they will get used and trashed by their employers because they have no representation or guidence that could help them from being abused or exploited.



When workers decide to organize a labour party instead of supporting the democrats with the hope that this might just be the year they decide to throw us some alms instead of some other group, then they will have  a voice.  Instead, they continue to support the political parties that are bought and paid for by their employers and then wonder why nothing ever changes.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

sameech said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that anyone is saying what you sameech are implying, so why are you implying that someone thinks a Walmart Deli worker should make more or the same as a College Professor when they are not ? People just want to be in a structured pay system that has the standard minimum entrance pay, and then have raises and benefits that are suitable for them to live on as they work their way up in life. The problem is that these companies have been trying to get away from or out of that structured pay system concept over the years, and they are trying to adapt a world view or system of doing things when it comes to the treatment of it's workforces here. They are doing this instead of keeping the type systems that had made this nation strong and secure over the years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are forcing people to pay someone one dime more than the labor supply-demand dictates, then you are interfering in private markets.  There is no justification to do it "just a little" that isn't justification for doing it "quite a bit".  What these companies are doing is adapting to a changing marketplace in a global environment.  What made this country strong was lack of competition, now we have more than enough to justify containing wages/labor costs in order to be competitive.
Click to expand...


The minimum wage represents a price control.  It is most certainly interfering with the free market.  To impose a price control on anything is to interfere with the free market.  
Let's review the logic of imposing that price control:
"...the exploitation of a class of workers who are in *an unequal position with respect to bargaining power*, and are thus relatively defenceless against the denial of a living wage, is not only detrimental to their health and wellbeing, but casts a direct burden for their support upon the community. *What these workers lose in wages, the taxpayers are called upon to pay. The bare cost of living must be met.*"
_West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 US 379 - 1937_
If you abolish the minimum wage you will increase the number of persons on public assistance.  I propose a goal for the minimum wage, which I'm pretty sure is already the goal for minimum wage:
_*No single person shall be eligible for SNAP or Medicaid if they work 40 hours per week.*_
This means they need to earn 150% of poverty or higher as a single person. 
(SNAP and Medicaid eligibility is determined in "% of poverty")​I'm pretty sure this is already the case.  In order to maintain this standard, the minimum wage must be increased to match inflation.  To argue otherwise is to allow the existing minimum wage to fall below the eligibility limits or worse yet to abolish it all together.

Additionally, there is little room for competition in labor between our American Standard of Living and the developing world.  To argue otherwise is to strap blinders onto ourselves such that we cannot see new opportunities and nearsightedness such as to enjoin us to race to the bottom of wages.  Jobs that have been sent overseas aren't coming back, at least not anytime soon.  Racing to the bottom won't help us, and won't help the workers in developing countries whose real wages are increasing due to global trade.  When a job is shipped off overseas, don't wonder if you could have bowed and scraped a little lower.  Get new skills.  For people who simply cannot adapt to new industries, Vocational Rehabilitation could be used for cases where serious deficiencies exist
Vocational rehabilitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As a matter of national policy we should look to opening new markets, like the _Japan Cellular Telephone And Third Party Radio Agreement_ which opened Japan to the American cellphone standards, that help advance new industries and new job opportunities for Americans.  Other national policies can and do encourage the growth of new industry.  The goal is not for the government to be new industry.  The goal is for government to seed new industry, and this has been and continues to be a very successful model over the long term.  Of course there are some examples deserving of ridicule.  And the ridicule is good because it forces government to change directions in its efforts to seed new opportunities for our people.


----------



## Andylusion

sameech said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> the same amount as a 45 year married fry cook with 3 kids and a mortgage--minimum wage as long as someone else equally capable is willing to do it at minimum wage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the logic, but, since 1997 teenagers in summer jobs have not been eligible for the same federal minimum wage.
> 
> http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm
> 5 A subminimum wage -- $4.25 an hour -- is established for employees under 20 years of age during their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with an employer.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the first I have heard of it and outside waitresses, I have never heard of anyone getting paid less than the standard MW.  Interesting.
Click to expand...


I have Zombie on my ignore list, because he's made it clear he is typically too immature to handle direct conversation.

But I will reply to you.

There is a youth minimum wage, but it's largely ignored.   There are two reasons for this.

First, most states have a minimum wage, that is higher than the youth federal minimum wage.

http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm

There are only 5 states that have no minimum wage.

There are additionally 4 states that have a minimum wage, below the Federal $7.25 minimum wage.

Most states have their State Minimum wage, automatically adjust to the Federal Minimum wage.

In other words, in 41 states, the Youth minimum wage has absolutely no application.  The state laws, prevent the use of the lower wage rates.

In 4 of the other states, they have a lower wage, but it's not $4.25.   The lowest is $5.15 in one state, and $6+ in the other 3.

So only 5 states, can use the lowest minimum wage.

However, even then, most employers are not willing to use that lower 'youth minimum wage', because of the 1996 law, has a displaced worker clause.

You can look it up if you want to, but the clause basically says employers can not let one employee go, in order to hire an employee that gets the 'youth minimum wage'.

The purpose is to prevent an employer from hiring a youth worker for $4.25, and then after 3 months firing off that worker to hire another youth worker for $4.25.

Of course the problem is, that creates a legal trap for employers.   Turn over rate at the lowest income end, is high to begin with.  And high school students, knowing they have no intention of staying, often show up late, work poorly, lie about their car breaking down, so they can go on a date.

But if the company fires that guy, and then hires a new youth worker on, and uses the $4.25 wage,  the fired guy, who really got fired for being late, lying, and not doing a good job, could pull a lawsuit out of butt and the company would spend thousands defending it.

So the bottom line is, it's true in theory, but in practice, almost never used.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

Androw said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the logic, but, since 1997 teenagers in summer jobs have not been eligible for the same federal minimum wage.
> 
> http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm
> 5 A subminimum wage -- $4.25 an hour -- is established for employees under 20 years of age during their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with an employer.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the first I have heard of it and outside waitresses, I have never heard of anyone getting paid less than the standard MW.  Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a youth minimum wage, but it's largely ignored.   There are two reasons for this.
> 
> First, most states have a minimum wage, that is higher than the youth federal minimum wage.
> 
> http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm
> 
> There are only 5 states that have no minimum wage.
> 
> There are additionally 4 states that have a minimum wage, below the Federal $7.25 minimum wage.
> 
> Most states have their State Minimum wage, automatically adjust to the Federal Minimum wage.
> 
> In other words, in 41 states, the Youth minimum wage has absolutely no application.  The state laws, prevent the use of the lower wage rates.
Click to expand...


Bad assumption.
Here is the law for Washington state, one of the 41 you ruled out.
Wages, Breaks & Meal Periods
_What is the minimum wage for minor workers?
The minimum wage for 16- and 17-year-old workers is the same as for adults  $9.32 in 2014. Minors under 16 may be paid 85 percent ($7.92) of the state minimum wage.​_
Minimum wage laws vary state to state, but you assume that because 41 states have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum wage that they therefore have no provisions for a sub-minimum wage based on age.  Obviously it is allowed in Washington State.  California  has a specific provision for its use and it is used.  You are obviously mistaken concerning Washington State you are also mistaken concerning California and I really don't want to look up the other 39.


----------



## pinqy

Androw said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a 16 year old, part time fry cook at McDonald's worth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the same amount as a 45 year married fry cook with 3 kids and a mortgage--minimum wage as long as someone else equally capable is willing to do it at minimum wage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are 45, and working part time, as a fry cook, when you have 3 kids and mortgage..... then you are an idiot.
Click to expand...

 Why? If your spouse earns enough to support, or mostly support the family, any money is "extra" and McDonald'has flexible hours and doesn't require any skills.



> You could drive truck, and triple your income.


Only if you get your CDL, which Is an investment you might not want, and the hours and travel can be difficult.


> You would mow lawns, and double your income.


which requires a capital investment and is limited to daylight hours.



> You could do anything, and increase your income.


 perhaps, but would it meet the schedule you want and would it require additional investment (of time or money) and would it be something you want to do?

That's one of the issues with a "living wage:" at part time hours it's not a living wage and most people working minimum wage don't need more.


----------



## Skull Pilot

pinqy said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> the same amount as a 45 year married fry cook with 3 kids and a mortgage--minimum wage as long as someone else equally capable is willing to do it at minimum wage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are 45, and working part time, as a fry cook, when you have 3 kids and mortgage..... then you are an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? If your spouse earns enough to support, or mostly support the family, any money is "extra" and McDonald'has flexible hours and doesn't require any skills.
> 
> 
> Only if you get your CDL, which Is an investment you might not want, and the hours and travel can be difficult.
> 
> 
> 
> You would mow lawns, and double your income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> which requires a capital investment and is limited to daylight hours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could do anything, and increase your income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> perhaps, but would it meet the schedule you want and would it require additional investment (of time or money) and would it be something you want to do?
> 
> That's one of the issues with a "living wage:" at part time hours it's not a living wage and most people working minimum wage don't need more.
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter what you want.

If you need more money to support your family you do what you have to to make it happen.

That is what an adult does.


----------



## sameech

Skull Pilot said:


> It doesn't matter what you want.
> 
> If you need more money to support your family you do what you have to to make it happen.
> 
> That is what an adult does.



Drug dealing, prostitution, murder for hire?


----------



## Skull Pilot

sameech said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what you want.
> 
> If you need more money to support your family you do what you have to to make it happen.
> 
> That is what an adult does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drug dealing, prostitution, murder for hire?
Click to expand...


Idiot.

All those things endanger the family you are supposed to be protecting.


----------



## sameech

Skull Pilot said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what you want.
> 
> If you need more money to support your family you do what you have to to make it happen.
> 
> That is what an adult does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drug dealing, prostitution, murder for hire?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Idiot.*
> 
> All those things endanger the family you are supposed to be protecting.
Click to expand...


So suddenly it is not about getting money for your family, it is about protecting them?  Money is money.

BTW, this is the clean debate zone, so way to class the place up.


----------



## pinqy

Skull Pilot said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are 45, and working part time, as a fry cook, when you have 3 kids and mortgage..... then you are an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? If your spouse earns enough to support, or mostly support the family, any money is "extra" and McDonald'has flexible hours and doesn't require any skills.
> 
> 
> Only if you get your CDL, which Is an investment you might not want, and the hours and travel can be difficult.
> which requires a capital investment and is limited to daylight hours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could do anything, and increase your income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> perhaps, but would it meet the schedule you want and would it require additional investment (of time or money) and would it be something you want to do?
> 
> That's one of the issues with a "living wage:" at part time hours it's not a living wage and most people working minimum wage don't need more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what you want.
Click to expand...

 Of course it does. If you don't want more money, why should an employer be required to pay you more?  You take or don't take a job based on what you want.



> If you need more money to support your family you do what you have to to make it happen.


 Right.


----------



## beagle9

Skull Pilot said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are 45, and working part time, as a fry cook, when you have 3 kids and mortgage..... then you are an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? If your spouse earns enough to support, or mostly support the family, any money is "extra" and McDonald'has flexible hours and doesn't require any skills.
> 
> 
> Only if you get your CDL, which Is an investment you might not want, and the hours and travel can be difficult.
> which requires a capital investment and is limited to daylight hours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could do anything, and increase your income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> perhaps, but would it meet the schedule you want and would it require additional investment (of time or money) and would it be something you want to do?
> 
> That's one of the issues with a "living wage:" at part time hours it's not a living wage and most people working minimum wage don't need more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what you want.
> 
> If you need more money to support your family you do what you have to to make it happen.
> 
> That is what an adult does.
Click to expand...

Yep, and without proper representation, you might just run into some bad situations that will only be there to offer you a job when you are down and out, and they will be more than willing to use you, exploit you, and abuse you while you are in a pickle, but that's all A-ok with yall now isn't it ? I mean if people fall through the cracks, and get abused well that is A-Ok with yall isn't it ?

I mean a man has to do what a man has to do you say, and that is what a wolf in sheeps clothing loves to come walking right  on in the door next.

The problem is these days, is that there is so much corruption that people almost have no place to go anymore, and so there you have it so now what ?


----------



## beagle9

Zombie_Pundit said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in raising the minimum wage. I simply believe in a fair days pay for a fair days work.
> 
> Sure, it's a good business model. Outsource everything you can and pay your workers as little as possible. Lot's of profit for BUSINESS, not so much gain for America..
> 
> Since there is no competition just go down to the port and give a couple desperate people a penny or two and have them work for you. THE WORKERS ARE REPLACEABLE, (R)ight, so treat them and pay them as scum.
> 
> *Eventually, the workers are going to wise up and demand their worth.* History repeats itself.
> 
> 
> 
> What is a 16 year old, part time fry cook at McDonald's worth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not the federal minimum wage.  Did you not know that?
Click to expand...

How can you say that about someone that you don't know other than his age or status, when of course you don't know the talents the 16 year old may have altogether within himself ? He might be able to hold down two positions at once, and also help another in the process, but he deserves less than the federal minimum wage you say ? Some of you people are just sick in the heads I think, and your greed is becoming of you. You see, this is how a corporatist thinks, where as he wants everyone in the same category or pay no matter what his talents or qualities are in life, so as I have said early on in this thread look out because the slight of hand is quick, and you might not pick up on these things, but I do.


----------



## Zombie_Pundit

beagle9 said:


> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a 16 year old, part time fry cook at McDonald's worth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the federal minimum wage.  Did you not know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you say that about someone that you don't know other than his age or status, when of course you don't know the talents the 16 year old may have altogether within himself ? He might be able to hold down two positions at once, and also help another in the process, but he deserves less than the federal minimum wage you say ? Some of you people are just sick in the heads I think, and your greed is becoming of you. You see, this is how a corporatist thinks, where as he wants everyone in the same category or pay no matter what his talents or qualities are in life, so as I have said early on in this thread look out because the slight of hand is quick, and you might not pick up on these things, but I do.
Click to expand...


Beagle,
I was not passing judgement on the hypothetical 16-year-old.
I was stating a fact.  Federal law does not mandate paying teenage workers in their first 90 days with any one employer the federal minimum wage.  There is a separate Youth Minimum Wage codify into federal law.  This means, by federal law, an employer can employ a youth worker over a summer and pay them a subminimum wage.  In fact, Beagle, there are many exceptions to the federal minimum wage.  You may not like these exceptions, but these exceptions exist.


----------



## beagle9

Zombie_Pundit said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zombie_Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not the federal minimum wage.  Did you not know that?
> 
> 
> 
> How can you say that about someone that you don't know other than his age or status, when of course you don't know the talents the 16 year old may have altogether within himself ? He might be able to hold down two positions at once, and also help another in the process, but he deserves less than the federal minimum wage you say ? Some of you people are just sick in the heads I think, and your greed is becoming of you. You see, this is how a corporatist thinks, where as he wants everyone in the same category or pay no matter what his talents or qualities are in life, so as I have said early on in this thread look out because the slight of hand is quick, and you might not pick up on these things, but I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beagle,
> I was not passing judgement on the hypothetical 16-year-old.
> I was stating a fact.  Federal law does not mandate paying teenage workers in their first 90 days with any one employer the federal minimum wage.  There is a separate Youth Minimum Wage codify into federal law.  This means, by federal law, an employer can employ a youth worker over a summer and pay them a subminimum wage.  In fact, Beagle, there are many exceptions to the federal minimum wage.  You may not like these exceptions, but these exceptions exist.
Click to expand...

Gotcha, I think I may have been directing my thoughts in the sense that this meant something else, but now I see the gest or rather the context of what you were saying this in.


----------



## Andylusion

pinqy said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> the same amount as a 45 year married fry cook with 3 kids and a mortgage--minimum wage as long as someone else equally capable is willing to do it at minimum wage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are 45, and working part time, as a fry cook, when you have 3 kids and mortgage..... then you are an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? If your spouse earns enough to support, or mostly support the family, any money is "extra" and McDonald'has flexible hours and doesn't require any skills.
Click to expand...


All of that is true, but at same time if you are in fact 45 years old... unless you have been in a comma for 20 years, you MUST HAVE some amount of skills, that would be worth more than McDonald's burger flipper at minimum wage.   I refuse to believe you are 45 and have no skills whatsoever.    What have you been doing for the last 25 years?

And if you have skills, and refuse to use them, that is kinda stupid in my book.

There are NUMEROUS jobs that can earn more than minimum wage with very little effort.

Can you push a mower?    You can write your own scheduled there too.  You can earn the same amount of money working 3 days a week, mowing lawns, as you can 40 hours at McDs.

You could even walk dogs 3 days a week, and earn more than 40 hours a McDs.

Heck you could run a steamer carpet cleaner, and earn 5 times a wage at McDs.  How much skill is requires to push a steam sweeper system across of floor?   You can make your own hours then too.

The only way working at McDs makes any intelligent sense, is if you intend to go through their management training, and they require you to work a year as a minimum wage burger flipper.

I don't know if that's a requirement or not, but that's the only way it makes sense.  Otherwise, honestly, you are lazy.  Get your butt in gear, and do something with your life.



> Only if you get your CDL, which Is an investment you might not want, and the hours and travel can be difficult.



Well crap... if the excuse is "I don't want to", then you deserve what you get.   Every good thing in life takes effort.   Everything worth doing, takes sweat equity.    If you are not willing to do anything because "I don't want to", then you don't deserve jack squat, and certainly nothing from society.

And by the way, getting a CDL isn't hard at all.  I got my CDL.  My co-worker lady got her CDL.  Two of the ladies actually have their CDL.  I've seen guys in their 60s getting CDL, and young boys 19 years old getting their CDL.  It's not hard.   You can come up with an excuse for everything in life, but that just make you a wimp.   Do what you need to do to succeed in life, or shut up.



> perhaps, but would it meet the schedule you want and would it require additional investment (of time or money) and would it be something you want to do?



You don't get everything you want in life.  Sometimes you have to do what you have to do.   One time after a was laid off from a job, I got the most miserable job I have ever had.  It was 4 PM to 1 AM, working in a factory making propane tanks.   It was August, and when the temp was 90ºF outside, it was 110ºF inside.   And at the same time you had to wear protective goggles, and arm bands, and mittens, because the propane tanks rolling off the line, were hot enough that if your skin touched them, it would melt, and stay on them.

You started sweating the moment you entered the plant.   You didn't stop until long after you started for home.   When you got home, you had a showered and washed the crystallized salt from your sweat, out of your hair.

You think it was fun?  You think I was having a cheery time?  Dancing on my way to work?   Of course not.

But I'm not a boy.  I'm an adult, and I have bills, and I have to take care of my responsibilities.   You don't get to whine about "well I want the shift I want, and the flexibility I want, and I don't want anything that requires too much effort, or any real skills, or any discomfort in my life......."

That's baby talk.   Grow up.  Be a man.  Turn off the TV, and start working like the rest of us.

Now I didn't do that forever, but I paid my bills, while I looked for another job.   And I eventually got another job, more in line with what I like to do.   But I get a little tired of this 

"well I don't want to do anything I don't like, and I'm spoiled, so I'm going to work at McDs because it's easy, and that's all I'll do with my life is whatever is easy."

That's something a pathetic person says.


----------



## Andylusion

sameech said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what you want.
> 
> If you need more money to support your family you do what you have to to make it happen.
> 
> That is what an adult does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drug dealing, prostitution, murder for hire?
Click to expand...


Well when we make it harder for people to find jobs with laws that make employing low skilled labor, less profitable.... then yah, that's not their fault, that's socialists fault for killing jobs.

Also when you defend every murderer, and protect every criminal, and attack every policeman for doing his job... then yah, that's going to happen socialists defend criminal activity.


----------



## Bush92

Againsheila said:


> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.


I want everyone in America to have a"living wage." Why are we worried about a company that imports Chinese products that used to be made in America? The real question is "Why did we allow all these jobs to go over to China?" Wal-Mart is our largest employer outside US Armed Forces. We make war and sell garbage. Thanks Washington DC.


----------



## sameech

Bush92 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> I want everyone in America to have a"living wage." Why are we worried about a company that imports Chinese products that used to be made in America? The real question is "Why did we allow all these jobs to go over to China?" Wal-Mart is our largest employer outside US Armed Forces. We make war and sell garbage. Thanks Washington DC.
Click to expand...


Because Americans are cheapskates who are not willing to pay $15 for a made in america towel when they could 5 just as good at Walmart for the same money, and nobody in the third world will be buying that towel that costs them a day's pay, so.......we need to make cheap crap the rest of the world will buy, or just suck it up and stop expecting corporations to give us a job.


----------



## KissMy

Againsheila said:


> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.



Both Bush's & Republicans EXPLODED Food Stamp SNAP spending. Clinton cut it during his entire presidency & Obama is cutting it in his second term.


----------



## KissMy

Bush92 said:


> http://www.upworthy.com/the-shockin...would-cost-us-all-if-walmart-paid-living-wage
> I want everyone in America to have a"living wage." Why are we worried about a company that imports Chinese products that used to be made in America? The real question is "Why did we allow all these jobs to go over to China?" Wal-Mart is our largest employer outside US Armed Forces. We make war and sell garbage. Thanks Washington DC.


 
You lie. You worship Bush & republicans for crushing US worker wages & giving tax breaks to companies who send jobs to china. You voted for it every time & you will do it again this election.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

KissMy said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both Bush's & Republicans EXPLODED Food Stamp SNAP spending. Clinton cut it during his entire presidency & Obama is cutting it in his second term.
Click to expand...


Talk about BS

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf

SNAP expenditures in 2013 were over DOUBLE what they were in 2007. ANd they show no sign of going down.

[TBODY]
[/TBODY]


----------



## RKMBrown

KissMy said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both Bush's & Republicans EXPLODED Food Stamp SNAP spending. Clinton cut it during his entire presidency & Obama is cutting it in his second term.
Click to expand...

ROFL ^ retarded democrat taking credit for welfare reform that the republicans shoved down their throats with them screaming and kicking the whole way. ROFL


----------



## RKMBrown

KissMy said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want everyone in America to have a"living wage." Why are we worried about a company that imports Chinese products that used to be made in America? The real question is "Why did we allow all these jobs to go over to China?" Wal-Mart is our largest employer outside US Armed Forces. We make war and sell garbage. Thanks Washington DC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lie. You worship Bush & republicans for crushing US worker wages & giving tax breaks to companies who send jobs to china. You voted for it every time & you will do it again this election.
Click to expand...

^ lying POS ass hole.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Living wage? Here's a suggestion get off your dead ass and get a better paying job.
wages are based on a need for services not how much the person think they are.


----------



## KissMy

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both Bush's & Republicans EXPLODED Food Stamp SNAP spending. Clinton cut it during his entire presidency & Obama is cutting it in his second term.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talk about BS
> 
> http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf
> 
> SNAP expenditures in 2013 were over DOUBLE what they were in 2007. ANd they show no sign of going down.
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
Click to expand...


You are a dishonest asshole. Bush was president from 2001 to 2009 causing SNAP spending to increase over 300%. They only increased 30% under Obama & are now decreasing. SNAP spending was decreasing all during Clinton's entire presidency, then Bush caused it to explode 10 times more than Obama.

Marketwatch - Obama spending binge never happened


----------



## Bush92

KissMy said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want everyone in America to have a"living wage." Why are we worried about a company that imports Chinese products that used to be made in America? The real question is "Why did we allow all these jobs to go over to China?" Wal-Mart is our largest employer outside US Armed Forces. We make war and sell garbage. Thanks Washington DC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lie. You worship Bush & republicans for crushing US worker wages & giving tax breaks to companies who send jobs to china. You voted for it every time & you will do it again this election.
Click to expand...

Democrats have done what to save American jobs? Oh, please explain Clinton, Gore, and NAFTA to me again.


----------



## Bush92

KissMy said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both Bush's & Republicans EXPLODED Food Stamp SNAP spending. Clinton cut it during his entire presidency & Obama is cutting it in his second term.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talk about BS
> 
> http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf
> 
> SNAP expenditures in 2013 were over DOUBLE what they were in 2007. ANd they show no sign of going down.
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a dishonest asshole. Bush was president from 2001 to 2009 causing SNAP spending to increase over 300%. They only increased 30% under Obama & are now decreasing. SNAP spending was decreasing all during Clinton's entire presidency, then Bush caused it to explode 10 times more than Obama.
> 
> Marketwatch - Obama spending binge never happened
Click to expand...

Oh look, more bullshit lies from Washington DC.


----------



## RKMBrown

KissMy said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both Bush's & Republicans EXPLODED Food Stamp SNAP spending. Clinton cut it during his entire presidency & Obama is cutting it in his second term.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talk about BS
> 
> http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf
> 
> SNAP expenditures in 2013 were over DOUBLE what they were in 2007. ANd they show no sign of going down.
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a dishonest asshole. Bush was president from 2001 to 2009 causing SNAP spending to increase over 300%. They only increased 30% under Obama & are now decreasing. SNAP spending was decreasing all during Clinton's entire presidency, then Bush caused it to explode 10 times more than Obama.
> 
> Marketwatch - Obama spending binge never happened
Click to expand...

^retard thinks Obama started in 2010 ROFL


----------



## AquaAthena

If workers want a living wage, they need to get an education and earn one. Period!

The culture of dependency is so upon us, that concept seems ridiculous to the multitudes.


----------



## sameech

KissMy said:


> You are a dishonest asshole. Bush was president from 2001 to 2009 causing SNAP spending to increase over 300%. They only increased 30% under Obama & are now decreasing. SNAP spending was decreasing all during Clinton's entire presidency, then Bush caused it to explode 10 times more than Obama.



The growth of federal spending has nothing to do with SNAP directly.  SNAP grew under Bush because the 1996 deep cuts to funding for the program reversed itself.  In inflation adjusted dollars, SNAP doubled under Bush and has almost doubled under Obama who also oversaw its high water mark during the recession.   If there is a decrease trending, it isn't because of Obama but because of the GOP in the House diddling with the farm bill.

Rep. Tom Cole says food stamp spending doubled under Bush doubled again under Obama PolitiFact

My guess is you are one of those people who would turn around and claim what you are claiming today, and then blame the GOP for causing that which you praise Obama for causing today.  Poverty is a complex issue and IMHO, democrat apologists who are data point pirates add nothing to the debate about effectiveness of existing programs, ways to shore them up or new ways to address poverty and middle of the middle-class job loss.  Screw the partisan nonsense--call a spade a spade and stop trying to put perfume on the turd.  US policy toward the poor has sucked and will continue to suck no matter who is President and which party goes beside their name.


----------



## sameech

AquaAthena said:


> If workers want a living wage, they need to get an education and earn one. Period!
> 
> The culture of dependency is so upon us, that concept seems ridiculous to the multitudes.



That is rather naive, but probably closer to the truth than what the DNC spinners want people to believe.


----------



## rightwinger

Defiant1 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has someone figured out the magic formula to define a "living" wage?
> 
> Or should each employee be paid according to how much money they need to "live?"
Click to expand...

Well, maybe we can start at the point they no longer need public assistance


----------



## sameech

rightwinger said:


> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has someone figured out the magic formula to define a "living" wage?
> 
> Or should each employee be paid according to how much money they need to "live?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, maybe we can start at the point they no longer need public assistance
Click to expand...


Won't happen.  The Earned Income Tax Credit saw a growth in single mom's going to work part-time and Walmart is happy to hire such people, unlike many businesses.   If you increase wages to what those people would need to support themselves and their families today, then prices would go up so high (or the purchasing power of a dollar go so low, whichever you prefer) that it becomes a wash and those people stay on the dole.


----------



## RKMBrown

sameech said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has someone figured out the magic formula to define a "living" wage?
> 
> Or should each employee be paid according to how much money they need to "live?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, maybe we can start at the point they no longer need public assistance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Won't happen.  The Earned Income Tax Credit saw a growth in single mom's going to work part-time and Walmart is happy to hire such people, unlike many businesses.   If you increase wages to what those people would need to support themselves and their families today, then prices would go up so high (or the purchasing power of a dollar go so low, whichever you prefer) that it becomes a wash and those people stay on the dole.
Click to expand...


Sort of... the way the rules work the feds don't care if you get paid 500 an hour.  What they care about is you don't earn more than the minimum amount necessary to receive welfare checks.  Thus giving part time employees a raise from 7.50 to 15 bucks an hour would just mean the part time employees would stop working at 15 hours instead of stopping at 30hrs as any work over 15hrs would mean they loose their welfare checks.


----------



## sameech

RKMBrown said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has someone figured out the magic formula to define a "living" wage?
> 
> Or should each employee be paid according to how much money they need to "live?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, maybe we can start at the point they no longer need public assistance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Won't happen.  The Earned Income Tax Credit saw a growth in single mom's going to work part-time and Walmart is happy to hire such people, unlike many businesses.   If you increase wages to what those people would need to support themselves and their families today, then prices would go up so high (or the purchasing power of a dollar go so low, whichever you prefer) that it becomes a wash and those people stay on the dole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sort of... the way the rules work the feds don't care if you get paid 500 an hour.  What they care about is you don't earn more than the minimum amount necessary to receive welfare checks.  Thus giving part time employees a raise from 7.50 to 15 bucks an hour would just mean the part time employees would stop working at 15 hours instead of stopping at 30hrs as any work over 15hrs would mean they loose their welfare checks.
Click to expand...


More likely the programs would just reindex to the new higher COL.  It isn't like all the employees in those government agencies are going to be like "Yeah we solved poverty.  Last person out the door, please turn out the lights."


----------



## RKMBrown

sameech said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Shocking Truth About What It Would Cost Us All If Walmart Paid A Living Wage
> 
> Watch the video.
> 
> $300,000,000 a year in food stamps just for walmart employees.  Give them a living wage and we pay an extra 1.4% on their goods.  One penny for every dollar spent at Walmart and those employees would not need to live on food stamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has someone figured out the magic formula to define a "living" wage?
> 
> Or should each employee be paid according to how much money they need to "live?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, maybe we can start at the point they no longer need public assistance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Won't happen.  The Earned Income Tax Credit saw a growth in single mom's going to work part-time and Walmart is happy to hire such people, unlike many businesses.   If you increase wages to what those people would need to support themselves and their families today, then prices would go up so high (or the purchasing power of a dollar go so low, whichever you prefer) that it becomes a wash and those people stay on the dole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sort of... the way the rules work the feds don't care if you get paid 500 an hour.  What they care about is you don't earn more than the minimum amount necessary to receive welfare checks.  Thus giving part time employees a raise from 7.50 to 15 bucks an hour would just mean the part time employees would stop working at 15 hours instead of stopping at 30hrs as any work over 15hrs would mean they loose their welfare checks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More likely the programs would just reindex to the new higher COL.  It isn't like all the employees in those government agencies are going to be like "Yeah we solved poverty.  Last person out the door, please turn out the lights."
Click to expand...

True.  Never understood why we have minimum wages at all, but even more so do not understand why you would have them and they not be tied to an index.  I mean what's the point?  To keep it political every election?


----------



## sameech

RKMBrown said:


> True.  Never understood why we have minimum wages at all, but even more so do not understand why you would have them and they not be tied to an index.  I mean what's the point?  To keep it political every election?



The problem IMO is that the states have not done more to be proactive on the issue over the years.  They want to keep wages low to attract business usually, but you would think that people would be more effective doing this at the state level.


----------



## RKMBrown

sameech said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> True.  Never understood why we have minimum wages at all, but even more so do not understand why you would have them and they not be tied to an index.  I mean what's the point?  To keep it political every election?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem IMO is that the states have not done more to be proactive on the issue over the years.  They want to keep wages low to attract business usually, but you would think that people would be more effective doing this at the state level.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'd say they are being less effective at the state level.  At the state level minimums make no sense for conservative states where the cost of living is low and the unemployment is also low and economies are booming.  Why screw things up by switching to socialism?  My only point was that the socialists/communists should have gone for lower minimums with an index.  Then raised the percentage vs the index without moving the requirement for the index.  Why were the socialists so dumb?  Or... is it that the socialists don't really give a shit about minimum wages and really just wanted to use them as a voting gimmick each election season.


----------



## sameech

RKMBrown said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> True.  Never understood why we have minimum wages at all, but even more so do not understand why you would have them and they not be tied to an index.  I mean what's the point?  To keep it political every election?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem IMO is that the states have not done more to be proactive on the issue over the years.  They want to keep wages low to attract business usually, but you would think that people would be more effective doing this at the state level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure I'd say they are being less effective at the state level.  At the state level minimums make no sense for conservative states where the cost of living is low and the unemployment is also low and economies are booming.  Why screw things up by switching to socialism?  My only point was that the socialists/communists should have gone for lower minimums with an index.  Then raised the percentage vs the index without moving the requirement for the index.  Why were the socialists so dumb?  Or... is it that the socialists don't really give a shit about minimum wages and really just wanted to use them as a voting gimmick each election season.
Click to expand...


I don't really believe there are conservative and liberal states necessarily.  In less densely populated states, keeping the MW lower makes sense.  In more densely populated states, less so.  The problem, comes with states like Virginia where you have such a massive median income gap in the state between NoVA and parts of the Tidewater Area and the rest of the state.   I can see both sides of the debate, don't particularly like either viewpoint, and cannot think of a way that is a win-win for everybody.


----------



## RKMBrown

sameech said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> True.  Never understood why we have minimum wages at all, but even more so do not understand why you would have them and they not be tied to an index.  I mean what's the point?  To keep it political every election?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem IMO is that the states have not done more to be proactive on the issue over the years.  They want to keep wages low to attract business usually, but you would think that people would be more effective doing this at the state level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure I'd say they are being less effective at the state level.  At the state level minimums make no sense for conservative states where the cost of living is low and the unemployment is also low and economies are booming.  Why screw things up by switching to socialism?  My only point was that the socialists/communists should have gone for lower minimums with an index.  Then raised the percentage vs the index without moving the requirement for the index.  Why were the socialists so dumb?  Or... is it that the socialists don't really give a shit about minimum wages and really just wanted to use them as a voting gimmick each election season.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't really believe there are conservative and liberal states necessarily.  In less densely populated states, keeping the MW lower makes sense.  In more densely populated states, less so.  The problem, comes with states like Virginia where you have such a massive median income gap in the state between NoVA and parts of the Tidewater Area and the rest of the state.   I can see both sides of the debate, don't particularly like either viewpoint, and cannot think of a way that is a win-win for everybody.
Click to expand...

The win-win is obvious.  (1) Hand-ups, no more hand-outs. (2) Break up monopolies on wages. (3) people go to work for a fair wage negotiated between employee and employer with the threat of directly competing with them if they don't.


----------



## sameech

RKMBrown said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> True.  Never understood why we have minimum wages at all, but even more so do not understand why you would have them and they not be tied to an index.  I mean what's the point?  To keep it political every election?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem IMO is that the states have not done more to be proactive on the issue over the years.  They want to keep wages low to attract business usually, but you would think that people would be more effective doing this at the state level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure I'd say they are being less effective at the state level.  At the state level minimums make no sense for conservative states where the cost of living is low and the unemployment is also low and economies are booming.  Why screw things up by switching to socialism?  My only point was that the socialists/communists should have gone for lower minimums with an index.  Then raised the percentage vs the index without moving the requirement for the index.  Why were the socialists so dumb?  Or... is it that the socialists don't really give a shit about minimum wages and really just wanted to use them as a voting gimmick each election season.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't really believe there are conservative and liberal states necessarily.  In less densely populated states, keeping the MW lower makes sense.  In more densely populated states, less so.  The problem, comes with states like Virginia where you have such a massive median income gap in the state between NoVA and parts of the Tidewater Area and the rest of the state.   I can see both sides of the debate, don't particularly like either viewpoint, and cannot think of a way that is a win-win for everybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The win-win is obvious.  (1) Hand-ups, no more hand-outs. (2) Break up monopolies on wages. (3) people go to work for a fair wage negotiated between employee and employer with the threat of directly competing with them if they don't.
Click to expand...


Sounds good, but I live in a city where one local factory for the better part of a century was able to keep a great many of their competitors for labor out and wages depressed by taking that money and buying up all the land along the river, thereby denying companies access to the water supply.


----------



## RKMBrown

sameech said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> True.  Never understood why we have minimum wages at all, but even more so do not understand why you would have them and they not be tied to an index.  I mean what's the point?  To keep it political every election?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem IMO is that the states have not done more to be proactive on the issue over the years.  They want to keep wages low to attract business usually, but you would think that people would be more effective doing this at the state level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure I'd say they are being less effective at the state level.  At the state level minimums make no sense for conservative states where the cost of living is low and the unemployment is also low and economies are booming.  Why screw things up by switching to socialism?  My only point was that the socialists/communists should have gone for lower minimums with an index.  Then raised the percentage vs the index without moving the requirement for the index.  Why were the socialists so dumb?  Or... is it that the socialists don't really give a shit about minimum wages and really just wanted to use them as a voting gimmick each election season.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't really believe there are conservative and liberal states necessarily.  In less densely populated states, keeping the MW lower makes sense.  In more densely populated states, less so.  The problem, comes with states like Virginia where you have such a massive median income gap in the state between NoVA and parts of the Tidewater Area and the rest of the state.   I can see both sides of the debate, don't particularly like either viewpoint, and cannot think of a way that is a win-win for everybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The win-win is obvious.  (1) Hand-ups, no more hand-outs. (2) Break up monopolies on wages. (3) people go to work for a fair wage negotiated between employee and employer with the threat of directly competing with them if they don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds good, but I live in a city where one local factory for the better part of a century was able to keep a great many of their competitors for labor out and wages depressed by taking that money and buying up all the land along the river, thereby denying companies access to the water supply.
Click to expand...


Where's the "but?"   Providing evidence for #2 in my three part solution isn't a but, it's validation.  By but do you mean... your view is colored?  Or do you mean but we can't do 1 and 3 while number 2 is being ignored?


----------



## Samson

Asclepias said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiabloBlanco said:
> 
> 
> 
> So 3 who hate the poor and want to force them to go to college or school of some kind to rack up more debt instead of letting them earn a decent wage at a job they enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I've ever met anyone who enjoyed their min wage job or would want it as a career.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, i think they DO enjoy their minimum wage jobs.
> 
> they just what to be paid MORE for the very little that they do.
> 
> Tell me, what walmart greeter doesn't want $15 an hour?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is being a greeter worth $15 dollars an hour?
Click to expand...


Is anything done at Wal-Mart worth $15/hr?

Hell, everytime I'm there the "associates" seem to have vanished, and if I do find one to ask for assistance, I wonder how they were hired: All the smart ones know how to hide, and you're left with Wandering Morons.


----------



## Nosmo King

Why do American Conservatives hate working families?  I guess the only noble way of making money, according to American Conservatives, is to make a killing in the market.  Working for a wage is disgusting, revolting, worthy of scorn and derision from the American Conservative.

Just look at how they regard employees of WalMart!  After all the sneering 'get a job' comments from American Conservatives, apparently getting a job at what may be the only place in town to get a job still makes lazy, stupid, unworthy workers out of WalMart employees.

Why on Earth should we take the American Conservative seriously when they are so disdainful of the American working family?


----------



## Asclepias

Samson said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiabloBlanco said:
> 
> 
> 
> So 3 who hate the poor and want to force them to go to college or school of some kind to rack up more debt instead of letting them earn a decent wage at a job they enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I've ever met anyone who enjoyed their min wage job or would want it as a career.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, i think they DO enjoy their minimum wage jobs.
> 
> they just what to be paid MORE for the very little that they do.
> 
> Tell me, what walmart greeter doesn't want $15 an hour?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is being a greeter worth $15 dollars an hour?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is anything done at Wal-Mart worth $15/hr?
> 
> Hell, everytime I'm there the "associates" seem to have vanished, and if I do find one to ask for assistance, I wonder how they were hired: All the smart ones know how to hide, and you're left with Wandering Morons.
Click to expand...


I once had to have a talk with 2 Black kids about being professional on the job at Walmart. They were actually carrying on a full fledged private conversation while one was checking out customers at the register.  I asked them if they were happy with their pay and they both immediately said no.  I asked them if they owned Walmart would they pay employees to have private conversations at work.  I think they got the point.


----------



## RKMBrown

RKMBrown said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem IMO is that the states have not done more to be proactive on the issue over the years.  They want to keep wages low to attract business usually, but you would think that people would be more effective doing this at the state level.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I'd say they are being less effective at the state level.  At the state level minimums make no sense for conservative states where the cost of living is low and the unemployment is also low and economies are booming.  Why screw things up by switching to socialism?  My only point was that the socialists/communists should have gone for lower minimums with an index.  Then raised the percentage vs the index without moving the requirement for the index.  Why were the socialists so dumb?  Or... is it that the socialists don't really give a shit about minimum wages and really just wanted to use them as a voting gimmick each election season.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't really believe there are conservative and liberal states necessarily.  In less densely populated states, keeping the MW lower makes sense.  In more densely populated states, less so.  The problem, comes with states like Virginia where you have such a massive median income gap in the state between NoVA and parts of the Tidewater Area and the rest of the state.   I can see both sides of the debate, don't particularly like either viewpoint, and cannot think of a way that is a win-win for everybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The win-win is obvious.  (1) Hand-ups, no more hand-outs. (2) Break up monopolies on wages. (3) people go to work for a fair wage negotiated between employee and employer with the threat of directly competing with them if they don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds good, but I live in a city where one local factory for the better part of a century was able to keep a great many of their competitors for labor out and wages depressed by taking that money and buying up all the land along the river, thereby denying companies access to the water supply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where's the "but?"   Providing evidence for #2 in my three step solution isn't a but, it's validation.
Click to expand...




Nosmo King said:


> Why do American Conservatives hate working families?  I guess the only noble way of making money, according to American Conservatives, is to make a killing in the market.  Working for a wage is disgusting, revolting, worthy of scorn and derision from the American Conservative.
> 
> Just look at how they regard employees of WalMart!  After all the sneering 'get a job' comments from American Conservatives, apparently getting a job at what may be the only place in town to get a job still makes lazy, stupid, unworthy workers out of WalMart employees.
> 
> Why on Earth should we take the American Conservative seriously when they are so disdainful of the American working family?


If the checkout clerk at walmart is the only place in town where you can get a job.. here's your sign.


----------



## the_human_being

If the primary bread winner in any family depends upon his/her job at Walmart as the primary source of family income, then he/she is a complete fool. Walmart type jobs used to be filled by college kids and even high school kids. With the closings of so many factories the adults have fallen back and taken away those jobs the kids used to have. Now the kids have no place to go for jobs. Walmart forces no one to work for them and could easily fill their jobs with college kids. Adults should get the training they need to support their families. This is their fault. There are jobs available but the adults don't seem to have the gumption to get just a little training to get them.

Walmart is working hard to replace their employees. They just opened a new store about a mile from my house. It is not the big store but a grocery store. The store only has two check out registers with an employee manning the check out chores. The store has another dozen of self-check out lanes which are so sensitive the weight of a single can vs two cans can be detected. Much of the stocking is now done by the vendors.


----------



## sameech

Nosmo King said:


> Why do American Conservatives hate working families?  I guess the only noble way of making money, according to American Conservatives, is to make a killing in the market.  Working for a wage is disgusting, revolting, worthy of scorn and derision from the American Conservative.
> 
> Just look at how they regard employees of WalMart!  After all the sneering 'get a job' comments from American Conservatives, apparently getting a job at what may be the only place in town to get a job still makes lazy, stupid, unworthy workers out of WalMart employees.
> 
> Why on Earth should we take the American Conservative seriously when they are so disdainful of the American working family?



I don't know a single conservative whom I believe hates working families.  What makes you think any do? 

I know a lot who think the democrats will sell them down the river if given the chance to buy some deadbeat votes.  I know a lot who think that people should be more self sufficient.  I know a lot who have contempt for the federal government swallowing up more and more of the American economy.  Can't think of a single one who hates working families.


----------



## Nosmo King

sameech said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do American Conservatives hate working families?  I guess the only noble way of making money, according to American Conservatives, is to make a killing in the market.  Working for a wage is disgusting, revolting, worthy of scorn and derision from the American Conservative.
> 
> Just look at how they regard employees of WalMart!  After all the sneering 'get a job' comments from American Conservatives, apparently getting a job at what may be the only place in town to get a job still makes lazy, stupid, unworthy workers out of WalMart employees.
> 
> Why on Earth should we take the American Conservative seriously when they are so disdainful of the American working family?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know a single conservative whom I believe hates working families.  What makes you think any do?
> 
> I know a lot who think the democrats will sell them down the river if given the chance to buy some deadbeat votes.  I know a lot who think that people should be more self sufficient.  I know a lot who have contempt for the federal government swallowing up more and more of the American economy.  Can't think of a single one who hates working families.
Click to expand...

What makes me think that American Conservatives hate working families?  I told you why in my post.  Conservatives, right here in this very thread, have said so themselves.  Conservatives admire, ah Hell, LOVE the rich in hopes that, one day, they too can be rich.  That's not the reason to admire the rich.  The reason to admire the rich is for their nobles oblige.  Their support of the communities of their workers.

Conservatives sneer at the working poor.  They deride them as lazy, stupid, unmotivated and entitled.  Do you suppose the poor see themselves that way?  No.  These are epithets that reveal more about the speaker than the spoken of.

Conservatives denounce a raise in the minimum wage as costly to business, in spite strong evidence to the contrary.  Conservatives want to cut away the social safety net which results in more poverty, fewer chances and far fewer choices.

None of the Conservative policies are designed to actually help.  

And you ask why I think the American Conservative hates the working poor.


----------



## sameech

Nosmo King said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do American Conservatives hate working families?  I guess the only noble way of making money, according to American Conservatives, is to make a killing in the market.  Working for a wage is disgusting, revolting, worthy of scorn and derision from the American Conservative.
> 
> Just look at how they regard employees of WalMart!  After all the sneering 'get a job' comments from American Conservatives, apparently getting a job at what may be the only place in town to get a job still makes lazy, stupid, unworthy workers out of WalMart employees.
> 
> Why on Earth should we take the American Conservative seriously when they are so disdainful of the American working family?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know a single conservative whom I believe hates working families.  What makes you think any do?
> 
> I know a lot who think the democrats will sell them down the river if given the chance to buy some deadbeat votes.  I know a lot who think that people should be more self sufficient.  I know a lot who have contempt for the federal government swallowing up more and more of the American economy.  Can't think of a single one who hates working families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes me think that American Conservatives hate working families?  I told you why in my post.  Conservatives, right here in this very thread, have said so themselves.  Conservatives admire, ah Hell, LOVE the rich in hopes that, one day, they too can be rich.  That's not the reason to admire the rich.  The reason to admire the rich is for their nobles oblige.  Their support of the communities of their workers.
> 
> Conservatives sneer at the working poor.  They deride them as lazy, stupid, unmotivated and entitled.  Do you suppose the poor see themselves that way?  No.  These are epithets that reveal more about the speaker than the spoken of.
> 
> Conservatives denounce a raise in the minimum wage as costly to business, in spite strong evidence to the contrary.  Conservatives want to cut away the social safety net which results in more poverty, fewer chances and far fewer choices.
> 
> None of the Conservative policies are designed to actually help.
> 
> And you ask why I think the American Conservative hates the working poor.
Click to expand...


Can you point to a conservative right here in this thread that said, "I hate working families"?  Just give the post # and I will gladly find it.  Otherwise, I will just chalk your assertion up to partisan inferences.


----------



## Nosmo King

sameech said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do American Conservatives hate working families?  I guess the only noble way of making money, according to American Conservatives, is to make a killing in the market.  Working for a wage is disgusting, revolting, worthy of scorn and derision from the American Conservative.
> 
> Just look at how they regard employees of WalMart!  After all the sneering 'get a job' comments from American Conservatives, apparently getting a job at what may be the only place in town to get a job still makes lazy, stupid, unworthy workers out of WalMart employees.
> 
> Why on Earth should we take the American Conservative seriously when they are so disdainful of the American working family?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know a single conservative whom I believe hates working families.  What makes you think any do?
> 
> I know a lot who think the democrats will sell them down the river if given the chance to buy some deadbeat votes.  I know a lot who think that people should be more self sufficient.  I know a lot who have contempt for the federal government swallowing up more and more of the American economy.  Can't think of a single one who hates working families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes me think that American Conservatives hate working families?  I told you why in my post.  Conservatives, right here in this very thread, have said so themselves.  Conservatives admire, ah Hell, LOVE the rich in hopes that, one day, they too can be rich.  That's not the reason to admire the rich.  The reason to admire the rich is for their nobles oblige.  Their support of the communities of their workers.
> 
> Conservatives sneer at the working poor.  They deride them as lazy, stupid, unmotivated and entitled.  Do you suppose the poor see themselves that way?  No.  These are epithets that reveal more about the speaker than the spoken of.
> 
> Conservatives denounce a raise in the minimum wage as costly to business, in spite strong evidence to the contrary.  Conservatives want to cut away the social safety net which results in more poverty, fewer chances and far fewer choices.
> 
> None of the Conservative policies are designed to actually help.
> 
> And you ask why I think the American Conservative hates the working poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you point to a conservative right here in this thread that said, "I hate working families"?  Just give the post # and I will gladly find it.  Otherwise, I will just chalk your assertion up to partisan inferences.
Click to expand...

Have you been reading this thread, or do you refuse to see the forest for all the trees?  Tell you what.  You point out all the love and respect for the working poor in the previous posts here on this page!


----------



## sameech

Nosmo King said:


> Have you been reading this thread, or do you refuse to see the forest for all the trees?  Tell you what.  You point out all the love and respect for the working poor in the previous posts here on this page!



Tell you what, when you can prove your assertion of fact instead or repeating your inferences, get back to me, otherwise, like I said, partisan nonsense.


----------



## RKMBrown

Nosmo King said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do American Conservatives hate working families?  I guess the only noble way of making money, according to American Conservatives, is to make a killing in the market.  Working for a wage is disgusting, revolting, worthy of scorn and derision from the American Conservative.
> 
> Just look at how they regard employees of WalMart!  After all the sneering 'get a job' comments from American Conservatives, apparently getting a job at what may be the only place in town to get a job still makes lazy, stupid, unworthy workers out of WalMart employees.
> 
> Why on Earth should we take the American Conservative seriously when they are so disdainful of the American working family?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know a single conservative whom I believe hates working families.  What makes you think any do?
> 
> I know a lot who think the democrats will sell them down the river if given the chance to buy some deadbeat votes.  I know a lot who think that people should be more self sufficient.  I know a lot who have contempt for the federal government swallowing up more and more of the American economy.  Can't think of a single one who hates working families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes me think that American Conservatives hate working families?  I told you why in my post.  Conservatives, right here in this very thread, have said so themselves.  Conservatives admire, ah Hell, LOVE the rich in hopes that, one day, they too can be rich.  That's not the reason to admire the rich.  The reason to admire the rich is for their nobles oblige.  Their support of the communities of their workers.
> 
> Conservatives sneer at the working poor.  They deride them as lazy, stupid, unmotivated and entitled.  Do you suppose the poor see themselves that way?  No.  These are epithets that reveal more about the speaker than the spoken of.
> 
> Conservatives denounce a raise in the minimum wage as costly to business, in spite strong evidence to the contrary.  Conservatives want to cut away the social safety net which results in more poverty, fewer chances and far fewer choices.
> 
> None of the Conservative policies are designed to actually help.
> 
> And you ask why I think the American Conservative hates the working poor.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true dumb ass with his hands out.


----------



## RKMBrown

Nosmo King said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do American Conservatives hate working families?  I guess the only noble way of making money, according to American Conservatives, is to make a killing in the market.  Working for a wage is disgusting, revolting, worthy of scorn and derision from the American Conservative.
> 
> Just look at how they regard employees of WalMart!  After all the sneering 'get a job' comments from American Conservatives, apparently getting a job at what may be the only place in town to get a job still makes lazy, stupid, unworthy workers out of WalMart employees.
> 
> Why on Earth should we take the American Conservative seriously when they are so disdainful of the American working family?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know a single conservative whom I believe hates working families.  What makes you think any do?
> 
> I know a lot who think the democrats will sell them down the river if given the chance to buy some deadbeat votes.  I know a lot who think that people should be more self sufficient.  I know a lot who have contempt for the federal government swallowing up more and more of the American economy.  Can't think of a single one who hates working families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes me think that American Conservatives hate working families?  I told you why in my post.  Conservatives, right here in this very thread, have said so themselves.  Conservatives admire, ah Hell, LOVE the rich in hopes that, one day, they too can be rich.  That's not the reason to admire the rich.  The reason to admire the rich is for their nobles oblige.  Their support of the communities of their workers.
> 
> Conservatives sneer at the working poor.  They deride them as lazy, stupid, unmotivated and entitled.  Do you suppose the poor see themselves that way?  No.  These are epithets that reveal more about the speaker than the spoken of.
> 
> Conservatives denounce a raise in the minimum wage as costly to business, in spite strong evidence to the contrary.  Conservatives want to cut away the social safety net which results in more poverty, fewer chances and far fewer choices.
> 
> None of the Conservative policies are designed to actually help.
> 
> And you ask why I think the American Conservative hates the working poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you point to a conservative right here in this thread that said, "I hate working families"?  Just give the post # and I will gladly find it.  Otherwise, I will just chalk your assertion up to partisan inferences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you been reading this thread, or do you refuse to see the forest for all the trees?  Tell you what.  You point out all the love and respect for the working poor in the previous posts here on this page!
Click to expand...

Yeah cause giving only hand-outs to make sure the poor stay poor is love and giving only hand-ups to teach the poor to get out of being poor is hate.

Face it, democrats are idiots.


----------



## KissMy

Bush was president from 2001 to 2009 causing SNAP spending to increase over 300%. They only increased 30% under Obama & are now decreasing. SNAP spending was decreasing all during Clinton's entire presidency, then Bush caused it to explode 10 times more than Obama.







Marketwatch - Obama spending binge never happened






Deflation, Rising GDP & Employment. Thank You Obama! Fuck You Bush!


----------



## sameech

KissMy said:


> Bush was president from 2001 to 2009 causing SNAP spending to increase over 300%. They only increased 30% under Obama & are now decreasing. SNAP spending was decreasing all during Clinton's entire presidency, then Bush caused it to explode 10 times more than Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marketwatch - Obama spending binge never happened
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deflation, Rising GDP & Employment. Thank You Obama! Fuck You Bush!


 Politifact says you are wrong and that you used a photo of prices at Sam's Club to defend Obama and blame the GOP is ironic.


----------



## Wyatt earp

sameech said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you rather have Wal-mart pay the employ $15 an hour or the tax payer pay for food stamps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is nice to see that a company is willing to hire people to help them transition off assistance or allow parents the chance to work around their life schedules some.  If the MW were $15 an hour, the poverty levels and benefits tables for public assistance will just be re-indexed to reflect the new cost of living and those people will still be receiving assistance and American labor costs will be even more out of alignment with foreign competition than they already are.
> The reason some European companies build in the US is because our labor costs are lower than they are there.
Click to expand...




sameech said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should the MW be done away with and whatever business and employees work out for pay is what it is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, that is one of those questions that really trouble me.  My mind says, "Yep", but the hairs on the back of my neck say "Shiver me timbers" to even think about such a system and how that would play out in small towns.  I think it would work better in New York City than it would in Apple Creek wherever.
> 
> Back to Walmart hating for a sec--the Earned Income Tax Credit has a positive effect on employment for single moms and the working poor. (Policy Basics: The Earned Income Tax Credit ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities)  It bothers me to see people just trash companies that are assisting the people who otherwise have no job, get some work.  Walmart, love them or hate them, really does help people work a schedule that works for them, and people I knew who worked there and moved elsewhere had no problem continuing to work for Walmart in their new location.
> 
> Now back to the MW, I saw this suggested somewhere else and I am still thinking about it-- perhaps the minimum wage should be based on the cost of living in the cheapest metropolitan areas in the country and let supply-demand drive it up from there as localized wages in places with higher cost of living.  A small city then can compete better to lure in businesses/foreign investments and then let supply-demand in labor drive wages up from there.  It is one of those ideas still simmering in my mind right now before I take a definitive position one way or the other.
> 
> --Sam
Click to expand...


Both good posts


----------



## JoeMoma

Perhaps the goverment should set pay scales for all jobs and do the hiring and firing for them.  The goverment can simply become the Hunan resources department for all businesses.  That way the goverment can be in charge to make sure everyone is paid a fair wage and the managers and executives are no paid took much.  We all know that the goverment is better at making business decisions about wages than busnesss people and the people and the people they hire.


----------



## RandomVariable

JoeMoma said:


> Perhaps the goverment should set pay scales for all jobs and do the hiring and firing for them.  The goverment can simply become the Hunan resources department for all businesses.  That way the goverment can be in charge to make sure everyone is paid a fair wage and the managers and executives are no paid took much.  We all know that the goverment is better at making business decisions about wages than busnesss people and the people and the people they hire.


Name a major industry that the government has not subsidized or bailed out. Name a major corporation that has not screwed its employees, its customers, or both. Name a single spell checker you have ever used!


----------



## JoeMoma

My spelling and typos......guilty as charged.  And autocorrect often works against me rather than for me. 

Most businesses are not subsidized or bailed out.  The government is supported by the taxpayers which are businesses and individuals, not the other way around.  The existance of crony capitalism does not justify the minimum wage or other wage and price controls.


----------



## RandomVariable

JoeMoma said:


> My spelling and typos......guilty as charged.  And autocorrect often works against me rather than for me.
> 
> Most businesses are not subsidized or bailed out.  The government is supported by the taxpayers which are businesses and individuals, not the other way around.  The existance of crony capitalism does not justify the minimum wage or other wage and price controls.


The third was indeed the least of my concerns.

What bothers/worries me is that your stated rational against the minimum wage sounds a lot like the sales pitch given out by big money why one should be against the minimum wage. In a government that actually worked for the people every government business day politicians would go work looking how to make this country work for everyone. That means a comprehensive program. The system has broken down however. The poor are getting dangerously poor and that is the highest priority. No single program, or even basket of programs, is going to stem the ongoing collapse of this country. And the system is so irrevocably broken a single program can't get through legislation, to say nothing of actually getting this country back on its feet. Rename the country from USA to KYAG. Think not? Enron looked great on paper the day before...


----------



## Ernie S.

RandomVariable said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> My spelling and typos......guilty as charged.  And autocorrect often works against me rather than for me.
> 
> Most businesses are not subsidized or bailed out.  The government is supported by the taxpayers which are businesses and individuals, not the other way around.  The existance of crony capitalism does not justify the minimum wage or other wage and price controls.
> 
> 
> 
> The third was indeed the least of my concerns.
> 
> What bothers/worries me is that your stated rational against the minimum wage sounds a lot like the sales pitch given out by big money why one should be against the minimum wage. In a government that actually worked for the people every government business day politicians would go work looking how to make this country work for everyone. That means a comprehensive program. The system has broken down however. The poor are getting dangerously poor and that is the highest priority. No single program, or even basket of programs, is going to stem the ongoing collapse of this country. And the system is so irrevocably broken a single program can't get through legislation, to say nothing of actually getting this country back on its feet. Rename the country from USA to KYAG. Think not? Enron looked great on paper the day before...
Click to expand...

The only thing that will get poor people out of poverty is work.
Sitting on your ass taking hand outs from people who have worked hard to better themselves is only going to keep you dependent on the system.
All antipoverty programs do is breed more impoverished people.
Minimum wage jobs are entry level positions for people with no marketable skills.
The object is for people to learn and advance.
If one chooses not to learn, he deserves no more money.
A five dollar/hour job is worth $5 no matter what the government says it is. When a $5 job is artificially made a $10 job, that piece of paper with Alexander Hamilton's picture on it in your pocket becomes a Lincoln.
Something must be done to motivate people to get an education and learn skills that will make them worth a living wage.
Damned if I know how to motivate people, but I do know that if I were hungry, I would look for ways to earn more money.


----------



## RandomVariable

Ernie S. said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> My spelling and typos......guilty as charged.  And autocorrect often works against me rather than for me.
> 
> Most businesses are not subsidized or bailed out.  The government is supported by the taxpayers which are businesses and individuals, not the other way around.  The existance of crony capitalism does not justify the minimum wage or other wage and price controls.
> 
> 
> 
> The third was indeed the least of my concerns.
> 
> What bothers/worries me is that your stated rational against the minimum wage sounds a lot like the sales pitch given out by big money why one should be against the minimum wage. In a government that actually worked for the people every government business day politicians would go work looking how to make this country work for everyone. That means a comprehensive program. The system has broken down however. The poor are getting dangerously poor and that is the highest priority. No single program, or even basket of programs, is going to stem the ongoing collapse of this country. And the system is so irrevocably broken a single program can't get through legislation, to say nothing of actually getting this country back on its feet. Rename the country from USA to KYAG. Think not? Enron looked great on paper the day before...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only thing that will get poor people out of poverty is work.
> Sitting on your ass taking hand outs from people who have worked hard to better themselves is only going to keep you dependent on the system.
> All antipoverty programs do is breed more impoverished people.
> Minimum wage jobs are entry level positions for people with no marketable skills.
> The object is for people to learn and advance.
> If one chooses not to learn, he deserves no more money.
> A five dollar/hour job is worth $5 no matter what the government says it is. When a $5 job is artificially made a $10 job, that piece of paper with Alexander Hamilton's picture on it in your pocket becomes a Lincoln.
> Something must be done to motivate people to get an education and learn skills that will make them worth a living wage.
> Damned if I know how to motivate people, but I do know that if I were hungry, I would look for ways to earn more money.
Click to expand...

That is a wonderful point of view but there are literally hundreds of variables which go into designing a well-balanced, sustainable economy, an economy that takes into account the needs of everyone, rich and poor. You know, for the people, by the people. Luckily we do not have a government who works solely for a few gigantic corporations who are unfortunately extremely shortsighted. Oh ya, ...


----------



## JoeMoma

RandomVariable said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> My spelling and typos......guilty as charged.  And autocorrect often works against me rather than for me.
> 
> Most businesses are not subsidized or bailed out.  The government is supported by the taxpayers which are businesses and individuals, not the other way around.  The existance of crony capitalism does not justify the minimum wage or other wage and price controls.
> 
> 
> 
> The third was indeed the least of my concerns.
> 
> What bothers/worries me is that your stated rational against the minimum wage sounds a lot like the sales pitch given out by big money why one should be against the minimum wage. In a government that actually worked for the people every government business day politicians would go work looking how to make this country work for everyone. That means a comprehensive program. The system has broken down however. The poor are getting dangerously poor and that is the highest priority. No single program, or even basket of programs, is going to stem the ongoing collapse of this country. And the system is so irrevocably broken a single program can't get through legislation, to say nothing of actually getting this country back on its feet. Rename the country from USA to KYAG. Think not? Enron looked great on paper the day before...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only thing that will get poor people out of poverty is work.
> Sitting on your ass taking hand outs from people who have worked hard to better themselves is only going to keep you dependent on the system.
> All antipoverty programs do is breed more impoverished people.
> Minimum wage jobs are entry level positions for people with no marketable skills.
> The object is for people to learn and advance.
> If one chooses not to learn, he deserves no more money.
> A five dollar/hour job is worth $5 no matter what the government says it is. When a $5 job is artificially made a $10 job, that piece of paper with Alexander Hamilton's picture on it in your pocket becomes a Lincoln.
> Something must be done to motivate people to get an education and learn skills that will make them worth a living wage.
> Damned if I know how to motivate people, but I do know that if I were hungry, I would look for ways to earn more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a wonderful point of view but there are literally hundreds of variables which go into designing a well-balanced, sustainable economy, an economy that takes into account the needs of everyone, rich and poor. You know, for the people, by the people. Luckily we do not have a government who works solely for a few gigantic corporations who are unfortunately extremely shortsighted. Oh ya, ...
Click to expand...

Do you really beleive that the government can "Design" a well-balanced, substainable economy the works better that free market capitalism?


----------



## RandomVariable

JoeMoma said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> My spelling and typos......guilty as charged.  And autocorrect often works against me rather than for me.
> 
> Most businesses are not subsidized or bailed out.  The government is supported by the taxpayers which are businesses and individuals, not the other way around.  The existance of crony capitalism does not justify the minimum wage or other wage and price controls.
> 
> 
> 
> The third was indeed the least of my concerns.
> 
> What bothers/worries me is that your stated rational against the minimum wage sounds a lot like the sales pitch given out by big money why one should be against the minimum wage. In a government that actually worked for the people every government business day politicians would go work looking how to make this country work for everyone. That means a comprehensive program. The system has broken down however. The poor are getting dangerously poor and that is the highest priority. No single program, or even basket of programs, is going to stem the ongoing collapse of this country. And the system is so irrevocably broken a single program can't get through legislation, to say nothing of actually getting this country back on its feet. Rename the country from USA to KYAG. Think not? Enron looked great on paper the day before...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only thing that will get poor people out of poverty is work.
> Sitting on your ass taking hand outs from people who have worked hard to better themselves is only going to keep you dependent on the system.
> All antipoverty programs do is breed more impoverished people.
> Minimum wage jobs are entry level positions for people with no marketable skills.
> The object is for people to learn and advance.
> If one chooses not to learn, he deserves no more money.
> A five dollar/hour job is worth $5 no matter what the government says it is. When a $5 job is artificially made a $10 job, that piece of paper with Alexander Hamilton's picture on it in your pocket becomes a Lincoln.
> Something must be done to motivate people to get an education and learn skills that will make them worth a living wage.
> Damned if I know how to motivate people, but I do know that if I were hungry, I would look for ways to earn more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a wonderful point of view but there are literally hundreds of variables which go into designing a well-balanced, sustainable economy, an economy that takes into account the needs of everyone, rich and poor. You know, for the people, by the people. Luckily we do not have a government who works solely for a few gigantic corporations who are unfortunately extremely shortsighted. Oh ya, ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you really beleive that the government can "Design" a well-balanced, substainable economy the works better that free market capitalism?
Click to expand...

Want to know what I believe? Would you settle for what I believe in? I believe in God. Come and see me over at the religious forum some time. 

(Why do I feel like I just jumped in and out of a bear trap in four posts or less?)


----------



## Uncensored2008

JoeMoma said:


> Perhaps the goverment should set pay scales for all jobs and do the hiring and firing for them.



Funny, that is precisely what Obama has been promoting...



> The goverment can simply become the Hunan resources department for all businesses.  That way the goverment can be in charge to make sure everyone is paid a fair wage and the managers and executives are no paid took much.  We all know that the goverment is better at making business decisions about wages than busnesss people and the people and the people they hire.


----------

