After Minimum Wage Hike, UC Berkeley Cuts 500 Staff...OH, THE AGONY!!!!

[Two Thumbs]

I asked fart boy to show us that the jobs have been scheduled for elimination before the pay raise.

He can't do that, then he can't argue logically that his OP has merit.

Bucs, you got fired from the police department, and Vigi has been a minimum pay laborer all his life.

I am not to impressed with your analytical abilities.

Prove that they were.

Please, take the time to prove your ignorant assumption has any merit, any at all.

prove that a college that gets buckets of money from us has to cut employees and list why they have to cut them.

The OP is an opinion without evidence. Vigi and Bucs add nothing to the discussion except stupidity.

I am not impressed with TwoThumbs' understanding of how discussion works. He is so very ignorant. He yells and smells, but his anger means nothing.

so you can't back up your bullshit, but Vig is a moron for not being able to do what you also refuse to do.

peasant

 

[JakeStarkey]

The OP is an opinion without evidence. Vigi and Bucs and TwoThumbs add nothing to the discussion except stupidity.

I am not impressed with TwoThumbs' understanding of how discussion works. He is so very ignorant. He yells and smells, but his anger means nothing.

I don't have to rebut an OP that is only an opinion is the point, although I did ask for something clarification if the U had been planning on laying people off.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

so the higher ups, the elite white men, the leaders of the school, won't lose a penny, but the poor will lose their jobs.

as we told them would happen.

Will the neoQueers ever listen to us? How many more times do we have to prove ourselves?

But,but,but....it'll work this time we promise,things are different ....somehow.

 

[hadit]

The OP is an opinion without evidence. Vigi and Bucs and TwoThumbs add nothing to the discussion except stupidity.

I am not impressed with TwoThumbs' understanding of how discussion works. He is so very ignorant. He yells and smells, but his anger means nothing.

I don't have to rebut an OP that is only an opinion is the point, although I did ask for something clarification if the U had been planning on laying people off.

The problem with your demand is that, in order for the U to give significant raises to a significant portion of their workforce without layoffs, they would have to have enough revenue reserve (profit, if you will) to absorb the increase in labor costs. Now, the U is state run, and thus is not considered to be for-profit, correct? That means that they do NOT have revenue reserve or profit. Thus, the cost increase has to met with an increase in funding from somewhere or a cost reduction somewhere else. Has there been an increase in funding from the state or in tuition rates, or have there been cost reductions anywhere in UC Berkley? If not, it is defensible to hold the opinion that the increase in MW is driving the loss of jobs.

 

[AmericanFirst1]

Ok. So....

If I have a 1,000,000 budget.
Rent, insurance, power, etc is 500K.
Supplies are 250K.
Labor is 250K for 12 employees.

Then labor costs go up to 400K.

How do I make up for that extra 150K Jake Starkey???

Well....raise prices. Or fire a few workers.

Right?

Jake is a retard.

 

[Pete7469]

so the higher ups, the elite white men, the leaders of the school, won't lose a penny, but the poor will lose their jobs.

as we told them would happen.

And consumers who already made $15 an hour will see the value of their wages bottom out when the cost of goods and services sky rocket.

Yet another glaring example of how regressive libturd policies are DESIGNED to harm the people of this country.

 

[Pete7469]

Jake is a retard.

No he isn't.

That would imply he was born handicapped. Jerkoff Fakey is deliberately ignorant, he is dedicated to stupidity like every other bed wetting libturd parasite.

Simple mathematical proof that the regressive bullshit these tools promote can not possibly achieve the results these sniveling douchebags insist will develop, will not be absorbed, considered or even discussed. They will parrot some bullshit about racism or reactionaries as they're programmed to as if they even know what those words mean.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The OP is an opinion without evidence. Vigi and Bucs and TwoThumbs add nothing to the discussion except stupidity.

I am not impressed with TwoThumbs' understanding of how discussion works. He is so very ignorant. He yells and smells, but his anger means nothing.

I don't have to rebut an OP that is only an opinion is the point, although I did ask for something clarification if the U had been planning on laying people off.

The problem with your demand is that, in order for the U to give significant raises to a significant portion of their workforce without layoffs, they would have to have enough revenue reserve (profit, if you will) to absorb the increase in labor costs. Now, the U is state run, and thus is not considered to be for-profit, correct? That means that they do NOT have revenue reserve or profit. Thus, the cost increase has to met with an increase in funding from somewhere or a cost reduction somewhere else. Has there been an increase in funding from the state or in tuition rates, or have there been cost reductions anywhere in UC Berkley? If not, it is defensible to hold the opinion that the increase in MW is driving the loss of jobs.

Hadit, I understand the analysis. However, I am asking for quantitative data to ascertain if the University had been planning to lay off employees before the raise. If so, the OP is good. If not, the OP is inaccurate.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Is this another bad time to tell the left we told them so?

Your typical leftist at this news....

 

[JakeStarkey]

And consumers who already made $15 an hour will see the value of the Iraq wages bottom out when the cost of goods and services sky rocket. Yet another glaring example of how regressive libturd policies are DESIGNED to harm the people of this country.

Stop your bed wetting whining; you sound like Sassy. Show us the up spike in inflation that is supposedly going to happen. We have been hearing such chatter for many years but . . . . Yeah, that's the problem with your argument.

 

[hadit]

The OP is an opinion without evidence. Vigi and Bucs and TwoThumbs add nothing to the discussion except stupidity.

I am not impressed with TwoThumbs' understanding of how discussion works. He is so very ignorant. He yells and smells, but his anger means nothing.

I don't have to rebut an OP that is only an opinion is the point, although I did ask for something clarification if the U had been planning on laying people off.

The problem with your demand is that, in order for the U to give significant raises to a significant portion of their workforce without layoffs, they would have to have enough revenue reserve (profit, if you will) to absorb the increase in labor costs. Now, the U is state run, and thus is not considered to be for-profit, correct? That means that they do NOT have revenue reserve or profit. Thus, the cost increase has to met with an increase in funding from somewhere or a cost reduction somewhere else. Has there been an increase in funding from the state or in tuition rates, or have there been cost reductions anywhere in UC Berkley? If not, it is defensible to hold the opinion that the increase in MW is driving the loss of jobs.

Hadit, I understand the analysis. However, I am asking for quantitative data to ascertain if the University had been planning to lay off employees before the raise. If so, the OP is good. If not, the OP is inaccurate.

According to WaPo, the cuts will be part of a package addressing an expected $150 million budget deficit. Thus, I am going with the layoffs being planned before the MW hike, and probably being enlarged because of it.

UC-Berkeley to cut 500 positions in next two years

The staff cuts announced this week would not affect faculty. Dirks said he expects to use “normal attrition and position control” to achieve the reductions. Whether any layoffs would result is still unknown. The university has about 8,500 employees in its non-faculty workforce.

I think the most supportable position on this is that MW hikes contribute to overall job reductions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The OP is an opinion without evidence. Vigi and Bucs and TwoThumbs add nothing to the discussion except stupidity.

I am not impressed with TwoThumbs' understanding of how discussion works. He is so very ignorant. He yells and smells, but his anger means nothing.

I don't have to rebut an OP that is only an opinion is the point, although I did ask for something clarification if the U had been planning on laying people off.

The problem with your demand is that, in order for the U to give significant raises to a significant portion of their workforce without layoffs, they would have to have enough revenue reserve (profit, if you will) to absorb the increase in labor costs. Now, the U is state run, and thus is not considered to be for-profit, correct? That means that they do NOT have revenue reserve or profit. Thus, the cost increase has to met with an increase in funding from somewhere or a cost reduction somewhere else. Has there been an increase in funding from the state or in tuition rates, or have there been cost reductions anywhere in UC Berkley? If not, it is defensible to hold the opinion that the increase in MW is driving the loss of jobs.

Hadit, I understand the analysis. However, I am asking for quantitative data to ascertain if the University had been planning to lay off employees before the raise. If so, the OP is good. If not, the OP is inaccurate.

According to WaPo, the cuts will be part of a package addressing an expected $150 million budget deficit. Thus, I am going with the layoffs being planned before the MW hike, and probably being enlarged because of it.

UC-Berkeley to cut 500 positions in next two years

The staff cuts announced this week would not affect faculty. Dirks said he expects to use “normal attrition and position control” to achieve the reductions. Whether any layoffs would result is still unknown. The university has about 8,500 employees in its non-faculty workforce.

I think the most supportable position on this is that MW hikes contribute to overall job reductions.

Thank you, and I think your position is defensible.

 

[Pete7469]

I think that the left's push for doubling the MW is a result of their failure to create massive inflation by crippling the fossil fuel industry. Oil producers managed to keep prices lower than expected, and with the Saudis punishing Russia and pumping like they did in 1991 gas prices have plummeted.

Make no mistake about it, the regressives are trying to inflict pain on us. They are desperate to get something worse than obozocare enacted before the moonbat messiah and his wookie abscond from DC. The country has survived surprisingly well in spite of the meat puppet faggot and his sycophants, so they're desperate to plunge another dagger into our backs.

 

[OldLady]

so the higher ups, the elite white men, the leaders of the school, won't lose a penny, but the poor will lose their jobs.

as we told them would happen.

The higher ups, the elite white men, the leaders of the school, will be sitting on dirty toilets and eating with dirty silverware, pulling the weeds in the flower beds...
In reality, our state hasn't enacted higher minimum wage laws and they cut jobs by the score every year. It's probably not related to the higher minimum wage. At least, I didn't see where your article said anything about it.

 

[tigerred59]

Breitbart ^ | April 13,2016 | ADELLE NAZARIAN
In the past, left-wing student activists at UC Berkeley have joined unions in pushing for higher wages, including a “living wage,” for campus staff. Campus minimum wages have lagged behind local minimum wages because the university, as a public state institution, is exempt from local minimums. On Monday, University of California Berkeley chancellor Nicholas Dirks announced that the educational institution will be eliminating 500 jobs over the course of two years, which will wind up saving an estimated $50 million. “My concern and the public’s concern is that UC Berkeley is going to start cutting the people it can ill...

Berkley, like Verizon, like all these money hungry fucks, always want to cry foul when a mf's wants a fair break from these bastards. I lived in Ca. for almost 7 years in my Navy days....and back then the cost of living was outrages.....nobody in Ca. can live with wages at the federal level, nobody.

 

[tigerred59]

Breitbart ^ | April 13,2016 | ADELLE NAZARIAN
In the past, left-wing student activists at UC Berkeley have joined unions in pushing for higher wages, including a “living wage,” for campus staff. Campus minimum wages have lagged behind local minimum wages because the university, as a public state institution, is exempt from local minimums. On Monday, University of California Berkeley chancellor Nicholas Dirks announced that the educational institution will be eliminating 500 jobs over the course of two years, which will wind up saving an estimated $50 million. “My concern and the public’s concern is that UC Berkeley is going to start cutting the people it can ill...

California's budget surplus soars to new heights; schools to benefit
California's budget surplus soars to new heights; schools to benefit

 

[Pete7469]

The higher ups, the elite white men, the leaders of the school, will be sitting on dirty toilets and eating with dirty silverware, pulling the weeds in the flower beds...
In reality, our state hasn't enacted higher minimum wage laws and they cut jobs by the score every year. It's probably not related to the higher minimum wage. At least, I didn't see where your article said anything about it.

The higher ups will not suffer one bit.

Everyone else will.

That's how collectivism works.

 

[OldLady]

so the higher ups, the elite white men, the leaders of the school, won't lose a penny, but the poor will lose their jobs.

as we told them would happen.

...or the other option is vote for Bernie Sanders and keep 100 million people on welfare giving them everything for free and $15 dollars minimum wage working teenage McDonald assembly type jobs, which companies will lay off employees to offset the costs and begin manufacturing more jobs overseas for cheaper labor like they do now. I know you haven't thought it through, this is what happens with wishful thinking in socialism, it usually is all about impulse thinking and not long term reality. Democrats are dreamers, they love having a vision, but it deals with short term solutions. Feel The Free Welfare Money Burn!

But if minimum wage is $15 per hour, scads of people will no longer be eligible for welfare. The embarrassment has been people working full-time at McDonalds and WalMart who are still eligible for food stamps, etc. because they are making below the federal poverty standards. That's what started all this. A lot of people getting up and going to work everyday, working full time, who are living in poverty.

 

[jknowgood]

Okay fakey jakey it's Obama's economy that lost those jobs. Happy?

 

[Vigilante]

Breitbart ^ | April 13,2016 | ADELLE NAZARIAN
In the past, left-wing student activists at UC Berkeley have joined unions in pushing for higher wages, including a “living wage,” for campus staff. Campus minimum wages have lagged behind local minimum wages because the university, as a public state institution, is exempt from local minimums. On Monday, University of California Berkeley chancellor Nicholas Dirks announced that the educational institution will be eliminating 500 jobs over the course of two years, which will wind up saving an estimated $50 million. “My concern and the public’s concern is that UC Berkeley is going to start cutting the people it can ill...

Berkley, like Verizon, like all these money hungry fucks, always want to cry foul when a mf's wants a fair break from these bastards. I lived in Ca. for almost 7 years in my Navy days....and back then the cost of living was outrages.....nobody in Ca. can live with wages at the federal level, nobody.

Then GET THE FUCK OUT OF CALIFORNIA if you can't afford it...Common sense is sadly lacking with many Americans!

Oh, just as an aside.....

• US industrial production fell 0.6% in March vs. 0.1% drop expected
  CNBC.com ^ | 4/15/2016 | Reuters
  U.S. industrial production fell more than expected in March as output declined broadly, the latest indication that economic growth braked sharply in the first quarter. Industrial output decreased 0.6 percent last month after a downwardly revised 0.6 percent drop in February, the Federal Reserve said on Friday. Industrial production has declined in six of the last seven months. Economists polled by Reuters had forecast industrial production slipping 0.1 percent last month after a previously reported 0.5 percent drop in February. Industrial production fell at an annual rate of 2.2 percent in the first quarter. The report joined data on retail...