Question for those pushing a "living wage"

[Brain357]

I explained what that means, I can do it again if you like.

Simply raising wages will not improve productivity. If you take your workers and give them across the board wage increases, nothing will improve. However, if you have a program in place which raising wages is part of an accountable process where people see the link between productivity and pay and that not improving productivity and pay will lead to a lack of pay, then you can in some workers achieve a marginal increase in productivity. But even then it's a challenge to sustain it.

I'll explain again since you wont' get that one either. What I said in the first sentence is that raising wages ALONE will do nothing, you have to do more. And then even if you do it the right way it will only work on some of your employees.

Any connection at all yet?

Link?

Winston Churchill: I can explain it to you. I cannot comprehend it for you.

Ah so you have an opinion then. Well that means very little. I supported what I was saying and you cannot. Surprising.

 

[kaz]

Well you clearly love big government and spending. That's a good start.

If I don't overpay my wages for your political ends then I love big government and spending. Got it. That's some powerful shit, I'll certainly look carefully before crossing swords with you again. Wow. I don't overpay my employees, so I'm a big government loving Marxist. That's just pure intellect. Amazing.

Well if your paying so little that employees are on welfare then yes you are. That's growing our government. And you seem to support it.

Now that's funny. I run a services business, so most of my employees are well paid. I do have two employees who I am aware of who get welfare. Both make above the minimum wage. If you make me raise their wages, then I would fire them both and get better employees. They are both OK, not great, for what I pay them. But if I had to pay more then I want more ownership and follow through.

So, should I fire them and hire people worth more? What's your thought? Obviously I'm not going to do it, but it's the real situation.

And seriously, I"m a big government spending Marxist for hiring them? LOL. I'm responsible for that they both have kids they can't afford. Suuree I am...

 

[Brain357]

If I don't overpay my wages for your political ends then I love big government and spending. Got it. That's some powerful shit, I'll certainly look carefully before crossing swords with you again. Wow. I don't overpay my employees, so I'm a big government loving Marxist. That's just pure intellect. Amazing.

Well if your paying so little that employees are on welfare then yes you are. That's growing our government. And you seem to support it.

Now that's funny. I run a services business, so most of my employees are well paid. I do have two employees who I am aware of who get welfare. Both make above the minimum wage. If you make me raise their wages, then I would fire them both and get better employees. They are both OK, not great, for what I pay them. But if I had to pay more then I want more ownership and follow through.

So, should I fire them and hire people worth more? What's your thought? Obviously I'm not going to do it, but it's the real situation.

And seriously, I"m a big government spending Marxist for hiring them? LOL. I'm responsible for that they both have kids they can't afford. Suuree I am...

How would you suggest we make government smaller? What would you do?

 

[Listening]

Well if your paying so little that employees are on welfare then yes you are. That's growing our government. And you seem to support it.

Now that's funny. I run a services business, so most of my employees are well paid. I do have two employees who I am aware of who get welfare. Both make above the minimum wage. If you make me raise their wages, then I would fire them both and get better employees. They are both OK, not great, for what I pay them. But if I had to pay more then I want more ownership and follow through.

So, should I fire them and hire people worth more? What's your thought? Obviously I'm not going to do it, but it's the real situation.

And seriously, I"m a big government spending Marxist for hiring them? LOL. I'm responsible for that they both have kids they can't afford. Suuree I am...

How would you suggest we make government smaller? What would you do?

At the federal level...

Abolish the EPA.

Abolish the Dept of Education.

Abolish OSHA.

A the state level....

publish all salaries and benefits.

 

[kaz]

Well if your paying so little that employees are on welfare then yes you are. That's growing our government. And you seem to support it.

Now that's funny. I run a services business, so most of my employees are well paid. I do have two employees who I am aware of who get welfare. Both make above the minimum wage. If you make me raise their wages, then I would fire them both and get better employees. They are both OK, not great, for what I pay them. But if I had to pay more then I want more ownership and follow through.

So, should I fire them and hire people worth more? What's your thought? Obviously I'm not going to do it, but it's the real situation.

And seriously, I"m a big government spending Marxist for hiring them? LOL. I'm responsible for that they both have kids they can't afford. Suuree I am...

How would you suggest we make government smaller? What would you do?

Ah, back to your small government authoritarian leftism, LOL.

Companies should operate as companies, not government welfare agencies. Which means they should pay market wages. They should not consider government social policy in their strategies.

Welfare should be welfare. First, no one should ever get less welfare for working. What they do now is cutoffs, if you make more than X, you don't qualify. It should be for example a 2 for 1 phaseout meaning for every 2 dollars you earn your benefit is reduced 1 dollar so no one is incented to not work. One of my employees won't work more than a certain number of hours for that reason, it's insane.

Welfare should be reformed where they go for help in this order:

1) People are responsible for themselves
2) Their families help them
3) Their communities/churches help them
4) Charities help them
5) Government welfare should be the last step, not the first, and it should be at the local level not the Federal level.

 

[Brain357]

Now that's funny. I run a services business, so most of my employees are well paid. I do have two employees who I am aware of who get welfare. Both make above the minimum wage. If you make me raise their wages, then I would fire them both and get better employees. They are both OK, not great, for what I pay them. But if I had to pay more then I want more ownership and follow through.

So, should I fire them and hire people worth more? What's your thought? Obviously I'm not going to do it, but it's the real situation.

And seriously, I"m a big government spending Marxist for hiring them? LOL. I'm responsible for that they both have kids they can't afford. Suuree I am...

How would you suggest we make government smaller? What would you do?

At the federal level...

Abolish the EPA.

Abolish the Dept of Education.

Abolish OSHA.

A the state level....

publish all salaries and benefits.

The EPA? You want us to be like China so we can't even the sky?

How much would all those things save us on the budget?

 

[kaz]

Well if your paying so little that employees are on welfare then yes you are. That's growing our government. And you seem to support it.

Now that's funny. I run a services business, so most of my employees are well paid. I do have two employees who I am aware of who get welfare. Both make above the minimum wage. If you make me raise their wages, then I would fire them both and get better employees. They are both OK, not great, for what I pay them. But if I had to pay more then I want more ownership and follow through.

So, should I fire them and hire people worth more? What's your thought? Obviously I'm not going to do it, but it's the real situation.

And seriously, I"m a big government spending Marxist for hiring them? LOL. I'm responsible for that they both have kids they can't afford. Suuree I am...

How would you suggest we make government smaller? What would you do?

BTW, being the small government supporter that you are, did it ever occur to you that maybe just because someone "needs" the money doesn't make it government's job to take it from someone else and give it to them?

Your latest schtick that you're a small government advocate because you're a big government liberal and big governments spend less money is frankly pretty lame and I don't get what you even think you're accomplishing.

 

[Brain357]

Now that's funny. I run a services business, so most of my employees are well paid. I do have two employees who I am aware of who get welfare. Both make above the minimum wage. If you make me raise their wages, then I would fire them both and get better employees. They are both OK, not great, for what I pay them. But if I had to pay more then I want more ownership and follow through.

So, should I fire them and hire people worth more? What's your thought? Obviously I'm not going to do it, but it's the real situation.

And seriously, I"m a big government spending Marxist for hiring them? LOL. I'm responsible for that they both have kids they can't afford. Suuree I am...

How would you suggest we make government smaller? What would you do?

BTW, being the small government supporter that you are, did it ever occur to you that maybe just because someone "needs" the money doesn't make it government's job to take it from someone else and give it to them?

Your latest schtick that you're a small government advocate because you're a big government liberal and big governments spend less money is frankly pretty lame and I don't get what you even think you're accomplishing.

I'm in the real world. We vote in this country. If enough people need it the government will provide it. Companies like Walmart are creating this need by paying so little, so the government grows. Cut welfare and next election it will be back. I told you what I would do after you asked and you never responded. Why is that? It was a small government plan.

 

[Amelia]

THIS is why I am on Forums about politics. I want to learn.

This person uses a historical quote based on a time period that is much like today, the great depression, where the rich were keeping all profits and letting Poor/Middle America suffer.

I'm curious why the Right Wing only holds debates that involve, "You are stupid". I'm curious why Fox news is, "You are stupid if you don't agree with us" all day every day.

Shouldn't information be a factor here in America? I don't really care if people are bias. But I can't stand people that are bias and have no understanding of why they are bias.

"I'm curious why the Right Wing only holds debates that involve, 'You are stupid'."


^^That is an out-of-place remark to make in this thread, started by a rightwinger, with an OP which was vastly different from "you are stupid".

If you are interested in a more idea-oriented debate with rightwingers, there are rightwingers available for the discussion.

A little hint though: many might not believe you are actually interested in such discussion if you make statements like that about them.

 

[kaz]

Companies like Walmart are creating this need by paying so little, so the government grows.

So Walmart gives workers with little education, experience or training a better offer than anyone else gives them, and that's Walmart "creating this need?" WTF? So Walmart caused them to suck at school and not work hard? Walmart caused them to not work hard or be reliable at other jobs and not gain experience? Walmart did all that? Wow, in your native language, "baa." Incredible. And you actually believe that don't you? Walmart gave them a chance, and they are paying them more than anyone else will pay them. In what possible fantasy land is that bad?

I'm in the real world.

LOL, we know that's wrong. Walmart, who is already paying them more than anyone else will pay them, is the bad guy in this. Right. Oh, and you're saying that because of your belief in small governments...

 

[RKMBrown]

Given how ok you are with all this corporate welfare you might be a Marxist.

WTF are you talking about? What corporatate effing welfare is is that you think I'm ok with? What are you some mental case?

Well all the corporate welfare companies like Walmart collect obviously. The government is taking care of their workers be these companies pay so little. Meanwhile walmart makes billions. Now if they paid workers more the government wouldn't have to take care of them and we'd have less government. That's what I'm for. You seem to not be, so I'm guessing your a Marxist.

WTF? If we don't agree to the marxist policies of democrats that makes us republican marxists? ROFL Gratz you rank right up there with the dumbest posters in the history of mankind.

WTF do you have against companies profits? Are you retarded? WTF do you have against people deciding to work at Walmart for the wages Walmart is offering? Are you mental?

If people don't want to work for the wages Walmart is offering Walmart goes out of business. DUH!

 

[kaz]

Well if your paying so little that employees are on welfare then yes you are. That's growing our government. And you seem to support it.

Now that's funny. I run a services business, so most of my employees are well paid. I do have two employees who I am aware of who get welfare. Both make above the minimum wage. If you make me raise their wages, then I would fire them both and get better employees. They are both OK, not great, for what I pay them. But if I had to pay more then I want more ownership and follow through.

So, should I fire them and hire people worth more? What's your thought? Obviously I'm not going to do it, but it's the real situation.

And seriously, I"m a big government spending Marxist for hiring them? LOL. I'm responsible for that they both have kids they can't afford. Suuree I am...

How would you suggest we make government smaller? What would you do?

And you haven't answered the question. I'm telling you that I'm not going to pay my two workers who get government assistance more. They aren't worth it. So should I fire them and hire only people who can support themselves as you believe Walmart should do? What's your call?

 

[RKMBrown]

Let's get things straight

30 million people work and still do not make a wage that they can support themselves or their families. Taxpayers need to step in and pay the difference. Who should be responsible for those families....the taxpayer or the people who employ them?

YOU DON'T HAVE THE EFFING RIGHT TO FORCE TAX PAYERS TO DO A GD THING. Taxpayers don't need to do shit. You want to better yourself, then get up off your ass and do it. Stop making excuses. People are responsible for their own families. I don't want your effing marxist help, get you effing hands out of my back pocket you mooch.

Sure get a job at the largest company in the world maybe. Oh wait they pay so little that you'd still be on welfare.

Why the hell would I bust my ass working at the local Walmart? Maybe corporate HQ or one of their software/engineering shops, but no way in hell I'm gonna work as a stock guy, register clerk, or even manager at Walmart when I can make a six figure salary millions of different ways working right at home. I've never collected an ounce of welfare, and I suspect I never will. You'd have to burn down my ranch & home, steal my assets, break my hands and legs, cut my tongue out, poke my eyes out, and kill all of my relatives, before I'd even come close to not being able to figure out a way to stay off welfare.

 

[kaz]

WTF are you talking about? What corporatate effing welfare is is that you think I'm ok with? What are you some mental case?

Well all the corporate welfare companies like Walmart collect obviously. The government is taking care of their workers be these companies pay so little. Meanwhile walmart makes billions. Now if they paid workers more the government wouldn't have to take care of them and we'd have less government. That's what I'm for. You seem to not be, so I'm guessing your a Marxist.

WTF? If we don't agree to the marxist policies of democrats that makes us republican marxists? ROFL Gratz you rank right up there with the dumbest posters in the history of mankind.

WTF do you have against companies profits? Are you retarded? WTF do you have against people deciding to work at Walmart for the wages Walmart is offering? Are you mental?

If people don't want to work for the wages Walmart is offering Walmart goes out of business. DUH!

It is amazing isn't it. I mean we see people called "the dumbest poster" all the time, but this one's credible. If we're not Marxists, we're a Marxist! LOL. That's what makes this fun.

 

[RKMBrown]

Now that's funny. I run a services business, so most of my employees are well paid. I do have two employees who I am aware of who get welfare. Both make above the minimum wage. If you make me raise their wages, then I would fire them both and get better employees. They are both OK, not great, for what I pay them. But if I had to pay more then I want more ownership and follow through.

So, should I fire them and hire people worth more? What's your thought? Obviously I'm not going to do it, but it's the real situation.

And seriously, I"m a big government spending Marxist for hiring them? LOL. I'm responsible for that they both have kids they can't afford. Suuree I am...

How would you suggest we make government smaller? What would you do?

Ah, back to your small government authoritarian leftism, LOL.

Companies should operate as companies, not government welfare agencies. Which means they should pay market wages. They should not consider government social policy in their strategies.

Welfare should be welfare. First, no one should ever get less welfare for working. What they do now is cutoffs, if you make more than X, you don't qualify. It should be for example a 2 for 1 phaseout meaning for every 2 dollars you earn your benefit is reduced 1 dollar so no one is incented to not work. One of my employees won't work more than a certain number of hours for that reason, it's insane.

Welfare should be reformed where they go for help in this order:

1) People are responsible for themselves
2) Their families help them
3) Their communities/churches help them
4) Charities help them
5) Government welfare should be the last step, not the first, and it should be at the local level not the Federal level.

Ayup. I would extend the means test to family members and I'd force them to seek help first from local communities and show that they were refused help from said local charities. Charity should be voluntary. Charity should come from family. But most importantly before charity is given great care should be taken to make charity so it is not wasted on swine.

 

[RKMBrown]

Well all the corporate welfare companies like Walmart collect obviously. The government is taking care of their workers be these companies pay so little. Meanwhile walmart makes billions. Now if they paid workers more the government wouldn't have to take care of them and we'd have less government. That's what I'm for. You seem to not be, so I'm guessing your a Marxist.

WTF? If we don't agree to the marxist policies of democrats that makes us republican marxists? ROFL Gratz you rank right up there with the dumbest posters in the history of mankind.

WTF do you have against companies profits? Are you retarded? WTF do you have against people deciding to work at Walmart for the wages Walmart is offering? Are you mental?

If people don't want to work for the wages Walmart is offering Walmart goes out of business. DUH!

It is amazing isn't it. I mean we see people called "the dumbest poster" all the time, but this one's credible. If we're not Marxists, we're a Marxist! LOL. That's what makes this fun.

It is fun. I'm sure he's just joking, no one could be "that" dumb

 

[Brain357]

Companies like Walmart are creating this need by paying so little, so the government grows.

So Walmart gives workers with little education, experience or training a better offer than anyone else gives them, and that's Walmart "creating this need?" WTF? So Walmart caused them to suck at school and not work hard? Walmart caused them to not work hard or be reliable at other jobs and not gain experience? Walmart did all that? Wow, in your native language, "baa." Incredible. And you actually believe that don't you? Walmart gave them a chance, and they are paying them more than anyone else will pay them. In what possible fantasy land is that bad?

I'm in the real world.

LOL, we know that's wrong. Walmart, who is already paying them more than anyone else will pay them, is the bad guy in this. Right. Oh, and you're saying that because of your belief in small governments...

Look at the unemployment rate. Not many other options out there.

 

[Brain357]

YOU DON'T HAVE THE EFFING RIGHT TO FORCE TAX PAYERS TO DO A GD THING. Taxpayers don't need to do shit. You want to better yourself, then get up off your ass and do it. Stop making excuses. People are responsible for their own families. I don't want your effing marxist help, get you effing hands out of my back pocket you mooch.

Sure get a job at the largest company in the world maybe. Oh wait they pay so little that you'd still be on welfare.

Why the hell would I bust my ass working at the local Walmart? Maybe corporate HQ or one of their software/engineering shops, but no way in hell I'm gonna work as a stock guy, register clerk, or even manager at Walmart when I can make a six figure salary millions of different ways working right at home. I've never collected an ounce of welfare, and I suspect I never will. You'd have to burn down my ranch & home, steal my assets, break my hands and legs, cut my tongue out, poke my eyes out, and kill all of my relatives, before I'd even come close to not being able to figure out a way to stay off welfare.

And you've been very fortunate your whole life no doubt.

 

[dr.d]

Now that's funny. I run a services business, so most of my employees are well paid. I do have two employees who I am aware of who get welfare. Both make above the minimum wage. If you make me raise their wages, then I would fire them both and get better employees. They are both OK, not great, for what I pay them. But if I had to pay more then I want more ownership and follow through.

So, should I fire them and hire people worth more? What's your thought? Obviously I'm not going to do it, but it's the real situation.

And seriously, I"m a big government spending Marxist for hiring them? LOL. I'm responsible for that they both have kids they can't afford. Suuree I am...

How would you suggest we make government smaller? What would you do?

Ah, back to your small government authoritarian leftism, LOL.

Companies should operate as companies, not government welfare agencies. Which means they should pay market wages. They should not consider government social policy in their strategies.

Welfare should be welfare. First, no one should ever get less welfare for working. What they do now is cutoffs, if you make more than X, you don't qualify. It should be for example a 2 for 1 phaseout meaning for every 2 dollars you earn your benefit is reduced 1 dollar so no one is incented to not work. One of my employees won't work more than a certain number of hours for that reason, it's insane.

Welfare should be reformed where they go for help in this order:

1) People are responsible for themselves
2) Their families help them
3) Their communities/churches help them
4) Charities help them
5) Government welfare should be the last step, not the first, and it should be at the local level not the Federal level.

I can't believe how impenetrable some of these alleged "conservative" skulls are...Where would Kmart and McDonald's be without it's burger flippers, store clerks, cashiers, warehousemen, etc,? NOWHERE
All of these people are needed to generate the wealth enjoyed by a successfull company...and SHOULD NOT HAVE TO DEPEND ON CHARITY OR TAXPAYER LARGESSE to survive...
Sure the CEOs and stockholders at the top of these BIG companies "deserve" profits...but so do the folks at the bottom ...who help generate those profits...DESERVE A LIVING WAGE.
Depending on charity or the public dole to feed ur kids when u work full time for the wealthiest in our nation is not just inequitable..it's obscene.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Brain357]

How would you suggest we make government smaller? What would you do?

Ah, back to your small government authoritarian leftism, LOL.

Companies should operate as companies, not government welfare agencies. Which means they should pay market wages. They should not consider government social policy in their strategies.

Welfare should be welfare. First, no one should ever get less welfare for working. What they do now is cutoffs, if you make more than X, you don't qualify. It should be for example a 2 for 1 phaseout meaning for every 2 dollars you earn your benefit is reduced 1 dollar so no one is incented to not work. One of my employees won't work more than a certain number of hours for that reason, it's insane.

Welfare should be reformed where they go for help in this order:

1) People are responsible for themselves
2) Their families help them
3) Their communities/churches help them
4) Charities help them
5) Government welfare should be the last step, not the first, and it should be at the local level not the Federal level.

Ayup. I would extend the means test to family members and I'd force them to seek help first from local communities and show that they were refused help from said local charities. Charity should be voluntary. Charity should come from family. But most importantly before charity is given great care should be taken to make charity so it is not wasted on swine.

You wouldn't be an elected official for very long...