# Living on minimum wage, 50s to present



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 2, 2013)

Minimum Wage and What It Buys You: 1950s to Now

Interesting to see what minimum wage bought/buys now.


----------



## merrill (Feb 2, 2013)

Today's minimum wage should be about $17.50 per hour or $33,000 a year = not much money. No buying a second home in Aspen on this wage or a first home for that matter.


----------



## Noomi (Feb 3, 2013)

$7.25 an hour is something a teenager in school should be earning, not an adult!


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 3, 2013)

Noomi said:


> $7.25 an hour is something a teenager in school should be earning, not an adult!



Heck why not $50/hr?


----------



## Noomi (Feb 3, 2013)

^not appropriate for a low skilled job. $10 an hour should be enough.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 3, 2013)

Noomi said:


> ^not appropriate for a low skilled job. $10 an hour should be enough.



Why isn't $8/hr enough for a low skilled job?

This will be fun. You don't have the slightest idea why $8/hr is too little or 50/hr too much.  It just sounds like a good number to you, so you throw it out there.  This is why we say libs can't think or reason.

Let's add to the fun.
Do you think $10/hr is enough in Dubuque IA, with a low cost of living, as well as in Los Angeles, with a high cost of living?


----------



## emptystep (Feb 3, 2013)

How about a minimum wage adjusted for type of work and cost of living for that area?


----------



## rckirby (Feb 3, 2013)

emptystep said:


> How about a minimum wage adjusted for type of work and cost of living for that area?



Or <gasp>, how about we let nature take its course and keep the idiots in g'mint butt out?  Everything out of whack right now is directly as a result of g'mint meddling.


----------



## alan1 (Feb 3, 2013)

Noomi said:


> $7.25 an hour is something a teenager in school should be earning, not an adult!



And that is exactly who most minimum wage workers are, teenagers, not adults, not people supporting a family, but teenagers.

Some would like to claim (pretend) that there is some large class of people trying to support a family on minimum wage, but that just isn't reality.


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 3, 2013)

emptystep said:


> How about a minimum wage adjusted for type of work and cost of living for that area?



Since congress passed a law in 2007 that allows states to set their own min wage, that is exactly what we have. 

FYI Wyoming has the lowest min wage at 5.15 and Oregon the highest at 9.19


----------



## emptystep (Feb 3, 2013)

alan1 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > $7.25 an hour is something a teenager in school should be earning, not an adult!
> ...



Not your reality maybe.


----------



## AmyNation (Feb 3, 2013)

alan1 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > $7.25 an hour is something a teenager in school should be earning, not an adult!
> ...



Most minimum-wage workers are not teenagers | Economic Policy Institute

Actually that's not true. Only about 20% of min wage earners are teenagers.


----------



## alan1 (Feb 3, 2013)

emptystep said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Reality....
There is no large class of people trying to support a family on minimum wage.


----------



## emptystep (Feb 3, 2013)

slackjawed said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> > How about a minimum wage adjusted for type of work and cost of living for that area?
> ...



That's $10,712 and $19,115 respectively. Annual, full time.


----------



## emptystep (Feb 3, 2013)

Reagan raised taxes 11 times I recently learned. Not that it's relevant.


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 3, 2013)

The arguments for and against a minimum wage are many and have a long history. There are economists on both sides of this issue that have valid points backed up with data. Yup, that's right, there is data and empirical evidence to support both sides of this argument.


Kinda makes me think that the "one size fits all" approach of the federal government is not all it's cracked up to be.


----------



## alan1 (Feb 3, 2013)

AmyNation said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...


I'll give you that.
What I said is still mostly true.  By the way, minimum wage earners make up about 2.3 percent of all hourly workers.  Include all workers and that number drops.  Doing anything for minimum wage workers is naught but a feel-good move.


----------



## emptystep (Feb 3, 2013)

slackjawed said:


> The arguments for and against a minimum wage are many and have a long history. There are economists on both sides of this issue that have valid points backed up with data. Yup, that's right, there is data and empirical evidence to support both sides of this argument.
> 
> 
> Kinda makes me think that the "one size fits all" approach of the federal government is not all it's cracked up to be.



It is kind of one of those things where one would prefer to err on the side of caution but that is probably always the case.


----------



## blackhawk (Feb 3, 2013)

You all do know minimum wage was never meant to support a family right? It is basically for high school kids or people right out of high school just starting out in the workforce.


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 3, 2013)

blackhawk said:


> You all do know minimum wage was never meant to support a family right? It is basically for high school kids or people right out of high school just starting out in the workforce.



no, I disagree.
You can find the same information almost anywhere in a internet search but this comes from here;
History of the United States Minimum Wage | Minimum-Wage.org
snippet;
"After winning the historical 1936 election by a landslide, President Roosevelt signed the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) into law in early 1938. The FLSA introduced sweeping regulations to protect American workers from being exploited, and created a mandatory federal minimum wage of 25 cents an hour in order to maintain a "minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency and general well-being, without substantially curtailing employment". *This new law was welcomed as a godsend by the thousands of workers who were previously forced to work for a fraction of that amount*, but was violently opposed by many employers and fiscal conservatives who argued that a minimum wage could hurt employers. In addition to establishing a mandatory nation-wide minimum wage the Fair Labor Standards Act introduced many other worker's protection laws still in effect today, including banning child labor and establishing workplace safety statutes."


It seems it wasnt just for kids...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 3, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Minimum Wage and What It Buys You: 1950s to Now
> 
> Interesting to see what minimum wage bought/buys now.



Do you understand that the purpose of this forum is to take a position that you are going to defend? Are you arguing that inflation is higher than the government says it is? What am I supposed to be able to take from this post to either agree with or argue with?


----------



## alan1 (Feb 3, 2013)

slackjawed said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > You all do know minimum wage was never meant to support a family right? It is basically for high school kids or people right out of high school just starting out in the workforce.
> ...



I'm thinking a 25 cent minimum wage might be a good idea.  Do you still support it?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 3, 2013)

Noomi said:


> $7.25 an hour is something a teenager in school should be earning, not an adult!



Unemployment among the 18 to 29 age group is over 80%, why on Earth should we increase minimum wage and put more of them out of work?


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 3, 2013)

alan1 said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > blackhawk said:
> ...



lol, it would certainly not do any harm would it, probably not much good either. 

I think we can all agree that banning child labor and workplace safety can be supported.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 3, 2013)

slackjawed said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> > How about a minimum wage adjusted for type of work and cost of living for that area?
> ...



The FLSA requires employers to pay the higher of the two minimum wages that are available, not the lower. That $5.15 wage applies only to people not covered by federal minimum wage laws, which means their wages are actually higher under state law than federal law.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 3, 2013)

AmyNation said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



How man of those people are under 30 and still in college?


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 3, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > emptystep said:
> ...



been to wyoming? know anyone there? 
Wyoming has laws foriegn to the rest of the country, and allows an employer not engaged in interstate commerce to be exempt from the federal min wage law. thus far the feds have not intervened.


----------



## AmyNation (Feb 3, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > alan1 said:
> ...



Adding the extra 11 years will bump the number up significantly, roughly 60%


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 3, 2013)

AmyNation said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > AmyNation said:
> ...



Taking 18 as an arbitrary number for a cutoff for minimum wage when most 20 year olds are in school is a red herring.


----------



## AmyNation (Feb 3, 2013)

Please remember this is the clean debate zone. No negging for posts in the CDZ and no insults.


----------



## AmyNation (Feb 3, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



It's not arbitrary, he said "teenagers", a teenager is someone between 13-19. If he said most 20 year olds, would it also be arbitrary of me to make the cutoff 20-29?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 3, 2013)

AmyNation said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > AmyNation said:
> ...



It used to be true, Obamanomics has actually forced teenagers to live with their parents, which is why Obamacare suddenly declared that anyone under 26 is covered by their parent's insurance. 

By the way, I didn't say you created the red herring, I was just pointing out it exists.


----------



## AmyNation (Feb 3, 2013)

CDZ (Civil Debate Zone): Civil Discourse is the Focus here, regardless of Topic Matter. No Negative Repping. No Insulting, Name Calling, Putting Down Other Posters. Consider it a lesson in Civics.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/announcements-and-feedback/47455-usmb-rules-and-regulations.html


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 3, 2013)

AmyNation said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > AmyNation said:
> ...



Yeah, so the notion of someone supporting his family on min wage is erroneous.  The people earning it are people trying to get a leg up in the workforce.  Even more interesting is that few people make min wage for very long.  They get raises as soon as they've proven themselves.
So it would make sense to lower--eliminate even, the min wage to allow more people to start up the job ladder.


----------



## blackhawk (Feb 3, 2013)

slackjawed said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > You all do know minimum wage was never meant to support a family right? It is basically for high school kids or people right out of high school just starting out in the workforce.
> ...



The key words there are minimum standard of living that's why it's called minimum wage to expect it to do any more than what it does is not realistic.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 3, 2013)

Supporting a family on minimum wage wasn't an issue until we became awash in unskilled immigrants.  Before that, minimum wage jobs were temporarily held by teens and those entering the work force.  They quickly moved up and out of minimum wage into higher paying positions.   Once we got unskilled workers who were content to remain unskilled, they started demanding higher minimum wages so they never had to advance.   Now minimum wage is supposed to be enough to support a family on.


----------



## AmyNation (Feb 3, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I don't subscribe to the notion that lowering/elminating the min. wage would be good for the economy. It would cause too much panic in the public. However, I'm not in favor of any raises to the min wage. Ever.


----------



## emptystep (Feb 3, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



You ever had a minimum wage job?


----------



## asterism (Feb 3, 2013)

If the 50s were so great why the need for all the Great Society programs in the 60s?


----------



## alan1 (Feb 3, 2013)

emptystep said:


> You ever had a minimum wage job?



I know you were not asking me, but I feel compelled to answer.

I've never held a minimum wage job, ever.  I've always managed to negotiate a better salary.
My first job was when I was 13 as an independent contractor working for a then Fortune 500 company (they have since fallen on harder times).
Let me list the crappy jobs I held prior to 18, all of which paid more than minimum wage.
Stock boy at KMart.
Hamburger assembler at Burger King.
Gas station attendant.


----------



## Mr. H. (Feb 3, 2013)

You think that's difficult, try living on Tulsa time.


----------



## Wiseacre (Feb 3, 2013)

Used to be that people didn't start a family until they were able to support one.   Minimum wage isn't supposed to be a living wage, it's supposed to be a beginning wage while you acquire skills that make you worth more money in the job market.   I remember those days, you had to live at home or buddy up with a roommate.   I had to ride the bus for years cuz I couldn't afford a car.   Wasn't easy, but I managed to survive.


----------



## Noomi (Feb 4, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > ^not appropriate for a low skilled job. $10 an hour should be enough.
> ...



Across the board, minimum wage should be set at the same amount. It can be up to the employer whether they pay more. But no one should be working full time and taking home three hundred bucks a week. That is fucking stupid.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 4, 2013)

rckirby said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> > How about a minimum wage adjusted for type of work and cost of living for that area?
> ...



That never happens.

Soon as workers organize and start to bargain, owners call in the government.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 4, 2013)

Wiseacre said:


> *Used to be that people didn't start a family until they were able to support one. *  Minimum wage isn't supposed to be a living wage, it's supposed to be a beginning wage while you acquire skills that make you worth more money in the job market.   I remember those days, you had to live at home or buddy up with a roommate.   I had to ride the bus for years cuz I couldn't afford a car.   Wasn't easy, but I managed to survive.



No that never happened.

And the problem with "starting wage" concept, is it seldom goes up on it's own.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 4, 2013)

Wiseacre said:


> Used to be that people didn't start a family until they were able to support one.   Minimum wage isn't supposed to be a living wage, it's supposed to be a beginning wage while you acquire skills that make you worth more money in the job market.   I remember those days, you had to live at home or buddy up with a roommate.   I had to ride the bus for years cuz I couldn't afford a car.   Wasn't easy, but I managed to survive.



Recession Big Factor as Birthrate Falls - WSJ.com

But once you have those skills, what good does it do them when the job market is awash with people who have those skills and are willing to work for cheap too? this flavor of conventional thinking only works in boom times, where labor is scant and competition kicks in.

Working, but still poor - The Week

Workers wanting the dignity of making ends meet is not a "problem" that needs to be "solved".


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 4, 2013)

AmyNation said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > AmyNation said:
> ...



How would it cause panic?  People startled at all the new available jobs?  
Your positions are contradictory.  If you never raise the min wage then effectively it is lowered due to inflation.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 4, 2013)

emptystep said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > AmyNation said:
> ...



Yes.
Next question.


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 4, 2013)

Noomi said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Why? Do you think it's fair that someone in a high cost place makes the same as someone in a low cost state?  And what is wrong with 300 bucks a week?  It's better than 200 bucks a week. And it's lots better than no bucks a week, which is the real alternative.
Next question: would you work for $300/week if your alternative were no income at all?


----------



## emptystep (Feb 4, 2013)

Both people I asked about working minimum wage answered. What I wanted to know is if this question was something you were evaluating from a logical perspective or from being in the shoes of the those in question.

I can't say off the top of my head but I would like to think that minimum wage legislation would have been so that families could survive off that amount rather than just making sure mall employees could afford designer shoes at the end of the week.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 4, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Why would employers hire more people? They have enough, any money saved from reducing labor costs by rotating workers out willing to work for cheaper is something we call "profits".


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 4, 2013)

emptystep said:


> Both people I asked about working minimum wage answered. What I wanted to know is if this question was something you were evaluating from a logical perspective or from being in the shoes of the those in question.
> 
> I can't say off the top of my head but I would like to think that minimum wage legislation would have been so that families could survive off that amount rather than just making sure mall employees could afford designer shoes at the end of the week.



No.  Min wage was a sop to the unions, who have been its most enthusiastic supporters.  It raises wages so the differential between union wage and non union doesnt look so bad.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 4, 2013)

The minimum wage is a pointless exercise if it doesn't keep pace with inflation.

It's really that simple.   

It should be raised and pegged to the inflation rate so every year it automatically goes up.    That's the way it should have been done when they first came out with it.

It wouldn't hurt most businesses and would seriously help the lower classes.    I have a lot of friends who are working minimum wage or just above minimum wage.    (one is working 3 of them)  They are all on food stamps and partial assistance.    Raising the minimum wage would not solve the problem of stagnant wages but it would certainly help.   

And every dollar extra that people make means less money coming out of the government coffers in the form of assistance.


----------



## emptystep (Feb 4, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> > Both people I asked about working minimum wage answered. What I wanted to know is if this question was something you were evaluating from a logical perspective or from being in the shoes of the those in question.
> ...



You have any link or any reference or any source whatsoever that backs that up?


----------



## The Rabbi (Feb 4, 2013)

emptystep said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > emptystep said:
> ...



Union Members, Not Minimum-Wage Earners, Benefit When the MinimumWage Rises

Cue "biased right wing source" objection....


----------



## asterism (Feb 4, 2013)

Noomi said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



You don't work do you?


----------



## Wiseacre (Feb 4, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > Used to be that people didn't start a family until they were able to support one.   Minimum wage isn't supposed to be a living wage, it's supposed to be a beginning wage while you acquire skills that make you worth more money in the job market.   I remember those days, you had to live at home or buddy up with a roommate.   I had to ride the bus for years cuz I couldn't afford a car.   Wasn't easy, but I managed to survive.
> ...



News flash - significantly raising the minimum wage is not going to increase the number of jobs out there;  in fact, employers will find ways to cut labor costs and jobs.   Especially in bad times like now.   And living within your means and not starting a family until you can afford to support one is the kind of thinking that works in any environemnt.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 4, 2013)

Wiseacre said:


> ReallyMeow said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



Sure, but not everyone has a choice.   I have several friends who had decent jobs and were providing for their families.   Then the place closed down and now they are working whatever they can find.

And I would also argue that most places index pay with the minimum wage.   So part of our stagnant wage growth comes directly from the stagnant minimum wage.


----------



## CivFan (Feb 4, 2013)

Median wage is a better metric.  If entry level wages are too high, there's less incentive to improve skills.  This effect lowers the productivity of the nation as a whole.  Canada's wage structure is more "egalitarian".  One result is that a good programmer usually doubles earnings moving from Montreal to Boston.  That transplant also gets to keep more of the increased pay, realistically tripling disposable income.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 4, 2013)

CivFan said:


> Median wage is a better metric.  If entry level wages are too high, there's less incentive to improve skills.  This effect lowers the productivity of the nation as a whole.  Canada's wage structure is more "egalitarian".  One result is that a good programmer usually doubles earnings moving from Montreal to Boston.  That transplant also gets to keep more of the increased pay, realistically tripling disposable income.



Sure, and it has nothing to do with the lack of technology or the rural nature of most of Canada.  Half the country makes Montana look urban.


----------



## CivFan (Feb 4, 2013)

Underhill said:


> CivFan said:
> 
> 
> > Median wage is a better metric.  If entry level wages are too high, there's less incentive to improve skills.  This effect lowers the productivity of the nation as a whole.  Canada's wage structure is more "egalitarian".  One result is that a good programmer usually doubles earnings moving from Montreal to Boston.  That transplant also gets to keep more of the increased pay, realistically tripling disposable income.
> ...



How do you explain a huge wage jump from Montreal to Vermont about 100 miles away?  Vermont is FAR more rural than Montreal.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 4, 2013)

Noomi said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



You want to eliminate taxes?


----------



## Wiseacre (Feb 4, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > ReallyMeow said:
> ...




Understood.   But you gotta also understand that a higher minimum wage means fewer employees.   Or the extra costs of labor gets passed on to the consumer and prices go up.   Or as you say the business closes down.   There aren't any good choices, it boils down to doing without a lot of stuff or doing things you used to do.   IOW, our standard of living has to adjust downward until such time as the economy begins to strengthen.


----------



## emptystep (Feb 4, 2013)

Wiseacre said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



If the lowest pay can't get above $10/hr could the highest pay get below $480/hr?


----------



## CivFan (Feb 4, 2013)

emptystep said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



If you're a commissioned sales person that gets 1% of sales and you land a million dollar account in an hour, should some of your commission be distributed to other associates or should the agreed to compensation be honored?  Should you be forced to sell for the rest of the month without compensation?  Just asking.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Feb 4, 2013)

The businesses that employ people at the minimum wage do so because the businesses can't afford to pay more because the products and services that they sell are more or less fixed to the wages they pay. How much can you charge for a burger and fries? or a drink at a bar? or a meal in a truckstop?
If you increase the wages then you increase the price of what you are selling to make up for it and then you lose business and lay people off or close down completely. Businesses have to make a profit or the guy (person) who owns it can't feed his (or her) family or pay the bills at home .
Back when kids were getting $1.25 an hour you could get a burger, fries and a coke for less than a dollar. Now it costs over $10 at the same joint and everything is smaller to boot!


----------



## Underhill (Feb 4, 2013)

CivFan said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > CivFan said:
> ...



I don't know.   But I do know that we have the same thing here in the states.    There are huge discrepancies in income from state to state and company to company. 

It's like asking why a house where I live cost 75k and a house in Florida cost 300k.   There are too many factors that you aren't comparing.  

But, I will say this.   Your income numbers seemed a bit fishy to me.    (I live near the Canadian border and actually own property in Canada.)   So I looked them up.   And I found an exhaustive study on the subject.

"GDI per capita in Canada relative to the US has undergone several long cycles. It was about 83% of the US level in the 1960s, increased to 98% in the early 1980s, before a long decline to near 80% by the late 1990s. It then rebounded to 92% of the US level by 2008."

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-624-m/11-624-m2010025-eng.pdf

This paper is a comparison of US and Canadian incomes and compares their purchasing power.   

And as of 2008 the difference is 8% overall.   Certainly no where near the 50% difference you claimed.    It may be possible for a specific job at a specific company.   But it certainly isn't true in the overall picture.


----------



## emptystep (Feb 4, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> The businesses that employ people at the minimum wage do so because the businesses can't afford to pay more because the products and services that they sell are more or less fixed to the wages they pay. How much can you charge for a burger and fries? or a drink at a bar? or a meal in a truckstop?
> If you increase the wages then you increase the price of what you are selling to make up for it and then you lose business and lay people off or close down completely. Businesses have to make a profit or the guy (person) who owns it can't feed his (or her) family or pay the bills at home .
> Back when kids were getting $1.25 an hour you could get a burger, fries and a coke for less than a dollar. Now it costs over $10 at the same joint and everything is smaller to boot!



Accounting must have gotten a lot simpler in the last few years. Used to be there were all kinds of stuff on the balance sheet. Now there is only pay and price. Accountants should make minimum wage.


----------



## emptystep (Feb 4, 2013)

CivFan said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



Only if you want people in the sales pipeline? Asking someone to sell for the rest of the month with no salary and no commission is going just a little overboard. Just saying.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 4, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> The businesses that employ people at the minimum wage do so because the businesses can't afford to pay more because the products and services that they sell are more or less fixed to the wages they pay. How much can you charge for a burger and fries? or a drink at a bar? or a meal in a truckstop?
> If you increase the wages then you increase the price of what you are selling to make up for it and then you lose business and lay people off or close down completely. Businesses have to make a profit or the guy (person) who owns it can't feed his (or her) family or pay the bills at home .
> Back when kids were getting $1.25 an hour you could get a burger, fries and a coke for less than a dollar. Now it costs over $10 at the same joint and everything is smaller to boot!



Yeah but you make it sound much worse than it is.

Here are some real numbers.   The average McDonald's brings in 2.7 million a year.   And employee cost is roughly 20% of that (see link).   An increase in labor cost of 1.00 an hour would mean a difference of 2% annually to their bottom line.

This means the average cost of a burger that is $2 today, would have to go up to an average of $2.04.   Staggering I know, but I think we can handle it.  

http://www.burgerbusiness.com/wp-content/uploads/Janney_McD.jpg

And the numbers are similar for every major chain. 

You also ignore the fact that more money in the pockets of employees means more people buying their products so even that 2% could be easily offset by increased sales.


----------



## emptystep (Feb 4, 2013)

Underhill said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> > The businesses that employ people at the minimum wage do so because the businesses can't afford to pay more because the products and services that they sell are more or less fixed to the wages they pay. How much can you charge for a burger and fries? or a drink at a bar? or a meal in a truckstop?
> ...



Turn over rate is so fast they barely learn each other's name. (OK, that's a little overboard.) Manager are sometimes cruel. Course that happens everywhere.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Feb 4, 2013)

Crew payroll is listed at $540,000 with gross profits at $1,782,000 makes the crew labor costs just over 30% of gross profits. If you divide 540000 by days in the year and hours in the day (8760) you get $61.64 per hour for the average store in labor costs. If the average employee gets somewhere beteen $7 and $8 per hour then roughly six employees. so an additional $6 ($1 per employee) is an increase of just over 9.7% in labor cost so now your labor cost goes from 30% of gross profit to 40% of gross profit. The store level operating income drops to -$18,900.
That store is closed and you have lost those 18 jobs. (6 per 8 hour shift average)


----------



## emptystep (Feb 4, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> Crew payroll is listed at $540,000 with gross profits at $1,782,000 makes the crew labor costs just over 30% of gross profits. If you divide 540000 by days in the year and hours in the day (8760) you get $61.64 per hour for the average store in labor costs. If the average employee gets somewhere beteen $7 and $8 per hour then roughly six employees. so an additional $6 ($1 per employee) is an increase of just over 9.7% in labor cost so now your labor cost goes from 30% of gross profit to 40% of gross profit. The store level operating income drops to -$18,900.
> That store is closed and you have lost those 18 jobs. (6 per 8 hour shift average)



So much great logic except one small fact. There is a HUGE difference between what a company brings in and gross profits. Unless you are Exxon that is.


----------



## emptystep (Feb 4, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> Crew payroll is listed at $540,000 with gross profits at $1,782,000 makes the crew labor costs just over 30% of gross profits. If you divide 540000 by days in the year and hours in the day (8760) you get $61.64 per hour for the average store in labor costs. If the average employee gets somewhere beteen $7 and $8 per hour then roughly six employees. so an additional $6 ($1 per employee) is an increase of just over 9.7% in labor cost so now your labor cost goes from 30% of gross profit to 40% of gross profit. The store level operating income drops to -$18,900.
> That store is closed and you have lost those 18 jobs. (6 per 8 hour shift average)



Your numbers show that that labor cost is *1/3 gross profit*. Holy shit.


----------



## Wiseacre (Feb 4, 2013)

emptystep said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...




2 separate issues, whatever the top CEOs get isn't going to change what the minimum wage people get.   Focusing on the top ain't going to help everybody else, and the sooner the left realizes that the better.


----------



## emptystep (Feb 4, 2013)

Wiseacre said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



It just seems a little unfair when they say everyone has to take a pay cut they don't really mean 'everyone'.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Feb 4, 2013)

Labor costs for any business are typically 30% of gross profit - if the company is healthy.
The gross sales is the amount of money that comes through the business before subtracting the costs of the sales. Sell a burger for $2 and you have $2 in gross sales but you have to subtract the cost of the meat, bun, condiments, napkin, and wrapper to get net sales income. Then you take the costs of running the business out of whats left. According to the figures presented the average MacDonalds has a net operating income of 5.7% of "net sales" which is high for the food industry. One would expect to see close to 3%.


----------



## CivFan (Feb 4, 2013)

emptystep said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > emptystep said:
> ...



I'm surprised most people are even tempered enough to get work done with a pay cut.  When pay cuts get talked about in a company, I usually wind up on the layoff list.  Crankiness sometimes pays off.  Not only does the pay get cut, so does morale and company culture.  It's better to be out the door no more than three months after a pay cut.


----------



## theHawk (Feb 4, 2013)

Noomi said:


> $7.25 an hour is something a teenager in school should be earning, not an adult!



If someone is being paid $7.25 an hour then that is what their skill level dictates it to be.

Any unskilled worker can educate themselves for free at a local library.

Until then, I don't feel sorry for them in the least bit.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Feb 4, 2013)

And what working skill can you pick up at the library that would get you a job as a skilled worker without a certified education?


----------



## Missourian (Feb 4, 2013)

My two cents...

I empathize with folks making minimum wage every time I go to the grocery store.

Things are expensive,  I don't know how people manage.

But,  unskilled labor is only worth so much.

Wages cannot be divorced from costs.

Increasing wages means increasing prices...so even if the low wage earner makes more...it will likely as not purchase the same amount...or perhaps less.

A restaurant can only charge so much for a cheeseburger...after that,  people don't buy and the business must close...meaning those employees are now making zero.

Those who support increasing minimum wage need to understand that while their goal is lofty...these increases don't occur in a vacuum...for every action,  there is a reaction.


----------



## emptystep (Feb 4, 2013)

Can't argue with illogic like that.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 4, 2013)

Anyone who works for minimum wage their whole life deserves to be poor.

It means they never did anything to better themselves.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Feb 4, 2013)

Well said Missourian!


----------



## emptystep (Feb 4, 2013)

Missourian said:


> My two cents...
> 
> I empathize with folks making minimum wage every time I go to the grocery store.
> 
> ...



Perhaps so wage increase could come out of that $1.78M profit. Yeah, if it is a Mom and Pop wage will probably increase price but in that case the lowest and highest wage is pretty close, sometimes inverse if the owner cares more about making it than quick cash.


----------



## CivFan (Feb 4, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Anyone who works for minimum wage their whole life deserves to be poor.
> 
> It means they never did anything to better themselves.



What about the developmentally disabled?


----------



## CivFan (Feb 4, 2013)

emptystep said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > My two cents...
> ...



There's more to work than a wage.  No amount of money can compensate for a toxic culture.  A strong economy is the worker's best friend were there are many employment options.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 4, 2013)

CivFan said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone who works for minimum wage their whole life deserves to be poor.
> ...



What about them?  They get all kinds of government assistance.


----------



## Missourian (Feb 4, 2013)

emptystep said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > My two cents...
> ...



70% of the jobs created in the U.S. are created by small business...not huge multinational conglomerate corporations...here's the link to Politifact to back that up.

PolitiFact Virginia | Cantor says small businesses create 70 percent of U.S. jobs

Those folks aren't making 1.78M in profits.

But they must make a profit that is worth the risk of giving up the security of working a regular job.

These are the businesses that we should be using as the backdrop for this conversation.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 4, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> The businesses that employ people at the minimum wage do so because the businesses can't afford to pay more because the products and services that they sell are more or less fixed to the wages they pay. How much can you charge for a burger and fries? or a drink at a bar? or a meal in a truckstop?
> If you increase the wages then you increase the price of what you are selling to make up for it and then you lose business and lay people off or close down completely. Businesses have to make a profit or the guy (person) who owns it can't feed his (or her) family or pay the bills at home .
> Back when kids were getting $1.25 an hour you could get a burger, fries and a coke for less than a dollar. Now it costs over $10 at the same joint and everything is smaller to boot!



dunno, how much was education, or rent back then? college costs 10x as much as it did in the 50's with inflation accounted for, and the housing bubble means rent is up too; if its so important that society offers you fast food, be prepared to have people earning their place in society from providing you that service. having people prepare food for you is a luxury.



Skull Pilot said:


> Anyone who works for minimum wage their whole life deserves to be poor.
> It means they never did anything to better themselves.








They do their job, that counts for something.



Missourian said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...


It doesnt seem that small businesses are the problem.

Low-Wage Workers Employed Mostly By Large, Highly Profitable Corporations: Report


----------



## emptystep (Feb 4, 2013)

Missourian said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



If a company has 10 slots to fill and fill those are those new jobs or existing jobs. If a business gets VC funding and hires 50 people and goes out of business in three month are those new jobs?


----------



## Missourian (Feb 4, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> > The businesses that employ people at the minimum wage do so because the businesses can't afford to pay more because the products and services that they sell are more or less fixed to the wages they pay. How much can you charge for a burger and fries? or a drink at a bar? or a meal in a truckstop?
> ...




How many of those "corporate" fast food restaurants are franchises owned by small businesses?

That's why you can't trust HuffPo and left leaning studies.

Every chain restaurant where I live is a franchise...IOW,  not corporate.


----------



## Missourian (Feb 4, 2013)

emptystep said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > emptystep said:
> ...



Splitting a frog hair five ways does not change the fact that it is a frog hair.

Small business is the engine of job creation in the United States...that is an established fact. 

If you wish to argue the basis of the conclusion...that is something you should take up with Politifact.


----------



## emptystep (Feb 4, 2013)

Missourian said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



Frog hair, turtle hair it's none of the above. Elections are won and lost on "small business". Whether or not there is any merit to the notion is relevant.

Please, no.


----------



## Missourian (Feb 4, 2013)

emptystep said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > emptystep said:
> ...



Again,  if you question Politifacts conclusions or methodology,  that is something to be taken up with Politifact.

Unless you have some proof that there is a flaw in their concussion?


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 4, 2013)

Missourian said:


> ReallyMeow said:
> 
> 
> > PaulS1950 said:
> ...



You've only posed an empty assertion as a question, but thats enough for me to derive your argument; that the corporate superstructure is entitled to whatever it feels like squeezing out of franchisees, even at the expense of its workers being able to make ends meet. This is why we need unions, people forget that there are zero profits if no one shows up to flip the burgers, move the boxes and harvest the crops.


----------



## dblack (Feb 4, 2013)

The core mandate of minimum wage laws falls on the wage earners. If they can't persuade someone to pay them the minimum wage, they're not allowed to work.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 15, 2013)

A 2011 Study Exploded One Of The Biggest Fears About Raising The Minimum Wage - Business Insider

OOPS: GOP Rep. Inadvertently Makes The Case For Nearly Doubling The Minimum Wage | ThinkProgress

Minimum Wage Would Be $21.72 If It Kept Pace With Increases In Productivity: Study


----------



## dblack (Feb 15, 2013)

dblack said:


> The core mandate of minimum wage laws falls on the wage earners. If they can't persuade someone to pay them the minimum wage, they're not allowed to work.



I think most people think of this perspective as sophistry. It's not. It's a sober assessment of the actual impact of the law.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 15, 2013)

If a company doesnt need a worker, $0 is still cheaper than minimum wage, so if you raise minimum wage, you dont cause unemployment.


----------



## dblack (Feb 15, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> If a company doesnt need a worker, $0 is still cheaper than minimum wage, so if you raise minimum wage, you dont cause unemployment.



???

Can you rephrase that? Not sure what you're saying.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 15, 2013)

This comes up every time a politician talks about raising the wage.

And every time it has happened it did not mean mass lay offs and companies closing their doors.


----------



## ConHog (Feb 15, 2013)

alan1 said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > alan1 said:
> ...



That's not entirely true, because a whole group of workers who earn more than minimum wage also get their wages based in relation to minimum wage. So if minimum wage goes up $1 then theoretically at least so to do their wages.


----------



## ConHog (Feb 15, 2013)

dblack said:


> ReallyMeow said:
> 
> 
> > If a company doesnt need a worker, $0 is still cheaper than minimum wage, so if you raise minimum wage, you dont cause unemployment.
> ...



I'll give it a go.

If you need a person to ring up the extra value meals, you need them. Doesn't matter if their pay is $7/hr or $10.

Conversely, if you don't need a person you don't need them, even if they will work for free.


----------



## GHook93 (Feb 15, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Minimum Wage and What It Buys You: 1950s to Now
> 
> Interesting to see what minimum wage bought/buys now.



What happen during the 90s that made rent unaffordable? CLINTON'S BONE-HEADED revival of CARTER'S Community Reinvestment Act, which was supposed to make everyone on America a homeowner. Forcing the hands of banks and lender, giving free money to everyone had the effect of SKYROCKETING home prices, home values, mortgage payment and of course RENT. Combine this with an increase in gas prices caused inflation to stream out of control!

Blame the worse fiscal President in history - Bill Clinton!


----------



## AmyNation (Feb 15, 2013)

ConHog said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > ReallyMeow said:
> ...



Which is true for some positions. However there are plently of jobs that are discretionary. At $4 an hour, I may hire someone to man the pumps at my gas station, believing having that curtsey for my customers is worth it,  but at $7, that's too high and my pumps will just have to be self serve.


----------



## ConHog (Feb 15, 2013)

AmyNation said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Certainly true. But most jobs don't work that way. Even with the service station analogy. The gas stations still employ people , they have just expanded and started selling things other than gas and the employee is now inside baking bread for your sandwich rather than outside filling your tank.

Those who don't evolve are left in the dust. Employees and employers alike.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Feb 15, 2013)

There are two components to the president's increase in minimum wage.
1. raise it to $9 / hr by 2015
2. increase it annually by the inflation index.

Lets take buisinesses that most often pay minimum wage for this thought experiment: fast food restuarants
1. the wages for all employees goes to $9 /hr
2. the prices of their burgers, fries, onion rings, shakes and soft drinks are increased to make up for the cost of labor.
3. because prices increase for the same product inflation rises - marginally.
4. because inflation rises, the wages go up.
5. because the wages increase the cost of the food goes up.
6. because prices go up, inflation rises again.
7. because inflation goes up the wages increase.
Repeat until there is no longer an incentive to buy fast food.
With no business the fast food place closes and those jobs are lost.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 15, 2013)

chickfila does just fine and they charge like $10 a meal, the sky isnt falling chicken little. maybe a society needs to be based on things that people NEED, not on whims and luxury items.

Prioritize these two items:
Having gas pumped for you.
Someone who spent their whole life working and living frugally not living under a bridge when theyre too old to work.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Feb 15, 2013)

I don't know if you were talking to me or not ReallyMeow but I pump my own gas and I have lived my life frugally, am retired, and not living under a bridge. I have owned four businesses, three of which were successful and sometimes worked a "normal" job while operating my own business.
I am not too old to work but I have enough money to live and I like spending the time with my wife and family.

I don't know what a chickfila is but the local national fast food chains like McD's, and Jack-in-the-Box charge that price ($10) for a three piece meal here. when I was a bit younger you could get that same 3 piece meal for under $1 - granted that was in the 60s but when you consider the wages have only gone up by 2.5 times that fast food meal has rocketed to 10 times what it was.

It won't hurt my feelings if all the fast food places close down but it will hurt those who work for them.


----------



## Deepbluediver (Feb 15, 2013)

That's an interesting little slideshow, but you should keep in mind that things besides wage change over time as well.  The average size of a home in the U.S. has also increased dramatically, so perhaps a better survey would have been to see how much square footage can be rented today, on minimum wage, versus 50 years ago.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 15, 2013)

the 60's huh? allow me to repost this from a page ago

OOPS: GOP Rep. Inadvertently Makes The Case For Nearly Doubling The Minimum Wage | ThinkProgress

now tell me why someone serving you a burger doesnt deserve the same dignity that you enjoy?


----------



## Deepbluediver (Feb 15, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> now tell me why someone serving you a burger doesnt deserve the same dignity that you enjoy?



Whether are you making $8 an hour or $40 an hour, flipping burgers (or data entry, or punching tickets, etc) isn't really a fulfilling career.  But the method to getting people moving on the track to higher paying jobs is better education and a healthy economy.

Employee wages are not a perfectly flexible measure, but there is some correlation between the cost to the employer and the number of people they higher.  The argument coming from the left is that at best, the same amount of money will be changing hands, but fewer people will be working, and the increased costs to businesses will hinder the economic recovery more than it will help.

Personally, I take the view that everything will balance out in the long term, because companies who want good workers will need to pay decent wages (and HR costs mount when you have high turnover), but I recognize that in the short term the business tends to have more power at the barganing table.  So I'm not certain where I fall on this issue.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 15, 2013)

There isnt a limitless ocean of fulfilling careers which people need only reach out and take, look at these underemployment numbers:
One in Three Young U.S. Workers Are Underemployed


----------



## Deepbluediver (Feb 15, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> There isnt a limitless ocean of fulfilling careers which people need only reach out and take, look at these underemployment numbers:
> One in Three Young U.S. Workers Are Underemployed



No, there certainly aren't, but the way you get more and better jobs is to having a thriving economy.  The most immediate, short term effects of raising the minimum wage are to increase costs for employers, and/or put more people out of work.  Neither one seems likely to help the overall economic situation, so at best the end result would be a wash.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Feb 15, 2013)

The minimum wage was never supposed to be a living wage. It was supposed to provide money to those working while going to school or for spending money from an after school job. It doesn't even apply to businesses with fewer than a certain number of employees.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 15, 2013)

Ive debunked the claim that raising the minimum wage will cause unemployment, thoroughly. youll have to do better than repeating the assertion.


----------



## Deepbluediver (Feb 15, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> Ive debunked the claim that raising the minimum wage will cause unemployment, thoroughly. youll have to do better than repeating the assertion.



I did not read through the entire thread before posting, sorry for that.  I'll go back and read what you wrote now.


This article seems to be the most relevant:
A 2011 Study Exploded One Of The Biggest Fears About Raising The Minimum Wage - Business Insider
It does say that only a small number of managers think that firing existing workers is important in the face of minimum wage changes.  But it also acknowledges that managers will (amongst other things) change hiring practices, cut weekly hours, and delay pay raises.  So it's hardly like everything is roses and sunshine.

There was also this article, a little further back:
Working, but still poor - The Week
One of it's first assertions is that "Some 46.2 million Americans now live in families where someone is working but earning less than the poverty line: $11,702 a year for an individual or $23,021 for a family of four. "
It doesn't specify that these workers are necessarily the primary breadwinners of the household, or even that they have dependents, so it seems likely that it includes a large percentage of teenage or student workers.

It goes on to say "...the working poor are those whose incomes do not cover basic needs: food, clothing, housing, transportation, child care, and health care. By that standard, there are more than 146 million Americans in the poor-but-working class."  I wonder where it gets this assertion from, and how it determines what people can afford.  
Also, this is about 100 million more than the people making below the poverty line; how much are they earning, and yet still ending up in such dire straights?  I'm not disagreeing, yet, but it seems to demand further elaboration.

Next, it states that "In the U.S., unions have dwindled partly because poor leadership has damaged their image, and partly because of "right-to-work" laws, now in place in 24 states, which effectively bar unions from organizing workers. "  Having browsed Wikipedia's description of Right to Work laws, that's not what they do at all.  If the author is being misleading, that threatens his credibility on other sections.

Near the end of the article, it give the example that "A single mother earning $18,000 a year loses tax credits and benefits as she climbs the income scale, so for each additional dollar she makes, she effectively keeps only 12 cents. She has little incentive to increase her hours and her income unless she can make a major jump in salary."  Wouldn't increasing minimum wage have the same effect of reducing benefits, essentially zeroing out any gain?


While checking around on google, I also stumbled across this brief little blurb.
Freakonomics » Does Raising the Minimum Wage Increase Unemployment?
That piece gives some examples as to how the same policy can have different effects depending on numerous other factors.  And unfortunately, economics is hard to figure out, because society is tough to model, and people tend to frown on sticking a few hundred people in a metal dome and observing them like lab rats.  

And then there is this:
Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2011
Which states that in 2011, (assuming I'm reading this correctly) workers making exactly at or less than the federal minimum wage composed only 5.2% of all hourly-paid workers.  


As I said in my first post, I'm not certain where I really stand on this issue.  Normally I'm a die-hard capitalist, but I realize that having a crappy job at low wages isn't fun, and if you are trying to support some one else it's truely sucky.  However, I like to think that if increasing wages could benefit a business, then companies would figure out to do it on there own.


----------



## Wiseacre (Feb 15, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> *Ive debunked the claim that raising the minimum wage will cause unemployment, thoroughly*. youll have to do better than repeating the assertion.




Oh, I don't think so.   Using a far left leaning organization for proof isn't what some might call thorough debunking.


----------



## Noomi (Feb 16, 2013)

AmyNation said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Petrol store owners will turn over a fair bit of money. They can more than afford to employ a part time person to man the pumps - the only reason they won't is because they are too tight.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 16, 2013)

146 million? thats a fair question:
U.S. Poverty: Census Finds Nearly Half Of Americans Are Poor Or Low-Income



> About 97.3 million Americans fall into a low-income category, commonly defined as those earning between 100 and 199 percent of the poverty level, based on a new supplemental measure by the Census Bureau that is designed to provide a fuller picture of poverty. Together with the 49.1 million who fall below the poverty line and are counted as poor, they number 146.4 million, or 48 percent of the U.S. population.



The appeal that there is some sort of low rent, cheap living nirvana out there is a fable designed to dull your empathy. You cant say to get a better job when low income jobs outnumber "middle class" jobs.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p60-243.pdf
page 5:


> Median family household income
> declined by 1.7 percent in real
> terms between 2010 and 2011
> to $62,273. The change in the
> ...


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 16, 2013)

Noomi said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...



Yes, the greedy capitalists.  That's why they had those gas station attendants, they weren't so greedy before.  When they were giving out dishes with every fill up.

In very wealthy areas you can still find gas station attendants.  You will be paying $5.75 a gallon for gas, but it's possible to find them.


----------



## AmyNation (Feb 16, 2013)

Noomi said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...



Its a tad more complicated then that.

 It's about the cost to keep a person on staff, vs the benefit the business gets by having them perform their job. Again, there are necessary jobs that an employeer will pay whatever they have to for, and there are luxury jobs, that an employer will only hire if they believe its worth it to their business.

Successful businesses understand this. Those who don't tend to go belly up within 5 years of opening.


----------



## ConHog (Feb 16, 2013)

AmyNation said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > AmyNation said:
> ...



Exactly. Which is why you can still find full service gas it just costs more. We have one full service station left in our town. Hes 15 cents a gallon higher on average fhan full service. For that extra money you get extra service. Hes plenty busy but I doubt there is enough need for another gas station to br able to justify hiring an attendant.


----------



## Noomi (Feb 16, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > AmyNation said:
> ...



One gallon is equal to around 3.78 litres. Lets say 4 litres. $5.75 per gallon, and $1.65 per litre means that over here a gallon would cost...

I have no idea. My math sucks. But I guess it wouldn't be very expensive.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Feb 17, 2013)

The reason that "filling stations" became "you pump" gas stations and food marts is pure economics. The government stepped in and limited the amount they could charge to cost + 10 cents and the "service bays couldn't find mechanics to work for the prices they could charge so they dropped the attendent - whose job it was to bring service into the service bay - and opted to sell snacks and "spot buy" groceries to make enough money without having a technician to pay for standing around. 
I imagine that most of you here are too young to remember oil changes and tune-ups at gas stations but that is where they made their money - the gas was usually a "lost leader" in that it cost more to havethe attendant pump gas than the profit margin on gas allowed. When newer cars came in ant they required a computer to diagnose what was wrong and a trained technician to repair it the cost was too high. Places like Jiffy Lube and Grease Monkey took over the role of the service bays and the gas stations started selling snacks instead to increase income so they could stay in business.

It is very easy to tell from the posts who understands what makes a business successful and those that have no idea of the costs involved in running a business. I would love to see those who say that businesses are run by greedy individuals to try to run a business of their own. It would be in the red from day one and be out of business in less than a year.


----------



## ConHog (Feb 17, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> The reason that "filling stations" became "you pump" gas stations and food marts is pure economics. The government stepped in and limited the amount they could charge to cost + 10 cents and the "service bays couldn't find mechanics to work for the prices they could charge so they dropped the attendent - whose job it was to bring service into the service bay - and opted to sell snacks and "spot buy" groceries to make enough money without having a technician to pay for standing around.
> I imagine that most of you here are too young to remember oil changes and tune-ups at gas stations but that is where they made their money - the gas was usually a "lost leader" in that it cost more to havethe attendant pump gas than the profit margin on gas allowed. When newer cars came in ant they required a computer to diagnose what was wrong and a trained technician to repair it the cost was too high. Places like Jiffy Lube and Grease Monkey took over the role of the service bays and the gas stations started selling snacks instead to increase income so they could stay in business.
> 
> It is very easy to tell from the posts who understands what makes a business successful and those that have no idea of the costs involved in running a business. I would love to see those who say that businesses are run by greedy individuals to try to run a business of their own. It would be in the red from day one and be out of business in less than a year.



I run a business and abaolutely I contend that some business owners are greedy


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 17, 2013)

having your gas pumped is definitely a luxury, modern conveniences are things that emerge in response to a healthy economy, they are the dead weight that gets carried in its wake, not its foundation.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 17, 2013)

ConHog said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> > The reason that "filling stations" became "you pump" gas stations and food marts is pure economics. The government stepped in and limited the amount they could charge to cost + 10 cents and the "service bays couldn't find mechanics to work for the prices they could charge so they dropped the attendent - whose job it was to bring service into the service bay - and opted to sell snacks and "spot buy" groceries to make enough money without having a technician to pay for standing around.
> ...




Of course some business owners are greedy, so are some politicians. The problem is that, as a class, politicians are a lot greedier than business owners.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Feb 17, 2013)

Some business owners are greedy *BUT most business owners make enough money to get by and not a lot more.* The highest paid people inthe work force are commissioned sales people - the top ten percent often make more than anyone else in the organization. Corporate profits are paid to the stockholders and not to a single person as so many think. when you divide the profits of GE or Boeing among the many shareholders you don't get a lot of money to the average individual.

There are exceptions to the rule but, in business, if you aren't helping someone - or may someones - then you don't stay in business for long.


----------



## depotoo (Feb 17, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > alan1 said:
> ...



or a part time mom doing it to just get out of the house or to pay for those extras they would like? Or a retiree just wanting to supplement their income, which can only be so much earned each year before being penalized by social security.


----------



## ConHog (Feb 17, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > PaulS1950 said:
> ...



Certainly we can agree on that. 

I think the best solution would be if each atate set their own mw in much the same way electric prices are arrived at. A BOARD made up of manamgement, employees, and politicians deciding whTs best 

I do think though that there is a place for the feds to set a minimum.


----------



## dblack (Feb 17, 2013)

ConHog said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...



Why not go ahead and have them set all wages and prices. So it's fair, ya know?


----------



## ConHog (Feb 17, 2013)

dblack said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...




.why not do away with child labor laws. Let comoanies decide if they wNt to hire children


----------



## dblack (Feb 17, 2013)

ConHog said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...



I asked first. Deflection is not an argument.


----------



## ConHog (Feb 17, 2013)

dblack said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...





Pointing out otheraws the government has had to pass to reel in businesses who only care about their profits isnt deflection


----------



## dblack (Feb 17, 2013)

ConHog said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...



It's deflection alright. And I'd still like to get a straight answer to my question. But, I'm not holding my breath. In the meantime, I'll indulge your distraction and point out that we have laws to protect children because, well, they're children. They're not legally responsible and not able to make fully informed decisions.

Unfortunately, the core premise of the nanny-staters seems to be that we _are all helpless children_, and require a government that will second-guess our most personal decisions, correcting us when we err.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 17, 2013)

No ones arguing for a nanny state. Its as simple as maintaining the basic social construct that work means dignity. That the median wage is able to provide for a family. Someone who spent their life contributing to society will be taken care of in their old age. Someone who needs medical assistance will be given it. This is simple stuff.


----------



## dblack (Feb 17, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> No ones arguing for a nanny state. Its as simple as maintaining the basic social construct that work means dignity. That the median wage is able to provide for a family. Someone who spent their life contributing to society will be taken care of in their old age. Someone who needs medical assistance will be given it. This is simple stuff.



Simple or not, it's not something government should be in charge of.


----------



## ConHog (Feb 17, 2013)

dblack said:


> ReallyMeow said:
> 
> 
> > No ones arguing for a nanny state. Its as simple as maintaining the basic social construct that work means dignity. That the median wage is able to provide for a family. Someone who spent their life contributing to society will be taken care of in their old age. Someone who needs medical assistance will be given it. This is simple stuff.
> ...



In an ideal world? No it isnt. But we live in reality.


----------



## TyrealJenkins (Feb 18, 2013)

minumum wage outta be $20 an hour.  If they dont wanna pay it then take their shit down to mexico or over to china.  But if they do, they wont be able to sell anything here.  They are gonna have to figure out a way to be profitable without being too greedy.  People gotta make a livable wage, this $7-$8 an hour bullshit aint cutting it.  Fuck just give me my $800 month after taxes and $200 in food stamps from the government.  Want me to work?  Pay me.  We aint back in the fields no more.


----------



## Noomi (Feb 18, 2013)

TyrealJenkins said:


> minumum wage outta be $20 an hour.  If they dont wanna pay it then take their shit down to mexico or over to china.  But if they do, they wont be able to sell anything here.  They are gonna have to figure out a way to be profitable without being too greedy.  People gotta make a livable wage, this $7-$8 an hour bullshit aint cutting it.  Fuck just give me my $800 month after taxes and $200 in food stamps from the government.  Want me to work?  Pay me.  We aint back in the fields no more.



Australia has a much higher minimum wage but it ain't close to twenty bucks. 

People will pay you to work for them, you seem to think you are expected to work for free...


----------



## TyrealJenkins (Feb 18, 2013)

Noomi said:


> TyrealJenkins said:
> 
> 
> > minumum wage outta be $20 an hour.  If they dont wanna pay it then take their shit down to mexico or over to china.  But if they do, they wont be able to sell anything here.  They are gonna have to figure out a way to be profitable without being too greedy.  People gotta make a livable wage, this $7-$8 an hour bullshit aint cutting it.  Fuck just give me my $800 month after taxes and $200 in food stamps from the government.  Want me to work?  Pay me.  We aint back in the fields no more.
> ...



$7-$8/hour is pretty much a slave wage.  You cant even pay rent in the hood and have enough to eat on that.


----------



## Noomi (Feb 18, 2013)

TyrealJenkins said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > TyrealJenkins said:
> ...



I agree. The minimum wage in the US should be no less than ten bucks an hour.


----------



## asterism (Feb 18, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> No ones arguing for a nanny state. Its as simple as maintaining the basic social construct that work means dignity. That the median wage is able to provide for a family. Someone who spent their life contributing to society will be taken care of in their old age. Someone who needs medical assistance will be given it. This is simple stuff.



None of which means that the minimum wage MUST be a living wage.

Quite the opposite, actually.  There is dignity in allowing a student to learn the value of a good hard day's work and then know it takes more than just basic labor to provide a life for himself and his family.

Sadly, that is not possible if EVERYONE has to be paid $10 an hour for each and every hour they are on the clock.  The low margin starter jobs just won't be there.


----------



## asterism (Feb 18, 2013)

TyrealJenkins said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > TyrealJenkins said:
> ...



Then move out of the hood.

Sell the gold in your teeth for a bus ticket or sell your food stamps for the cash you need to get out.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 18, 2013)

dblack said:


> ReallyMeow said:
> 
> 
> > No ones arguing for a nanny state. Its as simple as maintaining the basic social construct that work means dignity. That the median wage is able to provide for a family. Someone who spent their life contributing to society will be taken care of in their old age. Someone who needs medical assistance will be given it. This is simple stuff.
> ...



The govt only gets coerced into stepping in when the free market has failed as catastrophically as it has. reaganomics has been a social experiement and we can objectively state that the wealth does not trickle down; it is not class warfare to put the tax burden back on the rich, it is class warfare to not do so.




asterism said:


> None of which means that the minimum wage MUST be a living wage.
> Quite the opposite, actually.  There is dignity in allowing a student to learn the value of a good hard day's work and then know it takes more than just basic labor to provide a life for himself and his family.
> Sadly, that is not possible if EVERYONE has to be paid $10 an hour for each and every hour they are on the clock.  The low margin starter jobs just won't be there.



Yes, it must be. You cant just assert that if a person doesnt have a family to mooch off of, they should just summon one from the sky with their mind. No, if you want work done, someone shouldnt have to take an oath of poverty for the privilege of running a cash register for you. That job will do absolutely nothing for them on their resume when they're looking for an actual job, it might even hurt them in the way that listing excel under your job skills hurts you on yours. Working a job does not enrich the educational process, it robs students of effort and attention they should be putting into school work.



asterism said:


> Then move out of the hood.


Then what? I dont think you appreciate just how insular America is, even aside from racism, the impulse to only hire people that you know through acquaintances defines the landscape.


----------



## HomeInspect (Feb 18, 2013)

The title of the thread is funny. Why does anyone assume minimum wages jobs are soemthing you are suppose to "Live on" ? Those jobs are usually high school/college kids / secondary employment/ retired people (Walmart Greeters) etc.. They are not career jobs. Constantly raising minimum wage is just another way of "spreading the wealth" and  attempting to keep everyone the same, whether they earned it or not.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 18, 2013)

HomeInspect said:


> The title of the thread is funny. Why does anyone assume minimum wages jobs are soemthing you are suppose to "Live on" ? Those jobs are usually high school/college kids / secondary employment/ retired people (Walmart Greeters) etc.. They are not career jobs.



I think that used to be true.    But as we have moved from a manufacturing based society to a service economy, that has changed.   Oh eventually you will make above minimum wage if you manage to work your way into a management position.   Then you can make a whole $8.50 an hour!      



> Constantly raising minimum wage is just another way of "spreading the wealth" and  attempting to keep everyone the same, whether they earned it or not.



I might agree if we were constantly raising the minimum wage.    But we aren't.   It should be raised to a reasonable level and pegged to inflation.   Then I agree, it shouldn't be touched.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 18, 2013)

HomeInspect said:


> The title of the thread is funny. Why does anyone assume minimum wages jobs are soemthing you are suppose to "Live on" ? Those jobs are usually high school/college kids / secondary employment/ retired people (Walmart Greeters) etc.. They are not career jobs. Constantly raising minimum wage is just another way of "spreading the wealth" and  attempting to keep everyone the same, whether they earned it or not.



So in your mind being a college student means making $8 an hour while incurring $8k a semester debts, on top of living expenses? Your vision for America sucks.

accounting for inflation education costs 10x what it did in the 50's, this sentiment of "work your way through college" being a virtue, is a hold over from a time when waiting tables could actually pay your way through college, now people work their way through college in order to gain access to the standard of living people used to be able to get from waiting tables.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Feb 18, 2013)

In my recolection since the 1950s waiting tables has been a minimum wage job. The tips used to more than make up for the low wages but right now the recession is taking its toll on those businesses and the tips for service.

There are also a lot of jobs that pay more than minimum wages but still not enough money or hours to be considered a living wage. It takes slightly more than $11.54 to provide $24000 a year IF you work 40 hours a week. That figure is just above poverty level if there are three people in the household. 

In the area from which I just moved the average rent was $1500 per month and that will eat up $18000 a year leaving 25% ($6000) for your other expenses for the year. You can live on it but you are going to have to be frugle and save every penny you can for any emergency that might come up.


----------



## HomeInspect (Feb 18, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> HomeInspect said:
> 
> 
> > The title of the thread is funny. Why does anyone assume minimum wages jobs are soemthing you are suppose to "Live on" ? Those jobs are usually high school/college kids / secondary employment/ retired people (Walmart Greeters) etc.. They are not career jobs. Constantly raising minimum wage is just another way of "spreading the wealth" and  attempting to keep everyone the same, whether they earned it or not.
> ...



So why not pay college students 250K a year, so they can pay for college.? There is a reason.. and you probably know the answer.  No, in my mind, my parents worked their tails off all their lives to educate their children, as I am doing the same. Funny how people think they have a "right" to a higher education, like Jimmy Carter thought everyone had a "right" to own a home. Minimum wage, and unskilled labor jobs should in no way support college bills.


----------



## ConHog (Feb 18, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> HomeInspect said:
> 
> 
> > The title of the thread is funny. Why does anyone assume minimum wages jobs are soemthing you are suppose to "Live on" ? Those jobs are usually high school/college kids / secondary employment/ retired people (Walmart Greeters) etc.. They are not career jobs. Constantly raising minimum wage is just another way of "spreading the wealth" and  attempting to keep everyone the same, whether they earned it or not.
> ...





Kind of off topic but do away with pel grants and student loans and stop acting like every person should be in college and the demand for and thus the price of attending college drops.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 19, 2013)

Wow Reductio ad absurdum, I didnt expect that at all in this topic. Oh wait..

There is over a trillion dollars in student debt. Instead of buying homes, investing in businesses, planning for their retirements; this generation is stuck paying off their indentured servitude. And you have the gall to say they're not working hard; why exactly do you hate Americans?

You want Doctors? Lawyers? Skilled technicians? Funny you think you have a right to their services, the free market doesnt care for what you need, you will be priced out.

Lowering demand will not impact the cost of college, de-privatizing it will.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 19, 2013)

Everything is out of whack right now because the government hasn't been doing enough for the working and middle class.  Everything they've done has been to the benefit of the wealthy and corporations.  That's why the minimum wage hasn't gone up enough to keep up with inflation.

Free market economics demonizes social programs as a distortion to the market, but the reality is that free market economies never benefit the midddle or working class.  Without social programs to mitigate the economic crashes, there can be no equal opportunity for all.  Minimum wage should be enough for one person to provide the necessities of life.  If, not, then the MW needs to be raised.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 19, 2013)

Most of these issues stem from a few root causes.   

The biggest being the lack of manufacturing.   A service economy isn't sustainable.   And the pay you get in low level service jobs traditionally hasn't been high enough to pay for the needs of a family.     That was okay in the time when a person would take a cooks job for a few years in high school and move into a job in manufacturing to support his family. 

But today those manufacturing jobs are few and far between.   We've lost much of that middle ground that was the middle class.    So more people feel compelled to go to college.   More people work shit jobs for longer.  

Short of new tariffs, this isn't going to change anytime soon so we are stuck dealing with these symptoms because the real problem isn't being addressed by those in charge. 

Tariffs would also help offset our deficit problems.   

There is a downside.   Mainly a nasty trade war with China.   But it's going to happen sooner or later or we will become a 2nd tier nation.     I'd rather fight that battle now than later.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 19, 2013)

The right-wing points to Greece as an example of what happens when social democracies go back, but they fail to point out the obvious free-market examples of what happens when the free-market works:  Brazil and Chile.  Both countries have strong free market economies, and considered great countries to do business in, but both have serious problems with poverty.  The poor live in filth and disease.  The wealthy live in gated communities for their own protection.  The is no middle class to speak of.  

Is this what Americans want as their future?  Social democracies such as Canada, Germany, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and the Scandanavian Countries, all enjoy a standard of living on a par with the US, especially Canada, but without the extreme poverty you see in the US.  Schools and universities, as well as health care are all managed by the government, without the corruption we see in the US.  As a result, tuition is much lower and health care costs are lower.  There are SOME things the government does better than the free market, and education and health care are two of those things.  Ownership of public utilities is another.

The Republican leadership has been in thrall to Milton Friedman since Nixon, and where is the US today as a result.  A high rate of unemployment, huge corporate profits, struggling middle class, increased poverty, health care spending out of control, and the government running a huge deficit.  And yet the Republicans are convinced that if they continue on the path of cutting social spending and taxes, the economy will be fine.  It's worked in a number of countries to be sure, but at what cost?  Why the middle class of course.  Brazil, Argentina, Chile:  The rich got richer, and poor got poorer, and the middle class ceased to exist.

Now that people are smartening up to the real costs of Friedman's vision, and they're rejecting it, the right has gone into a frothing frenzy as the Democrats put a halt to the re-distribution of wealth via tax codes that the Republicans put into place under Bush II.  This is why Obama is a communist in their eyes.  Friedman is an extremist, and he was wrong.  His policies may be great for corporations, but they aren't good for the people of the country.  So there are the distractions of vilifying the poor, calling leaders who favour a socially democratic approach to economic issues "communists and Marxists", none of which is true.  

I used to envy the generosity of spirt of my American friends.  Now, too often, I see people suggesting that the poor deserve whatever happens to them, we have to save ourselves.  This attitude, will see the US continue to lose ground, economically and socially, and deservedly so.  It is not our wealth and our achievements that determine whether others respect us, but rather how we treat the least amongst us.


----------



## HomeInspect (Feb 19, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> Wow Reductio ad absurdum, I didnt expect that at all in this topic. Oh wait..
> 
> There is over a trillion dollars in student debt. Instead of buying homes, investing in businesses, planning for their retirements; this generation is stuck paying off their indentured servitude. And you have the gall to say they're not working hard; why exactly do you hate Americans?
> 
> ...



Who said minimun wage people don't work hard? The hardest I ever worked (physically) was my first minimum wage job at 16 years old.  Did that job deserve a salary that should support me, or put me through college?  No.  Those that "hate Americans" would be those that want to over price labor, and take down the companies that provide jobs. Continuing to increase minimum wages will do that.
Going to college isnt a right. Neither is owning a home. Neither is being provided health care.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 19, 2013)

How can you get an education making $7 - $8 an hour when tuition to even a state university can run to $15K per year?

Not everyone is university material.  There should be jobs which pay a living wage for a family which do not require university education.  Those used to be skilled trades, and manufacturing jobs.  In economics, I learned that manufacturing and real estate are the keys to wealth.  It's certainly working in China.

Canada's minimum wage is $10.25 cents per hour and companies like Wal-Mart have no problem meeting that cost and making a profit.


----------



## ConHog (Feb 19, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> Wow Reductio ad absurdum, I didnt expect that at all in this topic. Oh wait..
> 
> There is over a trillion dollars in student debt. Instead of buying homes, investing in businesses, planning for their retirements; this generation is stuck paying off their indentured servitude. And you have the gall to say they're not working hard; why exactly do you hate Americans?
> 
> ...



Um what? LOL there are literally HUNDREDS of public colleges, or are you suggesting that the Harvards of the world should be forced to go public? Myself, I think both have their place

And quite logically if the demand for colleges went down the price would drop. If College A has 200 students who would like to take Course B they can demand a higher price than they could if only 50 students were interested.

This is such a fact that there is a law that covers it, the law of supply and demand.


----------



## Wiseacre (Feb 19, 2013)

"  You are unfamiliar with the sense of entitlement that the moneyed carry, if they arnt collecting a certain margin of profit to justify their risk, they simply shut down, meeting customers needs doesnt factor into it.  "

Actually, this is true.   You say it like it's a bad thing, if a business isn't producing enough profit to make it worthwhile then he/she is going to take steps to make the enterprise worth the time, effort, and risk  to keep it going if they can.   That's how you weed out the bad ideas and poor managers, the the diligent ones from the get rich quick crowd.   Free enterprise baby, there are winners and losers everyday.   That's the way it's supposed to work, why do you think so many businesspeople bust ass for years on end puting all their time and energy into their business?   Most of 'em don't quit when things get tough.      

Seriously, do you really think a businessperson should stay in business if it isn't turning enough profit?   Why?   Question:  which stocks do you have in your 401k?   I'm guessing the ones that make the most money for you.   So why is that okay for you but not them?


----------



## percysunshine (Feb 19, 2013)

Small business, eight employees. My 15 and 3/4 aged son just got a job offer from the owner at minimum wage. He can't wait. He knows he will need the money. Girls..and stuff.

If the government were to force the wage up, the owner could not afford him.

Obama is a moron.  Totally clueless. Even more clueless than the average liberal...and they are supremely clueless.


----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 19, 2013)

"Some would like to claim (pretend) that there is some large class of people trying to support a family on minimum wage, but that just isn't reality."  (she says)

You might want to check the last census for the rural South and Mid-West as many counties have high numbers of adults making minimum wage...That is why the child poverty rates are so high....


----------



## percysunshine (Feb 19, 2013)

Nika2013 said:


> "Some would like to claim (pretend) that there is some large class of people trying to support a family on minimum wage, but that just isn't reality."  (she says)
> 
> You might want to check the last census for the rural South and Mid-West as many counties have high numbers of adults making minimum wage...That is why the child poverty rates are so high....



Child poverty rates are due to minimum wages.

I think we should pass a law that everyone will make 1 million dollars a year.

Problem fixed. No more child poverty.

That was easy.


----------



## ConHog (Feb 19, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> Small business, eight employees. My 15 and 3/4 aged son just got a job offer from the owner at minimum wage. He can't wait. He knows he will need the money. Girls..and stuff.
> 
> If the government were to force the wage up, the owner could not afford him.
> 
> Obama is a moron.  Totally clueless. Even more clueless than the average liberal...and they are supremely clueless.



Its already been proven that the bulk of mw earners are over the age of 25 .

No adul should be earning less than $10/hr. If there isnt value there for the employer, fire them. Simple as that


----------



## HomeInspect (Feb 20, 2013)

First show me where I said people did not work hard at minimum wage jobs..  My parents were far from perfection, they just had a good work ethic and sense of responsibilty, and tha'ts something I got at my first minimum wage job. Increasing the minimum wage will take small businesses down.  I was glad to have a minimum wage job, until I leaned a trade and then got an education. A higher education is not a right, no mare than owning a house or being provivded health care.  The mindless "gimmie" mentality strikes again.


----------



## HomeInspect (Feb 20, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> Nika2013 said:
> 
> 
> > "Some would like to claim (pretend) that there is some large class of people trying to support a family on minimum wage, but that just isn't reality."  (she says)
> ...



Pay them two million ! Think of the tax revenue to support Obama's spending !   LOL                  Like most of America's problems.. it's lack of personal responsibility. Soemthing the left can't comprehen.. Child poverty is a direct result of having kids you can't afford.  Or should that be a right too.. like health care, owning a house, and getting a college degree ??


----------



## editec (Feb 20, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Minimum Wage and What It Buys You: 1950s to Now
> 
> Interesting to see what minimum wage bought/buys now.



I SUSPECT if the same analysis was done for ther MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME we'd find much the same trend.

What  we'd discover is that the cost of necessities is rising faster than the median incomes of the everybody except about the top 20% or so of incomes.

Naturally the bottom 1/5 is getting hitting harder by inflation and taxes (local mostly) than the rest of us, but the vast majority of Americans are making less (in comparison to costs) and are growing poorer.


----------



## kwc57 (Feb 20, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > TyrealJenkins said:
> ...



You either select lower cost community colleges and live at home over state universities or you use something like this.

Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education | Students | Oklahoma's Promise | How It Works

Taxpayers like me who get no break and have to foot the $17K per year bill for my son's college education have to pay for those who can't.  Pretty easy to qualify for a free ride.  Parents have to make less than $50K per year when the kid is in 8th grade, apply, take a few required classes and maintain a 2.5 GPA.  That's it.  You do that and the state pays for your education at a community college or the same state university where I'm paying $17K per year for my son.  

Safety nets and assitance abounds for those who will put the slightest amount of effort into finding them.

And no, not everyone is university material.  Unless you are mentally challenged or just an idiot, you shouldn't be making minimum wage for very long.  This was true when I worked for a minimum wage of $1.60 back in the early 70's and when my son did in the last couple of years.  For a kid who sticks around and proves he is a good employee, he usually gets a bump in fairly short order.  More importantly, he builds a trust with his employer and can ask to use them as a reference when they seek a better job after getting some experience under their belt.  For those who don't want to go to a university, there are the technology centers which we used to call vo-tech.  They can go there and learn a trade which will pay well above minimum wage.

The bottom line is, if you are an adult, married, have kids and you are trying to live off of minimum wage, you made some really, really BAD decisions in life.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 20, 2013)

This whole "personal responsibility" mantra has gotten out of hand.  Poor people have no protections against the downturns in a capitalist economy, nor do they have control of the economic forces that cause these downturns.  And free market capitalism increases the volatility in the market so that these financial boom and bust cycles are more frequent.

Friedman's theories have increased poverty, depressed wages and destroyed the middle class in every country where the US and the IMF have imposed market capitalism reforms.  The US is no exception.  Every country where the free market reigns, has high unemployment, high levels of poverty and no social programs.  

Continue on your current path of "personal responsibility", cutting taxes and social programs, and the US will soon cease to be a first world country.  You're well on you way now.


----------



## Deepbluediver (Feb 20, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Continue on your current path of "personal responsibility", cutting taxes and social programs, and the US will soon cease to be a first world country.  You're well on you way now.



The more purely capitalistic a soceity, the more volatile the economy tends to be.  The earliest years of the existence of the United States are good evidence of this, as the contry cycled through several exceedingly rapid shifts both up and down.  This mellowed out somewhat over the following decades, as government controls where put into place and the lows got less painful but the highs got less rewarding.

I would have less of a problem with an expanded government if it was actually paying for everything they claim to want to provide.  The most recent thing I read says that the federal government is borrowing 24 cents out of every dollar it spends.  If taxes and all that government support are so good for the economy, then why doesn't the government actually raise taxes that high?  Because doing so would crush the economy faster than anything else.
Can you imagine the outcry there would be if some politician said he wanted to raise all taxes by a third?

All the people claiming that the government is doing good by borrowing money, but they seem to forget that this money will need to be paid back, and when it does, it will be revenue that is taken out of the economy and yet we get nothing for it.

I support a REASONABLE amount of spending to have things like social programs and safety nets.  So we don't have people starving in the street.  When our countries biggest health problem is obesity I think we're officially rich enough to support that.  What I don't like when certain groups claim that all the government borrowing, taxation, and spending is the road back to prosperity.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 20, 2013)

Deepbluediver said:


> I support a REASONABLE amount of spending to have things like social programs and safety nets.  So we don't have people starving in the street.  When our countries biggest health problem is obesity I think we're official rich enough to support that.  What I don't like when certain groups claim that all the government borrowing, taxation, and spending is the road back to prosperity.



Obesity is a result of poor nutrition and a lack of exercise, not too much food.  Fattening food is cheap and it's filling.  Poor parents feed it to their kids to keep them from being hungry, but it doesn't mean they are well nourished.

I don't claim that government borrowing is the road back to properity, but during economic down times, it is necessary for a government to run a deficit.  THIS particular deficit is being fuelled by the high costs of wars, Bush's unfunded expansion of Medicaid, and the effect of the Bush Tax Cuts.

Obama slowed the growth of the deficit, but it's like trying to stop a runaway freight train without having it jump the rails.  He's already been criticized for lack of job creation, but when the government or reduced spending, jobs are lost there too and the government has shrunk during this administration, to the point where jobs lost in government have almost offset the jobs gained in the private sector.

The wars are ending, the troops are coming home, and that spending is winding down and should provide an overall reduction in military spending this year.  But the US could afford to cut it's military spending by half and still spend more than any other country in the world.

No one ever talks about the high cost of this huge standing army.  It's what eventually did in the Romans financially, and it's a huge drain on the US economy.  Of course the US economy is thoroughly immeshed in big military spending so that even cutting there would lead to huge job losses.


----------



## kwc57 (Feb 20, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Deepbluediver said:
> 
> 
> > I support a REASONABLE amount of spending to have things like social programs and safety nets.  So we don't have people starving in the street.  When our countries biggest health problem is obesity I think we're official rich enough to support that.  What I don't like when certain groups claim that all the government borrowing, taxation, and spending is the road back to prosperity.
> ...



Whoa, whoa, whoa, whooooooa.......those became the Obama tax cuts.

BTW, national security is one of the government's constitutional mandates.  Entitlement spending is not.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 20, 2013)

alan1 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > $7.25 an hour is something a teenager in school should be earning, not an adult!
> ...



Here in California most minimum wage workers are illegal aliens.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 20, 2013)

What do you think caused the price of living to become so expensive? O'yesss, fucking with supply and demand.

Our system favors big businesses that don't have to worry about competitention. The market place is good for the super rich but torture small businesses.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 20, 2013)

Matthew said:


> What do you think caused the price of living to become so expensive? O'yesss, fucking with supply and demand.
> 
> Our system favors big businesses that don't have to worry about competitention



Be aware that the study is a fraud.

By using gas and rent as the guide, a false picture is painted. But even with these cherry picked items, with gas it's 22 minutes in 1950 verses 23 minutes in 2010. (Verses 3 1/2 hours today, Obama Akbar.)

How about we look at how many minutes to buy a 19" color TV? Or a CAR, or a broom, a couch, or thousands of other items that are a tiny fraction of the work required in 1950?


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 20, 2013)

I live in a country with a mixed economy, a social democracy.  The US experiment with free market capitalism has lead to wealth being transferred to the corporations and the elite, sustained high levels of unemployment, a struggling middle class, and reduced wages the working poor, just like it has in every other country where Friedman's brand of pure capitalism has been attempted.

People on this board decry the number of people on the food stamp program, but then say that a higher minimum wage is impossible.  To this I say - BULLSHIT!

American big box retailers pay Canadian minimum wages with no difficulty.  Walmart employees in Canada make $10.25 and hour and aren't dependent on food stamps to feed their families.  Canadian Walmart stores are very profitable.  No one plays games with the employees' house to keep them dependent on government assistance.  Canadian Walmart employees don't receive any more government benefits than the employees of any other company.

The myth that businesses will go under if forced to pay higher minimum wages, is just that, a myth.


----------



## Deepbluediver (Feb 20, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Obesity is a result of poor nutrition and a lack of exercise, not too much food.  Fattening food is cheap and it's filling.  Poor parents feed it to their kids to keep them from being hungry, but it doesn't mean they are well nourished.



So what's the solution?  I'm not being sarcastic or flippant, I'm actually asking because this is a problem I've thought about msyelf.  Do we just ban all unhealthy foods?  Put a tax on anything below a certain nutrition level?  Hand out military-style MRE's instead of EBT cards?



> I don't claim that government borrowing is the road back to properity, but during economic down times, it is necessary for a government to run a deficit.



Why shouldn't the government have a savings account?  It's good for individuals and private enterprises, why not for governments?

Oh right, because that would require some politician to actually think more than the next election-cycle ahead, and not either spend all the money or give it away.



> THIS particular deficit is being fuelled by the high costs of wars, Bush's unfunded expansion of Medicaid, and the effect of the Bush Tax Cuts.
> 
> Obama slowed the growth of the deficit, but it's like trying to stop a runaway freight train without having it jump the rails.



I was trying to keep this from being a political thing, but what effects of the Bush Tax Cuts are you referring too?  Federal tax revenues rose between 2003 and 2007.  The thing about taxes is, their short and long-term effects are opposites.  When you cut them, revenue drops immediately, but eventually the economy grows faster overall, causing revenues to increase.  When you increase taxes, revenues jump, but then falter as people seek more loopholes, invest money elsewhere, and economic growth slows.

Also, according to this site (I prefer to post links rather than clog up the thread with huge graphics) federal spending was, is, and will be on the rise for quite some time.

Federal Spending per Household Is Skyrocketing

It's funny, growth is pretty flat during the Clinton/Republican-House years, jump when Bush is elected, fall when he loses the House in 2006, then jumps AGAIN when Obama is elected, and falls after the 2010 elections get the Republicans back in charge of the House.

It's almost like when either party is in complete control they go on a spending binge.
Hmm....



> He's already been criticized for lack of job creation, but when the government or reduced spending, jobs are lost there too and the government has shrunk during this administration, to the point where jobs lost in government have almost offset the jobs gained in the private sector.



The federal government (or any government, really) doesn't actually create productive jobs that add to the economy; it creates positions for employees that are paid with taxes on the rest of the economy.  Short-term pain, long-term gain, and vice versa.

Also, here's a link I found:
The Fact File - Size of the Federal Workforce: Growth and Stagnation

The number of federal employees looks pretty steady to me.  I believe there are have been more cuts in government employees at the state-level, since individual states have less borrowing power than the federal government.



> The wars are ending, the troops are coming home, and that spending is winding down and should provide an overall reduction in military spending this year.  But the US could afford to cut it's military spending by half and still spend more than any other country in the world.
> 
> No one ever talks about the high cost of this huge standing army.  It's what eventually did in the Romans financially, and it's a huge drain on the US economy.



When an army is just standing around it's not a problem, it's the shooting wars that get expensive.  Also, maintaining an army might have hurt Rome, financially, but it was invaders who finally burnt the city to the ground.  So I support trimming any waste we can find in military spending, but pretty much everything else about our society depends on having safety first.


----------



## HomeInspect (Feb 20, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> HomeInspect said:
> 
> 
> > Pay them two million ! Think of the tax revenue to support Obama's spending !   LOL                  Like most of America's problems.. it's lack of personal responsibility. Soemthing the left can't comprehen.. Child poverty is a direct result of having kids you can't afford.  Or should that be a right too.. like health care, owning a house, and getting a college degree ??
> ...



Continue on your path of government dependency, and you run out of other people's money. It's all about personal responsiblity. Anyone can be down and need assistance, but how many people have kids they can't afford and expect the tax payers to pay for them? We have become way too dependent on government. Government should be for necessary infrastructure, not a place to go to solve all your problems.


----------



## HomeInspect (Feb 20, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > CDZ VIOLATION
> ...



It is the US's free market capitalism that made it the leading world power and a rich country. You may not like what you hear, but Milton Friedman was exactly right.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 20, 2013)

HomeInspect said:


> It is the US's free market capitalism that made it the leading world power and a rich country. You may not like what you hear, but Milton Friedman was exactly right.



The biggest issue this nation faces is that an overwhelming majority are economically illiterate.

Abject ignorance is the foundation that the left in this nation rests upon. If voting required one to pass an introductory economics test, no democrat would ever again be elected.


----------



## AmyNation (Feb 20, 2013)

Guys, this is a CDZ thread. There are NO put downs, NO name calling, NO flaming allowed.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 20, 2013)

HomeInspect said:


> Continue on your path of government dependency, and you run out of other people's money. It's all about personal responsiblity. Anyone can be down and need assistance, but how many people have kids they can't afford and expect the tax payers to pay for them? We have become way too dependent on government. Government should be for necessary infrastructure, not a place to go to solve all your problems.



We are "not on a path to government dependency".  Our social programs are funded, Canadian finances are amoung the soundest in the world.  We had not bank bailouts because our banks didn't crash.  There has been no real estate bubble here.

Our health care expenditures, per capita, are about half of what yours are.  Our school system is ranked higher than yours, and our quality of living index is higher.  Our corporate taxes are lower than the US, and our infrastructure is in good shape.

Canadians believe that their taxes buy our citizens better opportunities and a better quality of life, and by ever measure, that's true.  Look at the quality of life rankings, and all of the countries at the top share similar characteristics:  All are social democracies, with strong well-funded education programs, government funded health care, and a vibrant middle class.

Before Reagan and the Presidents in thrall to Freidman capitalism, this also described the US, but since the US began moving to Friedman capitalism, the markets have become more volatile, you have high, sustained levels of unemployment, and the middle class is struggling.  Now take a look at Chile, Brazil, and Argentina.  There is your future.


----------



## HomeInspect (Feb 20, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> HomeInspect said:
> 
> 
> > Continue on your path of government dependency, and you run out of other people's money. It's all about personal responsiblity. Anyone can be down and need assistance, but how many people have kids they can't afford and expect the tax payers to pay for them? We have become way too dependent on government. Government should be for necessary infrastructure, not a place to go to solve all your problems.
> ...



Nah,  take a look at Greece.. that's where we are headed with our current government. The programs being "funded" have nothing to do with it.  Who do you think is doing the funding? You probably think Obamacare is free too.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 20, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> We are "not on a path to government dependency".  Our social programs are funded, Canadian finances are amoung the soundest in the world.  We had not bank bailouts because our banks didn't crash.  There has been no real estate bubble here.



Canada is irrelevant to the economic melt down in the United States. Canada enjoys a revenue stream from oil that artificially floats the economy. When the oil runs dry, Canada will crash and burn. Until that time, let them live it up.



> Before Reagan and the Presidents in thrall to Freidman capitalism, this also described the US, but since the US began moving to Friedman capitalism, the markets have become more volatile, you have high, sustained levels of unemployment, and the middle class is struggling.  Now take a look at Chile, Brazil, and Argentina.  There is your future.



You have zero grasp of economics. You toss about names with no grasp of the concepts associated with them. First off, there is not such thing as "Friedman Capitalism." Milton Freidman was of the Chicago economic school, a quasi-classical school of thought. Secondly, Reagan depended on Arthur Laffer, who promoted the quasi-Austrian "Supply Side" policies that led to 30 years of peace time expansion.

Further, you have no clue about the world around you. Chile is remarkably stable and prosperous, economically. (Thanks to Pinochet, love him or hate him.) and Argentina is full on Fascist, though appearing to enjoy economic growth.  President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has retreated to the long Argentine kleptocracy tradition of the Peron dynasty and openly embraced Fascism, yet again.


----------



## HomeInspect (Feb 20, 2013)

Capitalism vs Socialism.. who knew that 50 years ago, a cartoonist could depict a snake oil salesman 50 years later?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNdoqyuKB44]"Make Mine Freedom" Classic Cartoon of Socialism VS Capitalism - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 20, 2013)

HomeInspect said:


> It is the US's free market capitalism that made it the leading world power and a rich country. You may not like what you hear, but Milton Friedman was exactly right.



Not it isn't.  It's the exploitation of free market economies by American multi-national corporations that has made the US super-rich.  The US isn't super-rich.  Some of your people are super-rich, but average Americans are not better off than the average wage earner in Canada, the Scandanavian countries, and most of Europe.  In fact, quite the contrary.  We all have our health care guaranteed, and at a reasonable cost.  The same for the education of our young.  

And, in an economic downturn such as this one, the chances of your situation improving, are slim and none.  The US is turning against Friedman and his toxic vision.  The soul of America has voted and the working and middle class aren't buying this snake oil any longer.

Friedman vilified unions and social programs, government regulation, but those countries with all three are the ones who came through the crashing of the world's economy by the US freemarket practices, in good shape. 

All of the strong, mixed economies came through the US based recession, much better than any of the free market countries.


----------



## Deepbluediver (Feb 20, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> We are "not on a path to government dependency". Our social programs are funded, Canadian finances are amoung the soundest in the world. We had not bank bailouts because our banks didn't crash. There has been no real estate bubble here.



Great!  Oh, and btw, the U.S. GPD-growth rate isn't so hot right now, but yours hasn't topped 1.5% in over a decade.



> Our corporate taxes are lower than the US...



I'm all FOR lower taxes!  IMO, the corporate tax rate should be 0%.



> Our health care expenditures, per capita, are about half of what yours are.  Our school system is ranked higher than yours, and our quality of living index is higher.



Canadian healthcare may offer better results to more people on the lower end of the spectrum, but as far as I know, more Canadians still come to the U.S. when they can't get the care at home than vice versa.  Despite us having 10 times the population you do.
Something to do with a shortage of trained medical professionals, right?  I wonder where they all went?

And spending or government involement isn't the problem in our education system.  Recently here in NYC, there's been success at both cutting costs and improving results by funding charter schools (privately run).
Government-run public education is less than stellar, whereas private schools seem to educate people just fine.  Capitalism



> Before Reagan and the Presidents in thrall to Freidman capitalism, this also described the US, but since the US began moving to Friedman capitalism, the markets have become more volatile, you have high, sustained levels of unemployment, and the middle class is struggling.  Now take a look at Chile, Brazil, and Argentina.  There is your future.



I was actually on board with some of what you where saying until I read this.   ^

And then went looking and found this.   v







What was that about sustained unemployment now?


----------



## HomeInspect (Feb 20, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> HomeInspect said:
> 
> 
> > It is the US's free market capitalism that made it the leading world power and a rich country. You may not like what you hear, but Milton Friedman was exactly right.
> ...



Yet the world still comes to the US when they need the best health care and need it quickly.  The snakeoil is what the people voted for recently, as nearly half the people have their hand out in one way or another. There will never likely be a fiscal conservative in office again in my life time, as voters will now go to the polls with the gimmies and hope to elect the givers.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 20, 2013)

HomeInspect said:


> Yet the world still comes to the US when they need the best health care and need it quickly.  The snakeoil is what the people voted for recently, as nearly half the people have their hand out in one way or another. There will never likely be a fiscal conservative in office again in my life time, as voters will now go to the polls with the gimmies and hope to elect the givers.



Another myth of US health care.  Third world countries - yes.  First world countries, people tend to stay at home, unless they're in the market for some experimental treatment which is not available outside the US.  

What you haven't discussed are the number of Americans taking "medical vacations" for cheaper treatment outside the US.

There hasn't been a fiscal conservative in office yet.  All of the Republican administrations have gone hog wild with deficit spending, lying to you that unfettered capitalism would make it all go away.

Every time a free market government has been overthrown, they've been deeply in debt because multinationals and corrupt governments have sucked the wealth out of the country, and the people are left with debt and poverty.  The US is headed down that same track, unless you start regulating the multi-nationals and punishing companies for off-shore manufacturing.


----------



## HomeInspect (Feb 20, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> HomeInspect said:
> 
> 
> > Yet the world still comes to the US when they need the best health care and need it quickly.  The snakeoil is what the people voted for recently, as nearly half the people have their hand out in one way or another. There will never likely be a fiscal conservative in office again in my life time, as voters will now go to the polls with the gimmies and hope to elect the givers.
> ...



Ah but you are wrong.  I live near Johns Hopkins, one of the best in the world. People are here from Canada, England, Europe, and billionaire shieks from Saudi Arabia.  The US is headed down a road of drowning debt. The death from drowning will happen long before a free market takes its wealth. You are right about one thing.. we haven't had a true fiscal conservative.


----------



## HomeInspect (Feb 20, 2013)

I'll take my chances with US health (pre Obama screwing it up) before a country like.. say  England


Cancer Survival Rates



USA

vs.

England



90.5%

Breast Cancer

78.5%



69.9%

Bowel Cancer

51.6%



66.3%

Prostate Cancer

44.8%



62.9%

All Cancers (Female)

52.7%



66.3%

All Cancers (Male)

44.8%



71.18%

OVERALL AVERAGE

54.48%


----------



## dblack (Feb 20, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> This whole "personal responsibility" mantra has gotten out of hand.


I couldn't agree more. DOWN WITH PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY! !!


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 20, 2013)

kwc57 said:


> I worked for a minimum wage of $1.60 back in the early 70's


That must have been terrible, why $1.60 in 1970's dollars only has the buying power of $9.50 today.
Inflation Calculator: Bureau of Labor Statistics



Deepbluediver said:


> So what's the solution? I'm not being sarcastic or flippant, I'm actually asking because this is a problem I've thought about msyelf. Do we just ban all unhealthy foods? Put a tax on anything below a certain nutrition level? Hand out military-style MRE's instead of EBT cards?



mre's are an incredibly rich foodstuff, its become a problem that people come back from war fat.

no, the first step is to stop subsidizing the unhealthy food, the sugar and corn industrys are notorious for having lucrative govt handouts/favors
High-fructose corn syrup - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Agricultural subsidy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




> We have become way too dependent on government.


 the failure of the free market to regulate itself is the cause of that dependency. republicans grand scheme was to get out of the way of the market, to let them spread their wings and fly, unhindered by "needless" oversight. problem is that the market acted like a toddler alone in a room with a cookie jar.




> People are here from Canada, England, Europe, and billionaire shieks from Saudi Arabia.


 Do you have access to this facility, or does the invisible hand of the market have you going downtown when you break your leg?


----------



## HomeInspect (Feb 21, 2013)

Quote:
People are here from Canada, England, Europe, and billionaire shieks from Saudi Arabia.
Do you have access to this facility, or does the invisible hand of the market have you going downtown when you break your leg? 

No, I work in the buildings these people live in everyday, while they are here getting the best medical services in the world. I interact with them eveyday.  next question...


----------



## HomeInspect (Feb 21, 2013)

We have become way too dependent on government.
the failure of the free market to regulate itself is the cause of that dependency. republicans grand scheme was to get out of the way of the market, to let them spread their wings and fly, unhindered by "needless" oversight. problem is that the market acted like a toddler alone in a room with a cookie jar.

 In a way, your anaolgy is correct about the cookie jar. The government has been the cookie jar, and when a toddler finds out the cookies are there and free, he will be forever expecting them.


----------



## zeke (Feb 21, 2013)

Just what is wrong with a declining standard of living for Americans? 

But I got to ask, home inspect. What is it that I have become dependent on government for?

I have multiple homes, tens of thousands of dollars, a job and my wife has a good job. We pay our taxes on time utilizing the same deductions you do.

So tell me, what is it that I get from the US governmet that you don't.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 21, 2013)

no, we are not in a recession because we feed the hungry and have emergency rooms, the housing market was left to regulate itself and so it committed 22 trillion dollars worth of fraud.



Deepbluediver said:


> If taxes and all that government support are so good for the economy, then why doesn't the government actually raise taxes that high?  Because doing so would crush the economy faster than anything else.



tax rate was 94% coming out of ww2, myth busted







> Nah, take a look at Greece.. that's where we are headed with our current government.


 Yeah, look at greece, thats what austerity gets you. the republicans debt ceiling crisis's, sequesters and "smaller govt" produces has yielded the same results. Who thinks firing people in a recession is a good thing? republicans.


----------



## ConHog (Feb 21, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> no, we are not in a recession because we feed the hungry and have emergency rooms, the housing market was left to regulate itself and so it committed 22 trillion dollars worth of fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I think firing people if you are not realizing a return on your investment is ALWAYS a good decision.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 21, 2013)

Spoiled rotten.


----------



## kwc57 (Feb 21, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > I worked for a minimum wage of $1.60 back in the early 70's
> ...



That's all you got out of my post?  Really?   BTW, I worked less than 20 hours a week.  It was to pay for the used car my twin brother and I bought together and buy gas.  Minimum wage jobs are starter jobs or extra income jobs.  They are not jobs that you can support yourself with.  Never have been, never will be.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 21, 2013)

You worked for the equivalent of $9.50 an hour, whats wrong with obama's $9 an hour minimum wage?


----------



## ConHog (Feb 21, 2013)

kwc57 said:


> ReallyMeow said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



Once again you ignore the real issue. How many people are hired at minimum wage and 5 years later are at the same job making maybe 50 cents more an hour than when hired? Or a dollar even. 

Here's a newsflash, some companies aren't exactly reasonable with their pay.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 21, 2013)

companies dont pay their employees? now thats a laugh, oh you are too much 

why should employees start out in poverty at all?


----------



## Underhill (Feb 21, 2013)

Even excepting the premiss that raising the minimum wage will cause some people to lose their jobs, here is a question.

Which is better?   

A job that actually pays enough that people are incentivised to go get that job or a job that pays so little that you are better off on social services? 

A job where the pay rate is high enough that you can survive or a job where the rate is low enough that you still end up going to the government for help to feed your family?

I think the higher rate would get more people off their asses.  It would mean less people on assistance in the long run.    And in the short term it might, maybe, mean a slight dip in hiring among the lowest paying employers in the country. 

I can live with that.


----------



## kwc57 (Feb 21, 2013)

ConHog said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > ReallyMeow said:
> ...



If a person takes a minimum wage job and they're still working at it 5 years later for 50 cents more an hour, they would be someone who lacks any intelligence or ambition.  As a Boy Scout leader, I deal with a lot of teenagers.  When they get a job making minimum wage, they typically get a raise from anywhere between their first 3 months and first year.  Most of them eventually take their work experience and find a better job paying more.  It's how real life works.  These kids are in school and living at home.  They have minimum wage jobs because they have no work experience and they need pocket money.  If you are a married person with children, a mortgage, car payments, etc. and all you can find is a minimum wage job, then you need to start expanding your range and be willing to uproot and move to where there is a good job.  I don't blame an employer who has a minimum wage job for continuing to pay minimum wage.  I blame the worker who thinks a minimum wage job is supposed to morph into a living wage job.  That can happen if the employer has additional higher paying jobs and you do a good enough job to be moved into them as you gain more knowledge and experience.  But if you work for a nursery digging holes to plant trees.....you may be the best hole digger in the world, but your pay is going to remain pretty much the same.


----------



## ConHog (Feb 21, 2013)

kwc57 said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...




Certainly that makes more sense than accepting the fact that some people are just not capable of more, and oh yeah SOMEONE has to do those jobs anyway, may as well ensure that those who are don't have to go on welfare to help make ends meet.


----------



## kwc57 (Feb 21, 2013)

ConHog said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...



Here is what makes sense.  Just about anyone who isn't physically or mentally handicapped can bag groceries, dig holes or take movie tickets.  Doing brain surgery requires a bit more effort and ability.  Different jobs have different worths and different pay.  A guy who owns a gorcery store knows that he will have a constant influx of new employees made up of teenagers getting their first job or housewives bringing in a little extra income.  That is who he hires and he knows that he won't be handing any of them a gold watch after 30 years of loyal service.  Minimum wage jobs fill a vital role in our economy, but they are a springboard.  They are the kindergarten of jobs.  It takes a lot to get from there to a PHD.  You take a low paying starter job doing menial labor that any other person on t he face of the earth can do.  If you do a good job, you'll most likely get a bump in pay.  If you're really good and there are better high paying jobs in the company, you can probably move up and make more pay as they come available.  Or you hear from your friend that the warehouse he works at is hiring and they pay $10 an hour and you go apply.  The manager interviews you and looks at the work experience you've built up and decides to hire you.  You graduate high school and because you and/or your family don't have a lot of money, you choose the vo-tech or community college.  You study plumbing, HVAC, etc. or you take EMT training or get an associates in accounting.  You find a job making more than your $10 per hour warehouse job you did as a kid.  Then you lather, rinse and repeat.

Now tell me how it's the grocery store owner's fault that you don't take some personal initiative to better yourself over time.


----------



## ConHog (Feb 21, 2013)

kwc57 said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...




Dude, we are talking about people who are incapable of bettering themselves. Do you deny that those folks exist? Of course they do, and of course anyone who i making anywhere within a dollar of MW within say 2 years of being hired is probably one of them, but being incapable of bettering oneself is NOT a reason to deny people human dignity.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 21, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > I worked for a minimum wage of $1.60 back in the early 70's
> ...



False.

$1.60 in 1975 (dead center of the 70's) calculates to $6.85


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 21, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> companies dont pay their employees? now thats a laugh, oh you are too much
> 
> why should employees start out in poverty at all?



If all new hires should be made CEO, how does that work? What if two people are hired in the same day?


----------



## HomeInspect (Feb 21, 2013)

zeke said:


> Just what is wrong with a declining standard of living for Americans?
> 
> But I got to ask, home inspect. What is it that I have become dependent on government for?
> 
> ...



Zeke, when I talk about we as a society, I am not talking about you. Do you not see many people using government as a crutch. Look at every major city in this country (all run by Democrats mind you) and the urban plight and poverty. Look at how many people are dependent on government for food, shelter, health care, fuel etc. Look at what we give illegal immigrants and what that costs tax payers each year. (more than the middle east wars my friend) Let a conservative offer a program which cuts a few gimmies in order to make people self sufficient, and they are labeled cold and heartless. If you keep putting out food for the neighborhood cat, after a few weeks, will he ever try to catch a mouse?  NO. (unless the food runs out)


----------



## kwc57 (Feb 21, 2013)

ConHog said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...



Please reread my highlighted comment above for content.  For the people who fit in this category, safety nets already exist.  Forcing every employer in the nation to pay a higher wage because of a small minority of people isn't the solution now is it?  Know why?  Because just like welfare, there are people out there who will take advantage of it.  It's easier to work a starter job for 20 years and make enough to live off of than to apply yourself and better yourself to have more.  Do you deny that those folks exist?


----------



## ConHog (Feb 21, 2013)

kwc57 said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



Not everyone who is not suited for a better job is handicapped man.


----------



## oldfart (Feb 21, 2013)

ReallyMeow said:


> Deepbluediver said:
> 
> 
> > If taxes and all that government support are so good for the economy, then why doesn't the government actually raise taxes that high?  Because doing so would crush the economy faster than anything else.
> ...


The 90%+ income tax rates were a product of war financing.  While the very high rates were only for millionaires (and a million a year of income was quite a bit in 1942!)  the rates were comparatively high for everyone.  The economics were simple:  with consumer goods production cut to the bone to divert resources to war production, some way had to be found to limit consumption and avoid inflationary pressures of large holdings of cash by the public.  The answer was rationing, price controls, selling War bonds to the public, and high taxes.  

After the war marginal income tax rates came down, especially on the working class.  The Kennedy tax cuts made the top rate 50% on personal service earned income, and 70% on everything else.  These rates prevailed during the period of highest economic growth in modern American history.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 21, 2013)

ConHog said:


> Not everyone who is not suited for a better job is handicapped man.



What determines who is suited for a better job? Should there be commissars who decide what jobs people hold? Maybe Obama can appoint people who will decide the position and wage of every person in America? The evil rich can clean toilets and not be paid, while Janitors can be put in charge of IBM and Monsanto!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 21, 2013)

oldfart said:


> The 90%+ income tax rates were a product of war financing.  While the very high rates were only for millionaires (and a million a year of income was quite a bit in 1942!)  the rates were comparatively high for everyone.  The economics were simple:  with consumer goods production cut to the bone to divert resources to war production, some way had to be found to limit consumption and avoid inflationary pressures of large holdings of cash by the public.  The answer was rationing, price controls, selling War bonds to the public, and high taxes.
> 
> After the war marginal income tax rates came down, especially on the working class.  The Kennedy tax cuts made the top rate 50% on personal service earned income, and 70% on everything else.  These rates prevailed during the period of highest economic growth in modern American history.



So, if we can find a way to completely destroy the infrastructure of Europe and Asia, we can jack rates up with an expectation of similar results - assuming federal regulators are laid off first...

Oh, you didn't grasp the reason for the growth?


----------



## ConHog (Feb 21, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > Not everyone who is not suited for a better job is handicapped man.
> ...



What the.............? I honestly don't even know how to respond to that since it essentially has no bearing on my post that you quoted.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 21, 2013)

kwc57 said:


> Forcing every employer in the nation to pay a higher wage because of a small minority of people isn't the solution now is it?  Know why?  Because just like welfare, there are people out there who will take advantage of it.  It's easier to work a starter job for 20 years and make enough to live off of than to apply yourself and better yourself to have more.  Do you deny that those folks exist?



This is NOT forcing every employer in the nation to pay a higher wage, it's asking those who pay the least, some of whom are the most profitable companies in the US, to pay their lowest wage employees a reasonable wage - enough to pay basic necessities for one person.

This would reduce the need for food stamps and other low income aid programs, thereby reducing government expenditures and making companies responsible for paying a decent basic wage to their workers.

Walmart has no problem paying it's workers $10.25 in Canada, and the Canadian subsidiary was still a highly profitable company.


----------



## dblack (Feb 21, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > Forcing every employer in the nation to pay a higher wage because of a small minority of people isn't the solution now is it?  Know why?  Because just like welfare, there are people out there who will take advantage of it.  It's easier to work a starter job for 20 years and make enough to live off of than to apply yourself and better yourself to have more.  Do you deny that those folks exist?
> ...



But the 'mom and pops' competing with Walmart might have more of a problem. Raising overhead always favors the bigger companies.


----------



## kwc57 (Feb 21, 2013)

ConHog said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...



Yes, yes they are.  Setting a lack of ambition aside, if they lack the intelligence to move beyond a simple minimum wage job, then they have a mental or emotional handicap.


----------



## ConHog (Feb 21, 2013)

kwc57 said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



Many people have NO ambition and are a okay with that. That being said do you really want every person who is not capable of getting a better job to qualify for SSI? I don't , I'd rather they got paid a decent wage by their employer.

I just don't see how yall can't see that letting employers make huge bank while paying their employees so little that they qualify for welfare is in fact CORPORATE welfare. You people aren't conservatives at all.


----------



## editec (Feb 21, 2013)

The myth that a rise in minimum wage is going to cause a rise in unemployment is common sensically supported by everything EXCEPT the data.

Doubt me?

Check the data.

There is NEVER a dramatic decline in employment following an increase in minimum wages.

NEVER!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 21, 2013)

ConHog said:


> What the.............? I honestly don't even know how to respond to that since it essentially has no bearing on my post that you quoted.



Shouldn't the government determine the position held be people, and the wage paid?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 21, 2013)

dblack said:


> But the 'mom and pops' competing with Walmart might have more of a problem. Raising overhead always favors the bigger companies.



Considering that "Mom and Pops" virtually always pay minimum wage, and Walmart never does. (Per policy.)

One of the great lies of the left is that people are paid better by family owned enterprises than by large corporations. The opposite is the truth.

In California, where the Minimum wage is $8.25 - Walmart has $9.00 as the lowest starting wage.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 21, 2013)

kwc57 said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



It's not about fault. 

Plenty of people end up working these jobs for many years.  I don't care if it's inability to get something better or laziness.   The fact is that paying them more means less people on the dole.   

The last statistics I saw for Wal Mart showed that around a third of Wal Mart employees are on some form of assistance.    And as someone pointed out, it's even worse for the mom and pops.   

So either way we are going to pay for these people.   You can either pay them something close to a living wage or expect them to be looking for a handout.   Why should taxpayers be paying for that?   Why not the stores who need their labor?  

The choice is really that simple.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 21, 2013)

kwc57 said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



I am a scout leader too.   And you are partially right.  

But these days I see more and more adults in these roles long term.    When I was a teenager, roughly 25 years ago, the staff at the average local burger joint was 80% young people with a couple shift managers and a store manager.    Now when I go there the split is more like 50/50.   And it's even worse in slightly less menial jobs.  

My daughter is 18 and looking for a job while she goes to school.   It used to be I could walk into a couple burger joints and end up with a job a week later.    Now the pickings are much much slimmer.

And it isn't just the recession.   This change has been going on for decades.   It's the changing face of America.   When you have few manufacturing jobs as the backbone of the society, people are forced to take what they can get.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Feb 21, 2013)

You get dignity and self worth when you do a job and do it to the best of your abilities. You don't get self worth or dignity from a hand-out or a mandated minimum pay scale.


----------



## dblack (Feb 21, 2013)

This whole thing about mandating minimum wages reminds me of when my 9 year old asked me why the government didn't just "make" more money and pay everyone a million dollars a year. Except that after it was explained to him, he got it.


----------



## ReallyMeow (Feb 21, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> ReallyMeow said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...


la tee dah, he said early, not mid. in 72 that $1.60 still has pretty much the same buying power as obamas $9 an hour proposal ($8.80)

40% of Americans Now Make Less Than 1968 Minimum Wage | The Contributor




kwc57 said:


> It's easier to work a starter job for 20 years and make enough to live off of than to apply yourself and better yourself to have more.  Do you deny that those folks exist?









they still spent their life performing services that YOU need, you will furnish them a salary appropriate so that society doesnt have to clean up after your neglect when they are too old to work.




oldfart said:


> ReallyMeow said:
> 
> 
> > Deepbluediver said:
> ...



Gee, wars, can you recall any in recent memory?...

I dont see any downside to hiking the tax on income over a million to 94%, with similar hikes to corporate and capitals gains tax.




PaulS1950 said:


> You get dignity and self worth when you do a job and do it to the best of your abilities. You don't get self worth or dignity from a hand-out or a mandated minimum pay scale.



then take the pepsi challenge and work a minimum wage job, bask in the "dignity" of being rejected when you apply for an apartment because you dont make enough money, or are rejected healthcare because you didnt buy good enough insurance for lack of money and its not life threatening "yet", dignity of providing for a child without having to go beg for a govt hand out... do I really need to go on? are you so detached from reality that you have forgotten that money has value? or are you so sheltered that you never even knew the value of a dollar?


http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/20/bitter-pill-why-medical-bills-are-killing-us/


----------

