|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
11-19-2013, 09:28 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
 
|
|
#4
11-19-2013, 10:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
there is NO reason why, in this land of abundance, anyone who works should be needing govt handouts because their wage is lower than it ought to be. corporations receive tax breaks, have tax shelters, get subsidized, announce record profits, pay their fat cat upper level management millions, but can't pay an adequate wage. too many ebenezers, too many bob cratchits. and all of us in the middle support both thru our tax dollars.
|
|
#5
11-19-2013, 11:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
God save my soul - I'm actually agreeing with Joey and Dell  Zig, I'm seeing this as a realtively simplistic view. In principle, yes the appearance in this story is that the working poor need handouts in order to feed their families. But to stand back an look objectively at the circumstance, I see a larger issue, and one that feeds directly into this entitlement culture which we've found ourselves in. When we were coming up, after HS you either went to college, learned a trade, or went to work. there were generations upon generations of Detrioters born with a umbilical cord tied to the pension funds of GM, Ford, Chrysler. They were not going to school, they knew they could graduate and get a lifetime job with great benefits on the line. they would not live in a mansion, but would do just fine, so long as they kept their nose clean. It was there for them. The same way with trade Unions, and of course college grads. Who worked in department/grocery stores/fast food restaurants? High schoolers, retirees, etc. Those jobs were and still are unskilled part time jobs for the most part. No one ever thought in a million years that running a cash register was a "career option", with beneifts and a wage capable of supporting a household. Fast forward 30 years, and now look. Not only are people being praised for working at Walmart, but they are expecting to get paid like they're actually providing a skilled service to the community. Maybe the guaranteed lifetime employment opportunities are no longer around in abundance like they were back then, but you still need to apply yourself in order to enjoy a lifestyle you wish to live. An electrician, for example, who graduated high school and went to trade school and work his way up as an apprentice shouldn't have to pay 10.00 for a Big Mac just because the HS drop out fry cook needs to make the same living wage as he to support a family. I'm sure the guidance counselor at school never advised them that a Greeter at Walmart is a solid career choice. These are, by and large, personal decisions that people make with respect to how they are choosing to live their lives. You do not have the right to pop out 4 kids and expect your cash register job to front the bill for it. So when you do, expect to go to the food bank to feed yourself, and stop blaming your employer.
|
|
#6
11-19-2013, 11:20 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#7
11-19-2013, 02:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
it's not that we have less skilled people, it's that many jobs no longer exist, due to sending work overseas, cutting staff and having people do more to cover the slack.. as for mcdonalds workers and wal-mart, a lot of those employees have college education in their background. they don't have a job in that field tho. it's a stereotype of the minimum wage earner to say they are all dropouts, with lots of kids. mcdonals minimum wage used to mean something, it doesn't anymore. it's not because the work force isn't as smart, but because corporations have managed to keep the minimum wage from rising along with everything else. we require people to work at wal-mart, mcdonalds and the like, don't we? how do we then blame them for working there, when they work in a necessary job? we as taxpayers support them. wouldn't it be better if mcdonalds had, say, $3 billion less in profit, and paid a living wage (not a high on the hog wage, but an actual living wage) so that us taxpayers weren't on the hook, supporting people who are working. bad enough we have to support those who don't work.
|
|
#8
11-19-2013, 03:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Furthermore there is a plenty of work if you are willing to go after it. If someone has a college education, and is choosing to work a minimum wage job over making some sacrifices (temporary relocation, entry level position to develop experience, etc.) then that's on them. I moved from the Marcellus shale region of western PA / West VA and I can tell you anyone with a pulse can make a small fortune there right now - they can't build motels fast enough to accommodate the demand for labor there - similar stories around Minot ND - in fact a friend of mine who had been out of work in his field of expertise just returned from there, and now has enough money to start his own business here. So I'm not buying it. Yes, it's tough, but there is great paying work if you're willing to go to it. It's may not be convenient, but there is no guarantees in life.
|
|
#9
11-19-2013, 04:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
so, what once kept people from having to get aid no longer does. and yes, there are jobs in places like north dakota. the trick is getting people there. if someone can't make enough money to buy food, how do you expect them to get to north dakota? i'll find that link.
|
|
#10
11-19-2013, 09:37 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I'm always fascinated by how low-income workers are always lazy slackers with too many kids who don't deserve any sort of financial security, but people like the Walton family, who did nothing other than get born to a particular guy, are upstanding individuals entitled to every penny they squeeze out of that underpaid work force. It's a cognitive dissonance in Americans I just don't understand.
http://gawker.com/the-simple-path-to...art-1467622860 Quote:
The wealthy spend a much, much smaller percentage of their income than do the middle class- they end up hoarding large amounts of money, thus removing it from the economy. And there aren't enough wealthy people to make up for all of the middle class people who have now slid into the lower class and do not have disposable income. We are destroying our own nation in order to cater to the plutocrats. AND we are subsidizing them while we do it, because large numbers of Wal Mart employees are on government programs. So even people like me, who don't shop at Wal Mart, are supporting Wal Mart via our tax dollars, so the Waltons can hoard even more money. Yay!
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray
|
|
#11
11-19-2013, 09:23 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3672006.html And considering the calorie bombs that are Big Macs, that's more than enough food for a single meal. $5.00 for a lunch is not very expensive.
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray
|
|
#12
11-19-2013, 10:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
so, we want people to work instead of having them on welfare. but when people work, they still have to get welfare, because their living wage isn't one. we say they're uneducated-but evidence shows that's not the case. and even if it was, since we use these goods and services, there's a demand for people to fill these jobs-and then we can demand they make squat? so we don't pay much for a burger, but we pay taxes to pick up the slack? meanwhile, we subsidize the farmers, the corporations, we give tax breaks, incentives, etc, etc ad nauseum to these corporations....so we subsidize then, and their workers, and we also buy their stuff. yeah, makes sense. i did my shift at the food pantry this evening, which is always a bit disheartening. me and another volunteer were talking about how we pay farmers not to grow food, while people go hungry.
|
|
#13
11-20-2013, 04:26 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
McDonalds solution to their employees holiday struggles. Chutzpah part Deux.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...presents-cash/
|
|
#14
11-20-2013, 06:54 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
So your 'video' is true only if the McDonalds in question is turning out 500 burgers per 10 workers as an average. 12K burgers in a 24hr period or 84K/week. 4.3 million per year!! In other words don't believe everything you see/hear/read. Let me guess the above video came from a congressman/woman pushing a minimum wage increase? In fact it kind of sounds Wasserman/Schiltz like.
__________________
“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” Thomas Jefferson
|
|
#15
12-02-2013, 04:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Raising the minimum wage as a tool for economic growth
The immediate benefits of a minimum-wage increase are in the boosted earnings of the lowest-paid workers, but its positive effects would far exceed this extra income. Recent research reveals that, despite skeptics’ claims, raising the minimum wage does not cause job loss.6 In fact, throughout the nation, a minimum-wage increase under current labor market conditions would create jobs. Like unemployment insurance benefits or tax breaks for low- and middle-income workers, raising the minimum wage puts more money in the pockets of working families when they need it most, thereby augmenting their spending power. Economists generally recognize that low-wage workers are more likely than any other income group to spend any extra earnings immediately on previously unaffordable basic needs or services. Increasing the federal minimum wage to $10.10 by July 1, 2015, would give an additional $51.5 billion over the phase-in period to directly and indirectly affected workers,7 who would, in turn, spend those extra earnings. Indirectly affected workers—those earning close to, but still above, the proposed new minimum wage—would likely receive a boost in earnings due to the “spillover” effect (Shierholz 2009), giving them more to spend on necessities. This projected rise in consumer spending is critical to any recovery, especially when weak consumer demand is one of the most significant factors holding back new hiring (Izzo 2011).8 Though the stimulus from a minimum-wage increase is smaller than the boost created by, for example, unemployment insurance benefits, it has the crucial advantage of not imposing costs on the public sector. Assessing the economic benefits of a minimum-wage increase Showing that raising the minimum wage would be a tool for modest job creation requires an examination of the stimulative effects of minimum-wage increases. Because minimum-wage increases come from employers, we must construct a “minimum-wage increase multiplier” that takes into account the increase in compensation to low-wage workers and the decrease in corporate profits that both occur as a result of minimum-wage increases. Raising the minimum wage means shifting profits from an entity (the employer) that is much less likely to spend immediately to one (the low-wage worker) that is more likely to spend immediately. Thus, increasing the minimum wage stimulates demand for goods and services, leading employers in the broader economy to bring on new staff to keep up with this increased demand.When economists analyze the net economic stimulus effect of policy proposals (e.g., tax rate changes that boost income for some and reduce it for others), they use a set of widely accepted fiscal multipliers to calculate the total increase in economic activity due to a particular increase in spending. In applying these multipliers, economists generally recognize a direct relationship between increased economic activity and job creation. This analysis assumes that a $115,000 increase in economic activity results in the creation of one new full-time-equivalent job in the current economy.9 Using these same standard fiscal multipliers to analyze the jobs impact of an increase in compensation of low-wage workers and decrease in corporate profits that result from a minimum-wage increase, we find that increasing the national minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour by July 1, 2015, would result in a net increase in economic activity of approximately $32.6 billion over the phase-in period, and over that period would generate approximately 140,000 new jobs (see Appendix for methodological details).10 In fact, the hike in the federal minimum wage would create jobs in every state, as seen in Appendix Table 1. (Detailed state-level breakdowns of the demographics of workers who would be affected by the increase—and the degree to which the wages of various types of workers would rise—are available here.) Though the resulting employment impact is modest in the context of the millions of workers currently unemployed nationwide, creating tens of thousands of jobs would be a step in the right direction and would boost the economy. The benefits of a minimum-wage increase in a weak labor market Examining the positive effects of a minimum-wage increase leads to an overarching discussion of the economic case for increasing the earnings of the lowest-paid workers while the labor market is weak. In the current economic climate, nearly everything is pushing against wage growth. With 3.4 unemployed workers for each job opening (Shierholz 2013), employers do not have to offer substantial wages to hire the workers they need, nor do they have to pay substantial wage increases to retain workers. Indeed, between 2009 (when the last minimum-wage increase took place) and 2011 (the most recent year for which data are available), nearly every state experienced wage erosion at the 20th percentile (according to an analysis of Current Population Survey data). Even conservative economists suggest higher wages might help speed the recovery. American Enterprise Institute scholar Desmond Lachman, a former managing director at Salomon Smith Barney, told The New York Times, “Corporations are taking huge advantage of the slack in the labor market—they are in a very strong position and workers are in a very weak position. They are using that bargaining power to cut benefits and wages, and to shorten hours.” According to Lachman, that strategy “very much jeopardizes our chances of experiencing a real recovery” (Powell 2011). Furthermore, the national unemployment rate currently stands at 7.7 percent and is not expected to return to prerecession levels for several years. Considering the past year’s sluggish job growth rate, a minimum-wage increase that creates about 140,000 net new jobs would help strengthen the recovery.Conclusion The multiple positive effects that would result from a higher minimum wage are clear: It would boost the earnings of working families hardest hit by the Great Recession, spur economic growth, and create about 140,000 net new jobs. In an economic climate in which wage increases for the most vulnerable workers are scarce, raising the minimum wage to $10.10 by July 1, 2015, is an opportunity that America’s working families cannot afford to lose.
|
|
#16
12-02-2013, 09:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm trembling at the thought that we are witnessing the reincarnation of Riot.
You keep quoting the same flawed labor-union sponsored, labor-union paid for study. It is complete biased crap that says only what the labor unions want it to say. Common sense dictates that an imposed rise in labor costs will be passed on to the consumers - If corporations thought they would increase profit by paying higher minimum wages, do you honestly think they wouldn't? Do you honestly believe that they do not have economists staffed to determine precisely what wage scale would generate the most return on investment? To assume that Employers are either too naive or short-sighted to see how great/profitable their companies would operate if they paid unskilled labor higher wages - is ironically naive and short-sighted. Economic Policy Institute: EPI advocates for low- to moderate-income families in the United States. EPI also assesses current economic policies and proposes new policies that EPI believes will protect and improve the living standards of working families. that doesn't make them bad, it just makes them biased. Funding: Eight labor unions made a five-year funding pledge to EPI at its inception: AFSCME, United Auto Workers, United Steelworkers, United Mine Workers, International Association of Machinists, Communications Workers of America, Service Employees International Union, and United Food and Commercial Workers Union. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Policy_Institute It's disingenuous to keep cutting and pasting quips from this document like it is some sort of "independent" study. Free markets cannot survive when employers are coerced and strong-armed into paying higher than market-priced wages for unskilled labor. Instead of encouraging this behavior, perhaps these folks clamoring to be overpaid might be better served to be encouraged to take accountability for themselves instead. That's the way it used to work at least. Last edited by Rudeboyelvis : 12-02-2013 at 09:34 PM.
|
|
#17
12-02-2013, 10:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
do you wish to continue to subsidize low paid workers thru welfare? and why is it that before, corporations could pay a living minimum wage, but now they can't? overpaid? below federal poverty level is correct pay? living at poverty level is overpaid? as for unskilled-define unskilled. as has been shown, many of these 'unskilled' workers are in these jobs because of layoffs in their previous field, many have a skill, a degree, or at least some college. as for corporations, they are like racetracks, they only consider their own slice of the pie without looking at the bigger picture. and since we taxpayers help these same corporations thru tax deals, subsidies and the like, the least they could do is pay their workers enough that we wouldn't have to subsidize both employer and employee. it's a simple question-do we want corporations who make billions in profits to pay their workers enough to get off welfare, or do you want to continue to help these people get by via welfare? 'EPI advocates for low- to moderate-income families in the United States. EPI also assesses current economic policies and proposes new policies that EPI believes will protect and improve the living standards of working families.' sounds good to me, since i'm a member of a working family-the backbone of this country.
|
|
#18
12-02-2013, 10:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
'In July 2012, EPI joined forces with the AFL-CIO, Center for Community Change, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, National Council of La Raza and SEIU to propose a budget plan titled Prosperity Economics, a counter to the Republican Party's Path to Prosperity budget plan. The Prosperity Economics plan suggests that major public investment in areas like infrastructure is needed to jump-start the economy.'
thanks for the wiki link. i agree, we need a lot of funding in infrastructure. that's been said for some time, and was something i said a vast majority of the stimulus should have gone to. it would have paid dividends. improved infrastructure in needed areas, while creating jobs for those who would do the work, which would have aided the economy. far better than a bail out of a car maker, and us later selling the stock at a loss. rudeboy, as for those who are the working poor...if you want to just maintain the current status quo, just say so. i'm saying there's an alternative, that would take that load off the taxpayers backs. if you have a better plan, i'd love to hear it.
|
|
#19
12-03-2013, 09:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#20
12-03-2013, 10:11 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by Danzig
for starters, let's try to stay on topic. i'm not riot, and never will be. do you wish to continue to subsidize low paid workers thru welfare? Quote:
please post the links, i'd like to see those. seriously. and why is it that before, corporations could pay a living minimum wage, but now they can't? overpaid? below federal poverty level is correct pay? living at poverty level is overpaid? Quote:
no it's not a different discussion. minimum wage isn't above poverty level. businesses paid a living wage in the past, but minimum wage hasn't increased as the cost of living has done so. but profits have risen. as for unskilled-define unskilled. as has been shown, many of these 'unskilled' workers are in these jobs because of layoffs in their previous field, many have a skill, a degree, or at least some college. this is a more accurate analogy: http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/20...age-to-20hour/ as for corporations, they are like racetracks, they only consider their own slice of the pie without looking at the bigger picture. and since we taxpayers help these same corporations thru tax deals, subsidies and the like, the least they could do is pay their workers enough that we wouldn't have to subsidize both employer and employee. Quote:
my point is that businesses accept subsidies from the federal govt (us) but then say the federal govt has no place in their business and how it's run, which is rather disingenuous. i'm not saying businesses who take subsidies automatically pay low wages. the koch bros (tied for 4th richest in the u.s.), for instance, have gotten subsidies. and yes, corporations who pay minimum wage are 'forcing us' to pay for their sins, because they pay a low wage which means their employees qualify for welfare, food stamps ,rent assistance, etc. i'm saying that employees shouldn't have to be subsidized by taxpayers. they are working, they should make enough for us not to have to suppor them. it's a simple question-do we want corporations who make billions in profits to pay their workers enough to get off welfare, or do you want to continue to help these people get by via welfare? Quote:
hold on now. now teenagers are teens til age 25?! well, if that helps make your argument, then you've got me! but according to the table i'm looking at, there's a slot for 16-19 year olds. those are teens. and it's less than a quarter of min. wage recipients. http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm 'EPI advocates for low- to moderate-income families in the United States. EPI also assesses current economic policies and proposes new policies that EPI believes will protect and improve the living standards of working families.' sounds good to me, since i'm a member of a working family-the backbone of this country. Sounds good to me too. As I said, it doesn't make them bad, just makes them biased. __________________ “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....” ~ Noam Chomsky, The Common Good
|
Hybrid Mode
