Poll: Solid majority (71%) of Americans support Obama’s increase of the minimum wage

[eflatminor]

You've been told there is no immorality, fool! That is addressing it.

Nothing immoral about preventing a good person from working and thereby forcing them on the dole. Got it.

Speaks VOLUMES about you.

And again with the ad hominem...how sad for you.

That assumes a society can exist without someone doing those jobs and that isn't possible.

Nope, society can exist with fewer people doing those jobs that would otherwise be the case without a MW. Society can exist with some of those jobs outsourced to places without a MW. Society can exist with technology replacing those jobs, as McDonalds is currently doing. Society can exist by paying illegal aliens under the table to do those jobs, and yes, some businesses simply choose to not sweep the floor (or whatever), which doesn't mean society collapses, it just means one more poor guy can't get work.

But that's okay, I got my answer. You've made yourself clear. We know where you stand. I find your position fiscally wrongheaded and immoral, as do the economists previously linked for your consideration. I understand you feel differently. No need to beat a dead horse. Thank you for the dialog.

 

[eflatminor]

Only the gullible unquestioningly believe everything that a corporation says about itself.

You believed believed that half of WalMart's employees have their healthcare plan, but when the figures don't support you're agenda, they're liars?

You've got some serious bias issues clouding your judgement there. Good luck with that.

Anyway, if you have evidence to the contrary, post it. Otherwise, your...let's call them misstatements...have been exposed. Deal with it.

Quoting from your link does not equate to belief. I used it merely for convenience since you were relying upon it. There is always another side to the story.

Leaked document shows what Walmart really pays its workers ? MSNBC

Economist Julianne Malveaux said, “[Walmart] employees earn around $8 an hour. This is not a living wage, this is not a working wage, and especially not a living wage when they’re not working 30 hours a week, which would allow them to get health insurance.”

An economic policy brief [PDF] from NYU’s Brennan Center for Justice, cited by Ruetschlin, says that the average Walmart employee earns $19,226. The industry-wide average is $24,023.

http://brennan.3cdn.net/8ba7f4a1b9456459b2_a9m6bnxs1.pdf

Percent of employees covered by the employer's health insurance plan -- Estimated at 41% to 46%.
● In 2004, in the U.S. as a whole, 61% of employees received health insurance through their employer
● For all large firms, the figure was 68%.
● For all retail firms, the figure was 48%.

Employer spending on health benefits
In 2002, Wal-Mart spent an average of $3,500 on health benefits for each covered employee.
● In 2002, U.S. employers spent an average of $5,646 per covered employee on health benefits.
● The average for the wholesale/retail trade industry was $4,834.
● Costco, one of Wal-Mart's main competitors, spent nearly $5,735 per employee in 2004

❑ In a study of over 3,000 counties, researchers found that counties with more Wal-Mart stores had a larger increase (or a smaller reduction) in the poverty rate between 1987 and 1999 than did counties with fewer or no Wal-Mart stores

A study compared the tax revenue and the costs of public services associated with various types of development projects in Barnstable, Massachusetts.
It found that big-box retail developments cost more than the revenues they generated, producing an annual net loss of $468 per 1,000 square feet. While the city gained revenues through property and sales taxes, these were outweighed by expenditures including the costs of general government and public works.

Wow. You took a lot of time there to post something that in no way supports your previous statement that Malmart doesn't provide health insurance. They do. You were wrong. Deal with it.

What WalMart pays it's employees in the way of hourly wages or a salary is a completely different topic and again, if you don't like what they pay, don't work there. Plenty of people voluntarily decided WalMart's compensation package was competitive. You can make your own choice.

 

[Dubya]

Nothing immoral about preventing a good person from working and thereby forcing them on the dole. Got it.

Speaks VOLUMES about you.

And again with the ad hominem...how sad for you.

That assumes a society can exist without someone doing those jobs and that isn't possible.

Nope, society can exist with fewer people doing those jobs that would otherwise be the case without a MW. Society can exist with some of those jobs outsourced to places without a MW. Society can exist with technology replacing those jobs, as McDonalds is currently doing. Society can exist by paying illegal aliens under the table to do those jobs, and yes, some businesses simply choose to not sweep the floor (or whatever), which doesn't mean society collapses, it just means one more poor guy can't get work.

But that's okay, I got my answer. You've made yourself clear. We know where you stand. I find your position fiscally wrongheaded and immoral, as do the economists previously linked for your consideration. I understand you feel differently. No need to beat a dead horse. Thank you for the dialog.

How do you have stores without someone stocking the shelves? There is a whole list of jobs that don't require much education, but someone has to do them for society as we know it to exist. This idea that you could just not hire these people is stupid.

 

[eflatminor]

That assumes a society can exist without someone doing those jobs and that isn't possible.

Nope, society can exist with fewer people doing those jobs that would otherwise be the case without a MW. Society can exist with some of those jobs outsourced to places without a MW. Society can exist with technology replacing those jobs, as McDonalds is currently doing. Society can exist by paying illegal aliens under the table to do those jobs, and yes, some businesses simply choose to not sweep the floor (or whatever), which doesn't mean society collapses, it just means one more poor guy can't get work.

But that's okay, I got my answer. You've made yourself clear. We know where you stand. I find your position fiscally wrongheaded and immoral, as do the economists previously linked for your consideration. I understand you feel differently. No need to beat a dead horse. Thank you for the dialog.

How do you have stores without someone stocking the shelves? There is a whole list of jobs that don't require much education, but someone has to do them for society as we know it to exist. This idea that you could just not hire these people is stupid.

Going the obtuse route isn't helping your case. I listed several alternatives to 'just not hiring' someone. But you know that. Again, all I wanted was to know how you square the morality of preventing those who do not qualify for minimum wage from working at all. You made yourself clear in that regard.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You believed believed that half of WalMart's employees have their healthcare plan, but when the figures don't support you're agenda, they're liars?

You've got some serious bias issues clouding your judgement there. Good luck with that.

Anyway, if you have evidence to the contrary, post it. Otherwise, your...let's call them misstatements...have been exposed. Deal with it.

Quoting from your link does not equate to belief. I used it merely for convenience since you were relying upon it. There is always another side to the story.

Leaked document shows what Walmart really pays its workers ? MSNBC



http://brennan.3cdn.net/8ba7f4a1b9456459b2_a9m6bnxs1.pdf

Percent of employees covered by the employer's health insurance plan -- Estimated at 41% to 46%.
● In 2004, in the U.S. as a whole, 61% of employees received health insurance through their employer
● For all large firms, the figure was 68%.
● For all retail firms, the figure was 48%.

Employer spending on health benefits
In 2002, Wal-Mart spent an average of $3,500 on health benefits for each covered employee.
● In 2002, U.S. employers spent an average of $5,646 per covered employee on health benefits.
● The average for the wholesale/retail trade industry was $4,834.
● Costco, one of Wal-Mart's main competitors, spent nearly $5,735 per employee in 2004

❑ In a study of over 3,000 counties, researchers found that counties with more Wal-Mart stores had a larger increase (or a smaller reduction) in the poverty rate between 1987 and 1999 than did counties with fewer or no Wal-Mart stores

A study compared the tax revenue and the costs of public services associated with various types of development projects in Barnstable, Massachusetts.
It found that big-box retail developments cost more than the revenues they generated, producing an annual net loss of $468 per 1,000 square feet. While the city gained revenues through property and sales taxes, these were outweighed by expenditures including the costs of general government and public works.

Wow. You took a lot of time there to post something that in no way supports your previous statement that Malmart doesn't provide health insurance. They do. You were wrong. Deal with it.

What WalMart pays it's employees in the way of hourly wages or a salary is a completely different topic and again, if you don't like what they pay, don't work there. Plenty of people voluntarily decided WalMart's compensation package was competitive. You can make your own choice.

Allow me to reiterate. This thread is about minimum wage employees. Walmart employs MW workers and does not provide them with health insurance as proven by my links.

Since you never bothered to educate yourself with the links provided there is no point in wasting any further time. Have a nice day.

 

[eflatminor]

Allow me to reiterate. This thread is about minimum wage employees. Walmart employs MW workers and does not provide them with health insurance as proven by my links.

That's simply not true. Any WalMart employee that works 30 hours or more per week can participate in the company's healthcare plan, regardless of their wage.

Sorry if the truth doesn't fit your agenda.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Allow me to reiterate. This thread is about minimum wage employees. Walmart employs MW workers and does not provide them with health insurance as proven by my links.

That's simply not true. Any WalMart employee that works 30 hours or more per week can participate in the company's healthcare plan, regardless of their wage.

Sorry if the truth doesn't fit your agenda.

The truth deserves your apology!

 

[Dubya]

Nope, society can exist with fewer people doing those jobs that would otherwise be the case without a MW. Society can exist with some of those jobs outsourced to places without a MW. Society can exist with technology replacing those jobs, as McDonalds is currently doing. Society can exist by paying illegal aliens under the table to do those jobs, and yes, some businesses simply choose to not sweep the floor (or whatever), which doesn't mean society collapses, it just means one more poor guy can't get work.

But that's okay, I got my answer. You've made yourself clear. We know where you stand. I find your position fiscally wrongheaded and immoral, as do the economists previously linked for your consideration. I understand you feel differently. No need to beat a dead horse. Thank you for the dialog.

How do you have stores without someone stocking the shelves? There is a whole list of jobs that don't require much education, but someone has to do them for society as we know it to exist. This idea that you could just not hire these people is stupid.

Going the obtuse route isn't helping your case. I listed several alternatives to 'just not hiring' someone. But you know that. Again, all I wanted was to know how you square the morality of preventing those who do not qualify for minimum wage from working at all. You made yourself clear in that regard.

Your alternatives are as made up as most of your views. You can't outsource those minimum wage jobs. You know what most of those jobs are and you know they can't be outsourced, so why do you claim they can be outsourced? It remains to be seen how much reduction in personnel a touch-screen will cause and it won't be what you claim. You aren't going to replace a minimum wage worker with every touch-screen McDonald's adds, so saying it is an obvious lie. You were told the people operating cash registers also fill orders at McDonald's and you ignored the facts and continued the lie. You aren't going to replace many minimum wage jobs with any kind of technology and you know it.

You are on a thread that says 71% support a minimum wage increase, but look how many idiots claim there shouldn't be a minimum wage. Just because idiots flock to political forums and think they have popular support for their lunacy doesn't mean the world sees things their way. You're still a bunch of weirdos, so face the facts for a change!

 

[hunarcy]

A healthy economy by definition wouldn't be one where someone works their ass off and can't have a decent living. If they can't have a decent living then all that money that would give them a decent living is not going to be spent in a business in that country. That means even the businesses are suffering and not near their potential profitability.

And if EVERYONE made minimum wage, you'd have a point. However, if someone has no marketable skills and are stuck at the minimum wage level, the problem is NOT with the economy.

 

[eflatminor]

Allow me to reiterate. This thread is about minimum wage employees. Walmart employs MW workers and does not provide them with health insurance as proven by my links.

That's simply not true. Any WalMart employee that works 30 hours or more per week can participate in the company's healthcare plan, regardless of their wage.

Sorry if the truth doesn't fit your agenda.

The truth deserves your apology!

Feel free to disprove me. The links you provided do not refute the fact that full time workers at Walmart can get health insurance regardless of how much they make. Show me where I'm wrong. Just saying so doesn't cut it.

And remember, this all started because you said WalMart did not provide health insurance. Let's call that what it was, a lie.

Hey, I thought you you said "there is no point in wasting any further time". Was that a lie too?

 

[eflatminor]

You can't outsource those minimum wage jobs.

Sure you can. Entire manufacturing operations get outsourced, which includes MW jobs.

It remains to be seen how much reduction in personnel a touch-screen will cause and it won't be what you claim. You aren't going to replace a minimum wage worker with every touch-screen McDonald's adds, so saying it is an obvious lie.

But you can replace some MW workers, which is my point.

You were told the people operating cash registers also fill orders at McDonald's and you ignored the facts and continued the lie.

That doesn't change the fact that by implementing this technology, McDonalds can get by with fewer workers, which is why they made the investment. So, not a lie.

You aren't going to replace many minimum wage jobs with any kind of technology and you know it.

McDonalds, and many other corporations, disagree.

Plenty of other examples. Farmers are now using technology to replace low wage pickers:
Farmers Mull Replacing Illegal Workers With Robots | Fox News

You are on a thread that says 71% support a minimum wage increase, but look how many idiots claim there shouldn't be a minimum wage.

So if the majority supports something, it's the right thing to do? I guess we know how you would felt back in the days of slavery...

Another ad hominem. Man, you're really not very good at this!

Just because idiots flock to political forums and think they have popular support for their lunacy doesn't mean the world sees things their way. You're still a bunch of weirdos, so face the facts for a change!

And again.

So sad.

 

[Dubya]

You can't outsource those minimum wage jobs.

Sure you can. Entire manufacturing operations get outsourced, which includes MW jobs.

It remains to be seen how much reduction in personnel a touch-screen will cause and it won't be what you claim. You aren't going to replace a minimum wage worker with every touch-screen McDonald's adds, so saying it is an obvious lie.

But you can replace some MW workers, which is my point.



That doesn't change the fact that by implementing this technology, McDonalds can get by with fewer workers, which is why they made the investment. So, not a lie.



McDonalds, and many other corporations, disagree.

Plenty of other examples. Farmers are now using technology to replace low wage pickers:
Farmers Mull Replacing Illegal Workers With Robots | Fox News

You are on a thread that says 71% support a minimum wage increase, but look how many idiots claim there shouldn't be a minimum wage.

So if the majority supports something, it's the right thing to do? I guess we know how you would felt back in the days of slavery...

Another ad hominem. Man, you're really not very good at this!

Just because idiots flock to political forums and think they have popular support for their lunacy doesn't mean the world sees things their way. You're still a bunch of weirdos, so face the facts for a change!

And again.

So sad.

The Wawas around here have been using touch-screen ordering in their delis for years. I'm sure the McDonald's decision to try touch-screens isn't based on proposed minimum wage increases and I don't see how it will save much labor. I've never seen a manufacturing job that paid minimum wage and you know for a fact that very few minimum wage jobs could be replaced by technology or outsourced.

What we have are idiots who can't believe lowering the purchasing power of minimum wage workers hurts businesses. Minimum wage has a big impact on near minimum wage jobs and not so much on below minimum wage jobs, which are mostly jobs with tip income.

Did you notice our owner of restaurants couldn't get away from generalities and put a number on what a minimum wage increase costs as a percentage of his total business costs?

 

[Dubya]

A healthy economy by definition wouldn't be one where someone works their ass off and can't have a decent living. If they can't have a decent living then all that money that would give them a decent living is not going to be spent in a business in that country. That means even the businesses are suffering and not near their potential profitability.

And if EVERYONE made minimum wage, you'd have a point. However, if someone has no marketable skills and are stuck at the minimum wage level, the problem is NOT with the economy.

Doing some of the minimum wage work is a marketable skill. I don't know where you get the impression that minimum wage jobs don't require work and work is a marketable skill. You aren't going to last long on any job just by showing up.

A reasonable human being would recognize the need of the minimum wage worker and be willing to pay a little more to allow them to have a decent life. You people who oppose minimum wage increases aren't reasonable people. You think using reason is to have wages as low as possible as if that helps businesses. Are the banks going to call people up and tell them how they are lowering their mortgages or car payments because the purchasing power of American workers has declined? The more the American worker's purchasing power declines, the less customers a business is going to see.

 

[BreezeWood]

has anyone mentioned a Maximum Income Law should coincide with the Minimum Wage for the purpose to reach a Median Income for everyone in a full employment economy.

 

[Dubya]

has anyone mentioned a Maximum Income Law should coincide with the Minimum Wage for the purpose to reach a Median Income for everyone in a full employment economy.

You're the first person in the world to mention it.

 

[Samson]

has anyone mentioned a Maximum Income Law should coincide with the Minimum Wage for the purpose to reach a Median Income for everyone in a full employment economy.

Yeah, that was Karl Marx.

 

[Samson]

You can't outsource those minimum wage jobs.

Sure you can. Entire manufacturing operations get outsourced, which includes MW jobs.

It remains to be seen how much reduction in personnel a touch-screen will cause and it won't be what you claim. You aren't going to replace a minimum wage worker with every touch-screen McDonald's adds, so saying it is an obvious lie.

But you can replace some MW workers, which is my point.



That doesn't change the fact that by implementing this technology, McDonalds can get by with fewer workers, which is why they made the investment. So, not a lie.



McDonalds, and many other corporations, disagree.

Plenty of other examples. Farmers are now using technology to replace low wage pickers:
Farmers Mull Replacing Illegal Workers With Robots | Fox News

You are on a thread that says 71% support a minimum wage increase, but look how many idiots claim there shouldn't be a minimum wage.

So if the majority supports something, it's the right thing to do? I guess we know how you would felt back in the days of slavery...

Another ad hominem. Man, you're really not very good at this!

Just because idiots flock to political forums and think they have popular support for their lunacy doesn't mean the world sees things their way. You're still a bunch of weirdos, so face the facts for a change!

And again.

So sad.

You destroyed the whiny bitch.



Bravo!

 

[Oldstyle]

If you run a restaurant like you claim, let's do the math on your whole expense of doing business and what a minimum wage increase will add to the whole expense as a percentage!

Let's start by clarifying you only paying $7 instead of $7.25 for a dishwasher! Give us the figures on how many dishwashers you need and what it costs for electricity and all other costs of your business! Your business has a property value, so why own that business and not just collect the interest off the cost of the business? You have to pay for food, don't you? Let's see the full accounting of your business and stop hiding behind generalities.

If people made more money, do you think your restaurant would get more business? Most of your people are below minimum wage workers who make their money on tips.

LOL...the cost of EVERYTHING I purchase for that business would go up right along with the cost of my food. Or don't you understand that concept? If the guy who ships my produce has to increase the wage he pays the guy who packs it and puts it on a truck then that cost gets passed along to me. That's not hyperbole from me that's simply the way it WORKS. I really don't understand how progressives like you can understand so little about business yet are so ready to impose legislation on it.

You are obviously too dumb to own a business. If minimum wage increased 25%, your cost of doing business would not increase that amount and neither would other businesses. If wages continued to decrease in purchasing power, your business would eventually go bankrupt as people cut back on going to restaurants. If you've owned restarurants, you know there are times when business is slow and you still can only cut back on help so much. I've been around many restaurants, both fancy and plain, and been around plenty of the people who work there both on an after work. It's common for restaurant workers to get off work and socialize together at a late hour restaurant.

If you are a restaurant owner, you would want a very healthy economy where people aren't concerned about money, unless you own a very fancy restaurant where only the rich dine. Anyone who has been in that business knows that.

Labor costs...as anyone who HAS owned a restaurant knows only too well, is the single biggest cost that a restaurant incurs. It's why competent owners and their managers watch labor costs like hawks trying to keep them in line. Having labor costs go up by 25% would be an enormous increase to the cost of doing business...an increase that would have to be passed along in the cost of a meal. That's just common sense...which you appear to be in very short supply of.

 

[DiamondDave]

LOL...the cost of EVERYTHING I purchase for that business would go up right along with the cost of my food. Or don't you understand that concept? If the guy who ships my produce has to increase the wage he pays the guy who packs it and puts it on a truck then that cost gets passed along to me. That's not hyperbole from me that's simply the way it WORKS. I really don't understand how progressives like you can understand so little about business yet are so ready to impose legislation on it.

You are obviously too dumb to own a business. If minimum wage increased 25%, your cost of doing business would not increase that amount and neither would other businesses. If wages continued to decrease in purchasing power, your business would eventually go bankrupt as people cut back on going to restaurants. If you've owned restarurants, you know there are times when business is slow and you still can only cut back on help so much. I've been around many restaurants, both fancy and plain, and been around plenty of the people who work there both on an after work. It's common for restaurant workers to get off work and socialize together at a late hour restaurant.

If you are a restaurant owner, you would want a very healthy economy where people aren't concerned about money, unless you own a very fancy restaurant where only the rich dine. Anyone who has been in that business knows that.

Labor costs...as anyone who HAS owned a restaurant knows only too well, is the single biggest cost that a restaurant incurs. It's why competent owners and their managers watch labor costs like hawks trying to keep them in line. Having labor costs go up by 25% would be an enormous increase to the cost of doing business...an increase that would have to be passed along in the cost of a meal. That's just common sense...which you appear to be in very short supply of.

Or they reduce labor costs by bring in labor saving technology and reducing the size of the labor force

Dumbya is indeed an idio on business and economics.. and this has been shown again and again in threads

 

[Oldstyle]

I get the impression that he's definitely never operated a business and I'm also beginning to suspect he hasn't worked at many either. That or he's just incredibly clueless about what's going on around him.