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

[Samson]

Hmm declining GDP, debt crisis, soaring energy costs, lowest workforce participation rate since the early 80s. You name it.

The GDP is NOT declining. See chart below. It declined the first two years Obama was in office because unemployment continued to rise as a result of the Bush policies, for a long period of time after Obama took office, but GDP is now rising steadily.

United States GNP Chart

There is no debt crisis. This is a manufactured crisis that the right wing has come up with as the excuse to cut social programs. The deficit is a problem, but with increased revenues, and reduced spending on social programs due to raising the minimum wage, and the wars overseas are now ending so the deficit should come down substantially starting this year.

Soaring energy costs are the fault of big oil companies. The government has nothing to do with the price of oil, that's a free market issue.

No, YOU name it because the stock market is up, housing prices are up, employment is up, GDP is up, the government is shrinking, and so is the deficit. That's why Fox News is now predicting the complete collapse of the US economy.

All true, except:

1. The usual bleeting refrain that the GDP was harmed by BOOOOOOSH. The GDP rose steadily throughout the Bush administration (see your own chart, idiot).

2.The ridiculous assertation that Government has nothing to do with the price of oil (Yet there is an Entire DEPARTMENT of ENERGY associated with The Government). All fuel is taxed by the government, and all natural resource development is regulated BY THE GOVERNMENT.

3. The idiotic supposition that there will be "reduced spending on social programs due to raising the minimum wage."

4. The completely unsubstantiated blather, "wars overseas are now ending so the deficit should come down substantially starting this year." This same line of crap was what morons ate up after the cold war ended.

 

[Samson]

Acrually the "simplest logic" will kick in as soon as it dawns on you that you need two janitors.... and that you've been paying them too little. It's called "reality check". Changing one of the factors in the equation (the number of janitors) is nothing more than a moving-the-goalposts fallacy.

By the previous logic, you would drive to the gas station and expect to fill up your Buick for $2.50. Because dammit, that's what you filled up for in 1966. And to follow your single-janitor theory, the solution to the gallon price going up would be to buy half as much gas. Think about it.

Currency value changes; that's just the reality. You can't accept the price of everything else going up and then suddenly put up a stop sign when it comes to human labor -- which is by nature always the last one to follow suit, which it must, to keep up. That's uh, what COLA means.

I'll just put this out again until it sinks in. When a 16-year-old high school kid entered the work force in 1968 the MW was $1.25 an hour. In 2013 dollars that value is equal to $8.27. The current MW is $7.25. Which means a 16-year old kid taking the same job would be making, all together now.... LESS than the 1968 kid did for the same work. Do the freaking math already; this is not rocket surgery.

Lots of issues have arguable opposite sides. This is not one of them. There is no argument for allowing wages to deteriorate. None. Unless you're willing to work for 13 cents a day on principle. Rotsa ruck with that.

How is paying one janitor $17/hr rather than two janitors $18/hr "allowing wages to deteriorate?"

Try to keep up: If the MW is $9/hr, then a guy making $17/hr is making MUCH more than the MW.

Hope I didn't go to fast for you, sparky.

I'll also give you a little clue: No one "needs" two janitors. What's needed are janitorial services. If ONE well paid janitor can provide the services of two or three entry level janitors, and SAVE MONEY, then that's what will happen.

If it takes 16 or 24 hours of janitorial services to do the job paying one janitor twice the rate won't alter the elapsed time it takes to get the job done without a corresponding productivity increase. .

Correct: If my one $17/hr janitor cannot accomplish the same amount of service that 2 X $9/hr janitors, then I will need to replace him/her.

What's your point, Captain Obvious?

 

[tjvh]

I'm sorry, but I do not owe a loser with no ambition who chooses to take a job meant for schoolchildren, and chooses to turn that menial job into a career choice a living wage. The market should set the hourly wage, not a mandate. I am not obligated to pay twice as much for a Big Mac just because some crack whore made some poor choices. It just isn't my, or my wallets problem.

 

[Katzndogz]

Acrually the "simplest logic" will kick in as soon as it dawns on you that you need two janitors.... and that you've been paying them too little. It's called "reality check". Changing one of the factors in the equation (the number of janitors) is nothing more than a moving-the-goalposts fallacy.

By the previous logic, you would drive to the gas station and expect to fill up your Buick for $2.50. Because dammit, that's what you filled up for in 1966. And to follow your single-janitor theory, the solution to the gallon price going up would be to buy half as much gas. Think about it.

Currency value changes; that's just the reality. You can't accept the price of everything else going up and then suddenly put up a stop sign when it comes to human labor -- which is by nature always the last one to follow suit, which it must, to keep up. That's uh, what COLA means.

I'll just put this out again until it sinks in. When a 16-year-old high school kid entered the work force in 1968 the MW was $1.25 an hour. In 2013 dollars that value is equal to $8.27. The current MW is $7.25. Which means a 16-year old kid taking the same job would be making, all together now.... LESS than the 1968 kid did for the same work. Do the freaking math already; this is not rocket surgery.

Lots of issues have arguable opposite sides. This is not one of them. There is no argument for allowing wages to deteriorate. None. Unless you're willing to work for 13 cents a day on principle. Rotsa ruck with that.

How is paying one janitor $17/hr rather than two janitors $18/hr "allowing wages to deteriorate?"

Try to keep up: If the MW is $9/hr, then a guy making $17/hr is making MUCH more than the MW.

Hope I didn't go to fast for you, sparky.

I'll also give you a little clue: No one "needs" two janitors. What's needed are janitorial services. If ONE well paid janitor can provide the services of two or three entry level janitors, and SAVE MONEY, then that's what will happen.

If it takes 16 or 24 hours of janitorial services to do the job paying one janitor twice the rate won't alter the elapsed time it takes to get the job done without a corresponding productivity increase. To achieve your desired productivity increase you are going to have to invest in expensive equipment upgrades which will also incur their own maintenance costs.

The reality here is that underpaying your janitors is the same thing as raising your own taxes. Even janitors need healthcare and if you don't provide it then the state does and you have to pay for those state medical services in the form of higher taxes. The same applies to foodstamps, subsidized rent, etc, etc. If you want to have lower taxes you need to pay living wages to everyone regardless of whether they are working at the menial level or the managerial level.

A good manager takes a holistic view of not only their own business but also the society in which it operates. Underpaying the cost of living will damage the local economy and ultimately harm the corporation when skilled labor no longer wants to live and work in the area. Parasitic corporations have done a lot of damage to America by focusing only on the short term bottom line.

The concept of a "good corporate citizen" means understanding that the surrounding society needs to thrive just as much as the business does since each depends upon the other for long term survival.

Is that the way you think good managers think? You've never been a good manager. Or a manager at all. Good managers do not go to the board of directors and tell them the holistic view. Business owners do not sit at their desks wondering how they can benefit the surrounding society.

A good manager would go to the Board of Directors and say "We are paying too much for labor, let's move to Cambodia." That manager will get a fat raise. A good business owner will look at his balance sheet and say "We have too many employees that cost too much money. I will fire two.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is an upside to raising the minimum wage. Raise the minimum wage, raise the tax rate and that will put the country into a depression far more serious than the last recession. That will end democrats as a political power for a couple of generations. It's worth it.

 

[Samson]

I'm sorry, but I do not owe a loser with no ambition who chooses to take a job meant for schoolchildren, and chooses to turn that menial job into a career choice a living wage. The market should set the hourly wage, not a mandate. I am not obligated to pay twice as much for a Big Mac just because some crack whore made some poor choices. It just isn't my, or my wallets problem.

Um.

Don't buy Big Macs. Problem Solved.


Next?

 

[Derideo_Te]

How is paying one janitor $17/hr rather than two janitors $18/hr "allowing wages to deteriorate?"

Try to keep up: If the MW is $9/hr, then a guy making $17/hr is making MUCH more than the MW.

Hope I didn't go to fast for you, sparky.

I'll also give you a little clue: No one "needs" two janitors. What's needed are janitorial services. If ONE well paid janitor can provide the services of two or three entry level janitors, and SAVE MONEY, then that's what will happen.

If it takes 16 or 24 hours of janitorial services to do the job paying one janitor twice the rate won't alter the elapsed time it takes to get the job done without a corresponding productivity increase. .

Correct: If my one $17/hr janitor cannot accomplish the same amount of service that 2 X $9/hr janitors, then I will need to replace him/her.

What's your point, Captain Obvious?

Too bad your short attention span kicked in and you failed to comprehend the rest of my post. Had you continued reading you might have understood my point.

 

[Samson]

How is paying one janitor $17/hr rather than two janitors $18/hr "allowing wages to deteriorate?"

Try to keep up: If the MW is $9/hr, then a guy making $17/hr is making MUCH more than the MW.

Hope I didn't go to fast for you, sparky.

I'll also give you a little clue: No one "needs" two janitors. What's needed are janitorial services. If ONE well paid janitor can provide the services of two or three entry level janitors, and SAVE MONEY, then that's what will happen.

If it takes 16 or 24 hours of janitorial services to do the job paying one janitor twice the rate won't alter the elapsed time it takes to get the job done without a corresponding productivity increase. To achieve your desired productivity increase you are going to have to invest in expensive equipment upgrades which will also incur their own maintenance costs.

The reality here is that underpaying your janitors is the same thing as raising your own taxes. Even janitors need healthcare and if you don't provide it then the state does and you have to pay for those state medical services in the form of higher taxes. The same applies to foodstamps, subsidized rent, etc, etc. If you want to have lower taxes you need to pay living wages to everyone regardless of whether they are working at the menial level or the managerial level.

A good manager takes a holistic view of not only their own business but also the society in which it operates. Underpaying the cost of living will damage the local economy and ultimately harm the corporation when skilled labor no longer wants to live and work in the area. Parasitic corporations have done a lot of damage to America by focusing only on the short term bottom line.

The concept of a "good corporate citizen" means understanding that the surrounding society needs to thrive just as much as the business does since each depends upon the other for long term survival.

Is that the way you think good managers think? You've never been a good manager. Or a manager at all. Good managers do not go to the board of directors and tell them the holistic view. Business owners do not sit at their desks wondering how they can benefit the surrounding society.

A good manager would go to the Board of Directors and say "We are paying too much for labor, let's move to Cambodia." That manager will get a fat raise. A good business owner will look at his balance sheet and say "We have too many employees that cost too much money. I will fire two.

The pablum of being a "good corporate citizen" is important from an academic prospective, and corporations strive to publicise every opportunity they take to do the job's government agencies are unwilling or unable to perform.

 

[Derideo_Te]

How is paying one janitor $17/hr rather than two janitors $18/hr "allowing wages to deteriorate?"

Try to keep up: If the MW is $9/hr, then a guy making $17/hr is making MUCH more than the MW.

Hope I didn't go to fast for you, sparky.

I'll also give you a little clue: No one "needs" two janitors. What's needed are janitorial services. If ONE well paid janitor can provide the services of two or three entry level janitors, and SAVE MONEY, then that's what will happen.

If it takes 16 or 24 hours of janitorial services to do the job paying one janitor twice the rate won't alter the elapsed time it takes to get the job done without a corresponding productivity increase. To achieve your desired productivity increase you are going to have to invest in expensive equipment upgrades which will also incur their own maintenance costs.

The reality here is that underpaying your janitors is the same thing as raising your own taxes. Even janitors need healthcare and if you don't provide it then the state does and you have to pay for those state medical services in the form of higher taxes. The same applies to foodstamps, subsidized rent, etc, etc. If you want to have lower taxes you need to pay living wages to everyone regardless of whether they are working at the menial level or the managerial level.

A good manager takes a holistic view of not only their own business but also the society in which it operates. Underpaying the cost of living will damage the local economy and ultimately harm the corporation when skilled labor no longer wants to live and work in the area. Parasitic corporations have done a lot of damage to America by focusing only on the short term bottom line.

The concept of a "good corporate citizen" means understanding that the surrounding society needs to thrive just as much as the business does since each depends upon the other for long term survival.

Is that the way you think good managers think? You've never been a good manager. Or a manager at all. Good managers do not go to the board of directors and tell them the holistic view. Business owners do not sit at their desks wondering how they can benefit the surrounding society.

A good manager would go to the Board of Directors and say "We are paying too much for labor, let's move to Cambodia." That manager will get a fat raise. A good business owner will look at his balance sheet and say "We have too many employees that cost too much money. I will fire two.

That is the way bad managers and greedy business owners think. There is a short term mentality that focuses only on the immediate bottom line.

Good managers and business owners understand that they need a good stable educated workforce for the long term outlook of their corporations.

I will grant you that the latter are an endangered species because of the insane Wall Street mentality that punishes corporations that don't show growth 100% of the time. This leads to the economic rollercoaster of boom and bust that makes no long term sense whatsoever.

 

[tjvh]

I'm sorry, but I do not owe a loser with no ambition who chooses to take a job meant for schoolchildren, and chooses to turn that menial job into a career choice a living wage. The market should set the hourly wage, not a mandate. I am not obligated to pay twice as much for a Big Mac just because some crack whore made some poor choices. It just isn't my, or my wallets problem.

Um.

Don't buy Big Macs. Problem Solved.


Next?

It's called an example numbskull. The fact that I haven't set foot in a McDonald's for over a year means nothing about the successful point I was making.

 

[Samson]

I'm sorry, but I do not owe a loser with no ambition who chooses to take a job meant for schoolchildren, and chooses to turn that menial job into a career choice a living wage. The market should set the hourly wage, not a mandate. I am not obligated to pay twice as much for a Big Mac just because some crack whore made some poor choices. It just isn't my, or my wallets problem.

Um.

Don't buy Big Macs. Problem Solved.


Next?

It's called an example numbskull. The fact that I haven't set foot in a McDonald's for over a year means nothing about the successful point I was making.

What "successful point?"

If you think something costs more than its worth, then do not buy it.

Congratulations, Einstein.

 

[Derideo_Te]

If it takes 16 or 24 hours of janitorial services to do the job paying one janitor twice the rate won't alter the elapsed time it takes to get the job done without a corresponding productivity increase. To achieve your desired productivity increase you are going to have to invest in expensive equipment upgrades which will also incur their own maintenance costs.

The reality here is that underpaying your janitors is the same thing as raising your own taxes. Even janitors need healthcare and if you don't provide it then the state does and you have to pay for those state medical services in the form of higher taxes. The same applies to foodstamps, subsidized rent, etc, etc. If you want to have lower taxes you need to pay living wages to everyone regardless of whether they are working at the menial level or the managerial level.

A good manager takes a holistic view of not only their own business but also the society in which it operates. Underpaying the cost of living will damage the local economy and ultimately harm the corporation when skilled labor no longer wants to live and work in the area. Parasitic corporations have done a lot of damage to America by focusing only on the short term bottom line.

The concept of a "good corporate citizen" means understanding that the surrounding society needs to thrive just as much as the business does since each depends upon the other for long term survival.

Is that the way you think good managers think? You've never been a good manager. Or a manager at all. Good managers do not go to the board of directors and tell them the holistic view. Business owners do not sit at their desks wondering how they can benefit the surrounding society.

A good manager would go to the Board of Directors and say "We are paying too much for labor, let's move to Cambodia." That manager will get a fat raise. A good business owner will look at his balance sheet and say "We have too many employees that cost too much money. I will fire two.

The pablum of being a "good corporate citizen" is important from an academic prospective, and corporations strive to publicise every opportunity they take to do the job's government agencies are unwilling or unable to perform.

Who would ever have guessed that a corporation donating towards a new/upgraded public park/civic center/library/school gym was something that only government agencies are allowed to do. By making these short term donations corporations ensure that they will have decent housing and facilities for their workers in the immediate vicinity. Instead you would prefer that corporations just stripmine their immediate surroundings of all resources and then move to greener pastures leaving behind devastation for those unfortunate enough to live in the area.

 

[Samson]

If it takes 16 or 24 hours of janitorial services to do the job paying one janitor twice the rate won't alter the elapsed time it takes to get the job done without a corresponding productivity increase. .

Correct: If my one $17/hr janitor cannot accomplish the same amount of service that 2 X $9/hr janitors, then I will need to replace him/her.

What's your point, Captain Obvious?

Too bad your short attention span kicked in and you failed to comprehend the rest of my post. Had you continued reading you might have understood my point.

Indeed, The stupidity of this statement:

The reality here is that underpaying your janitors is the same thing as raising your own taxes.

caused me to ignore the balance of your babblings.

I never said I would "underpay" anyone.

Perhaps your head was up your academic ass:

I said I would pay one very good janitor $17/hr, WELL OVER the $9/hr minimum wage, expecting him/her to deliver the same services/hr as two (2) entry level janitors.

Furthermore, I would expect a $17/hr janitor would be very loyal; MUCH more loyal than either of two $9/hr janitors, and that I would save on the costs YOU mentioned associated with continuously rehiring and retraining.

 

[Katzndogz]

Is that the way you think good managers think? You've never been a good manager. Or a manager at all. Good managers do not go to the board of directors and tell them the holistic view. Business owners do not sit at their desks wondering how they can benefit the surrounding society.

A good manager would go to the Board of Directors and say "We are paying too much for labor, let's move to Cambodia." That manager will get a fat raise. A good business owner will look at his balance sheet and say "We have too many employees that cost too much money. I will fire two.

The pablum of being a "good corporate citizen" is important from an academic prospective, and corporations strive to publicise every opportunity they take to do the job's government agencies are unwilling or unable to perform.

Who would ever have guessed that a corporation donating towards a new/upgraded public park/civic center/library/school gym was something that only government agencies are allowed to do. By making these short term donations corporations ensure that they will have decent housing and facilities for their workers in the immediate vicinity. Instead you would prefer that corporations just stripmine their immediate surroundings of all resources and then move to greener pastures leaving behind devastation for those unfortunate enough to live in the area.

It's called reducto ad absurdum. Change the point to its most illogical conclusion and then attack the conclusion. Liberals do it all the time.

To jerk that chain around your neck back to reality, donating to a park has nothing to do with overpaying for labor.

When the company provides the housing, the stores, the parks, the schools, and becomes the rich uncle of the workforce, that is called the company town. Company towns are something we have worked very hard to get rid of.

 

[Samson]

Is that the way you think good managers think? You've never been a good manager. Or a manager at all. Good managers do not go to the board of directors and tell them the holistic view. Business owners do not sit at their desks wondering how they can benefit the surrounding society.

A good manager would go to the Board of Directors and say "We are paying too much for labor, let's move to Cambodia." That manager will get a fat raise. A good business owner will look at his balance sheet and say "We have too many employees that cost too much money. I will fire two.

That is the way bad managers and greedy business owners think. There is a short term mentality that focuses only on the immediate bottom line.

Good managers and business owners understand that they need a good stable educated workforce for the long term outlook of their corporations.

I will grant you that the latter are an endangered species because of the insane Wall Street mentality that punishes corporations that don't show growth 100% of the time. This leads to the economic rollercoaster of boom and bust that makes no long term sense whatsoever.

Derideo is an academic who is quoting from a school text book.

 

[Samson]

Is that the way you think good managers think? You've never been a good manager. Or a manager at all. Good managers do not go to the board of directors and tell them the holistic view. Business owners do not sit at their desks wondering how they can benefit the surrounding society.

A good manager would go to the Board of Directors and say "We are paying too much for labor, let's move to Cambodia." That manager will get a fat raise. A good business owner will look at his balance sheet and say "We have too many employees that cost too much money. I will fire two.

The pablum of being a "good corporate citizen" is important from an academic prospective, and corporations strive to publicise every opportunity they take to do the job's government agencies are unwilling or unable to perform.

Who would ever have guessed that a corporation donating towards a new/upgraded public park/civic center/library/school gym was something that only government agencies are allowed to do.

New public parks are not government concerns?


New civic centers are not government concerns?


What planet are you on, kid?

I'm not opening a store, so that I can pay taxes to the government, so that they can ask me to open a civic center.

 

[The Rabbi]

Derideo is an academic who is quoting from a school text book.

Arguing for Dummies?

 

[Derideo_Te]

The pablum of being a "good corporate citizen" is important from an academic prospective, and corporations strive to publicise every opportunity they take to do the job's government agencies are unwilling or unable to perform.

Who would ever have guessed that a corporation donating towards a new/upgraded public park/civic center/library/school gym was something that only government agencies are allowed to do.

New public parks are not government concerns?


New civic centers are not government concerns?


What planet are you on, kid?

I'm not opening a store, so that I can pay taxes to the government, so that they can ask me to open a civic center.

Which part of the concept of donating do you need help with understanding? Do you have any idea how local government interacts with businesses? Obviously you don't or you would not have made the response that you just did. I suggest that you try visiting a local public library or park or community center and you will probably find a plaque that lists everyone who donated to it. You will see both private individuals and local businesses on there. This was a common practice in the past. I am beginning to suspect that you have no experience at all when it comes to actually running a business given your responses to date.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The pablum of being a "good corporate citizen" is important from an academic prospective, and corporations strive to publicise every opportunity they take to do the job's government agencies are unwilling or unable to perform.

Who would ever have guessed that a corporation donating towards a new/upgraded public park/civic center/library/school gym was something that only government agencies are allowed to do. By making these short term donations corporations ensure that they will have decent housing and facilities for their workers in the immediate vicinity. Instead you would prefer that corporations just stripmine their immediate surroundings of all resources and then move to greener pastures leaving behind devastation for those unfortunate enough to live in the area.

It's called reducto ad absurdum. Change the point to its most illogical conclusion and then attack the conclusion. Liberals do it all the time.

To jerk that chain around your neck back to reality, donating to a park has nothing to do with overpaying for labor.

When the company provides the housing, the stores, the parks, the schools, and becomes the rich uncle of the workforce, that is called the company town. Company towns are something we have worked very hard to get rid of.

I agree that you did just use reducto ad absurdum with your inane "company town" argument. That you cannot differentiate between good corporate citizenship and a company town indicates a lack of knowledge on how businesses interact with local government. And since you are the jerk on the other end of the chain I am more than willing to disabuse you of the illusion that "good managers" advocated offshoring their workforce. That has not been close to the windfall that was predicted and much of the current hiring has been to restaff the "onshore" positions that were previously eliminated. The mere fact that you used the ridiculous term "overpaying for labor" says that you have never been in any kind of managerial position. A manager is only as good as the people who work for him. A good manager knows how to get the best out of his staff while a bad manager takes the credit for their hard work. A bad manager will exploit those who work for him and give poor reviews and withhold pay increases. A good manager will seek to build on the strengths of their employees and take every opportunity to recognize their accomplishments.

None of this rocket science but given the kind of responses I am seeing I can only assume that none of those denigrating MW workers have ever been in management or even had a decent manager above them. If they had they would understand these basic management principles.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Correct: If my one $17/hr janitor cannot accomplish the same amount of service that 2 X $9/hr janitors, then I will need to replace him/her.

What's your point, Captain Obvious?

Too bad your short attention span kicked in and you failed to comprehend the rest of my post. Had you continued reading you might have understood my point.

Indeed, The stupidity of this statement:

The reality here is that underpaying your janitors is the same thing as raising your own taxes.

caused me to ignore the balance of your babblings.

I never said I would "underpay" anyone.

Perhaps your head was up your academic ass:

I said I would pay one very good janitor $17/hr, WELL OVER the $9/hr minimum wage, expecting him/her to deliver the same services/hr as two (2) entry level janitors.

Furthermore, I would expect a $17/hr janitor would be very loyal; MUCH more loyal than either of two $9/hr janitors, and that I would save on the costs YOU mentioned associated with continuously rehiring and retraining.

How good of you to admit to your own shortcomings. That is the first step to remedying them.

I agree that you said that you would pay $17/hr to one janitor. But then you expect him to do 16 hours of work in an 8 hour day. Apparently you do not understand the basics of what can be accomplished in a workday. The concepts of productivity and quality are time related as opposed to renumeration related.

You have also admitted to having no understanding of the bigger picture when it comes failing to pay a living wage and the impact that has on government services and your own taxes.

Since you don't appear to have any grasp whatsoever of these crucial aspects it means that you just disqualified yourself from any further meaningful debate on the issue.

Hopefully you will have better luck on another topic. Have a nice day.