# Who works for minimum wage?



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 5, 2013)

Minimum Wage Workers Largely Live In The South, Are Women (GRAPHIC)







Before someone attacks the source, note where the info came from stated at the bottom of the graphic.

Also note that the graphic is larger (easier to read) at the link.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Sep 5, 2013)

Why would anyone attack the source, you have not used it to make a POINT.

You seem to be a regular at posting something and then not making a point about it.  There is nothing to debate if you do not bring a subject and a contention to the table.  Please clarify what you are getting at, why you used this particular graph and what your goals are for the thread.  That might make debate possible.


----------



## TNHarley (Sep 5, 2013)

I used to make minimum wage. then I got a raise. all I did was put my heart, soul and ambition into it. now I do not worry about anything


----------



## NLT (Sep 5, 2013)

Black women with bad additudes at BK and Mickey D's


----------



## OnePercenter (Sep 5, 2013)

TNHarley said:


> I used to make minimum wage. then I got a raise. all I did was put my heart, soul and ambition into it. now I do not worry about anything



Just think, if minimum wage would have kept up with costs you'd have made a couple hundred more per week for years.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 5, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > I used to make minimum wage. then I got a raise. all I did was put my heart, soul and ambition into it. now I do not worry about anything
> ...



And, we wouldn't have the huge welfare rolls. 

I'll never understand why some people can't see the obvious cause and effect.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 6, 2013)

Hey Broke People: This Statistic Will Piss You Off








> But don't just let this statistic piss you off. It's a reminder that we have to keep fighting for economic fairness for those who deserve it.


----------



## Missourian (Sep 6, 2013)

*Who works for minimum wage?

*My guess is Luddly Neddite.


----------



## AquaAthena (Sep 6, 2013)

TNHarley said:


> I used to make minimum wage. then I got a raise. all I did was put my heart, soul and ambition into it. now I do not worry about anything



When I worked for minimum wage, I needed more money, and found two roommates. It wasn't perfect, but it fit all our needs at the time. Much fun was had, and our apartment was very nice. 

I also found a second part time job. 

There is always a way to get there from here, I have found.


----------



## AmazonTania (Sep 6, 2013)

If I'd really wanted to know who makes the minimum wage, I'd look it up myself. Either way, very few workers in America earn the minimum wage.

Tables 1 - 10; Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2012


----------



## OnePercenter (Sep 6, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> If I'd really wanted to know who makes the minimum wage, I'd look it up myself. Either way, very few workers in America earn the minimum wage.
> 
> Tables 1 - 10; Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2012



So 3.55M Americans is 'very few'? 

Just for kicks, why don't you calculate what boosting those 3.55M Americans wages to $23.50/hr using average spending trends for a projected GDP increase.


----------



## OnePercenter (Sep 6, 2013)

AquaAthena said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > I used to make minimum wage. then I got a raise. all I did was put my heart, soul and ambition into it. now I do not worry about anything
> ...



The fact that you were working and had to find roommates is the problem. The very sad problem.


----------



## AmazonTania (Sep 6, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > If I'd really wanted to know who makes the minimum wage, I'd look it up myself. Either way, very few workers in America earn the minimum wage.
> ...



Considering that it's 1% of the Civilian Noninstitutionalised Population & Working-Aged Population, 2% of the labour force and 4.7% of labour force who earn hourly wages, yes. "Very few' people earn the minimum wage.



> Just for kicks, why don't you calculate what boosting those 3.55M Americans wages to $23.50/hr using average spending trends for a projected GDP increase.



Even if we do assume that it is in the nation's best interest to start paying our minimum wage jobs $23.50/hr, it would generally add $151.8 Billion to the economy. That's a third of the growth the economy experienced when the BEA started computing Entertainment as a part of Investment Spending.

Regardless, the shortfalls in GDP are not in the form of PCE, but GDPI.


----------



## OnePercenter (Sep 6, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > AmazonTania said:
> ...



Since employee costs are 100% subsidized, why not? btw, since minimum wage is the base for all wages, your $151.8B figure may be off.


----------



## AmazonTania (Sep 6, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> Since employee costs are 100% subsidized, why not?



How are employee cost subsidised?



> btw, since minimum wage is the base for all wages, your $151.8B figure may be off.



Exactly. There are no positive aspects to paying your lower skilled workers $23.50/hr. All you'll manage to do is push up wages which were below $23.50 higher, and the wages which were higher than $23.50 will be pushed even further as a result of cost-push inflation, provided you don't create massive unemployment as a result.

You'll increase nominal GDP, but minimum wage employees will be back at square one.


----------



## OnePercenter (Sep 6, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Since employee costs are 100% subsidized, why not?
> ...



Employee costs are 100% deductible. 

There are no positive aspects to paying a better than average wage? 

1. Lower to zero turn-over which costs a ton of cash.

2. Ability to attract better employees.

3. Ability to steal top employees from your competitor.

4. Lower if any customer failures.


----------



## AmazonTania (Sep 6, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> Employee costs are 100% deductible.



Yeah... Not really...



> There are no positive aspects to paying a better than average wage?
> 
> 1. Lower to zero turn-over which costs a ton of cash.
> 
> ...



Yeah, you will find that your workers will be very happy, they will work very hard and productivity will be maximized, but you will also be able to find that your employees will be unable to re-coop their cost and your business will fail.


----------



## Noomi (Sep 6, 2013)

Doesn't surprise me. I had already figured that those who worked in a service role, lie fast food, would be paid the least. The age group didn't surprise me either, however, I would have thought that men and women would be equal, instead of finding that women are more likely to be paid at a low rate.


----------



## OnePercenter (Sep 6, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Employee costs are 100% deductible.
> ...



Didn't occur in the first two that I owned and sold for an ungodly amount, and not currently happening in the two companies I Angel Invest which are coming up to their 4th year and looking at a $6M net.


----------



## AquaAthena (Sep 6, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



I didn't see it as a problem at all. *I saw it as a solution.*


----------



## AmazonTania (Sep 6, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Doesn't surprise me. I had already figured that those who worked in a service role, lie fast food, would be paid the least. The age group didn't surprise me either, however, I would have thought that men and women would be equal, instead of finding that women are more likely to be paid at a low rate.



Women have different expectations about the workplace than men, are more like to pursue different professions and work less hours overall. Women on average value flexibility. As a result, they make less on average.


----------



## OnePercenter (Sep 6, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Doesn't surprise me. I had already figured that those who worked in a service role, lie fast food, would be paid the least. The age group didn't surprise me either, however, I would have thought that men and women would be equal, instead of finding that women are more likely to be paid at a low rate.



You were unaware that women get paid less than men? Welcome from under the rock!


----------



## OnePercenter (Sep 6, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't surprise me. I had already figured that those who worked in a service role, lie fast food, would be paid the least. The age group didn't surprise me either, however, I would have thought that men and women would be equal, instead of finding that women are more likely to be paid at a low rate.
> ...



Your kidding right? Women CEO's that make 20%-30% less than their male counterparts have 'different expectations about the workplace'? You've got to be a man dressing as a woman.


----------



## AquaAthena (Sep 6, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't surprise me. I had already figured that those who worked in a service role, lie fast food, would be paid the least. The age group didn't surprise me either, however, I would have thought that men and women would be equal, instead of finding that women are more likely to be paid at a low rate.
> ...



I have NEVER been paid less than men, in any job capacity. I have usually been the highest earner. One can overcome any challenge, if one takes the right steps to develop their strengths and has the courage to overcome their weaknesses.


----------



## OnePercenter (Sep 6, 2013)

AquaAthena said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > AquaAthena said:
> ...



So your efforts were substandard and you deserved the substandard pay?


----------



## AmazonTania (Sep 6, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



That's a nice personal anecdote, but the world doesn't operate this way. Most businesses today operate on razor thin margins. These low wage employers would barely be able to stay afloat with a $10 - $12 minimum wage, let alone a $23.50 minimum wage. All the jobs which doesn't generate a profit at this level will cease to exist. 

Very easy to see what a 227% increase in the minimum wage would lead to. Or even a 122% increase in the minimum wage for that matter.

Just look at American Samoa...


----------



## OnePercenter (Sep 6, 2013)

AquaAthena said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Congrats! You're one of the small percentage of exceptions.


----------



## AmazonTania (Sep 6, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Only 20% of CEO compensation is salary based. You should already know this, being a 'One Percenter' and all.


----------



## AquaAthena (Sep 6, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



I didn't consider it substandard pay. It motivated me to stay in college and continue learning, so I could earn more money, doing my own thing, which was to become self-employed.
_
"To most of our questions, we are the answer. To most of our problems, WE are the solution. "_

I have always understood that. 

Night-night....and thanks for the civil discourse...


----------



## OnePercenter (Sep 7, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > AmazonTania said:
> ...



So with every American receiving a huge raise that will double and triple their spendable income will turn the US into American Samoa? Like they're even comparable.


----------



## AmazonTania (Sep 7, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Now you're invoking Special Pleading.

Special pleading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wages are a commodity, which means it's not an issue of demographics. Either a substantial increase in the minimum wage is good for the economy, or it isn't. If it's 'theoretically' good for the US, why wasn't it good for American Samoa?


----------



## OnePercenter (Sep 7, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > AmazonTania said:
> ...



Wages are a human commodity. America Samoa doesn't have the domestic product infrastructure like the US.


----------



## Flopper (Sep 7, 2013)

4.7% of the workers are at or below minimum wage.  The majority are under 25.


----------



## AmazonTania (Sep 7, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



I don't see what this has to do with wage increases being good for the economy.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 7, 2013)

NLT said:


> Black women with bad additudes at BK and Mickey D's


What because of this maybe ?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjtnAK0KcOk]McNuggets Rampage Woman Goes Crazy At Drive Thru Assault Caught On Security Cam - YouTube[/ame]

These people need a medal....Wow.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 7, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > AmazonTania said:
> ...


There needs to be an entrance wage set in each company, as based upon each specific business and it's setting of the entrance wage by what it deems correct, but it needs to be a wage worth working for (imho), and then there needs to be a structural system of wage increases afterwards, that will have a top out within so many years if a person decides to hang in there for the company as is his or her choice. Companies who have joined together in order to form a unity against paying their workers by some kind of structural pay system, is a company or companies that need to be looked at heavily by the feds for other dubious workings and goings on within them (imho), because I guarantee you that they are crooked in other ways if they have decided to shaft their employee's by not having a proper pay wage system, that at least has an entrance pay set up, and then a wage increase scale set up until exits are made by the employee who decided to stay on and be loyal to a company till the very end. 

Companies with no pay scale systems are highly suspect to me in why they have abandoned this concept over the years.  Greed is a problem that has evolved over the years, and it keeps being revisited by these companies in unity there of, and if they would just put back in place proper pay scales, and an entrance level living wage, and it is one that is based upon the type of company and it's long term goals, these problems would not even exist today in our nation.


----------



## Politico (Sep 7, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Why would anyone attack the source, you have not used it to make a POINT.
> 
> You seem to be a regular at posting something and then not making a point about it.  There is nothing to debate if you do not bring a subject and a contention to the table.  Please clarify what you are getting at, why you used this particular graph and what your goals are for the thread.  That might make debate possible.



Kinda hard to make a point when there isn't one.


----------



## Flopper (Sep 7, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...


There are many companies that have no real pay scale.  They have a pay range for each job classification.  This allows them to hire the best qualified at the time at the lowest acceptable pay.  So two workers with similar jobs and equivalent qualifications may have big differences in pay.  Workers are often forbidden from discussing salaries and people can end up making as much or more than their boss.

In my experience, companies that do this have a high turnover rate and depend as much on contract employees as they do permanent employees.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 7, 2013)

Flopper said:


> 4.7% of the workers are at or below minimum wage.  The majority are under 25.



And still the right gets ticked because they can stay on their parent's insurance. They want these people to work their way up but they forget to explain how you pay your college tuition, rent, car pymt, child care and the odd new t-shirt. 

We really do need to invest in our own country but the right is against that.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 7, 2013)

Politico said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Why would anyone attack the source, you have not used it to make a POINT.
> ...



Actually, me stating an opinion or pov does not make or break debate. In the case of this graphic, it stands quite well on its on. But, then, the facts always do.


----------



## hortysir (Sep 7, 2013)

The only people I hire that make minimum wage are Servers, so that fits the graphic pretty accurately


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 7, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> NLT said:
> 
> 
> > Black women with bad additudes at BK and Mickey D's
> ...



And much higher pay!

That's a woman who would benefit from legalized marijuana. Gotta say though, I'm really disappointed she didn't 'assume her real form'.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 7, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > NLT said:
> ...


Not sure what their pay is or why it is what it is, but if they have to put up with idiots like this at their job, then they definitely need hazardous pay to be a part of their pay package.. LOL

I will stick by the entrance pay being at least a worth while wage that draws in good employee's, and then if they decide to stay on, and to even work their way up to store manager as I have seen people do in the past in many instances, then there needs to be a pay scale in place that will properly bring them up every two years, and this if they show that they are exemplary employees whom really like the business that they are in, and want to stay there. 

The training they are receiving is important, and a proper pay scale system in place is a big part of that, along with the benefits package that should be another + towards treating workers with respect, and also treating them with decency if they are to work there and to help their company be all that it can be for it's perspective interest and future ownership value.


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 7, 2013)

You lefties just can't STAY out of PEOPLE'S lives...

now you nosy busy bodies  think you have a right to know what others are payed and wail how YOU DON'T think that is enough and throw a temper tantrum on how YOU THINK companies should pay MORE...and I'd bet NONE of own or run a business

you people are tiring and annoying,  as you believe this is showing YOU ONLY CARE when all it shows is you can't keep your nose out peoples lives
please go get and run own lives...stay the hell OUT of the rest of ours

but let people talk about abortion we get from you, stay out of our bedroom, our uterus and VAGINAS..


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 7, 2013)

hortysir said:


> The only people I hire that make minimum wage are Servers, so that fits the graphic pretty accurately


Would you have a problem with minimum wage somehow getting to a level worth working for, otherwise if say most companies can easily afford this adjustment, and this in order to not have to worry about the employee's coming in to work maybe bitter or worse down and out because they are not being paid enough to independently survive out in the real world (apartment rent, maybe one baby or two, utilities, gas for car, babies needs, etc.), at least until they get to a better level within the company in which they are trying so hard to reach maybe ? Where the rich have been getting over, is by turning as much responsibility they can over to the government to subsidize their employee's, and this by government making up the difference in what they weren't getting from the companies in which they had been working in many cases so hard for. This corporate or business *dependency* on government, was created way back in the day now, and it was watered over the years to explode into companies being just as dependent on a government assuming their risk and some of their cost in many ways, just like the welfare recipients were over the years dependent on government in their lives, in which they (the anti-minimum wage crowd) has so much to say about these dependent welfare and food stamp recipients these days just as well. Well how about the dependency companies had morphed into over the years, where they had become the very thing in which they are throwing the sticks at others about in the same ways ? 

Ironically, this made for a huge government over the years in which the very same people whom swear they want it to be smaller and out of their hair, actually helped create the very thing they claim to loath now, and I bet cha that they only want them out of their hair when it comes to their taxes, but when it comes to subsidizing and helping them mitigate their risk, and as well as helping them with low wage employee's by subsidizing their cost to the company by giving these workers welfare, food stamps and other subsidizing assistance while they work for these companies, which is why I think that the minimum wage had become stale and to low for to long in America because of, they wouldn't want the government to change a thing.

People just need to wake up to the game, and how it has been played over the years, then they will finally see what has been going on.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 7, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > NLT said:
> ...


What's her real form ?  SATAN !!


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 7, 2013)

Stephanie said:


> *You lefties just can't STAY out of PEOPLE'S lives*...
> 
> now you nosy busy bodies  think you have a right to know what others are payed and wail how YOU DON'T think that is enough and throw a temper tantrum on how YOU THINK companies should pay MORE...and I'd bet NONE of own or run a business
> 
> ...



Do you think that what ever a company decides to do to it's employee's or how they partition the government always on their behalf, doesn't have a potential affect on everyone down the assembly lines or chains of life in which we are all connected upon somehow ? People need to speak out always if they see wrong doings in this nation, especially wrong doings that affect so many if they are not addressed sooner or later and/or before it's to late. Now the various types of intervention needed is always highly debatable, and can even be wrong in many cases, but to just suggest that people stay out of peoples business, especially when that business has the potential to affect thousands of U.S. citizens, and maybe even destabilize an entire economy, well I think you should try another approach than what you just did in your words in order to make your case.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 7, 2013)

Stephanie said:


> You lefties just can't STAY out of PEOPLE'S lives...
> 
> now you nosy busy bodies  think you have a right to know what others are payed and wail how YOU DON'T think that is enough and throw a temper tantrum on how YOU THINK companies should pay MORE...and I'd bet NONE of own or run a business
> 
> ...



Hon, maybe you would feel better if you didn't read what those mean ole lefties say.


----------



## PredFan (Sep 7, 2013)

I made minimum wage for about a week. then the boss realized my value to him and i never made that again.


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 7, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > You lefties just can't STAY out of PEOPLE'S lives...
> ...



maybe if you get a life you wouldn't feel the need to get your nose into other people's LIVES

last week it was those damn hunters and LEAD bullets...next week? we will all sit waiting with baited breath for that because out live's are just so boring...

I wonder if you can bore people to death? anyone know?


----------



## hortysir (Sep 7, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > The only people I hire that make minimum wage are Servers, so that fits the graphic pretty accurately
> ...



A server is only paid (by us) minimum wage.
They actually make much more than that. They get raises based COMPLETELY on performance.
When a customer comes to me and tells me 'Susie' needs a raise I tell them that's up to them.

It's an entry-level position, though some make a good career out of it.
The good ones, with the motivation, can move up.

Any increase in costs to a business....whether labor or materials.....must be absorbed elsewhere


----------



## Flopper (Sep 7, 2013)

hortysir said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...


I don't believe hiring people at the lowest possible wage is generally a good idea.  I realize in some businesses it is necessary.  However, I think far too many businesses fail to reach their potential because the owners simply fail to realize that their most important resource is their employees. 

There's a restaurant near me which has been in business for about 25 years.  The food and service is wonderful.  They're consistently rated one on the best in area.  They are not the cheapest but there're the best.  I feel the secret of their successful is the owner is usually present and they pay well above minimum wage plus healthcare, 401K, and paid sick leave.  The cashier told me they have not lost an employee in 7 years which is pretty remarkable in food service.


----------



## Noomi (Sep 8, 2013)

^happy, well paid employees equals great service.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

Who works for minimum wage?

Those of us thankful enough to have a job, and not ungrateful enough to demand raises after only being there such a limited time. You earn raises, you don't demand them on a silver platter. End of story.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 8, 2013)

hortysir said:


> A server is only paid (by us) minimum wage.
> They actually make much more than that. They get raises based COMPLETELY on performance.
> When a customer comes to me and tells me 'Susie' needs a raise I tell them that's up to them.
> 
> ...



Regardless of what a company is making, these rules about absorption elsewhere still apply ? I mean how much does a company have to make before it begins to become the better company than the company next door ? You know the one where people say hey, I want to work at that company over there, because I hear they treat their employee's like this and like that, and they have better insurance and benefits also, so man if I could just get on with them that would be great?  Now there is a unity that has been created in mindset with the upper echelon, where as they get together and come up with all these so called business class rules to follow, just so another company won't steel their employee's because they are doing wrong by them, so if they can get another company or companies to follow suit in this thinking, then it all begins going down hill for the employee's in a trend type situation that is being followed at the top, while the suits walk out with more money than one could shake a stick at, while leaving everyone else in the dust.

Tips once were a great thing for the servers, until greed got in on that one also. Now the feds want taxes out of something that is given to someone as a gift, then the companies also want the employee upon which the gift was given to, to then place that gift into a pot for sharing, and then the company is reaching into that pot as well, and is taking a percentage of that gift for themselves in which is thievery (imho), because that person based upon their performance for whom was given a gift by a customer based upon that performance, should keep every bit of that gift given them, because that is between them and the customer. PERIOD!


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 8, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Who works for minimum wage?
> 
> Those of us thankful enough to have a job, and not ungrateful enough to demand raises after only being there such a limited time. You earn raises, you don't demand them on a silver platter. End of story.



The upper echelon I bet loves to hear you defend them like this with such words, (("Those of us thankful enough to have a job, and not ungrateful enough to demand raises after only being there such a limited time.")), eh ? 

I can think of many scenario's where a person has leverage to ask his employer for a raise once being their a limited time, and this because he or she may have brought with them a badly needed skill in which said employee may quickly understand will be a huge benefit to the company in a short period of time, so this gives the employee quicker bargaining power than maybe an employee that came to the company with not as much of a skill as the one who did bring one to the table. Holding a person to a minimum wage regardless of what they can do for a company is also bad thinking in all of this (imho). It could cause a company who plays such a game, to then lose valuable employee's if they are in the game of working people for cheap, and working them on a disrespectful level regardless of their skillset. These people might could have brought huge dividends to the company in the long haul, but greed may have blinded the employer to what they may have had right there in front of them, but sadly lost them because of their want for those skills for as cheap as they could possibly get them for, and for as long as they could get them for as based upon the sad state of affairs the economy may be in around them.  Hey employers also know how to not let a good crisis go to waste also.

Now I agree that wages should not ever be based upon the idea of everyone is somehow equal in society, and they never should be treated as such, because that is a flawed notion that the government has now or that the libs and repubs have now created, because this notion is used these days by both sides to keep wages low and profits high actually, so workers need to wake up to what is going on in all of this game, and who is playing this game against them.


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 8, 2013)

Noomi said:


> ^happy, well paid employees equals great service.



lol, a lot shallow people believe that...they should be happy that you GIFT them with your presence....so SHOW ME THE MONEY.

unfortunately we have a whole generation of youngsters today who think this way....both of our countries are doomed to fall as this whiney, me me me generation also have no shame in living off the back of others (welfare, food stamps, etc etc )


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 8, 2013)

PredFan said:


> I made minimum wage for about a week. then the boss realized my value to him and i never made that again.


Smart boss, but he or she is quickly becoming the weirdo's in such thinking these days, and the unified bad greed driven boss/ownerships are becoming or have since become the norm anymore.

Think about the corporate culture, and how it needs hundreds maybe even a thousand employee's working at one time, and they want those employee's for as cheap as they can get them for in many cases, and they want to keep them for as cheap as they can, and for as long as they can also if they can get by with it, so they lobby the government to buy into what they need and want, and sadly the government goes along with them against us in the deal. This is why you go into what you think is a good situation (that's if you could get through the illegals working in manufacturing and/or many other areas they were occupying back in the day), only to find out that you have now entered into is the twilight zone. Then when you want out, it's hard to get out if you somehow got in, and they know this also, so you become trapped and abused in the situation until you can get out. This is why our government has accommodated the illegals in the ways that they did, because they were on the take by these corporations and businesses that wanted them to work these people while the government then subsidized them in welfare and food stamps, free schooling and on and on, while an American worker (if could get a job) had to pay for everything. The other crazy thinking in all of this, was that the American youth could by pass it all by getting educated enough to become all the slaves bosses, instead of having to become the slaves themselves.


----------



## zeke (Sep 8, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Who works for minimum wage?
> 
> *Those of us thankful enough to have a job*, and not ungrateful enough to demand raises after only being there such a limited time. You earn raises, you don't demand them on a silver platter. End of story.




Dude, thanks for being honest for once. So you've got yourself a part time minimum wage job eh? About time. Maybe when you learn something, you will get a raise. All the way to 8 bucks an hour.

Won't you be so grateful? Your mom will be glad to. You can pay her rent.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 8, 2013)

I think the way minimum wage should work by government standard is this, how about government looking at company profits individually for each company based upon their annual revenue posted to the IRS, and then all depending on the companies profits or revenue (a minimum wage), could be set for that company for entrance level pay as based upon a formula worked out for that company, instead of this blanket amount across the board the way it is set up now. This would be a more fair (imho) workings of the minimum wage standard, otherwise if the government is going to be involved in this at all. So if a company can afford to pay an entrance pay of say $15.00 dollars an hour, it will be evident that it can do so by it's revenue shown to the feds, and also by the type of company that it is (high tech) or maybe a supply and demand chain that is a huge profit maker like these corporate chains are (McDonald's for example) in which may warrant such an entrance rate for it's entrance employee's. Now if they are already above that or at that wage, then the fed takes no action at all, except maybe to congratulate them for being a quality and very important company for America and the Americans in which it serves. Now if a company isn't making enough money (starter maybe), then it will be understood by it's revenue shown also that it cannot pay the $15.00 dollars like the high tech company can, so the rate may be set at 7.50 an hour as worked out by a formula to accommodate that company as well. This would be the more fair thing to do in all of this, then there would be no problem in all of this (imho). This would be a way to begin building the middle class again, and making America strong in everyway possible again, otherwise when it us understood that doing things better is a good thing and not a bad thing for America.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 8, 2013)

Hire me as the President in America, and I will bring this nation back to the strength that it was here once upon a time or two, and I would unite the nation again, and I would focus on strengthening the American family in everyway that I could, because when a house is divided it shall fall, and that is exactly what has happened here in America with all the foolishness, and the social experimentation that has gone on.


----------



## AmazonTania (Sep 8, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



There is an entrance wage for each company. It's called 'the minimum wage.' It's very nonsensical for employers to take a chance on an inexperienced employee. People generally worked their way up faster before the minimum wage was $7.25/hr. Since the minimum wage is increasing and the minimum wage is the basis for all wages, employees find themselves constricted in having to climb up the ladder in order to obtain a substantial raise. As a result, you have higher and higher youth unemployment, creating a very inexperienced labour force. You also have more experienced working adults earning closer to the minimum wage, despite the fact that these workers do not earn the minimum wage at all.

The only other way for young/inexperienced workers to break into an industry was to work for free through internships. 



> Companies with no pay scale systems are highly suspect to me in why they have abandoned this concept over the years.  Greed is a problem that has evolved over the years, and it keeps being revisited by these companies in unity there of, and if they would just put back in place proper pay scales, and an entrance level living wage, and it is one that is based upon the type of company and it's long term goals, these problems would not even exist today in our nation.



Greed is a constant, not a variable. Also there is no such thing as a living wage.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 8, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > AmazonTania said:
> ...


Ok, but what or who destroys the system in which you decide is correct in your words ?  If the companies would operate in an ethical manor, and in a trusting way in the handling of the whole process, then the government wouldn't have to be involved in this at all now would they ? So why is it that the government is involved in the setting of a living/minimum wage (i.e. a wage worth working for or being hired at in the entrance level), as is and has been defined by, and is set by government in which is to be abided by according to law, I mean if these companies in your opinion will do the right thing by their employee's without government intervention, why is it that the government is involved in this at all ? Can you explain this one away or is it to embarrassing to explain away ? I think the system should be progressive just like the tax system is, where as all depending on a companies profits according to the IRS, we should see differences in the way they treat their employee's as according to those profits as are defined by each company, and as them being individual in there own specialized services or companies in which they run. 

Example, if a starter company begins (i.e. a lawn care service for example), and the company can only afford $4.00 dollars an hour for the new hires to help them begin building the company, then I think that the government should allow this depending on the circumstances surrounding the situation, and if they can find people (in which will be mostly young people I think) to work for this wage in the beginning, then as the company grows and the profits grow with them, the company should have to show the structured pay system in which it will then set up as a result of positive growth, and how the employee's that started at the $4.00 level, would have gotten raises according to the progress of the company, along with it's profits being gained as an indicator of that progress.  If the company does not adjust everything as it grows in a moral and ethical way, in which is to include the people whom are helping it grow, then I would say greed is becoming a problem in that company early on, and that company should be penalized for operating in a hurtful way towards the whole process. Otherwise I don't think that the minimum wage should be one size fits all, but more less it should depend on the circumstances of each company, and how it reports it's income and structured system to the IRS for review, but I do think that a cap should be placed on what the government could demand of companies in as far as the minimum wage goes. I don't think that a minimum wage of say $15.00 dollars an hour across the board is correct, where as I think at $15.00 dollars an hour, a person needs to come into a company with some kind of history or skill set that is to be attractive to the company when hired for an entrance pay of that amount. Another thing is inflation, where as the wage hasn't kept pace with the inflation, therefore causing people to work for a money that is far less valuable than it was in the past, so this adjustment is needed always, just like people once got annual raises within companies in percentage rates as adjustment for inflation accordingly, but that seem to stop in many companies as well. It appears that many companies had joined in a unity to begin a trend to screw over the workers in a disrespecting way, and even to screw over the government in the same way, and they have gotten away with it for quite along time now. This is why there is the blow back right now that we are seeing in all of this to date.


----------



## AmazonTania (Sep 8, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



The minimum wage has increased over 15 times since the the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Do you really believe firms are just becoming more unethical the more the Government decides to tinker with the minimum wage, or is the Government just distorting market forces?

Firms operate to make a profit, which are essential for economic growth. If the minimum wage was $30/hr hour that may sound good, but all the jobs which doesn't generate a profit at that level would be eliminated.



> So why is it that the government is involved in the setting of a living/minimum wage (i.e. a wage worth working for or being hired at in the entrance level), as is and has been defined by, and is set by government in which is to be abided by according to law, I mean if these companies in your opinion will do the right thing by their employee's without government intervention, why is it that the government is involved in this at all ? Can you explain this one away or is it to embarrassing to explain away ?



The minimum wage is nothing more than a price control. As such, it prevents employers from doing the right thing by their employees. Labour is a commodity, and business is not a one way street. The entire purpose of employment is so employees and employers can negotiate the terms of employment, which generally involve wages. Employees negotiate for the highest wage possible, while employers negotiate for the lowest. The only other alternative is to accept unemployment, as more and more lower skilled jobs are priced out of the marketplace.

Increasingly, we see that more education is required for employment as well as wages. In order for firms to obtain the ability to pay higher wages, they need to know their workforce is highly skilled and productive, therefore, keeping operation cost low.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 8, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > AmazonTania said:
> ...


You address some of my post, but not all of it...  I have added to it as I think more and more about it, so it may be that I didn't cover what you read as of yet, so if interested return to it and see what I had added to it, and then tell me what you think... Thanks.


----------



## AmazonTania (Sep 8, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



I don't really see too much which needs addressing. You are saying that the Government is better equipped in understanding what the price for labour should be for each particular job than the market.

1. Wages are determined by the value of your labour, not what the company can afford. 

2. The growth of your company has nothing to do with the growth of your wages. Your wages grow as your skills and human capital grows. If you start off with $4.00/hr and a year later you are still making barely above your initial start level, perhaps there is an issue regarding your skill set. The growth of the company mostly deals with it's ability to expand. If the company growths, it's involved in other capital inventories, which means it's employees are involved in more aspects of the industry, which means their productivity increases, which results in higher pay.

3. Minimum wage is not suppose to be designed to kept up with inflation. Increasingly, we find that as you increase the minimum wage (as the minimum wage is the basis of all wages) you increase the cost of living. It's called 'cost-push inflation.'


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 8, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > AmazonTania said:
> ...


I had something in response to this, but I hit a button and it just disappeared, so I am done for now... Talk about getting mad for a second when that happened, as I thought I would throw this lap top out of the window...LOL


----------



## Vox (Sep 8, 2013)

My first job in the US was for 5$ per hour - a minimum wage then.

I stayed there for 3 weeks.

Then I moved up the ladder - not much, but still higher.

Minimum wage is for the START only.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Sep 8, 2013)

If we pay the fast food workers $23 an hour how much are you willing to pay for the burger they fix?

With a $7/hr pay level it cost about $2 so are you willing to pay $6+ for that same burger? No? then they will be unemployed... how does that add to the GDP?


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 8, 2013)

Vox said:


> My first job in the US was for 5$ per hour - a minimum wage then.
> 
> I stayed there for 3 weeks.
> 
> ...


I agree it is for the start only, but the problem with it, is who determines the amount by government standard, and how do they come up with the amount that a standard line is based upon when dealing with so much diversity in business models, and why is it an across the board amount in which is made law for which is to be abided by in almost all cases of hiring in the U.S., and this upon companies who qualify for the standard as is implemented upon them in a blanketed manor ? People would rather be in control of their hiring and firing, as well as their wages set when dealing with people for whom the government doesn't even know, but because they (the employers) have botched this over the years, government intervention has been implemented and forced upon them in many ways.

The socialistic approach is a wrong one if you ask me, and our government should stay away from socialist agenda's, where as each scenario is different and should be approached differently in many ways, because a one size fits all is never appropriate in most cases, and we should be against socialist styled laws and/or socialist agenda's in this nation, but we should never be against the outing of abuse and the outing of bad when ever it is found in this nation. Do you agree ?

We have allowed the destruction of so much in this nation by our greed and idiocy, and we have empowered the government to be a force against us all because of, instead a government that serves us instead.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 8, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> If we pay the fast food workers $23 an hour how much are you willing to pay for the burger they fix?
> 
> With a $7/hr pay level it cost about $2 so are you willing to pay $6+ for that same burger? No? then they will be unemployed... how does that add to the GDP?


Hmm, but isn't it the case where the fast food burger chain is making boo-coo millions in profits, and it is seen easily that they could do better for their workers without government having to even suggest that they should do so in any way ? Now if they are making soooo much profit, then why would they have to raise their prices if they could afford easily to give their employees a better standard of living, and this by bringing their wages up to a level that is then better balanced within the entire make up of the business model, and because of it's super successes in which it has had, and still is having ?

How much money does a company have to have above and beyond cost, and should the employee's have a stake in their profit making game as well ? It should be shameful for a company to make millions upon millions of dollars, and then one finds out that it was working people at wage levels that were hideous and out of sync within the ratio of the company and it's profits that were being made. 

The disrespecting of workers in the world is a huge problem, and America was always the better nation when it came to this stuff, but these days it's like the American businessman said "hey if ya can't beat them, then you might as well join them, and so he did at the expense of selling his own soul in the process, and this if he was not careful. I think I know past owners maybe, that might be burning in hell right now if they didn't get the chance to ask God for forgiveness before they croaked, and when they did they had better meant it (imho).


----------



## PaulS1950 (Sep 8, 2013)

Each store is a franchise - some make money others don't but the corporation makes their money because the franchises have to buy from the corporation. That way the corporation makes money even when the individual stores go bust. It is a multilevel restricted marketing process. You want to sell "Bill's Burgers". You pay $1 million to Bill and sign a contract to buy everything you sell from Bill. Then you buy the land and pay to have a building put up that complies with the contract you signed with Bill. So far Bill has made $1million and you have spent around $2 million before you open the doors. Now you stock your store with $100000 in stuff from Bill that he paid $50000 for. Bill has made $1050000 and you haven't sold a single burger. A completed burger costs you $.30 plus labor, gas electricity and water. Bill makes $.15 on every burger that you sell. You charge $1 for the burger and you get about $.03 profit from each burger. You make about $30.00 for each 1000 burgers that you sell and Bill gets about $150 for every 1000 burgers that you sell.
If you are really successful and watch your losses very carefully and you make a profit of say $100000 a year Bill is making $500000 a year from you.
Now, if Bill has another franchise set up too close to you and the sales get divided between the two stores then your income drops but Bill's income stays the same.If one of you go out of business the the other one gets the extra business and Bill still gets his money.

Most corporations are similar to the franchise idea. The corp is insulated from the major costs of doing business but gets the largest amount of profits. They have to because they are owned by individuals who expect a return on the money they invest in stocks. If they don't get a decent return they will sell their stocks and the value of the corporation will drop.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 8, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> Each store is a franchise - some make money others don't but the corporation makes their money because the franchises have to buy from the corporation. That way the corporation makes money even when the individual stores go bust. It is a multilevel restricted marketing process. You want to sell "Bill's Burgers". You pay $1 million to Bill and sign a contract to buy everything you sell from Bill. Then you buy the land and pay to have a building put up that complies with the contract you signed with Bill. So far Bill has made $1million and you have spent around $2 million before you open the doors. Now you stock your store with $100000 in stuff from Bill that he paid $50000 for. Bill has made $1050000 and you haven't sold a single burger. A completed burger costs you $.30 plus labor, gas electricity and water. Bill makes $.15 on every burger that you sell. You charge $1 for the burger and you get about $.03 profit from each burger. You make about $30.00 for each 1000 burgers that you sell and Bill gets about $150 for every 1000 burgers that you sell.
> If you are really successful and watch your losses very carefully and you make a profit of say $100000 a year Bill is making $500000 a year from you.
> Now, if Bill has another franchise set up too close to you and the sales get divided between the two stores then your income drops but Bill's income stays the same.If one of you go out of business the the other one gets the extra business and Bill still gets his money.
> 
> Most corporations are similar to the franchise idea. The corp is insulated from the major costs of doing business but gets the largest amount of profits. They have to because they are owned by individuals who expect a return on the money they invest in stocks. If they don't get a decent return they will sell their stocks and the value of the corporation will drop.


Good report, and it makes sense to me upon what you are saying, so why does the government listen to the employee's who claim they aren't making enough, and who claim that the companies they are working for are just raking it in while forgetting about them in the scheme of things?  Now why can't they make even a decent living wage in it all, and to have a fair and decent structured pay system that leaves no question as to what they are dealing with while working there ? Does the government have different stats on this than what you are quoting here as being the case ? Also if this is the case in what you have stated, then should the government enforce it's will upon such a struggling franchise by making it comply to a minimum wage standard or to even consider raising that standard on all the franchises of America, I mean if they are struggling like you say just to make ends meet while Bill and his share holders walk away with gazillions in the deal  ?

Should this nation reconsider it's structural contracts and dealings as is found in doing business in these kinds of ways maybe ? Has this become a problem for the nation and it's American workers in which is linked all the way back to what (Wall street) in some kind of way, where it is that so many were angry with that place not to long ago ? How is it that the wealth is getting so out of balance in America, where as people begin to cry fowl in such a big way about it all ?


----------



## OnePercenter (Sep 8, 2013)

AmazonTania said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > AmazonTania said:
> ...



It will raise the GDP by at least $170B/yr.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Sep 8, 2013)

The wage paid depends on the ability to do a job.
I am accustomed to a wage of $30/hr. Can I make that wage flipping burgers? No! because anyone with an IQ above 40 can learn to do that job in a few minutes. (it is easy to replace the worker with another qualified worker) I can make pieces from metal and maintain tolerances of 0.001" from a three view drawing. I get paid $30/hr. It is difficult to find a replacement that can do the same quality work in the same time I can do it. If there was a machine that could read those drawings and produce the same quality piece that I do and could be run by anyone with an IQ above 40 then that job would be worth the same wage as the guy flipping burgers.

Not every job is worth paying a "living wage" for its execution. Some jobs require a high degree of education, others a high degree of skill, and some require both. If you want a skill you either go to a technical college or serve as an apprentice. If you want an education then you go to a college. If you want both then you go to college get the degree and then serve an "apprenticeship" to gain the skill that is a companion to the education.

Some people have inspirations that lead them to a career that would normally require great skill or education to achieve otherwise but the key is that they offer something which people desire, no one else makes as desired, and they do it at a price that people are willing to pay that allows them to make a living.

The key here is that if you are not helping people with your product or service you will not be in business for long.


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 8, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Minimum Wage Workers Largely Live In The South, Are Women (GRAPHIC)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I say just shoot the messenger.  . Would you like a blindfold or are you going to take your medicine like a man?

Immie

j/k


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 8, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> *The wage paid depends on the ability to do a job.*I am accustomed to a wage of $30/hr. Can I make that wage flipping burgers? No! because anyone with an IQ above 40 can learn to do that job in a few minutes. (it is easy to replace the worker with another qualified worker) I can make pieces from metal and maintain tolerances of 0.001" from a three view drawing. I get paid $30/hr. It is difficult to find a replacement that can do the same quality work in the same time I can do it. If there was a machine that could read those drawings and produce the same quality piece that I do and could be run by anyone with an IQ above 40 then that job would be worth the same wage as the guy flipping burgers.
> 
> Not every job is worth paying a "living wage" for its execution. Some jobs require a high degree of education, others a high degree of skill, and some require both. If you want a skill you either go to a technical college or serve as an apprentice. If you want an education then you go to a college. If you want both then you go to college get the degree and then serve an "apprenticeship" to gain the skill that is a companion to the education.
> 
> ...



Are we still talking about entrance wage as in the minimum wage or are we talking about wages in general ? No matter, because one still has to place a wage at a level that entices people to be interested, so many companies pay higher in the entrance wage, just to attract possibly skilled workers right off the bat, but there are many whom will try and get away with working low skilled and low wage workers for as long as they can get away with it, and they will do this until they are called on the carpet for it, and this no matter how much money they were making in their method of making money in these ways, they still would not do right by the ones whom were helping them make it. 

If not careful companies would resort back to working people in slave labor conditions or as slaves if they could get away with it, as they would say that even the slaves were paid something in the ways of a shack, their food and a dirt floor, so one can't say that they were working for nothing would be the words back then by the rich in order to justify the situation in which was going on in their favor, otherwise because these things were supplied to them* free *, yet at a great cost of the plantation's expense was it gifted them is what they would use on us as an excuse for it all back then just as well. 

The game is still the same in many ways, and that is why I guess the government is thought of as the great interceptor in regards to the poor and their treatment by the rich, who has tendencies in many ways to disregard the plight of the less fortunate who are in and around them, but just out of sight in their personal lives where it is not personable in what they choose to do to them when they do it. 

Now was it right back then ? Nope it wasn't back in that time nor is it in this time, and working people in dirt poor situations today isn't right either if can do better by them, even if companies poor mouth and cry like babies over the situation of being looked at harshly by the government and society for miss-treating their employee's in many ways, it needs to be done regardless of if they want to act stupidly and greedy in it all.


----------



## OnePercenter (Sep 8, 2013)

hortysir said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



Just for kicks; How much is your effective hourly rate for one server?


----------



## OnePercenter (Sep 8, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Who works for minimum wage?
> 
> Those of us thankful enough to have a job, and not ungrateful enough to demand raises after only being there such a limited time. You earn raises, you don't demand them on a silver platter. End of story.



Thankful enough to have a job? - An employee uses his/her talents to make an employer successful and the employee has to be thankful?


----------



## OnePercenter (Sep 8, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > A server is only paid (by us) minimum wage.
> ...



Why shouldn't a person receiving monetary compensation related to their job pay taxes on said compensation?


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 8, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...


Because in the case of a tip, it is a gift for that employee going far beyond the call of duty to serve that customer, and for his or her job being performed in a professional manor that looks good on him or her, and also it brings that very important money spending customer back to the restaurant at a future date. Everybody wins, and the feds have enough tax money or revenue coming in, that they don't need to steal money from servers and babysitters who get compensated for their performance by way of a gift given unto them, and especially by a very thankful citizen who appreciated the person doing so well within their job for them.

I think the majority feels the same as I do on this, but somehow the greed of the government and the business sector had won on the issue, in which was a huge loss in many ways in which people never saw coming, and still are scratching their heads upon.


----------



## OnePercenter (Sep 8, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> *The wage paid depends on the ability to do a job.*
> I am accustomed to a wage of $30/hr. Can I make that wage flipping burgers? No! because anyone with an IQ above 40 can learn to do that job in a few minutes. (it is easy to replace the worker with another qualified worker) I can make pieces from metal and maintain tolerances of 0.001" from a three view drawing. I get paid $30/hr. It is difficult to find a replacement that can do the same quality work in the same time I can do it. If there was a machine that could read those drawings and produce the same quality piece that I do and could be run by anyone with an IQ above 40 then that job would be worth the same wage as the guy flipping burgers.
> 
> Not every job is worth paying a "living wage" for its execution. Some jobs require a high degree of education, others a high degree of skill, and some require both. If you want a skill you either go to a technical college or serve as an apprentice. If you want an education then you go to a college. If you want both then you go to college get the degree and then serve an "apprenticeship" to gain the skill that is a companion to the education.
> ...



Why would an employer hire someone that lacks the ability to do a job?


----------



## OnePercenter (Sep 8, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



It has nothing to with greed of Government, it's compensation. Who cares who pays it.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 9, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...


It's a gift, now what part of someone giving you something beyond the amount of the meal don't you understand ? It's volunteer, one doesn't have to give anyone anything. Why is it that any other gift is exempt, except for that one in the eyes of the government ?


----------



## HomeInspect (Sep 9, 2013)

Paying an unskilled worker a "living wage" would just be more socialism and spreading the wealth. A McDonald's worker making 12 dollars an hour means your hambuger now cost 7.00 instead of 2.50.  It's amazing how the mindless can't see the simple cause and effect.  Or maybe they can, ..... but socialism and government dependency is what they want.


----------



## zeke (Sep 9, 2013)

HomeInspect said:


> Paying an unskilled worker a "living wage" would just be more socialism and spreading the wealth. A McDonald's worker making 12 dollars an hour means your hambuger now cost 7.00 instead of 2.50.  It's amazing how the mindless can't see the simple cause and effect.  Or maybe they can, ..... but socialism and government dependency is what they want.




Yea it is so much better for the unskilled worker to get food stamps and housing assistance paid for by the general public rather than have their employer pay them enough that they can live. 

WTF?

And according to the right wingers, very few people actually work for minimum wage. SO how come those hamburgers don't cost 9 dollars right now. How could that be? Hell managers make much more than minimum wage. Is it their fault hamburgers don't cost a dollar?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Sep 9, 2013)

Minimum wage jobs are not meant to be careers.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Sep 9, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...


I never asked for an opinio0n.  I asked for a POINT and no, this graph does not stand on its own.  It shows the obvious and simple truths.  Nothing that is shocking or unreasonable at all unless you bother to make a contention about it.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Sep 9, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > A server is only paid (by us) minimum wage.
> ...



You seem to have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when referring to servers (waiters).  Most of this post is off base in what actually happens.  Feds have always wanted a piece of that pie  that has nothing to do with greed. The only real change in taxing has occurred because of the common use of the credit card leaving a physical record of the tips themselves where straight cash had no actual method of keeping waitresses honest in reporting wages.  BTW, gifts ARE taxable after a certain limit.

The pots that are set out to share a tip also are nothing new or have anything to do with greed.  Most tip jars are set out at places where you do not have a set waiter.  Places like a sushi restaurant have them because everyone behind that counter is involved in making your meal and servicing you.  This is no different for any other service industry as well.  Those jars are shared because the service of individual customers is ALSO shared.  You realize that most waiters (if they are remotely intelligent) share those tips that you leave on the table as well.  None of that goes to the company (particularly if they want to keep reasonable waiters) but rather there is an entire precession of people that are involved in your happiness with your service.  From the cook getting that meal out to you as fast as possible to the busboy ensuring that the waiters tables are cleared out quickly for another customer  they all have something to offer the waiter.  Most waiters share those tips with those people to ensure that their service is all around tip top.  It is also customary to share some with the maître d' in more elegant restaurants (also as a matter of them getting the customers to your tables).

The compensation that the company gets is solely in low wages that are extremely low (below minimum in most restaurants) because the waiters are compensated through tips.  Waitressing is likely the most well compensated low skill job in the end though.  Tips account for a damn fine wage after everything is said and done if you are even a remotely decent worker.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Sep 9, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> I think the way minimum wage should work by government standard is this, how about government looking at company profits individually for each company based upon their annual revenue posted to the IRS, and then all depending on the companies profits or revenue (a minimum wage), could be set for that company for entrance level pay as based upon a formula worked out for that company, instead of this blanket amount across the board the way it is set up now. This would be a more fair (imho) workings of the minimum wage standard, otherwise if the government is going to be involved in this at all. So if a company can afford to pay an entrance pay of say $15.00 dollars an hour, it will be evident that it can do so by it's revenue shown to the feds, and also by the type of company that it is (high tech) or maybe a supply and demand chain that is a huge profit maker like these corporate chains are (McDonald's for example) in which may warrant such an entrance rate for it's entrance employee's. Now if they are already above that or at that wage, then the fed takes no action at all, except maybe to congratulate them for being a quality and very important company for America and the Americans in which it serves. Now if a company isn't making enough money (starter maybe), then it will be understood by it's revenue shown also that it cannot pay the $15.00 dollars like the high tech company can, so the rate may be set at 7.50 an hour as worked out by a formula to accommodate that company as well. This would be the more fair thing to do in all of this, then there would be no problem in all of this (imho). This would be a way to begin building the middle class again, and making America strong in everyway possible again, otherwise when it us understood that doing things better is a good thing and not a bad thing for America.



Why not just have the government take over private industry as a whole.  You are really not advocating anything different.  Workers wages have almost nothing to do with profits by the way.  Labor is a commodity and the value of that labor is DIRECTLY ties to its scarcity.  Fast food workers are EVER going to be paid well because the labor that they contribute is simply available anywhere almost immediately.  Turnover is irrelevant in a company that employs people with zero skill.  Further, increasing the number of worthless pieces of paper that a fast food worker makes does NOTHING to increase the actual value of that labor.  All you are doing is artificially inflating the value.  ALL wages adjust from that minimum wage which results in the worker making the SAME value in the end.  IOW, pay the a million dollars an hour and you still end up with them poor.  There is no changing that no matter what you change the wage to.  Other prices will adjust as well.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Sep 9, 2013)

zeke said:


> HomeInspect said:
> 
> 
> > Paying an unskilled worker a "living wage" would just be more socialism and spreading the wealth. A McDonald's worker making 12 dollars an hour means your hambuger now cost 7.00 instead of 2.50.  It's amazing how the mindless can't see the simple cause and effect.  Or maybe they can, ..... but socialism and government dependency is what they want.
> ...



Unskilled workers would STILL get those benefits even if you raised minimum wage to 30 bucks an hour.  Other prices and other wages would adjust to reflect the new minimum but the VALUE of that commodity would still be EXACTLY the same.  Those minimum wage earners would still make peanuts; it would just be peanuts with bigger numbers and more pieces of paper to hold onto.

The minimum wage is not keeping pace because the VALUE of that commodity is DROPPING as we enter into a smaller world with international product and slave wages.  The VALUE of that commodity is DROPPING as we automate the more menial tasks and jobs.  The VALUE of that commodity is DROPPING as we increase its availability and decrease the need for it.

All the people here are doing is advocating on putting a bandage on a problem that they do not understand or care to.  This is not a straight numbers game  you cant demand that a hot dog is actually worth 50 dollars and expect that to mean anything.  In the same manner, you cant demand that labor is worth at least 20, 30, 50 or a million dollars an hour and expect that to actually make that particular labor mean anything.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Sep 9, 2013)

Flopper said:


> I don't believe hiring people at the lowest possible wage is generally a good idea.  I realize in some businesses it is necessary.  However, I think far too many businesses fail to reach their potential because the owners simply fail to realize that their most important resource is their employees.
> 
> There's a restaurant near me which has been in business for about 25 years.  The food and service is wonderful.  They're consistently rated one on the best in area.  They are not the cheapest but there're the best.  I feel the secret of their successful is the owner is usually present and they pay well above minimum wage plus healthcare, 401K, and paid sick leave.  The cashier told me they have not lost an employee in 7 years which is pretty remarkable in food service.



And you see how they have been successful with the added cost  something that works and works very well.  Paying people what they are WORTH is always a better idea than undercutting them.  Interestingly enough, the minimum wage is completely irrelevant to that.  The principal is the same no matter what the minimum is.


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 9, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Minimum wage jobs are not meant to be careers.



Exactly, the question is why is that concept so hard to understand?

Immie


----------



## HomeInspect (Sep 10, 2013)

zeke said:


> HomeInspect said:
> 
> 
> > Paying an unskilled worker a "living wage" would just be more socialism and spreading the wealth. A McDonald's worker making 12 dollars an hour means your hambuger now cost 7.00 instead of 2.50.  It's amazing how the mindless can't see the simple cause and effect.  Or maybe they can, ..... but socialism and government dependency is what they want.
> ...



NO. it's better that they use those jobs as starter jobs as they build work experience and better themselves with education and skills.  Oh wait.. pay them enough so there is no incentive to do that.. right ?

Why is it that the left is always about dependency? Sorry bud... I don't want to pay more for my fast food burger because your type don't understand the difference between the unskilled starter employee and the manager.


----------



## zeke (Sep 10, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > HomeInspect said:
> ...




Really? You think the hated federal government would change the qualifying income  levels for housing and food assistance when people are making 30 dollars (your number) an hour. 

Why would that happen?

Labor rates will change (increase) when the demand for labor outstrips the supply. Like you said, labor is a commodity. If that never happens again, which may be the case, then entry level labor rates would be dropping IF the Federal government didn't impose mandatory minimums .Supply and demand.

Why is that so hard for right wingers to understand?

And why do you right wingers always go to such extremes when discussing minimum wage? Has anyone suggested 30 dollars an hour. Or a million dollars an hour, besides you right wingers? 

But to think that you right wingers want the Federal government to subsidize low wage employees (not welfare recipients, but employees) with my tax dollars is outrageous . Just so the corporations you love and worship can make more and more money for the corporations. You all are crazy.


----------



## Sunshine (Sep 10, 2013)

TNHarley said:


> I used to make minimum wage. then I got a raise. all I did was put my heart, soul and ambition into it. now I do not worry about anything



Every successful poster on this forum has, at some time, worked for minimum wage.  We just didn't want to settle for that or for the tiny increment above that.  And a raise in minimum wage will never be more than a tiny increment.  If you want to live well, you have to have more ambition than just a raise in your minimum wage.  Kudos to the businesses that have figured out how to beat Obama care.  Did he really think business owners where completely stupid? No need to answer.  Of course he did.


.


----------



## zeke (Sep 10, 2013)

HomeInspect said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > HomeInspect said:
> ...




The rate of teenagers working at any kind of job has dropped dramatically in the past 15 years. Fact.

The numbers of adult people working low pay jobs has increased dramatically in the past few years because those were the only jobs available. Maybe their company moved or closed down. They got laid off. And to keep people like you for coming down on them as worthless and shiftless, they took the only job they could find. One that paid something around minimum wage. 

I really like the part about "building work experience while they get education and skills"
You have any idea how many people with college degrees are working coffee shops and fast food and book stores. A lot. Because that was the only job available to them. 

And dude, you don't like the price of your fast food burger? Makes my think you are working for minimum wage if you can't afford a little more for a burger.


----------



## zeke (Sep 10, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > I used to make minimum wage. then I got a raise. all I did was put my heart, soul and ambition into it. now I do not worry about anything
> ...



You know what? I know plenty of people with ambition. You know what they are lacking? Opportunity. You think opportunity has ANYTHING to do with success in the work place?


----------



## Barb (Sep 10, 2013)

Stephanie said:


> You lefties just can't STAY out of PEOPLE'S lives...
> 
> now you nosy busy bodies  think you have a right to know what others are payed and wail how YOU DON'T think that is enough and throw a temper tantrum on how YOU THINK companies should pay MORE...and I'd bet NONE of own or run a business
> 
> ...



Um, vaginas don't invite filth like you into their business, but low wage workers DO ask the nation to take notice:

Raleigh, NC WalMart Gets A Flash Mob From Unfairly Fired Workers (VIDEO) | The Everlasting GOP Stoppers


----------



## Barb (Sep 10, 2013)

because the American taxpayer makes up the difference, THAT'S why


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 10, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



On that we agree. Here's another cause and effect; acquire an in demand skill set and that pays enough to support you. 

You mentioned in a post that these people need to get paid what they deserve. For most of us we understand they already are getting paid what they deserve. They get paid for the skill the provide to their employer. The wages of which are established through the free market. You seem to think 'what they deserve' is based on something else. What is that exactly? Who should get to determine what you deserve to make if not the free market?


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 10, 2013)

Barb said:


> because the American taxpayer makes up the difference, THAT'S why



That isn't the only alternative. That's the problem with libs. You refuse to allow people to deal with consequences of their choices. As a result you end up enabling behavior that produces a negative and have the nerve to wonder why that condition persists. 

The alternative to paying a living wage is not the tax payers make up the difference. Another alternative is that the tax payers doesn't make up the difference. Necessity is the mother of invention and an amazing motivator.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 10, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Minimum Wage Workers Largely Live In The South, Are Women (GRAPHIC)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And less than 3% of the entire workforce earns the federal minimum wage.

That means more than 97% of all workers already earn more than MW so what's your point?


----------



## Sunshine (Sep 10, 2013)

zeke said:


> HomeInspect said:
> 
> 
> > zeke said:
> ...



Wow.  This whole thing went over your head like a 747.  It isn't a matter of 'affording' a burger.  When a burger costs as much as a prime rib, no one is going to eat burgers.  I hardly ever eat them now and it has nothing to do with cost.  I just rarely eat fast food.


----------



## Sunshine (Sep 10, 2013)

zeke said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



You wouldn't know an opportunity if it bit you on the ass.  If you want to succeed, you have to make your own opportunities.


----------



## zeke (Sep 10, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...




Was my question to hard for you susnshine? Couldn't make an intelligent comment about opportunity being necessary for advancement in the work place....so you just made a little bitchy comment. Par for you from what I've read.


----------



## Sunshine (Sep 10, 2013)

zeke said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > zeke said:
> ...



Do you seriously think anyone in Kentucky has 'opportunities?'


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 10, 2013)

zeke said:


> HomeInspect said:
> 
> 
> > zeke said:
> ...



This post highlights a few modern day myths about jobs and the economy.

Myth 1: Having a college degree all but guarantees you will get a decent job. 
Fact: It doesn't. Simply getting a degree is no guarantee of employment any longer. If that degree is something like social justice or some other such 'skill' the job market see no real value in then your degree isn't worth squat. This brings us to.....

Myth 2:  There aren't any jobs. 
Fact: There are all kinds of jobs out there. Jobs that can't be filled because of the difficulty in finding people qualified for them. If you doubt me, put your resume on a career sight of some type like Career Builder or Monster. You will be inundated with dozens of job openings on an almost daily basis. The problem with the job market right now is by no means a lack of actual jobs. The problem is a lack of people with the skills to fill those jobs. 

Again it isn't enough to just get a degree. Part of the solution is for those entering college to start taking a bigger view and not looking at college as an end game. You need to have a plan after college. This is not some daunting task either. With only some minor research you can find out what skills are currently in demand. You then go to school or take some type of training to acquire those skills. Then get a job doing that. Stop complaining about the poor college grads you can't get work. Those that got an education in skills that are in demand aren't having an issue. If on the other you decided to 'follow your dream' of being an art major, or have passion for social justice or the like I have no sympathy for your inability to find a job.


----------



## HomeInspect (Sep 11, 2013)

zeke said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > zeke said:
> ...



Why do you lefties think minimum wage should be, or was every intended to be a living wage? Why do you think more educated people are working in coffee shops? Let's start with the corporate tax rate here, and how many businesses have fled this country due to your lefty loving "tax anyhting successful" attitude. Forcing businesses to pay unskilled labor more than they're worth, is just another example of spread the wealth.


----------



## zeke (Sep 11, 2013)

HomeInspect said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...




Gee you right wing whacks are strange. IF a minimum wage job was the only type of job I could find, then of course my minimum wage job would have to cover my living expenses.
That means it would be helpful IF the minimum wage was a living wage.

Maybe you would like it better if low wage people were on food stamps and housing assistance. ....oh wait a  minute......many already are. You good with that?

And what are you talking about concerning taxes? We now have some of the lowest effective tax rates ever paid by Americans. Where have you been or what do you read?


And how is it that you think people are "forcing" business's to pay workers more than they are worth"? They already don't pay any more than they have to and in many cases, wages for skilled work is going down BECAUSE there are more people CLAIMING that they can do skilled jobs. Of course the employer finds out the truth eventually but the employer still is not willing to pay for skilled labor what they once would.

This is just part of the continuing decline in the standard of living of Americans brought to us by the plutocrats of the Republican and Democratic parties.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 11, 2013)

zeke said:


> Gee you right wing whacks are strange. IF a minimum wage job was the only type of job I could find, then of course my minimum wage job would have to cover my living expenses.
> That means it would be helpful IF the minimum wage was a living wage.



Of course it would be helpful. Unfortunately to be helpful to you and accomodate your standard of leaving is not the reason an employer compensates and employee.



zeke said:


> Maybe you would like it better if low wage people were on food stamps and housing assistance. ....oh wait a  minute......many already are. You good with that?



Not sure how many times I've seen this argument or how many times it has to be explained how bogus it is. It basically goes, 'employers may as well pay a living wage otherwise the tax payer is gonna pay it'. Those aren't the only two options. One would be cut off public assistance after a certain amount of time. Sooner than we do now. Or don't pay it all. Neccessity is the mother of invention and one hell of a motivator.



zeke said:


> And what are you talking about concerning taxes? We now have some of the lowest effective tax rates ever paid by Americans. Where have you been or what do you read?
> 
> 
> And how is it that you think people are "forcing" business's to pay workers more than they are worth"? They already don't pay any more than they have to and in many cases, wages for skilled work is going down BECAUSE there are more people CLAIMING that they can do skilled jobs. Of course the employer finds out the truth eventually but the employer still is not willing to pay for skilled labor what they once would.
> ...



You say that likes it's some revelation that employers pay as little as they can. Don't employees try to negotiate for as much as _they_ can? What makes the employer's persepective wrong and the workers perspective the right one?


----------



## HomeInspect (Sep 11, 2013)

zeke said:


> HomeInspect said:
> 
> 
> > zeke said:
> ...



You might want to do some homework on world corporatre tax rates


----------



## HomeInspect (Sep 11, 2013)

Why is it that I see minimum wage employees with smart phones, tatoos and piercings, big screen TV's,  driving nice cars, and smoking outside of Walmart on their breaks ?  Are these the people that can't pay their rent?


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 11, 2013)

HomeInspect said:


> Why is it that I see minimum wage employees with smart phones, tatoos and piercings, big screen TV's,  driving nice cars, and smoking outside of Walmart on their breaks ?  Are these the people that can't pay their rent?



In all fairness I can't say I've observed all of those to be true. There are two there that typically are present though and drive me nuts. Smoking and smart phones. If you aren't willing to sacrifice those things to get yourself better off or are spending money on what are essentially luxuries you simply can't afford, stop complaining.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Sep 11, 2013)

zeke said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > zeke said:
> ...


 Did you even bother to read the post?  It explains why.  Labor rates will increase period if you increase the min wage &#8211; that is a simple fact.  There is no &#8216;may never happen.&#8217;  That is a pipe dream that you liberals tell yourself so that you can feel comfortable thinking that minimum wage increases actually help anyone.

Interesting to the bold part though because no &#8216;right wingers&#8217; want that at all.  That is what those like YOU want.  You are the side that continually fights for government programs to give everyone financial help from buying cheese to heat to rent.  You just tried to blame the right for programs that the left champions.  Are you all right?

edit: The numbers used were illustrating that they are utterly irrelevant.  You guys were using 22.  I don&#8217;t care what the number is; the argument is EXACTLY the same.  I notice that you attacked the numbers (though 30 is not far off) but failed to address a single point.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Sep 11, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> HomeInspect said:
> 
> 
> > Why is it that I see minimum wage employees with smart phones, tatoos and piercings, big screen TV's,  driving nice cars, and smoking outside of Walmart on their breaks ?  Are these the people that can't pay their rent?
> ...



Almost universally the difference with poor and middle class/weathy people is fundamentally how they view the world.  You find that the poor do not look at things in that manner at all.  I have a few good examples.

I met a woman at the store selling cell phones.  My wife and I became pretty quick friends as we have had similar experiences with our children and illness.  A few months later, she was having a rough time with her finances and we offered to help her and her daughter out.  Essentially, we set her up at our home with rent, utility and board for the low price of nothing.  We paid all her base essential expenses minus her car and insurance for six months so that she could save for first, last and deposit on a new apartment and get some side cash.  Theoretically, she should have had a pretty extensive savings right away as even at minimum wages (which she was making more than) but for some reason when ended up with exactly what she started with  nothing.

It was never, and will never be, a matter of what she makes.  She creates chaos unwittingly to force herself back to square one.  I would never have believed it if I did not see it firsthand.  To help her out, we went over her finances after the first month to find where her money had gone because she simply did not see what was happening.  We purchase for ourselves gourmet coffee beans.  I drink coffee VERY rarely so there is no reason to not have the best when I do.  She felt the need to go to Starbucks daily at a monthly cost of around 300 dollars.  She also felt the need to buy food that was conveniently wrapped.  Kraft singles mac and cheese, shrink wrapped apples and the like.  Also a very expensive habit.  She continued that habit even though we provided all the equivalent in fresh fruit and boxed goods.  The claim was that she did not have time to cook as well though why she had no time is beyond me  there was nothing else that she needed to take care of.  Smoking was another vice that was costing her quite a bit.

After tabulating all this, do you know how many habits she changed?  Zero.

It was her life and she had rights to do whatever she wanted but I was clear  we gave her six months and that is what she got.  Currently, she is right where we left her (though living off someone else atm) and all I have to say is that will never change.  The job, the pay or even her situation is utterly meaningless  she creates the strife and conditions that ensure where she is herself.  The sad reality is that most people that are in that situation are there for the exact same reason.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 11, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > Gee you right wing whacks are strange. IF a minimum wage job was the only type of job I could find, then of course my minimum wage job would have to cover my living expenses.
> ...



Now when an employee wants to negotiate anything, many see that as a big bad thing in which is seen as acting out in a unionized manor, and we know how people hate any unionizing at the bottom, so negotiate how like you are suggesting ?


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 11, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > HomeInspect said:
> ...


And you use her situation to what, paint most with a broad brush maybe ? Hmm, are you suggesting we use her situation as an excuse to beware of the big bad wolf maybe, you know the one for whom lurks around every corner now, just waiting to take everyone to the cleaners anymore ?  We are smart enough to know who is in need and can be helped, and who has a history of what you just told in your story, so what it all comes down to is we all need to do the hard work of separating, and then helping the right people, while dealing with the wrong people in ways that somehow get them on the right track, and if they won't get on the right track, then let their family kick in and deal with it, but the government doesn't need to hold these kinds of people up, nor should anyone else for that matter. 

They will learn or be hungry, and I bet they will learn then.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 11, 2013)

HomeInspect said:


> Why is it that I see minimum wage employees with smart phones, tatoos and piercings, big screen TV's,  driving nice cars, and smoking outside of Walmart on their breaks ?  Are these the people that can't pay their rent?


These are people that are usually being subsidized by the government in some or many ways, and so they live it up because of the ease in which the government has caved to them in the past, and still will cater to them as long as they can somehow make it to that voting machine.

Incentivizing the poor was a democrat scam from way back it appears now, and the reason it was a scam is because far more are poor now than ever before (swollen in their ranks), as well as being far to dependent, and they are part of the backbone of the democrat party when it comes to voting now, so it fits just like a glove, and not like the OJ glove but more of a perfect fit on this one I think.


----------



## zeke (Sep 11, 2013)

Seems like it shouldn't be so hard to figure out what a minimum hourly wage would have to be to keep the person with the minimum wage job from qualifying for government assistance. 

Is the number 8.50? 10 bucks?

If you apply inflation to the time period minimum wage has been in effect, the number should be around 15.
That's high, but eh you can't argue inflation. Look at the wage inflation for CEOs.

And of course, a higher minimum wage will give a push to wages for more experienced and valued employees. And that's a bad thing how? Since wages and earnings have been flat or declining for years.

Why you all against the hourly wage working man or woman? Just curious on that. I have worked either on 100% commission or bid my own jobs and made what I could. But I sure know a lot of people working for an hourly wage and they haven't had it so good for a while. No unions to represent their interest. No shortage of people looking for a job. Tough job environment.

Why you all so opposed to hourly people getting a little more money in their pockets? It,s not likely they will become your neighbors with a .75 cent raise. Unless you all live in a trailer park?


----------



## bayoubill (Sep 11, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Minimum Wage Workers Largely Live In The South, Are Women (GRAPHIC)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



your graphic forgot to include a breakdown for such thinks as:

"By Lack Of Initiative"


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 11, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > zeke said:
> ...



The way I did is one way. I don't think the way our business does things is that unique. I work as phone tech. rep. in the customer service department of about a 200 million dollar a year company. There are eight other people who have the same job description I do. Each year at review time each department gets budgeted an amount of money to give out in raises on a merit basis. Last year I was awarded the largest raise in our department because despite being their the least amount of time, I was still making entry level pay for doing the same work and then some as everyone else and I had the documented the data to prove it. 

THAT is how you negotiate a raise. It's pretty straight forward. Your job description says we'll pay you x for doing y. If you demonstrate you're doing y+, there's your grounds for a raise and you plead your case. If they're any type of company worth working for you'll probably get it. I did. It's not at all uncommon for higher skilled positions. You may have seen job descriptions for job openings that say something like 'pay dependent on experience'. Admittedly though you don't see much of that in the low skill, low paying jobs for a couple reasons. One is a lack of leverage on the part of the employee. There are just too many other people out there that can do what the company needs done for the same price that they don't need to budge to much on their low pay positions and if you bring so much more to the table you should be trying for something else anyway. The other is to FAQ's point; at some point libs have to start holding individuals accountable. That which you don't acknowledge will not change and libs don't acknowledge that all these poor people making sub living wages are where they are because the make bad decisions. That's where the problem solving has to start. If the goal is to get these people more money, you don't start by petitioning the government, or striking, or bellyaching about greedy bosses. You engage in critical, objective introspection and first ask 'What am I doing to contribute to how much income I bring in.'?


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 11, 2013)

zeke said:


> Seems like it shouldn't be so hard to figure out what a minimum hourly wage would have to be to keep the person with the minimum wage job from qualifying for government assistance.
> 
> Is the number 8.50? 10 bucks?
> 
> ...



You can judge the integrity of person's moral compass by examining whether their opinions on something changes based on whether or not it benefits them. I say that because I DO work for an hourly wage ($15/hr). And according to you, since I may not have as much money as I would like, to fix that I should be petitioning the government, or striking, or seeking union representation. I apparently grew with better moral fiber than you because I learned it is not someone else's job to ensure that I have enough to live on. That's MY job. If I want more money, I EARN it. I do that by making myself more valuable to my employer and/or gaining skills that pay more. 

The whole problem here is so many of you don't seem to understand the how the relationship between employer and employee works in compensation. THE REASON YOUR EMPLOYER PAYS YOU IS *NOT* BASED ON WHAT YOU NEED TO LIVE ON. Get that through your head and you'll be better off. Your employer compensates you for the value you add and the skill you provide. Period.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 12, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


Ok, but the whole thing goes to hades,  if it is not a company worth working for, or as you spoke of greedy bosses, where as what has been a problem today is this trending that got started among companies and these bosses in this new way of thinking where companies began looking out into the deep blue sea of employee's, yet with a new greed and a lust in their eyes, but it wasn't a lust for a good employee; no but rather in the opposite, where as they wanted an employee who could be exploited and was dumbed down to a level in which could be exploited by them, and they got what they wanted because of the quickly changing landscape of major manufacturing companies taking advantage of Nafta, leaving hundreds of thousands floating out there to be taken in by others regardless of their skill sets (fish out of water), and then miss-treated sadly enough. It's all about leverage as you say, and the companies got a huge leverage over the American employee, and they showed what they could do with that leverage once they got it, and it wasn't pretty in many ways. Now the government decided that it would kick in and save these employee's once they (the employee's) became distraught and angry or confused badly over the situation, so they (the government) began trying to level the playing field, and they began giving great benefits or incentives for an employee to sit on their butts in resistance of the problems being faced by them, but what this caused was a huge dependency by the thousands on government, so the government becoming a union boss as it did, and therefore sidelining thousand's like it did wasn't the right answer either in the situation. What the government should have done, is become a mediator between worker and company but not a fix all in the situation, because that is how we got to where we are at today in all of this.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 12, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > Seems like it shouldn't be so hard to figure out what a minimum hourly wage would have to be to keep the person with the minimum wage job from qualifying for government assistance.
> ...


And yet if you are dealing with employers for whom jumped on a bandwagon of lets play the new game of *(how low can we go), *and this no matter how good of an employee you are, while they go laughing and skipping all the way to their bank afterwards, has nothing to do with this at all I suppose ?


----------



## zeke (Sep 12, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > Seems like it shouldn't be so hard to figure out what a minimum hourly wage would have to be to keep the person with the minimum wage job from qualifying for government assistance.
> ...




Because you work for 15 whole dollars an hour YOU have better moral fiber than me?

Hey go to your employer and tell them you will work for 10 dollars an hour. Then you will be 33% closer to sainthood. Go to 5 bucks and you're almost there. Work for free and you will be canonized by your employer. Go for it with all your morality. LMAO.

And seeing as how you seem to know all, why is it that there are employers. I mean, employers aren't doing their thing so you can make a living. They are doing it so THEY can make a living. IF they need or want to pay you much less so that they can take home much more, let your employer know that you understand. They ain't in business for you. You are just out there practicing your morality. And if you wanted to make more money, you could. You would just open your own business. Right? And pay workers the very least amount of money that you could. Because you are moral. How nice.


----------



## editec (Sep 12, 2013)

Same old arguments over and over again.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 12, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



Again the lack of leverage comes from being under skilled. You simply don't see this problem with people that have acquired the more marketable, in-demand skill sets. The reason is labor is a commodity like anything else and businesses compete for it by offer incentives to attract quality candidates. The issues you present are most prevelant in the low skill, low pay jobs and not because they're evil or greedy. Simply because they have the leverage. You don't pay much more for things than you really need to I would suspect. Why is it so wrong for employers to do the same?


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 12, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > zeke said:
> ...



This isn't a new concept. A business pays as little as it needs to on what it needs to run the business, including labor. They can't be faulted for that. They will pay as little as they can and individuals obviously try to negotionate for as much as they can. They would probably like to pay a little less and you would probably like to make a little more. So what makes their perspective (the employers) wrong and yours right (the worker)?


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 12, 2013)

zeke said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > zeke said:
> ...



Way to completely miss the point. I didn't say making low wages constitutes an individual of high morality, or that a person should offer to work for less because it is the right thing to do. What I said was I am a moral enough person to know that despite the benefit that may come from me petitioning the government, or going on strike or unionizing to achieve more pay, I am a moral enough person to know that's extorting money as opposed to earning it. If I did that I would be passing the responsibility of increasing my income on to someone else when it really isn't anyone else's responsibility to provide for my needs. I have the knowledge and capability to take the necessary steps to make more money if/when I choose to. Passing on the responsibility of doing something that you have the ability to do yourself is what is immoral.


----------



## jwoodie (Sep 12, 2013)

Has anyone considered an employee's monetary value in relation to the wage being paid?  If an employee's work doesn't generate revenue at least twice the wage he/she is being paid, there is no reason to hire him/her.  For example, an employee should generate at least $20/hr in revenue to justify $10/hr in wages + taxes + benefits + reasonable return on investment.  Otherwise, it is not worth the risk to the employer, who assumes all kinds of potential liability stemming from this hiring decision.


----------



## zeke (Sep 12, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...




I do want to make sure that I understand what you are saying before I  make any more of  my smart ass comments.

Do you think that going on strike or belonging to a union is immoral?

And, if YOU ran a business, would you pay your workers the least amount of money that you possibly could. Regardless of how successful your business was?


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 12, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


So human beings are just commodity, so is that what you are saying here ? How about talk about human beings as being humans, then re-read your words with the word commodity and labor changed to human beings, and then see how it sounds. All companies don't require high skilled workers or even moderately skilled workers to work for them, and still yet they operate in a field that makes them huge profits even with the lower to moderate skilled workers, but does their being lower or moderately skilled in a situation like this, warrant the company to treat them as low skilled workers with little pay or benefits, when these very workers are helping them in their industry to make boo-coo big time money ? The only thing needed is a structured pay scale set up within any company, that has an entrance rate, a percentage rate for raises yearly in each category with some benefits, and an exit or top out rate for each individual job title that is within the company or companies for which could be listed if a list is compiled on them. This would solve a lot, and hopefully we will get there again, but it is doubtful the way things have been going for so long now.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 12, 2013)

zeke said:


> I do want to make sure that I understand what you are saying before I  make any more of  my smart ass comments.
> 
> Do you think that going on strike or belonging to a union is immoral?



It depends on why you're doing it. If it's because you have a truly abusive employer, that's one thing. If it's because you want or need more pay, benefits, whatever for no more effort on your part, then yes, I believe that's wrong because providing what you need or want simply isn't your employer's responsibility



zeke said:


> And, if YOU ran a business, would you pay your workers the least amount of money that you possibly could. Regardless of how successful your business was?



Of course I would. I just don't think that would be the peanuts you think it would. What I would need to pay to actually get someone to work for me would be dependent on similar, in demand skill sets are going for. If choose to pay less when there are reasonable opportunities for more close by, then I'm not going to have many employees. Not good ones any way. And wouldn't you, as a job seeker, try to get paid as much as you could? Why is the job seeker in the moral right for getting as much as they can out of an employer while the employer is morally wrong for trying to pay as little as they can? The more you get out of your employer the less there is left for them to take home for themselves, just like the less they try to pay the less there is for you to take home. Both sides are doing the exact same thing.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 12, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> So human beings are just commodity, so is that what you are saying here ? How about talk about human beings as being humans, then re-read your words with the word commodity and labor changed to human beings, and then see how it sounds. All companies don't require high skilled workers or even moderately skilled workers to work for them, and still yet they operate in a field that makes them huge profits even with the lower to moderate skilled workers, but does their being lower or moderately skilled in a situation like this, warrant the company to treat them as low skilled workers with little pay or benefits, when these very workers are helping them in their industry to make boo-coo big time money ? The only thing needed is a structured pay scale set up within any company, that has an entrance rate, a percentage rate for raises yearly in each category with some benefits, and an exit or top out rate for each individual job title that is within the company or companies for which could be listed if a list is compiled on them. This would solve a lot, and hopefully we will get there again, but it is doubtful the way things have been going for so long now.



Most major companies already do that. Mine does. You just don't like the fact that some pay scales for positions are really low. Pay is not determined by what you need. It is not determined by your companies profits. It is determined by the value of the skill you provide in your area as established by the market which essentially is a sample of what like skilled workers are being paid in your region. 

Yes labor is a commodity. Get over your 'but they're human beings who need compassion' bull shit. That skills are a commodity, and by extension, the people that possess them is not some evil plot. It's simple reality. No one takes the risk of going into business for themselves for the sole purpose I've providing a standard of living for others. They do it for the freedom of attaining their own desired outcomes. Don't talk to me like I should be feeling bad because I think labor is a commodity subject to the market forces of any other commodity. Shame on YOU for thinking it's the risk takers responsibility to provide for you.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 12, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > I do want to make sure that I understand what you are saying before I  make any more of  my smart ass comments.
> ...


It's all about balancing, and about what has happened to the middle class as well as the youth in this nation, because the balance is broken, and continues to be broken until someone speaks out about it all in these ways. Hec things are so broken now, just look what is going on in the Presidency. Tell me this nation isn't screwed up right now, and I might just tell you a lie as well if you say that it isn't.


----------



## zeke (Sep 12, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > I do want to make sure that I understand what you are saying before I  make any more of  my smart ass comments.
> ...



Interesting replies. I think that you have an unusual take on unions and the reason working people have a need for unions and the benefits unions give employees. I've never belonged to a union, my Dad did. Plus I lived in a UAW city for many years. Till all the GM jobs went south. 

Don't know what you do for a living but if you were union represented, you would probably be making more than 15 bucks an hour. If you are skilled labor. Would that be a good thing?

But I don't think you appreciate what Henry Ford understood. If you don't pay people enough money to make a decent living then you don't have the consumers that a consumer economy like our really needs.

Increased paychecks for hourly working people will stimulate the economy much faster than CEO's and other executives getting an extra few million in bonus money for slashing payroll. IMO.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 13, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > zeke said:
> ...



I agree, but you have to step back and quit blaming just one side. This is not the fault of evil corporations. A lot of it falls on the shoulders of the middle class and poor themselves. They aren't adapting to the changing economy. We're still sending kids to expensive colleges telling them to 'follow their dreams' as if getting a degree, any degree, is enough to insure financial stability after college. As I said before if your bemoaning the pay of an individual or poor person the very first thing you should be advising those people is to determine first what they are doing to contribute to the problem. What choices contributed to the sitation? How do they handle money? What are they doing to improve the situation? If you don't address those things first nothing you do externally to fix the problem is going to help them. 

Of course persepctive is based on experience. I have always worked for large companies that treat their employees fairly and in fact pretty well. And the reason I believe a lot of the blame falls on the individuals in the poor and middle class is because it is observable every single day. From a temp that's gonna make about $10/hr came in to work for us, baby on the way (not married to the mother), and decides a wise expenditure at this juncture would be to finance and Jaguar and a couple flat screen TVs (already had a perfectly good working one by the way). To another friend of mine who has no job at all, a kid to support, getting a degree with few job prospects, but somehow how has enough money for a pack a week of cigarettes and a smart phone. That's just the tip of the ice berg and if you really start observing the people you know I think you would see the same types of bad decisions.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 13, 2013)

zeke said:


> Interesting replies. I think that you have an unusual take on unions and the reason working people have a need for unions and the benefits unions give employees. I've never belonged to a union, my Dad did. Plus I lived in a UAW city for many years. Till all the GM jobs went south.
> 
> Don't know what you do for a living but if you were union represented, you would probably be making more than 15 bucks an hour. If you are skilled labor. Would that be a good thing?



As I said to beagle, if you determine whether something is moral by whether it benefits you, your moral compass may require some adjustment. Just because that might be beneficial to me doesn't make it right. There are all kinds of way to make more money. I could find another job. I could get promoted within the company. I could do extra work on the side. The last option on my list would be to extort more money from my employer (who treats me pretty well) by threatening to unionize.

Look at the people who are in unions. Almost universally they are low skill jobs. Those with more skills that are in demand have no real need for them. I think you made a slight mistatement in saying working people have a need for unions. They don't so much have a need for unions as they have a need for more money. Instead of improving themselves they hire union reps to bully employers into giving them more money for no more effort on the part of the employee. The problem I have with unions is it's a never ending cycle. The job of a union rep is protect and improve the pay and benefits of its members. To continue to get paid they have to continue to deliver to their members. Otherwise why pay dues to be in one? So they keep extorting the employer for more and more to keep their job and show their members they're doing something for them while the members don't have to do much of anything to better themselves in the free market ways that would MERIT more pay and benefits. They protect the lowest common denominators and actually keep people from bettering themselves. Look how hard it is to fire a bad teacher sometime. Instead of getting fired and doing what they need to do to keep a job, they drag their employer through years of red tape and hearings and money.  



zeke said:


> But I don't think you appreciate what Henry Ford understood. If you don't pay people enough money to make a decent living then you don't have the consumers that a consumer economy like our really needs.



That's interesting. There was actually just a documetary on about him. He really was no friend of the common worker. He only came around to it after being bullied by unions, which of course at the time was the mafia.



zeke said:


> Increased paychecks for hourly working people will stimulate the economy much faster than CEO's and other executives getting an extra few million in bonus money for slashing payroll. IMO.



What was it, like 3% of all workers make min wage. So we raise the 3% of workers wages from min wage to say, $12/hr. That's not going to have a significant on the economy. It increases unemployment and takes jobs away from people looking for supplemental income or from young people who could really use the work experience. It's better to take responsibility yourself to do what needs to be done to make more money (and it can be done with a little effort), rather than extort it out of your employer.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Sep 13, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



Lol!  Human beings are absolutely a commodity.  Whether you consider a human being "priceless" or not is immaterial. . . a person's efforts carry with them a finite value at any given point in time.  Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, the number exists.  Everything has a price.  The sooner you make peace with that concept, the sooner you can expand your basic understanding of economics.

Do you know why McDonalds doesn't "owe" every one of its employees the wage they "deserve"?  Because "deserve" isn't based in reality.  You're not using logic to decide that they should pay their fry cooks more money because those fry cooks "helped them profit".  What brought you to that conclusion is your own morality which, I'm sorry to say, is in no way based in fact or logic.

Fry cooks get paid 8 dollars an hour because they're worth roughly 8 dollars an hour because they're doing work that you could train a monkey to do.  Difficult?  Perhaps.  I've heard fast food joints go at break-neck pace.  Nevertheless, it's called low skilled labor for a reason.  Anybody can do it, including teenagers who are still in school and not qualified to do much else.  Teenagers who don't typically have to pay rent and to whom that 8 dollars an hour represents a pretty attractive entertainment fund.  It's an entry level job, not a career choice.

Now, personally I existed in the job market for nearly a decade before I even got my GED.  You know how many min wage jobs I worked?  1.  Stuck around, became management.  Applied for other management positions and some sales gigs, the management because that became a higher paying job for which I qualified, and sales to expand my overall marketability.  It's not hard to lift yourself out of the Jack In The Box kitchen. 

In summation, I don't feel bad at all for most people trying to raise families on min wage.  Why did you create more people if you never worked enough in your life to qualify for better than Mc'y D's?


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Sep 13, 2013)

zeke said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > zeke said:
> ...



I'll give you this, I don't see anything morally wrong with unionizing.  If the market you're in will bear it, more power to you.  Get that money.

From what I understand of Henry Ford, though, his philosophy was as much about being able to streamline his production so that his product was cheap enough for the working man to buy as it was about paying people more so they'd buy his product.  Seriously, think that one through:  "If I give the workers in the factory more money, I can trade them my product to get a percentage of it back!"  That's not sound math.  6 year old could tell you that.  Choosing, all by yourself, to overpay your employees (pay them significantly more than the going average for people in similar positions) has its advantages.  More people will apply and you'll have a larger pool of potential candidates to choose from, giving you better odds of coming upon some truly valuable workers.  However, if you honestly believe that arbitrarily giving your workers enough to make sure they can afford your product is going to increase your profit margin, I don't even know how to begin to help you.


----------



## zeke (Sep 13, 2013)

Not2BSubjugated said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...




Help me? LMAO. Feel free to point out where I asked for your help.

Ole Henry was told that he would absolutely ruin his company when he gave his employees a raise. Didn't happen.

Now ole Henry wasn't just giving out money. But he had such high turnover that he felt he had to do something. When he announced his pay increase, Ford had tens of thousands of job applicants. And Ford didn't stop there. There new hires were educated  and taught English by Ford Motor Co people.. If they couldn't learn, they were let go.

Now how you get to the idea that paying your employees enough to afford the item that they help make, thereby increasing sales and profit, is somehow not desirable for the company. Well I gotta hear that logic. GM once had tens of thousands of employees in the USA, and they bought a new GM car or truck every couple years or so. You think that didn't help GM?

I would guess that your position is that we should pay hourly wage workers the least amount possible and force overseas suppliers and manufacturing to sell their goods at a price our low pay employees can afford. IE Walmart and such.

That may work for a while. As long as no one minds a declining standard of living.

Henry Ford was a populist. He hated plutocrats. I am siding with Henry on the idea that paying an employee enough money to live and prosper is a good thing.

You seem to like those plutocrats.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 13, 2013)

zeke said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> > zeke said:
> ...



Shifting the responsibility of what you can and should do for yourself onto someone else is NEVER a good thing.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Sep 13, 2013)

zeke said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> > zeke said:
> ...



And you seem to like to misrepresent opposing positions.  I don't believe "we" should pay hourly workers anything, or that "we" should dictate the price at which someone sells their own property.  I believe that those contracts are, respectively, between employer and employee or producer and consumer.

You have to keep in mind that labor costs are only a portion of a company's expenses, first off.  Severely underpaying their work force wouldn't save most companies enough money to be worth the inherent problems that come with not keeping up with competitive wages: shitty workers, poor employee retention, etc.  That's where average pay scales come into play.  It's all supply and demand.  Any company worth a damn will pay workers in any given position as little as they can while still remaining close enough to the going rate on workers in said position to reasonably expect that people capable of filling the position will apply.

Now back to Henry Ford.  Even in your little explanation, you've touched on the actual advantages of raising his workers' wages, yet you cling to the idea that the reason it helped his success was because those workers used some of that extra pay to buy his product.  All that money was an investment he made to improve his labor force.  Halt the rollover rate.  Get better people to apply.  Educating your workers means you have smarter workers, and if you're getting rid of the ones who can't hack the education you've also got a nice QC system going there.

And yes, your employees buying your product helps you.  Anybody buying your product helps you.  The idea that giving people the money to buy your product and then selling them that product to get some of that money back expands your profits, however, is simply ignorant.  What you're essentially saying is that handing someone money so that they can trade it back to you for something you made benefits you.  You could've skipped a step and just gave  your product away.  This seems like a really retardedly simple thing to approach like a flow chart, but you don't seem to get it, so here goes:

If giving someone money so they can trade it to you for something you made is profitable, and giving someone money so they can trade it to you for something you made is the same as simply giving them what you made, then a company looking to profit needs look no further than giving away their products to their employees, no?  Or is there some magical multiplying effect that happens if the money changes hands back and forth?  If I give you ten bucks, and you trade it back to me for a bowl of soup I made, will that ten bucks become more than ten bucks?  Or should I just stop being a dumbass and give you the soup?

And to clarify, you never asked for help.  When you asserted that giving shit away yields direct material profits, however, I became aware of your need for help without you mentioning it.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Sep 13, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



No, I used her situation to illustrate the fundamental causes of poverty and that they are NOT a matter of earnings as most of the left here wish to demand.  I also use her situation to back the quoted assertion that hinted much of the problem lies in the complete lack of reason and personal responsibility that many minimum wage earners use their money.  That is something that raising minimum wage does nothing about and likely exacerbated the underlying problems  not solves them.

You also seem to be way off on what I support here.  I am against most government intervention in general so I would have to agree on the last portion of your post but I dont understand why it is in response to my post.


----------



## Spoonman (Sep 13, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Minimum Wage Workers Largely Live In The South, Are Women (GRAPHIC)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



that all depends.  are we talking before or after taxes?  because let's face it, unless you are the 1%, a politician, in the pocket of a politician, a corporation, pretty much every american makes minimum wage after the government takes their share.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 13, 2013)

Bern80 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


Yes these people are out there always of course, but the problem goes far beyond what these people have been doing all by their lonesome, because it is a two way street always upon making bad decisions in business, and in life, by anyone and at anytime in which could just affect maybe one or maybe two, and/or even hundreds yet all depending. The owners and management staffs can also contribute to these same problems by their bad business, bad ethics, greed or attitudes in which they have in life just as well. We must get balance in it all, where the bad becomes weaker in society, and the good becomes stronger once again in our society.


----------



## Bern80 (Sep 14, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



That's somewhat true. However, the market has a means of correcting for that. Contrary to what some may think there is actually incentive built into the free market for labor to treat employees well. The tables start turning as an individuals skills increase in the individuals favor. Will there always be some bad businesses out there? Sure. But they don't last long because, again the market has a built in mechanism to correct for it. Bad press, competition that treats employees better, etc. The problems with individuals and their choices are the ones that seem harder to correct because we have policies in place that actual enable that bad behavior. The people on this threads and the politicians that are advocating for things like a living wage or exacerbating the problem on the individual side. It's just another reason for a person to not self improve.


----------



## Viktor (Oct 1, 2013)

The Negative Effects of Minimum Wage Laws | Downsizing the Federal Government


----------



## antique4xpu (Oct 7, 2013)

Stephanie said:


> You lefties just can't STAY out of PEOPLE'S lives...
> 
> now you nosy busy bodies  think you have a right to know what others are payed and wail how YOU DON'T think that is enough and throw a temper tantrum on how YOU THINK companies should pay MORE...and I'd bet NONE of own or run a business
> 
> ...



i have owned a business for over 20 years ......... i am a liberal man of 61  ....... i am neither greedy or selfish ..... nor am i a republican 

i see republicans as people who are against womens rights
want no legal abortion options  
and want religion both taught in school and involved in government
they favor the death penalty
and think everyone should own a weapon  ...........

 sounds more like islamic or sharia law to me


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 7, 2013)

antique4xpu said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > You lefties just can't STAY out of PEOPLE'S lives...
> ...



Are you sure you can see at all?  It sounds to me as if you have been blinded by your own intolerance and hatred and a lot of liberal Democratic BS.  

It is a shame, but this happens on both sides of the political spectrum.

Immie


----------



## PrometheusBound (Oct 9, 2013)

Pay should also be determined by the value of the work the customer would have to do himself.   So, if a group of yuppies are producing $1,000 an hour but would have to spend an hour cleaning their office, then the janitorial staff is saving the company $1,000 minus what they are being paid.


----------



## antique4xpu (Oct 11, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> antique4xpu said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



i do not hate anyone ....... i know republiclowns never understand that 

i only wish we could provide more care and a better education for all children ......

then there would be no more republicons to mess things up around the world


----------



## expat_panama (Oct 12, 2013)

PrometheusBound said:


> Pay should also be determined by the value of the work the customer would have to do...


Lots of people think they know how other people's prices _should_ be set, but the way prices _are_ set is when some seller agrees to part with a good/service for the amount of money some buyer is offering.

Diversity is here to stay, and that means everyone's labor is different.  This includes the prices different workers can demand for their time.   There's nothing the state can do about it.  Sure, government hacks can raise the minimum wage and pretend they're raising people's wages, but they're not.   No law can make someones labor suddenly worth more than what others are willing to pay.  The only thing minimum wage laws do is forbid the hiring of low value labor.


----------

