We're Lowering Your Wages

[RodISHI]

The post I quoted is not yours? It has your name on it above.

Your funny Bern. good switch and bait you must be related to the bankers.....lol

 

[Gem]

RodISHI wrote:

McDonald's pay's $8.00 an hour, Sears pays a mechanic $5.00 and hour Sears adds 50 cent commision for changing four tires. Not sure if you realize it or not but that mechanic could possibly cost you your life if he does not know WTF he is doing. Sears is owned and operated by an investment group.
McDonalds are owned both by privates and by a one man operated corporation (by the way he is a prick it took me over a year to collect my money for work i provided for his corporation out him. Thank God the state of MO has some good collection laws for companies who refuse to pay labor wages. for small contractors such as I.)

That Sears mechanic can also cost a customer that brings their car in thousands of dollars if they do not perform the work properly on their car. Heck just by screwing up one of the valve stems that are mandated now on all new cars it is about a three hundred dollar booboo. The Sears $8.00 an hour manager has promises of granduer he is looking at so he'll tell the mechanic, "we'll just tell the customer it was already broke".

If the guy changing your oil grabs the wrong oil fill hose your car may run for awhile and you won't ever know what actually happened when the engine blows. It is usually the poor that have their cars serviced there though so since you work in the country club crowd it probably will not be your car. You'll probably go to a dealer who pays his mechanics 8.00 to 10.00 dollars an hour or a flat commission rate. That mechanic can screw up just the same way too. The difference is the dealer charges you more for the job to screw up your car.

What exactly was the point of this post?

Mechanics are important? No offense...but DUH! Doesn't change the fact that requiring all businesses to pay all their mechanics a wage that would enable them to own a home, pay their bills, healthcare, childcare, etc. as you have stated they should would have negative consequences that all of us would have to deal with.

As to your "country club" comment...what exactly was the point of that other than to be needlessly smarmy and mean? I'm not quite sure how a teenager who earned minimum wage working as a lifeguard is suddenly a member of the "country club crowd" that doesn't go to the "poor places" to get their car fixed...but apparently you felt strongly enough about it to bring it up.

 

[Care4all]

But those who won't because they choose not to are not my responsibility.

How would it be your responsibility skull? It would be their employer's responsibility to pay a fair wage?

It falls to YOUR responsibility when YOU have to pay the EITC, the earned income credit, to help these people survive.

Who is it that you know that works for minimum wage that CHOOSES to take this lower paying job when a higher paying job is available for them?

that just doesn't make sense to me skull.....???

Care

 

[Bern80]

Your funny Bern. good switch and bait you must be related to the bankers.....lol

You replied to a post of mine in past 248, to which I quoted and replied to in post 252. The post I quoted in 252 is what you wrote in 248. Where exactly is the confusion? Probably pointless as you are clearly more content to make excuses than actually defend your position.

 

[Bern80]

How would it be your responsibility skull? It would be their employer's responsibility to pay a fair wage?

It falls to YOUR responsibility when YOU have to pay the EITC, the earned income credit, to help these people survive.

Who is it that you know that works for minimum wage that CHOOSES to take this lower paying job when a higher paying job is available for them?

that just doesn't make sense to me skull.....???

Care

He's an employer care, that's how it would be his responsibility.

I kind of explained this in 244 if you want to take a crack at that.

 

[Shogun]

Wow. That may be your most over exagerated, pointless, thought free, incoherent post yet. You should be proud.
The reason I am railing against this whole standard of living mandate is because I can see it will cause more of the the very things you claim to want to end.
Perhaps you would like to take a crack at these that no one else seems to want to address under the proposal that we have a mandate a standard living wage on all busineses.
Unemployment will go up.
Many businesses, especially small businesses will fail.
The rate of high school graduation will fall, because a living wage job is a viable alternative.
Prices on everything will increase.

you wanna start talking shit, bern? This won't be the first thread where your capitalista bullshit just doesn't gel with reality, you know.

You ASSUME that unemployment will go up if businesses maintains a standard of living in the US yet here we are decades after *gasp* business was told it couldn't pay 3 cents an hour to children and we STILL have employment. So, in essence your predictions are based more on chicken little wolf crying than any actual insight into economics. when MORE people are employed to a comfortable standard in relation to our entire culture then MORE people have the spending ability to support our economy which provides the revenue to support these wages. Hell, we might een find that people can spread their spending around to include more than trying to fake themselves a better lifestyle via cheap plastic shit from china. Indeed, sounds like a loser for small business!

High School graduation? Are you fucking serious? do you want to review the 50s and make another goofy statement like that? I hate to break it to you, bern, but not every kid in the US is going to be fit to be a java programmer. THAT is the cold, hard fact. College has become nothing more than another retail store selling another product thanks to your kind. You wanna talk about supply and demand, eh? High school dropout rates do not mean that Americans are unemployable as long as low skill labor, THE PREVIOUS FUCKING BACKBONE OF THIS NATION, is not shipped off to mexico and china by the likes of you.

Look at your big awesome solution to the Auto industry and outsourced labor: By reducing the SOL of America with that of Mexican labor there becomes a deficit of AMERICANS who can go buy cars. And, since you people sure the hell won't touch the trade deficit with a ten foot pole we are all supposed to just accept your failure of a chicken little opinion as some kind of economic epiphany. Bullshit.


And, while reading these this thread I stumbled upon you suggesting that the bourgeois class of business owners is not necessarily GREEDY? what?? I think you people hate Marx so much because he hit the nail of the goddamn head and that kind of truth keeps the masses from wandering, starry eyed into your low wage paying employment.

 

[RodISHI]

You replied to a post of mine in past 248, to which I quoted and replied to in post 252. The post I quoted in 252 is what you wrote in 248. Where exactly is the confusion? Probably pointless as you are clearly more content to make excuses than actually defend your position.

That is funny too! I never realized a forum had rules of conduct that dictate a person has to drop everything they are doing and respond to anothers post rightNOW!!!!


lol,

We now have a code of conduct for making response post in a timely manner because Skull boy and Bern says so.

I'll go back and pull out all your switch and bait post later Bern unless of course you change them. i really do think they are a lovely example though of how modern day banks make their money.

 

[Gem]

It also becomes the responsibility of the citizenry when the outcomes of the salary increases begin to effect the public. If I am paying $15 for a gallon of milk because the bagger needs to be able to afford his apartment, utilities, food, healthcare, etc. Then his RIGHT to a living wage has become MY responsibility.

When my retirement account goes downhill because the corporation has decided to lower their profits rather than let staff go or raise prices...then the employees RIGHT to a living wage has become my RESPONSIBILITY.

 

[Shogun]

You shouldn't need statistics to prove any of those wrong. They are all rooted in basic economic theory. Stop coppin out and have at it.

Businesses owners typically would like all costs to be lower. That fact is labor is the number one cost of almost any business.

As with others trying argue this it rests on the unproven assumption that the majority of business owners are out to screw their employees and get away with as much as they can. The facts do not bare that out where actual skilled labor is concerned.

YOUR basic economic theory. Perhaps you should stop pointing a copout finger or i'll have to post that fun youtube video of your favorite little greenspan having his ass handed to him almost 15 years before the fruits of YOUR economic theory came around to bite us in the ass.


You DO realize that labor is THE integral part of any given business, yes? Were it only the case that some empty suit could wave a magic fucking wand and *POOF* products emerge from the nether, eh? If you have any questions about the nature of business owners in your capitalista cesspool then go read some labor history and remind yourself why we HAVE these labor laws in the first place. Hell, if your kind had it's way we'd be no better than semi slave labor china throwing 8 year old into the fucking workforce just because they son't require as much to survive as an adult with a family.

 

[Bern80]

That is funny too! I never realized a forum had rules of conduct that dictate a person has to drop everything they are doing and respond to anothers post rightNOW!!!!


lol,

We now have a code of conduct for making response post in a timely manner because Skull boy and Bern says so.

I'll go back and pull out all your switch and bait post later Bern unless of course you change them. i really do think they are a lovely example though of how modern day banks make their money.

If i made a mistake when I used the quote function I'm fine correcting it. It was not intentional, but prattling on for 4 posts about it trying to poke fun and contributing little else seems a little pointles.

 

[Skull Pilot]

How would it be your responsibility skull? It would be their employer's responsibility to pay a fair wage?

It falls to YOUR responsibility when YOU have to pay the EITC, the earned income credit, to help these people survive.

Who is it that you know that works for minimum wage that CHOOSES to take this lower paying job when a higher paying job is available for them?

that just doesn't make sense to me skull.....???

Care

And again, what's a "fair" wage?

The government tells ME that I have to pay a guy who sweeps my porch 12 bucks an hour because he should be able to pay all his bills by being a porch sweeper right? What's next? I have to employ him X number of hours a week because the 6 hours a week at 12 an hour I employ him now doesn't allow him to make a "living" wage?

Or if a business I need to buy stuff from for my business has to pay his porch sweeper more then I will pay more for what I buy from him.

If the government tells all businesses this, guess what, we become responsible for paying this guy more than the market rate for a porch sweeper and we all subsidize this either through higher prices or higher taxes when all the porch sweepers get canned because they cost more than what they're worth to the market.

The point is that everyone has the opportunity to make a "living" wage. You either work more hours at a lower wage or you make yourself more valuable to the market and work less hours for a higher wage.

It is not mine, nor yours, nor your employer's obligation to pay you any more than what the market for that particular job will bear.

 

[RodISHI]

If i made a mistake when I used the quote function I'm fine correcting it. It was not intentional, but prattling on for 4 posts about it trying to poke fun and contributing little else seems a little pointles.

No I think you should them the post as they are bern. Like I said it provides a good example of what bankers do.

 

[Bern80]

No I think you should them the post as they are bern. Like I said it provides a good example of what bankers do.

You are becoming truly ridiculous.

 

[RodISHI]

You are becoming truly ridiculous.

Yes. yes i know but the proof is in the paperwork. Or to say in this case the postings.

 

[Bern80]

And again, what's a "fair" wage?

The government tells ME that I have to pay a guy who sweeps my porch 12 bucks an hour because he should be able to pay all his bills by being a porch sweeper right? What's next? I have to employ him X number of hours a week because the 6 hours a week at 12 an hour I employ him now doesn't allow him to make a "living" wage?

This brings up another really good point as to the logistics behind a mandated living wage and is another reason we shouldn't pay people buy that standard.

We have started with the premise that it is businesses duty to pay a living a wage of $12.00/hr. But really it just assuming $12.00/hr. It's assuming full-time employment isn't it? What if the position being hired for only warrants part time work? Would these people be exempt from the mandate? Or should the employer just suck it and hire them full time, whether needing full time employment or not?

Hell under this should businesses even be allowed to lay people off as economic conditions warrent? After all their role is to provide a living wage which obviously won't happen if conditions mean they need fewer employees.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yes. yes i know but the proof is in the paperwork. Or to say in this case the postings.

You mean like when you say I called workers lazy when I never said that?

That kind of proof?

 

[Bern80]

Yes. yes i know but the proof is in the paperwork. Or to say in this case the postings.

The proof isn't anywhere where you are concerned. How old are suppossed to be? 50 something? And this is your level of maturity? I don't know how much nicer I can be about it. You asked me to respond to your questions. I did. Then you come up with some lame excuse to not reply in kind.

Again, whatever quoting mistake I made was not intentional and am more than happy to correct it. I would prefer to in fact so I don't have to deal with you using it as an excuse (and a really lame one at that) to avoid answering my questions.

 

[Shogun]

ehh fuckit, bern.. what responsibility do WE have to regulate a business owner, right? Who are WE to act like WE are the society that refuses to let business do what business WANTS to do in a wannabe free market economy!

 

[Bern80]

ehh fuckit, bern.. what responsibility do WE have to regulate a business owner, right? Who are WE to act like WE are the society that refuses to let business do what business WANTS to do in a wannabe free market economy!

First decide what you would actually like to debate. I am not a oppossed to a level of regulation where business is concerned, but that isn't what is being discussed here.

We are discussing whether it is the role of and whether it should be mandated that all businesses be required to pay a living wage.

 

[Care4all]

And again, what's a "fair" wage?

The government tells ME that I have to pay a guy who sweeps my porch 12 bucks an hour because he should be able to pay all his bills by being a porch sweeper right? What's next? I have to employ him X number of hours a week because the 6 hours a week at 12 an hour I employ him now doesn't allow him to make a "living" wage?

Or if a business I need to buy stuff from for my business has to pay his porch sweeper more then I will pay more for what I buy from him.

If the government tells all businesses this, guess what, we become responsible for paying this guy more than the market rate for a porch sweeper and we all subsidize this either through higher prices or higher taxes when all the porch sweepers get canned because they cost more than what they're worth to the market.

The point is that everyone has the opportunity to make a "living" wage. You either work more hours at a lower wage or you make yourself more valuable to the market and work less hours for a higher wage.

It is not mine, nor yours, nor your employer's obligation to pay you any more than what the market for that particular job will bear.

tell that to the 7 million unemployed workers looking for jobs....

but what is the alternative skull? you paying the porch sweeper $1-$2 bucks an hour?

here's a tip, get a neighbor's kid to sweep your porch for that kind of money, OR do it yourself, because it is not worth paying someone for it....those are choices you have....aren't they?

if it were not weighted in the employer's favor, then the free market could determine the wage necessary.....but it is NOT, and the employer has more power over the workers wage than the worker has when having to accept it.

when the employer AND the worker have a true level playing field in what is paid for the job, THEN the free market would work.

this is not the case with most minimum wage jobs because employers can just hire ILLEGALS at the lower amount they want to pay.... this is NOT a fair playing field.

and again, are you saying you want me to pay for your fulltime employee to survive....by paying the EITC, and his medical, and food stamps, while you benefit from his work to make you profitable and have a good life?

why should i have to do that so you can have a business and make some money?

that's my money as far as i am concerned....you are taking my money from me, so that you can pay someone $2 bucks an hour....that isn't fair either.

i am in no way suggesting a living wage as the minimum wage, but i am suggesting that the minimum wage needs to be kept at a reasonable level so that the least amount of tax payer assistance has to be paid out to these workers of yours....

and that the minimum wage needs to be automatically tied in with a cost of living raise so that employers are not shocked by the amount the minimum wage has to go up every 5 years.

care