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

[Redfish]

Detroit is a 3rd world country, it wasnt caused by the cons and is a fine example of how stupid liberal'sl are. No one replaced the stores and shops that left due to stupid liberal policy. And the auto plants went to RTW states........

It wasn't "stupid liberal policy" that made it cheaper to manufacture in Mexico and China. It was conservative free trade policies put into place by Ronald Reagan and Canadian Conservative Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney. They promised us that free trade was the key to prosperity. It didn't work our that way.

GM transferred major manufactuing to Mexico under the pact, and jobs in Detroit started disappearing.

Added to that Reagan and successive Republican and Democratic administrations consistly allowed Detroit to avoid reducing carbon emissions in US made cars, while most of the rest of the world adopted strict environmental standards for fossil fuel vehicles. This left Detroit woefully behind European and Japanese car makers in terms of alternative fuel sources and emissions, to that point that many American cars could not be exported to markets with strict emissions controls, further reducing sales.

Yes, union wages are a factor in the hollowing out of the US auto industry, but only one factor. The killing blow was dealt by the NAFTA Treaty which lifted US import restrictions which protected the jobs of US auto workers. Free trade is a hallmark of Friedman economics, and in all countries where import protections are lifted, manufacturing jobs go to Third World countries. Reagan didn't give a rat's ass about unionized auto workers because Reagan was in the business of busting unions.

Mexico's economy is booming and GM makes money regardless of where their cars are made. Only the US and Canadian workers lose, and the cities like Detroit, Windsor and Oshawa which grew up around the auto industry. And our governments lose too because all of these workers who used to work and pay taxes, are now on the dole.

GM, Ford, and Chrysler moved out of the country because of oppressive taxes and unions that drove the cost of labor so high that the companies were going broke.

Want manufacturing jobs back in the USA? reduce corporate taxes and pass right to work laws in every state.

Why are the following car companies doing great and making money in the south? Toyota, BMW, Mercedes, Honda, Subaru, Hyundai, Kia.

The workers in those plants are making very good wages and have great benefits. Do ya think detroit could learn anything from them? probably not.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I dont know why people say RTW states like were I live in South Carolina now have lower wages. I take to the bank the an equal salary as I did in Illinois and the place I rent is $600 bucks cheaper, the cost of cigs is only $3 bucks a pack to the cook county illinois $11 bjcks a pack.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I dont know why people say RTW states like were I live in South Carolina now have lower wages. I take to the bank the an equal salary as I did in Illinois and the place I rent is $600 bucks cheaper, the cost of cigs is only $3 bucks a pack to the cook county illinois $11 bucks a pack.

 

[Dragonlady]

Why are the following car companies doing great and making money in the south? Toyota, BMW, Mercedes, Honda, Subaru, Hyundai, Kia.

The workers in those plants are making very good wages and have great benefits. Do ya think detroit could learn anything from them? probably not.

The newer US car plants owned by foreign companies do not have the legacy expenses that the Big 3 US makers have. They don't have millions of employees receiving pensions and benefits like Ford, GM and Chrysler, so their overall labour costs, at this point, are still much lower. The foreign car companies have an entirely different attitude towards their workers. They come from a culture which respects the work and the worker and which pays them well. They come from countries which have governments which are invested in social programs which shift costs like health care to the government and not the employer. They actual practice "enlightened self interest", which is treating their employees well to keep out the unions, and to ensure employee loyalty. They come from social democracies. The corporations recognize that having well paid employees is a benefit to the overall economies of their countries, and the profitability of their corporation.

My FIL is an 80+ year old retired GM worker with more than 30 years service to the company. He has a full union pension with benefits. I don't think that GM and the others should cut benefits to their retirees, who are not in position any longer to replace that income if they lose it, but I think that funding retirement going forward there should be some hard choices to look at for those just starting their working careers.

Longer life expectancies are seeing people living past their working years by 20 years or more, which increases their draw on pension funds. Perhaps, we need to be funding everyone's retirement through SS or, in Canada, the Canada Pension Plan. I don't know the answer. Just that we can't abandon those who are already retired or near retirement age because they don't have time to change course.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I worked for plastic factorys that was oversea owned and I hated the place's. if your not a japaneese or europe pure blood you never get far. they look down on us worse then wallstreet does.

 

[Dragonlady]

and according to the liberal logic, a new store would take the place of a store that shut down due to high operating costs. well that didnt happen in detroit, everyone just left. lol.

Again, you're comparing apples to elephants. Manufacturing is not a retail and service industry. If manufacturing moves, nothing comes in to replace it because the demand for the product is being filled from somewhere else. Had GM and Chrysler been allowed to fail, many companies would have sprung up to fill the void created by that loss of product, but the regrowth of the US auto industry would have been slow and large foreign firms would be in a strong position to increase production and steal markets from US firms.

The year after the GM bankruptcy and restructuring, Toyota was able to assume the role of biggest auto producer in the world, but recall and safety issues, and Toyota's poor handing of them, as well as GM's bounce back from bankruptcy meant they couldn't hold the #1 spot beyond that year.

Detroit didn't close down, it moved. There's a difference. The manufacturing is still taking place - somewhere else. So the cars are still being built and demand is still being filled, just not in Detroit.

This is why this particular analogy fails.

 

[JQPublic1]

how about this a carpenter has 3 helpers, 3x $7= $21 bucks an hour. you rasie the minimum wage to $11 bucks it would then be 3 x $11 = $33 bucks an hour. whats he going to do? lay off one worker so his cost would be $22 an hour labor and those two workers would have to work twice as hard.

the only people real hurt by this is the people now at $12 ~ $14? an hour because everything goes up except their salary. dont you get it?

How about this: The Carpenter has to hire 3 more workers, 3+3 = 6 x$11 =$66 per hour. He takes that action because of the increased demand for his services due to an increase in the minimum wage. I year later his profit margin allows him to start a lumber company where even more workers are hired with commensurate compensation! Ain't life grand?

and how he hell would that be possible with everything else going up? and less people working? you act like cash falls down fron the sky daddy up in the clowds..

Supply and demand may dictate if prices go up or down but in supply side economics demand is bound to increase employment as long as the supplies last. I just wish that the US manufacturing base could be revived beyond just automobiles.

 

[Oldstyle]

You remember me talking about that line cook that left for "greener pastures"? He's the reason why wages don't keep going down. It's simply because there is competition in the market place for skilled labor. We weren't willing to pay him as much as someone else and therefore we lost him. That's a free market in action..

I know of no line cooks making minimum wage. A line cook is a skilled worker and good ones are very hard to find. If you were paying your line cook minimum wage, you deserved to lose him.

I suppose I could pay everyone half what I am now, if there were no regulations on what I'm required to pay but I'd be foolish to do so because I would lose ALL my employees.

So what you are saying is that you can't pay your employees any less than what they're making now, but that you would like to. This is exactly why, the minimum wage needs to be raised. Because your workers are paid so little they have to depend on government handouts to live. They don't pay income taxes, and they're a drain on the public purse.

YOU need to pay your employees a living wage, or go out of business because the American taxpayers are tired of giving government subsidies like this to business owners. Either pay your employees enough to keep them off the public purse, or close. Someone with better business sense than you will come along, scoop up the space, and put in a better restaurant that pays well.

My poker game includes a gentleman who owns 6 restaurants - all of them high end establishments. NONE of his employees are paid minimum wage. NONE. All of his restaurants are packed every night because he puts out excellent food, with great service, and he knows how to promote them.

I don't know of any line cooks making minimum wage either, Dragonlady! I certainly never said that mine did not unless you think minimum wage has suddenly become $11 an hour? Your comprehension skills are as bad as Dubya's.

None of my employees depend on government handouts to survive. They make a nice living doing what they do, especially the front of the house staff. We also give out bonuses to all our kitchen employees who stay through an entire season with us. The size of that bonus is dependent on the profit realized by the restaurant. We have staff that have been with us for over twelve YEARS because it's a great place to work and they're treated well. So save your lectures about how I need to treat my employees because you're making assumptions that are based on your opinions and not on reality.

 

[Oldstyle]

and according to the liberal logic, a new store would take the place of a store that shut down due to high operating costs. well that didnt happen in detroit, everyone just left. lol.

Again, you're comparing apples to elephants. Manufacturing is not a retail and service industry. If manufacturing moves, nothing comes in to replace it because the demand for the product is being filled from somewhere else. Had GM and Chrysler been allowed to fail, many companies would have sprung up to fill the void created by that loss of product, but the regrowth of the US auto industry would have been slow and large foreign firms would be in a strong position to increase production and steal markets from US firms.

The year after the GM bankruptcy and restructuring, Toyota was able to assume the role of biggest auto producer in the world, but recall and safety issues, and Toyota's poor handing of them, as well as GM's bounce back from bankruptcy meant they couldn't hold the #1 spot beyond that year.

Detroit didn't close down, it moved. There's a difference. The manufacturing is still taking place - somewhere else. So the cars are still being built and demand is still being filled, just not in Detroit.

This is why this particular analogy fails.

Toyota lost it's #1 spot because of the tsunami that devastated Japan...perhaps you missed that? It had held the number one spot since 2008. Perhaps you missed that as well...

 

[Dubya]

You remember me talking about that line cook that left for "greener pastures"? He's the reason why wages don't keep going down. It's simply because there is competition in the market place for skilled labor. We weren't willing to pay him as much as someone else and therefore we lost him. That's a free market in action..

I know of no line cooks making minimum wage. A line cook is a skilled worker and good ones are very hard to find. If you were paying your line cook minimum wage, you deserved to lose him.

I suppose I could pay everyone half what I am now, if there were no regulations on what I'm required to pay but I'd be foolish to do so because I would lose ALL my employees.

So what you are saying is that you can't pay your employees any less than what they're making now, but that you would like to. This is exactly why, the minimum wage needs to be raised. Because your workers are paid so little they have to depend on government handouts to live. They don't pay income taxes, and they're a drain on the public purse.

YOU need to pay your employees a living wage, or go out of business because the American taxpayers are tired of giving government subsidies like this to business owners. Either pay your employees enough to keep them off the public purse, or close. Someone with better business sense than you will come along, scoop up the space, and put in a better restaurant that pays well.

My poker game includes a gentleman who owns 6 restaurants - all of them high end establishments. NONE of his employees are paid minimum wage. NONE. All of his restaurants are packed every night because he puts out excellent food, with great service, and he knows how to promote them.

I don't know of any line cooks making minimum wage either, Dragonlady! I certainly never said that mine did not unless you think minimum wage has suddenly become $11 an hour? Your comprehension skills are as bad as Dubya's.

None of my employees depend on government handouts to survive. They make a nice living doing what they do, especially the front of the house staff. We also give out bonuses to all our kitchen employees who stay through an entire season with us. The size of that bonus is dependent on the profit realized by the restaurant. We have staff that have been with us for over twelve YEARS because it's a great place to work and they're treated well. So save your lectures about how I need to treat my employees because you're making assumptions that are based on your opinions and not on reality.

You said you paid them eleven buck an hour, so how does $22,000 per year give them a nice living?

 

[hunarcy]

how about this a carpenter has 3 helpers, 3x $7= $21 bucks an hour. you rasie the minimum wage to $11 bucks it would then be 3 x $11 = $33 bucks an hour. whats he going to do? lay off one worker so his cost would be $22 an hour labor and those two workers would have to work twice as hard.

the only people real hurt by this is the people now at $12 ~ $14? an hour because everything goes up except their salary. dont you get it?

How about this: The Carpenter has to hire 3 more workers, 3+3 = 6 x$11 =$66 per hour. He takes that action because of the increased demand for his services due to an increase in the minimum wage. I year later his profit margin allows him to start a lumber company where even more workers are hired with commensurate compensation! Ain't life grand?

How about this: The Carpenter has to hire 3 more workers, 3+3 = 6 x$11 =$66 per hour. He raises his prices to cover the increased cost, which makes it more difficult to find customers who can afford his services. 1 year later, he lays off all 3 workers and you now have 1 carpenter and 3 people receiving unemployment and government services.

 

[JQPublic1]

how about this a carpenter has 3 helpers, 3x $7= $21 bucks an hour. you rasie the minimum wage to $11 bucks it would then be 3 x $11 = $33 bucks an hour. whats he going to do? lay off one worker so his cost would be $22 an hour labor and those two workers would have to work twice as hard.

the only people real hurt by this is the people now at $12 ~ $14? an hour because everything goes up except their salary. dont you get it?

How about this: The Carpenter has to hire 3 more workers, 3+3 = 6 x$11 =$66 per hour. He takes that action because of the increased demand for his services due to an increase in the minimum wage. I year later his profit margin allows him to start a lumber company where even more workers are hired with commensurate compensation! Ain't life grand?

How about this: The Carpenter has to hire 3 more workers, 3+3 = 6 x$11 =$66 per hour. He raises his prices to cover the increased cost, which makes it more difficult to find customers who can afford his services. 1 year later, he lays off all 3 workers and you now have 1 carpenter and 3 people receiving unemployment and government services.

Why would the carpenter raise his prices. To be competitive he keeps the prices the same.
the output of his company, generated by demand, is almost more than he and his 6 helpers can handle ... He is making money, not losing it. As long as the buying power of his patrons remains strong and inflation is controlled, he would have no need to increase his prices. Still, he has the flexibility of laying people off when the boom goes bust. The extra hires that are laid off would be receiving government servicesbut the original crew would still be on the job!

 

[Dragonlady]

None of my employees depend on government handouts to survive. They make a nice living doing what they do, especially the front of the house staff. We also give out bonuses to all our kitchen employees who stay through an entire season with us. The size of that bonus is dependent on the profit realized by the restaurant. We have staff that have been with us for over twelve YEARS because it's a great place to work and they're treated well. So save your lectures about how I need to treat my employees because you're making assumptions that are based on your opinions and not on reality.

Well, now you've contradicted yourself yet again. You said that you have 10 employees and if the minimum wage was raised by $2 an hour, your costs would go up by $20,000 per year. Now you say you pay bonuses, your staff makes a good living, none qualify for food stamps, etc, and front of the house staff make big money. If this is true, then an increase in the minimum wage would have no effect on you because you're not paying minimum wage.

Your prime costs percentages were off for the industry - you said that wages were 35% and total prime costs were 65%, which would put food at 30%. The industry standard for fine dining establishments is 38 - 42%.

All of these contradictions make me question whether you do in fact, own a restaurant.

 

[Oldstyle]

None of my employees depend on government handouts to survive. They make a nice living doing what they do, especially the front of the house staff. We also give out bonuses to all our kitchen employees who stay through an entire season with us. The size of that bonus is dependent on the profit realized by the restaurant. We have staff that have been with us for over twelve YEARS because it's a great place to work and they're treated well. So save your lectures about how I need to treat my employees because you're making assumptions that are based on your opinions and not on reality.

Well, now you've contradicted yourself yet again. You said that you have 10 employees and if the minimum wage was raised by $2 an hour, your costs would go up by $20,000 per year. Now you say you pay bonuses, your staff makes a good living, none qualify for food stamps, etc, and front of the house staff make big money. If this is true, then an increase in the minimum wage would have no effect on you because you're not paying minimum wage.

Your prime costs percentages were off for the industry - you said that wages were 35% and total prime costs were 65%, which would put food at 30%. The industry standard for fine dining establishments is 38 - 42%.

All of these contradictions make me question whether you do in fact, own a restaurant.

Do you not know that teenagers living at home and students going to college are not eligible for food stamps? Those ARE the minimum wage earners in my restaurant. They are the ones who are learning the skills that will allow them to progress to even higher paying jobs either in that same restaurant or elsewhere. Why is it that you find the $20,000 cost estimate so hard to believe? Please correct my math if you feel it is incorrect.

 

[Oldstyle]

As for food costs? We're right on the Gulf in SouthWest Florida which allows me to buy direct from local fisherman and cut out the added cost of buying from a wholesaler. Since seafood is primarily what we sell in this restaurant my food costs are substantially lower than if I were buying beef or chicken that was being shipped in from elsewhere. Any other questions you'd like me to address?

 

[Dragonlady]

Do you not know that teenagers living at home and students going to college are not eligible for food stamps? Those ARE the minimum wage earners in my restaurant. They are the ones who are learning the skills that will allow them to progress to even higher paying jobs either in that same restaurant or elsewhere. Why is it that you find the $20,000 cost estimate so hard to believe? Please correct my math if you feel it is incorrect.

I find your whole story so full of misinformation and contradictions, that I no longer believe you are telling the truth.

You said your restaurant has 10 employees and if the minimum wage is raised, it will cost you $20K per year. Yes, if you have 10 employees making minimum wage it will cost you $20K a year more in wages, to pay them $2 an hour more over 52 weeks.

But then you say that you pay that you pay your employees bonuses for staying the "whole season". Is your business seasonal? If the answer is "Yes", then you won't be paying an addition $20K to your employees because you don't operate year round. That amount would now be $800 per week times the number of weeks of the year that you operate, based on your 10 employees making minimum wage for a 40 hour week, receiving a $2 an hour raise.

Added to which, you brag about how much money your staff makes and that they earn a good living. You say your line cook makes $11 an hour which is quite a bit above US minimum wage. So a good number of your staff is already making well above minimum wage, what with tips, bonuses, etc. and if you aren't operating 52 weeks of the year, please explain to me how raising the minimum wage is going to cost you $20K per year?

 

[Oldstyle]

Do you not know that teenagers living at home and students going to college are not eligible for food stamps? Those ARE the minimum wage earners in my restaurant. They are the ones who are learning the skills that will allow them to progress to even higher paying jobs either in that same restaurant or elsewhere. Why is it that you find the $20,000 cost estimate so hard to believe? Please correct my math if you feel it is incorrect.

I find your whole story so full of misinformation and contradictions, that I no longer believe you are telling the truth.

You said your restaurant has 10 employees and if the minimum wage is raised, it will cost you $20K per year. Yes, if you have 10 employees making minimum wage it will cost you $20K a year more in wages, to pay them $2 an hour more over 52 weeks.

But then you say that you pay that you pay your employees bonuses for staying the "whole season". Is your business seasonal? If the answer is "Yes", then you won't be paying an addition $20K to your employees because you don't operate year round. That amount would now be $800 per week times the number of weeks of the year that you operate, based on your 10 employees making minimum wage for a 40 hour week, receiving a $2 an hour raise.

Added to which, you brag about how much money your staff makes and that they earn a good living. You say your line cook makes $11 an hour which is quite a bit above US minimum wage. So a good number of your staff is already making well above minimum wage, what with tips, bonuses, etc. and if you aren't operating 52 weeks of the year, please explain to me how raising the minimum wage is going to cost you $20K per year?

I note that you now understand that my staff isn't getting food stamps or that my food costs seem to be believable...so let's work on the rest of your doubt...shall we?

I said my restaurant has 10 employees making minimum wage...not 10 employees total.

I typically have one busser, and two dishwashers on no matter what time of year it is...I cut back on prep cooks from two to one during off season. We close for three weeks at the end of August and the first week of September.

Yes, we have a very seasonal business here. It's Florida. Summer is slow...winter is super busy. Paying bonuses for employees who stay through an entire season is done quite often in seasonal settings such as ours. I did the same thing when I ran restaurants in Aspen.

 

[Dragonlady]

Double post - sorry.

 

[Dragonlady]

I note that you now understand that my staff isn't getting food stamps or that my food costs seem to be believable...so let's work on the rest of your doubt...shall we?

I said my restaurant has 10 employees making minimum wage...not 10 employees total.

I typically have one busser, and two dishwashers on no matter what time of year it is...I cut back on prep cooks from two to one during off season. We close for three weeks at the end of August and the first week of September.

Yes, we have a very seasonal business here. It's Florida. Summer is slow...winter is super busy. Paying bonuses for employees who stay through an entire season is done quite often in seasonal settings such as ours. I did the same thing when I ran restaurants in Aspen.

So now that you've cleared up all of those areas, yes, your numbers make sense, but you're not going to like what I say next at all.

Based on the figures you previously provided, I estimated that your gross sales for the year were in the neighbourhood of $600,000, and I said that raising the minimum wage would increase your prices by 4% in total. In other words, those currently paying $100 for a meal in your restaurant, would now pay $104 for the same meal, which isn't a big change in your pricing structure.

But if you have 10 minimum wage employees, as well as cooks, bartenders and waiters all making well over minimum wage, your total annual sales would have to be well in excess of $1 million per year, and therefore the cost of increasing the minimum wage $2 an hour wouldn't increase your costs by anywhere close to 4%. At $1million in sales, the $20K increase would be 2% of gross, meaning you would have to raise your $100 meal price to $102 to pay those kids $9 an hour.

No matter how you slice it, you're getting a wage subidy on those making minimum wage because of "earned tax credits". Those kids aren't paying income tax, and they're receiving earned tax credits, so yes, you're still getting a government subsidy on their wages.

 

[nitroz]

I'd support it.

$8.35 isn't enough for me. Although, I'm due for a raise anytime now.