Minimum Wage

You would get a raise I'm sure. It's the people between you and the bottom that get shafted, the people who make 25K or so that wouldn't get more money.

I'm fine with the minimum wage at 8 or 7 or whatever. I don't know since I haven't worked a minimum wage job since high school.
 
zitothebrave said:
You would get a raise I'm sure. It's the people between you and the bottom that get shafted, the people who make 25K or so that wouldn't get more money.

I'm fine with the minimum wage at 8 or 7 or whatever. I don't know since I haven't worked a minimum wage job since high school.
Click to expand...

And everyday items will go up in cost as well. The middle class business are going to get killed if they have
more employees, especially those who own restaurants that are under franchises.
 
AerchAngel said:
And everyday items will go up in cost as well. The middle class business are going to get killed if they have
more employees, especially those who own restaurants that are under franchises.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of raising the minimum wage simply because the big boys can absorb it, mom and pop are the ones who get shafted.
 
To add though, I'm not a fan of lowering the minimum wage either because yet again, benefits the big boys kills mom and pop. Key is finding the sweet spot. I think around where it's at now is good.
 
Oklahomahawk said:
Well you changed your angle of rebuttal and ignored most of the stuff I said earlier but I do compliment you on this post, you actually put thought and effort into it rather that the last couple that we're very Talk Radio-like "pick a detail from the other guy's argument usually out of context, form an argument with that actually has little or nothing to do with the original statement, but that fits your ideology and slams the other sides statement though it didn't actually speak to that statement at all".

Now if I can just get you to put as much more effort into your next post than you did into this one (compared with your last two) we'll be actually getting places. I see you either didn't go back and read my previous posts saying that raising the minimum wage wasn't the long term answer to the problems going on right now or you ignored it because it didn't go along with your argument.

I know the Repubs have convinced you guys that it's the poor, lazy, stupid, "takers" who are the problem but the wealthy and big businesses have been raping the treasury since the 1980's and right now the top 20% (of which I may actually fit into just barely if you don't take into account that my tax rate is the same as the top 1% and I don't have the fancy lawyers and accountants to hide mine) own 90% of the wealth in this country. Is there any way to say that's healthy?

I know the Repubs also like to preach that it's a free market economy but that's BS and we both know it. Those at the top end make the rules for the other people at the top end and they make the rules for those at the bottom end. Do those at the bottom end make the rules for anybody??? During the financial meltdown while everybody else in the country was hurting their wealth went up again!!! They're screwing us all every single day and they've got you guys feeling sorry for the fact that they, unlike the Sandra Fluke chick, have to buy their own damn protection while they screw us. While they lament having to pay all that income tax for the freeloaders they pretend that the bottom 80% of Americans have to divide 10% of the wealth. Where are those taxes supposed to come from?? That money doesn't exist, except in the offshore accounts of those people you guys live to defend.

Think about it this way, a couple of years ago when that sorry piece of sh!t John Mara told his lapdog Roger Goddell to punish the Cowboys and the Redskins for breaking a rule that didn't exist!! It was nothing more than a wink-wink good old boys agreement. It wasn't even legal, those things all have to be voted on and agreed upon by a majority of owners. There was no such agreement, but remember how just about every person on the old board where we talked about that stuff said it was fine and it really WAS a rule and that Dallas and Washington had it coming because even though it wasn't really a rule in the classic sense they knew better than to do it so they asked for it. Remember that? Remember how you were able to see through the BS and called them on it? Remember how they didn't care because they were only going along with things because that's the way they already thought about those things and no amount of facts could convince them?

Fox News and the far right websites and talk radio have spent millions to make billions and they have Jedi mind tricked a lot of good people into going along with a plan that if they would just take a minute and unwrap the flag from around their eyes, they could see the whole damn thing and how they're being used.

That kind of action is hard though, it makes people question things they don't feel comfortable questioning, it's easier to just go along with those in charge, I mean after all who cares if Washington and Dallas get punished while the prick Gepetto pulling the strings conveniently hurts his competition by enforcing a rule that doesn't exist or if a person trying to support their family lost their job to India and works at Burger King now (instead of going on welfare). I mean why fight it? It's the natural order of things for those trying to earn the American dream, right?
Click to expand...

I will just respond by saying my belief is that the consumption tax is the way to go. I don't believe people should be unfairly targeted bc they are either poor or extremely wealthy; I think everyone should be equal. If Joe blow makes 30k a year, he should pay his 20% (or whatever). If Jim Blow makes $300k, he should pay his 20%. Everyone pay the same percentage. (or the consumption tax where you pay % on what you consume; which is probably better than a flat tax rate). Yes, I know 20% of someone that makes 30k is more to that person than 20% of someone that makes 300k. Its makes no sense to me to penalize the person making more simply because they made more money.

I certainly don't agree with all the ways that people take advantage of tax breaks, etc. Part of the reasons that people do that is bc the USA's tax system is totally effed up as it is.

The people that get hurt by Obama are people like me. I have never received a dime in my life. I paid my way through college working full-time at the same time. I was living on my own at age 18. At age 18, I had a rent that I paid for myself along with going to college and having a full-time job plus a part time job or 2 at times. Bc I worked my ass off I was able to get a good job. I made 20k a year for the first 2 years at my company (with a college degree). Put in my hours and finally within the past 5 years have been able to work my way up to a healthy paying job (which Obama thinks I make too much and should pay more out of pocket). Lets go ahead and raise minimum wage (I will end up paying more for supplies), lets impliment obamacare (my healthcare costs are out of control right now-2 kids), and Obama wants to take away some of the advantages of investing in IRAs.

Whether or not its the right thing to do (taxing the rich more), they will be fine. I dont' agree with the decision to do so, but they will still be fine. People in my situation are the ones that will be hurt. Do you know how much it takes to raise a family of 4? So take some more money out of my pocket and give it to others. Clearly bc I make an above average salary, I can afford to give it to others. I mean, who cares about the student loan debt I racked up to get where I am, or the healthcare costs that have gone to absurd figures. I mean, bc I worked my ass off to obtain an above average salary, I shouldn't be able to reap the benefits of my hard work. That money should go to people that haven't worked their ass off. (both now and in the future when tax advantages for retirement get lessened)
 
gilesfan said:
The "big boys" will simply raise the cost of doing business. Thus, we will pay more.
Click to expand...

Not likely. They can get a stronger choke hold by instead of raising cost, keeping costs down and instead automating more processes or cutting the work force and decreasing efficiency. Raising costs would be silly when they would have a shot of kiling mom and pops who would have no choice but to either fire people and work more hours themselves or raise costs.
 
15-an-hour-say-hello-to-your-replacement.jpg
 
Oklahomahawk said:
Well maybe it'll push some people into doing the right thing. I know you've bought into this whole "the people at the top are the good people" and all the money they make is really just their money and they should be able to treat people the way the want and work them as much as they want in any way that they want and still keep all the profits type.

Beware of Social Darwinism, it may sound like what you think is "right" but it really isn't what you think it is and there WILL be consequences for treating people that way.
Click to expand...

I just don't understand how you think the government should force a company to pay a certain amount for labor - even if that labor isn't worth it (a mentally retarded person, for example, would probably not be worth $10 an hour when they could get a non-mentally retarded person)

You act like eliminating the minimum wage will allow companies to start paying $1/hr. Who the hell would work for $1 and hour? You act like a decrease in minimum wage is also a decrease in workers self-worth. It's not. If someone offered me a job for $1 an hour, I'd just go to the street corent and make $20 in that same hour. Businesses will still have to meet the demands of the labor market.
 
Oklahomahawk said:
Dude, do you hear yourself? You're using a predetermined set of values and "judgements" as to who is capable of what and basically assigning a "worth" to human beings and rest assured what your buddies are doing is no less than that. Should a person ringing up fries at Mcdonalds be paid the same as a brain surgeon? Of course not, but what you are saying and the direction you are headed is dangerously close to what big businesses of 100 years ago were doing when they fired/laid off men from their jobs and paid the children of those men pennies on the dollar in order to make just a few more millions than they were already making. Don't tell me Ron Paul is in favor of treating people like that!! Rand Paul yes, but not his dad. Ron Paul and I may not agree on everything but I believe he is a decent human being, unlike his son who is a lackey for the uber wealthy aholes in this country who literally believe they are a different breed from the low lifes that they can pay any pittance they want because they need a job at their company, which of course never uses any tax breaks or other government perks themselves while they're blasting those same government perks when poor people use them.

Be very careful of the company you keep my friend.
Click to expand...

No. See, I'm not the one assigning a "worth" to a human being. That's what you're doing. You saying a worker is "worth" x/hr. I'm saying that he is worth whatever he and the employer mutually agree to.
 
For those of you who are for raising minimum wage I just want to point out that you can always tip a minimum wage worker when they serve you. When you go thru the drive thru at mcdonalds you can throw an extra dollar or two to the guy who takes your order. They wont turn it down. If minimum wage goes to 10 dollars then the prices everything that uses minimum wage is going to go up. If you think companies are just going to eat the difference you are mistaken.

The people that this hurts the most are the people who make 10-20 dollars an hour. I made 7.15(+ tips) working as a delivery driver the last time it was raised to 7.25. My rent went up 50 dollars a month and all I made was 10 cents more an hour. To add insult to injury my employer decided to give yearly raises 2 months before which for me raised me from 7.00 to 7.15. That raise netted me about 5 bucks. Because of the minimum wage raise all pizza delivery places reclassified drivers as waiters and cut their pay to under 5 bucks jacked up the delivery charge and told us we can be fired if we let customers know that the majority of our pay comes from tips.
 
zitothebrave said:
Not likely. They can get a stronger choke hold by instead of raising cost, keeping costs down and instead automating more processes or cutting the work force and decreasing efficiency. Raising costs would be silly when they would have a shot of kiling mom and pops who would have no choice but to either fire people and work more hours themselves or raise costs.
Click to expand...

You almost had a full thanks because you understand if they don't raise costs, they will have to let people go. This has been going on for years now, you know the word, downsizing or sending stuff overseas. If they raise minimum wage, more jobs will be axed and or sent overseas or replaced by AI's.
 
As long as they don't turn into Cylons (having personal model #6 would be fine though :))/Geth/Asurans/Terminators or Replicators, we will be fine.
 
But when you place the order yourself who do you blame when the order is placed incorrectly. From my experience people who **** up their own order placement still blame the employees at the store.
 
KeithLockhart said:
What's wrong with children working in the factories Hawk?

It'll teach'em a lesson and make them think twice about not focusing on their education. It'll also give them great life skills quick.

I'm all for going back to the days of children dying and working in sweatshops!

FREEDOM I SAY! FREEDOM! PATRIOTS DIED FOR THIS COUNTRY SO EMPLOYERS COULD HIRE AND PAY WHOMEVER AND WHATEVER THEY WANT!
Click to expand...

While we're on the subject . . . sturg, you never said much in that thread when you suggested that America was "on the right track" vis a vis capitalism until the early 20th century. In fact, you didn't say anything at all, beyond accusing me of changing the subject. Remember this?

coal_zps4badaa21.gif


It seemed to be an excellent expression of everything you advocate—workers freely agreeing on the price of their labor without government interference, no regulation, etc. What say you, buddy?
 
sturg33 said:
No. See, I'm not the one assigning a "worth" to a human being. That's what you're doing. You saying a worker is "worth" x/hr. I'm saying that he is worth whatever he and the employer mutually agree to.
Click to expand...

So in other words, exactly as OHawk suggested, you're saying that it's up to the employer. It's a hell of a mutual agreement when one side is holding all the cards.
 
Julio3000 said:
So in other words, exactly as OHawk suggested, you're saying that it's up to the employer. It's a hell of a mutual agreement when one side is holding all the cards.
Click to expand...

No. A worker is not forced to work for less than he thinks he is worth. I would not work for $1 hr, as I said above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top