Callous Conservatives, Time to wake up!

[Ray From Cleveland]

Minimum wage and living wage are essentially the same thing. I see the terms being used interchangeably. Besides, Doc gave us the dictionary definition of "living wage"

"the hourly rate an individual must earn to support their family, as the sole provider, assuming full-time employment."

They have to be the same thing, actually. If "living wage" is how much a person must earn over minimum wage to support their family, then living wage would dictate what minimum wage should be. Thus the two go hand in hand. I fail to see a difference.

Minimum wage is not the same thing as a living wage.

A minimum wage is a fixed number. It's set by law. A living wage is, as I pointed out before, not a fixed number.

You could make an argument that the minimum wage "should" be the same as a living wage, but 1.) It's not and 2.) that doesn't make the terms mean the same thing, anyway.

So what if the Democrats push for a "living wage" law? What would that number be?

As we all know, a huge increase in minimum wage is a temporary fix to the poverty problem because you can't increase wages on one group of people. If you increase wages for one group of people, it creates a Domino Effect and all wages eventually increase.

Then those that were elated with the new minimum wage find themselves right back where they started because everything else increased in price. They have no more buying power than they had before.

Since 4% of workers get min wage, THAT premise MUST be true *shaking head*

Of course it is. That's how we inflated ourselves out of the world market. Of course it wasn't minimum wage, it was unions.

If you make minimum wage $15.00 per hour, the people that were making in the area of $15.00 per hour are going to want $22.00 per hour because they are not going to work for minimum wage. The people that were making $22.00 per hour will want $30.00 per hour, and it goes right down the line.

If you think that you are going to increase minimum wage to $15.00 per hour and the rest of hourly workers are just going to stand by and watch it, you're insane. Nobody (including myself) would allow it. We all would demand more money.

Sure Bubba, sure, unions that were in decline for decades before Ronnie hosed them? lol

People get raises because those on the bottom get more??? IN THE US REALLY? lol

ONE FUKKN POLICY CONSERVATIVES HAVE EVER BEEN ON THE CORRECT SIDE OF US HISTORY? EVER? oops

We've been through that before, and I gave you two or three which you put the palms of your hands against year ears and sang aloud.

Yes unions have been on the decline because businesses have been leaving states or the country to get away from them. But when they were strong, they too created the Domino Effect.

When times were good, the only way for a non-union shop to attract workers was to have a pay scale similar to the union shops, so the cost for help went up all over.

Drastically increase the minimum wage, and you'll see the exact same thing only in fast-forward. More business will leave the country and more inflation will distance ourselves further from the rest of the world.

 

[bedowin62]

Minimum wage and living wage are essentially the same thing. I see the terms being used interchangeably. Besides, Doc gave us the dictionary definition of "living wage"

"the hourly rate an individual must earn to support their family, as the sole provider, assuming full-time employment."

They have to be the same thing, actually. If "living wage" is how much a person must earn over minimum wage to support their family, then living wage would dictate what minimum wage should be. Thus the two go hand in hand. I fail to see a difference.

Minimum wage is not the same thing as a living wage.

A minimum wage is a fixed number. It's set by law. A living wage is, as I pointed out before, not a fixed number.

You could make an argument that the minimum wage "should" be the same as a living wage, but 1.) It's not and 2.) that doesn't make the terms mean the same thing, anyway.

So what if the Democrats push for a "living wage" law? What would that number be?

As we all know, a huge increase in minimum wage is a temporary fix to the poverty problem because you can't increase wages on one group of people. If you increase wages for one group of people, it creates a Domino Effect and all wages eventually increase.

Then those that were elated with the new minimum wage find themselves right back where they started because everything else increased in price. They have no more buying power than they had before.

Since 4% of workers get min wage, THAT premise MUST be true *shaking head*

Of course it is. That's how we inflated ourselves out of the world market. Of course it wasn't minimum wage, it was unions.

If you make minimum wage $15.00 per hour, the people that were making in the area of $15.00 per hour are going to want $22.00 per hour because they are not going to work for minimum wage. The people that were making $22.00 per hour will want $30.00 per hour, and it goes right down the line.

If you think that you are going to increase minimum wage to $15.00 per hour and the rest of hourly workers are just going to stand by and watch it, you're insane. Nobody (including myself) would allow it. We all would demand more money.

Sure Bubba, sure, unions that were in decline for decades before Ronnie hosed them? lol

People get raises because those on the bottom get more??? IN THE US REALLY? lol

ONE FUKKN POLICY CONSERVATIVES HAVE EVER BEEN ON THE CORRECT SIDE OF US HISTORY? EVER? oops

you were given several; BIG ONES TOO. like CIVIL RIGHTS AND WOMEN'S SUFFAGE, Brown v Board of Ed...etc

you chose and keep choosing to spam the board with spoon-fed stupidity and nonsense and keep it moving. you are simply a coward

 

[kaz]

Yet you judge them, as do other callous conservatives. Replacing staff is expensive, rehabilitating staff is cost effective - and part of that is training, compensations, hours, and understanding

Questions:

• Do they know what is expected and why;
• Were they properly trained or do they need more training;
• Do they have the necessary tools, in working order;
• Are they ill or in pain and fear losing their job if they complain;
• How's their life at home, are they concerned about a parent, spouse or child;
• Do they have a set and predictable schedule;
• Are they burdened by debt;

Find out why they don't give a shit, and if it is truly an attitude problem, use progressive (a word which must scare you) discipline.

You're the one who freely judges people, dick head. Then you whine to high heaven. As for your questions:

• Do they know what is expected and why; - yes, they do when they work for me
• Were they properly trained or do they need more training;- yes, they do when they work for me
• Do they have the necessary tools, in working order;- yes, they do when they work for me
• Are they ill or in pain and fear losing their job if they complain;- as for the last one, no, not if they work for me. as for the first two, wtf, I adopted them? I thought I hired them to do a job
• How's their life at home, are they concerned about a parent, spouse or child;- in every possible way, I don't give a shit at work. It's not my problem and not their excuse
• Do they have a set and predictable schedule; - yes, their manager sets clear schedules for hourlies by the end of each week for the next week
• Are they burdened by debt;- in every possible way, I don't give a shit at work. It's not my problem and not their excuse

you are an excuse to fail, that isn't helping them. And you won't grasp what I just told you

You take everything too personally, and ignore being called an asshole, which you are, and something you ought to fix.

My points were generic, not directed at anyone business or any single business owner. Do try to grow up, and consider opinions which differ from you own, and stop being an asshole.

how can i both take things to personal and ignore being called names???

Wryner is one stupid bitch, damn

Says the Randian fetishist who CLAIMED Rand didn't want Gov't BUT she sucked off the teet as soon as possible! lol

Sorry, didn't see your link she could turn down paying for social security, can you show that again?

 

[bripat9643]

Rent control is one method. Consider what is happening in and beyond Silicon Valley. The tech crowd makes big bucks, but each business in Santa Clara Co. needs ancillary staff, many of whom need to commute hours simply to get to the job site.

Rent control is a more effective way to destroy a city than strategic bombing.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Again, you offer an opinion with no evidence and no examples based solely on your ideology and ignorance.

Santa Clara Co. is the heart of Silicon Valley:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/realestate/creating-housing-for-teachers.html?_r=0

The evidence is all the buildings in New York that look like they're in a war zone. Do you recall all those stories in TV about landlords who wouldn't repair their buildings? Those buildings were rent controlled. Landlords have no incentive to maintain their property when they can't raise rents enough to cover the cost of owning the building.

Because of rent control, construction of rental units in New York came to a complete stop. Now paying $3000/month for a one bedroom apartment is common typical - if you can even find one.

 

[bripat9643]

None of that was what I said. Seriously, you are a complete and utter fucking moron. You're only good for laughing at, Karl. no matter what is said, you respond with Marxist rhetoric. Your belt has only one tool in it

The right wing "marxist" klown burped something up again

Who are you quoting, right wing nut job? Don't know what quotes mean? How's life in the clown car?

Sure Bubs, ANYONE who doesn't have a Randian fetish as deep as yours is a "marxist" or commie right?

So you think Republicans are Randian? The stupid just goes deeper and deeper with you, doesn't it?

Some are, or they are called RINO's by the far right which dominates the tent of the Republican Party, a tent which continues to shrink.

Randians would be libertarians, although many registered Republicans are libertarians.

 

[bripat9643]

None of that was what I said. Seriously, you are a complete and utter fucking moron. You're only good for laughing at, Karl. no matter what is said, you respond with Marxist rhetoric. Your belt has only one tool in it

The right wing "marxist" klown burped something up again

Who are you quoting, right wing nut job? Don't know what quotes mean? How's life in the clown car?

Sure Bubs, ANYONE who doesn't have a Randian fetish as deep as yours is a "marxist" or commie right?

So you think Republicans are Randian? The stupid just goes deeper and deeper with you, doesn't it?

Do I think the Randians in the AEI, Heritage, Club for Growth, Koch, etc world are pushing the buttons in the GOP world? Yep

None of them, except perhaps for the Kochs, are Randians. They almost all favor keep drugs illegal, making porn illegal and support Social Security and Medicare

 

[SAYIT]

Minimum wage and living wage are essentially the same thing. I see the terms being used interchangeably. Besides, Doc gave us the dictionary definition of "living wage"

"the hourly rate an individual must earn to support their family, as the sole provider, assuming full-time employment."

They have to be the same thing, actually. If "living wage" is how much a person must earn over minimum wage to support their family, then living wage would dictate what minimum wage should be. Thus the two go hand in hand. I fail to see a difference.

Minimum wage is not the same thing as a living wage.

A minimum wage is a fixed number. It's set by law. A living wage is, as I pointed out before, not a fixed number.

You could make an argument that the minimum wage "should" be the same as a living wage, but 1.) It's not and 2.) that doesn't make the terms mean the same thing, anyway.

So what if the Democrats push for a "living wage" law? What would that number be?

As we all know, a huge increase in minimum wage is a temporary fix to the poverty problem because you can't increase wages on one group of people. If you increase wages for one group of people, it creates a Domino Effect and all wages eventually increase.

Then those that were elated with the new minimum wage find themselves right back where they started because everything else increased in price. They have no more buying power than they had before.

Since 4% of workers get min wage, THAT premise MUST be true *shaking head*

Of course it is. That's how we inflated ourselves out of the world market. Of course it wasn't minimum wage, it was unions.

If you make minimum wage $15.00 per hour, the people that were making in the area of $15.00 per hour are going to want $22.00 per hour because they are not going to work for minimum wage. The people that were making $22.00 per hour will want $30.00 per hour, and it goes right down the line.

If you think that you are going to increase minimum wage to $15.00 per hour and the rest of hourly workers are just going to stand by and watch it, you're insane. Nobody (including myself) would allow it. We all would demand more money.

A ripple effect the left neither mentions nor acknowledges but is clearly what the min wage battle is really about. Many union contracts are "min wage plus" based and millions of wages would increase should the minimum rise.
Doubling the min wage would cause the same economic dynamic that OPEC's artificial price-setting did in the 1970s ... inflationary catch-up.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Rent control is one method. Consider what is happening in and beyond Silicon Valley. The tech crowd makes big bucks, but each business in Santa Clara Co. needs ancillary staff, many of whom need to commute hours simply to get to the job site.

Rent control is a more effective way to destroy a city than strategic bombing.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Again, you offer an opinion with no evidence and no examples based solely on your ideology and ignorance.

Santa Clara Co. is the heart of Silicon Valley:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/realestate/creating-housing-for-teachers.html?_r=0

The evidence is all the buildings in New York that look like they're in a war zone. Do you recall all those stories in TV about landlords who wouldn't repair their buildings? Those buildings were rent controlled. Landlords have no incentive to maintain their property when they can't raise rents enough to cover the cost of owning the building.

Because of rent control, construction of rental units in New York came to a complete stop. Now paying $3000/month for a one bedroom apartment is common typical - if you can even find one.

Mea Culpa, I was wrong. I took what I had gleaned from the Santa Clara situation and didn't look beyond it. See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/u...control-and-unintended-consequences.html?_r=0

 

[SAYIT]

People get raises because those on the bottom get more??? IN THE US REALLY? lol

Yanno, I'm never really sure if your monumental ignorance is self-imposed, a matter of convenience, or just what you are.

A large number of union and non-union labor contracts in the service, retail and hospitality industries peg their base-line wages (min wage plus) to the minimum wage.

According to the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union Website, union contracts are triggered to implement wage hikes in the case of minimum wage increases.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Is this a precursor of things to come?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/world/europe/labour-party-election-jeremy-corbyn.html?_r=0


Are The People ready to recoil from the consequences of Reaganism as the Brits have of Thatcherism?

Are the people ready to take back democracy from the plutocrats?

Is it possible that all the wealth of Brothers Koch and the SuperPacs have met their match, as the antipathy of The People seeing great wealth continue to flow to the few at the expense of the many continues to grow?

Is Sen. Sanders our Jeremy Corbyn?

It's past time for a correction, American voters have in the past rejected extremism, and today's Republican Party is not today, and not since 1981, a party of the people, by the people and for the people.

Once single issue voters understand the GOP is all hat and no cattle, as the have given the cattle to the wealthy elite, they will realize the wedge issues have never been fixed by the GOP.

In fact the GOP and it's benefactors - the Power Elite - understand that to solve issues like immigration, health care, the meme that they will take away your guns, make abortion harder SSM and will destroy marriage between a man and a women will take away their talking points.

The changes necessary to take back America from the power held by the First and Second Estates will be a monumental task, given the money which the clergy and nobility - our power elites - will put into keeping the Congress under the leadership they own.

ROFLMNAO!

How ADORABLE is THAT?

 

[SAYIT]

Rent control is one method. Consider what is happening in and beyond Silicon Valley. The tech crowd makes big bucks, but each business in Santa Clara Co. needs ancillary staff, many of whom need to commute hours simply to get to the job site.

Rent control is a more effective way to destroy a city than strategic bombing.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Again, you offer an opinion with no evidence and no examples based solely on your ideology and ignorance.

Santa Clara Co. is the heart of Silicon Valley:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/realestate/creating-housing-for-teachers.html?_r=0

The evidence is all the buildings in New York that look like they're in a war zone. Do you recall all those stories in TV about landlords who wouldn't repair their buildings? Those buildings were rent controlled. Landlords have no incentive to maintain their property when they can't raise rents enough to cover the cost of owning the building.

Because of rent control, construction of rental units in New York came to a complete stop. Now paying $3000/month for a one bedroom apartment is common typical - if you can even find one.

Mea Culpa, I was wrong. I took what I had gleaned from the Santa Clara situation and didn't look beyond it. See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/u...control-and-unintended-consequences.html?_r=0

Kudos.
I gather your mea culpa is an admission that gov't meddling in the biz of biz can (and often does) have negative unintended consequences but, as the article illustrates, gov't resists the need to undo the damage they do. Instead of repealing rent control, the pressure is to use a means-test to determine one's ability to pay rent (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need). The same unintended consequences are in store when gov't meddles in the labor wage market.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Rent control is one method. Consider what is happening in and beyond Silicon Valley. The tech crowd makes big bucks, but each business in Santa Clara Co. needs ancillary staff, many of whom need to commute hours simply to get to the job site.

Rent control is a more effective way to destroy a city than strategic bombing.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Again, you offer an opinion with no evidence and no examples based solely on your ideology and ignorance.

Santa Clara Co. is the heart of Silicon Valley:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/realestate/creating-housing-for-teachers.html?_r=0

The evidence is all the buildings in New York that look like they're in a war zone. Do you recall all those stories in TV about landlords who wouldn't repair their buildings? Those buildings were rent controlled. Landlords have no incentive to maintain their property when they can't raise rents enough to cover the cost of owning the building.

Because of rent control, construction of rental units in New York came to a complete stop. Now paying $3000/month for a one bedroom apartment is common typical - if you can even find one.

Mea Culpa, I was wrong. I took what I had gleaned from the Santa Clara situation and didn't look beyond it. See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/u...control-and-unintended-consequences.html?_r=0

Kudos.
I gather your mea culpa is an admission that gov't meddling in the biz of biz can (and often does) have negative unintended consequences but, as the article illustrates, gov't resists the need to undo the damage they do. Instead of repealing rent control, the pressure is to use a means-test to determine one's ability to pay rent (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need). The same unintended consequences are in store when gov't meddles in the labor wage market.

One need go no further to prove your assessment, than the EPA's recent 'Shit happens!' excuse, after they poisoned the water for most of the South West.

Naturally, if anyone BUT the EPA had done so... they'd no be destitute and looking at prison for the rest of their natural life.

 

[Dad2three]

Sure Bubs, ANYONE who doesn't have a Randian fetish as deep as yours is a "marxist" or commie right?

So you think Republicans are Randian? The stupid just goes deeper and deeper with you, doesn't it?

Some are, or they are called RINO's by the far right which dominates the tent of the Republican Party which continues to shrink.

Um...no...RINOs are you, leftist Democrats. Randians aren't Republicans at all. Do you know anything about anything?

Right, the Koch's who ARE the leading libertarians, and fund the leading libertarian "think tank", CATO, AND spent the most in 2012, aren't GOPers, lol

So why do you worship the Republican party if you think they are controlled by libertarians?

Projection Bubba? That's the best you have?

 

[Dad2three]

Minimum wage is not the same thing as a living wage.

A minimum wage is a fixed number. It's set by law. A living wage is, as I pointed out before, not a fixed number.

You could make an argument that the minimum wage "should" be the same as a living wage, but 1.) It's not and 2.) that doesn't make the terms mean the same thing, anyway.

So what if the Democrats push for a "living wage" law? What would that number be?

As we all know, a huge increase in minimum wage is a temporary fix to the poverty problem because you can't increase wages on one group of people. If you increase wages for one group of people, it creates a Domino Effect and all wages eventually increase.

Then those that were elated with the new minimum wage find themselves right back where they started because everything else increased in price. They have no more buying power than they had before.

Since 4% of workers get min wage, THAT premise MUST be true *shaking head*

Of course it is. That's how we inflated ourselves out of the world market. Of course it wasn't minimum wage, it was unions.

If you make minimum wage $15.00 per hour, the people that were making in the area of $15.00 per hour are going to want $22.00 per hour because they are not going to work for minimum wage. The people that were making $22.00 per hour will want $30.00 per hour, and it goes right down the line.

If you think that you are going to increase minimum wage to $15.00 per hour and the rest of hourly workers are just going to stand by and watch it, you're insane. Nobody (including myself) would allow it. We all would demand more money.

Sure Bubba, sure, unions that were in decline for decades before Ronnie hosed them? lol

People get raises because those on the bottom get more??? IN THE US REALLY? lol

ONE FUKKN POLICY CONSERVATIVES HAVE EVER BEEN ON THE CORRECT SIDE OF US HISTORY? EVER? oops

We've been through that before, and I gave you two or three which you put the palms of your hands against year ears and sang aloud.

Yes unions have been on the decline because businesses have been leaving states or the country to get away from them. But when they were strong, they too created the Domino Effect.

When times were good, the only way for a non-union shop to attract workers was to have a pay scale similar to the union shops, so the cost for help went up all over.

Drastically increase the minimum wage, and you'll see the exact same thing only in fast-forward. More business will leave the country and more inflation will distance ourselves further from the rest of the world.

Oh right, YOU actually "believe" that nonsense? SHOCKING

YEAH, IT WAS THE DROP IN UNION MEMBERSHIP THAT WAS THE PROBLEM *SHAKING HEAD*


THE OFFSHORING OF US JOBS

YEAH, UNIONS *SHAKING HEAD*

 

[Dad2three]

You're the one who freely judges people, dick head. Then you whine to high heaven. As for your questions:

• Do they know what is expected and why; - yes, they do when they work for me
• Were they properly trained or do they need more training;- yes, they do when they work for me
• Do they have the necessary tools, in working order;- yes, they do when they work for me
• Are they ill or in pain and fear losing their job if they complain;- as for the last one, no, not if they work for me. as for the first two, wtf, I adopted them? I thought I hired them to do a job
• How's their life at home, are they concerned about a parent, spouse or child;- in every possible way, I don't give a shit at work. It's not my problem and not their excuse
• Do they have a set and predictable schedule; - yes, their manager sets clear schedules for hourlies by the end of each week for the next week
• Are they burdened by debt;- in every possible way, I don't give a shit at work. It's not my problem and not their excuse

you are an excuse to fail, that isn't helping them. And you won't grasp what I just told you

You take everything too personally, and ignore being called an asshole, which you are, and something you ought to fix.

My points were generic, not directed at anyone business or any single business owner. Do try to grow up, and consider opinions which differ from you own, and stop being an asshole.

how can i both take things to personal and ignore being called names???

Wryner is one stupid bitch, damn

Says the Randian fetishist who CLAIMED Rand didn't want Gov't BUT she sucked off the teet as soon as possible! lol

Sorry, didn't see your link she could turn down paying for social security, can you show that again?

TURN DOWN? Weird I thought SHE had principles to stand on, her fellow anti collectivist didn't collect even though THEY paid the taxes???


“In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest.”


Morally and economically,” wrote Rand in a 1972 newsletter, “the welfare state creates an ever accelerating downward pull.”

Journalist Patia Stephens wrote of Rand:

[She] called altruism a “basic evil” and referred to those who perpetuate the system of taxation and redistribution as “looters” and “moochers.” She wrote in her book “The Virtue of Selfishness” that accepting any government controls is “delivering oneself into gradual enslavement.”

Rand also believed that the scientific consensus on the dangers of tobacco was a hoax.


Evva Joan Pryor, who had been a social worker in New York in the 1970s, was interviewed in 1998 by Scott McConnell, who was then the director of communications for the Ayn Rand Institute. In his book, 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand, McConnell basically portrays Rand as first standing on principle, but then being mugged by reality. Stephens points to this exchange between McConnell and Pryor.

“She was coming to a point in her life where she was going to receive the very thing she didn’t like, which was Medicare and Social Security,” Pryor told McConnell. “I remember telling her that this was going to be difficult. For me to do my job she had to recognize that there were exceptions to her theory. So that started our political discussions. From there on – with gusto – we argued all the time.

The initial argument was on greed,” Pryor continued. “She had to see that there was such a thing as greed in this world. Doctors could cost an awful lot more money than books earn, and she could be totally wiped out by medical bills if she didn’t watch it. Since she had worked her entire life, and had paid into Social Security, she had a right to it. She didn’t feel that an individual should take help.”

Rand had paid into the system, so why not take the benefits? It's true, but according to Stephens, some of Rand's fellow travelers remained true to their principles.

Rand is one of three women the Cato Institute calls founders of American libertarianism. The other two, Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel “Pat” Paterson, both rejected Social Security benefits on principle. Lane, with whom Rand corresponded for several years, once quit an editorial job in order to avoid paying Social Security taxes. The Cato Institute says Lane considered Social Security a “Ponzi fraud” and “told friends that it would be immoral of her to take part in a system that would predictably collapse so catastrophic all


Paterson would end up dying a pauper. Rand went a different way.

Ayn Rand Railed Against Government Benefits, But Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them



LMAOROG

 

[Dad2three]

Rent control is one method. Consider what is happening in and beyond Silicon Valley. The tech crowd makes big bucks, but each business in Santa Clara Co. needs ancillary staff, many of whom need to commute hours simply to get to the job site.

Rent control is a more effective way to destroy a city than strategic bombing.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Again, you offer an opinion with no evidence and no examples based solely on your ideology and ignorance.

Santa Clara Co. is the heart of Silicon Valley:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/realestate/creating-housing-for-teachers.html?_r=0

The evidence is all the buildings in New York that look like they're in a war zone. Do you recall all those stories in TV about landlords who wouldn't repair their buildings? Those buildings were rent controlled. Landlords have no incentive to maintain their property when they can't raise rents enough to cover the cost of owning the building.

Because of rent control, construction of rental units in New York came to a complete stop. Now paying $3000/month for a one bedroom apartment is common typical - if you can even find one.

Don't understand buying one would be MUCH more than the $3,000 AND NY like SF are anomalies because of limited space? lol

 

[Dad2three]

The right wing "marxist" klown burped something up again

Who are you quoting, right wing nut job? Don't know what quotes mean? How's life in the clown car?

Sure Bubs, ANYONE who doesn't have a Randian fetish as deep as yours is a "marxist" or commie right?

So you think Republicans are Randian? The stupid just goes deeper and deeper with you, doesn't it?

Do I think the Randians in the AEI, Heritage, Club for Growth, Koch, etc world are pushing the buttons in the GOP world? Yep

None of them, except perhaps for the Kochs, are Randians. They almost all favor keep drugs illegal, making porn illegal and support Social Security and Medicare

lol, Sure Bubs, sure, just like Miss Rand ACCEPTED SS AND MEDICARE THE KOCH BROTHER 'S RUN OFF OF CORP WELFARE THEY SAY IS EVIL, lol


THE ONLY PLACE YOU HAVE A TRUE RANDIAN CULTURE WOULD BE IN SOMALIA BUBS, Not even Honduras, HK, Chile or the 3rd world nations the Randian policy would push US too, actually live the 'freedom" you Klowns LOVE!

 

[Dad2three]

People get raises because those on the bottom get more??? IN THE US REALLY? lol

Yanno, I'm never really sure if your monumental ignorance is self-imposed, a matter of convenience, or just what you are.

A large number of union and non-union labor contracts in the service, retail and hospitality industries peg their base-line wages (min wage plus) to the minimum wage.

According to the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union Website, union contracts are triggered to implement wage hikes in the case of minimum wage increases.

Service industry like those "unions" making what $11-$12 an hour? lol

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Minimum wage and living wage are essentially the same thing. I see the terms being used interchangeably. Besides, Doc gave us the dictionary definition of "living wage"

"the hourly rate an individual must earn to support their family, as the sole provider, assuming full-time employment."

They have to be the same thing, actually. If "living wage" is how much a person must earn over minimum wage to support their family, then living wage would dictate what minimum wage should be. Thus the two go hand in hand. I fail to see a difference.

Minimum wage is not the same thing as a living wage.

A minimum wage is a fixed number. It's set by law. A living wage is, as I pointed out before, not a fixed number.

You could make an argument that the minimum wage "should" be the same as a living wage, but 1.) It's not and 2.) that doesn't make the terms mean the same thing, anyway.

So what if the Democrats push for a "living wage" law? What would that number be?

As we all know, a huge increase in minimum wage is a temporary fix to the poverty problem because you can't increase wages on one group of people. If you increase wages for one group of people, it creates a Domino Effect and all wages eventually increase.

Then those that were elated with the new minimum wage find themselves right back where they started because everything else increased in price. They have no more buying power than they had before.

Since 4% of workers get min wage, THAT premise MUST be true *shaking head*

Of course it is. That's how we inflated ourselves out of the world market. Of course it wasn't minimum wage, it was unions.

If you make minimum wage $15.00 per hour, the people that were making in the area of $15.00 per hour are going to want $22.00 per hour because they are not going to work for minimum wage. The people that were making $22.00 per hour will want $30.00 per hour, and it goes right down the line.

If you think that you are going to increase minimum wage to $15.00 per hour and the rest of hourly workers are just going to stand by and watch it, you're insane. Nobody (including myself) would allow it. We all would demand more money.

A ripple effect the left neither mentions nor acknowledges but is clearly what the min wage battle is really about. Many union contracts are "min wage plus" based and millions of wages would increase should the minimum rise.
Doubling the min wage would cause the same economic dynamic that OPEC's artificial price-setting did in the 1970s ... inflationary catch-up.

Liberals never ask where the money is going to come from using their plans. They just assume that those involved have this big money tree in their backyards and they just pull bills off of it when needed.

Liberals play checkers and conservatives play chess. You need to think what's going to happen several moves ahead with chess.

Speaking of unions and the relationship to minimum wage, I wonder if those teachers unions have that clause in their contracts as well as government unions for workers?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So what if the Democrats push for a "living wage" law? What would that number be?

As we all know, a huge increase in minimum wage is a temporary fix to the poverty problem because you can't increase wages on one group of people. If you increase wages for one group of people, it creates a Domino Effect and all wages eventually increase.

Then those that were elated with the new minimum wage find themselves right back where they started because everything else increased in price. They have no more buying power than they had before.

Since 4% of workers get min wage, THAT premise MUST be true *shaking head*

Of course it is. That's how we inflated ourselves out of the world market. Of course it wasn't minimum wage, it was unions.

If you make minimum wage $15.00 per hour, the people that were making in the area of $15.00 per hour are going to want $22.00 per hour because they are not going to work for minimum wage. The people that were making $22.00 per hour will want $30.00 per hour, and it goes right down the line.

If you think that you are going to increase minimum wage to $15.00 per hour and the rest of hourly workers are just going to stand by and watch it, you're insane. Nobody (including myself) would allow it. We all would demand more money.

Sure Bubba, sure, unions that were in decline for decades before Ronnie hosed them? lol

People get raises because those on the bottom get more??? IN THE US REALLY? lol

ONE FUKKN POLICY CONSERVATIVES HAVE EVER BEEN ON THE CORRECT SIDE OF US HISTORY? EVER? oops

We've been through that before, and I gave you two or three which you put the palms of your hands against year ears and sang aloud.

Yes unions have been on the decline because businesses have been leaving states or the country to get away from them. But when they were strong, they too created the Domino Effect.

When times were good, the only way for a non-union shop to attract workers was to have a pay scale similar to the union shops, so the cost for help went up all over.

Drastically increase the minimum wage, and you'll see the exact same thing only in fast-forward. More business will leave the country and more inflation will distance ourselves further from the rest of the world.

Oh right, YOU actually "believe" that nonsense? SHOCKING

YEAH, IT WAS THE DROP IN UNION MEMBERSHIP THAT WAS THE PROBLEM *SHAKING HEAD*


THE OFFSHORING OF US JOBS

YEAH, UNIONS *SHAKING HEAD*

What a waste of time and space. I told you that there would be an inflation factor with a large minimum wage increase and you post all this crap?