Minimum Wage Hypocrites

[RichardCranium]

Link (http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2013/12/minimum_wage_hypocrites_james.html)


As we celebrate the effort today to get every hard-working American a better paying job by not working, it might be appropriate to look at some other low-paying jobs. Or, better yet, jobs that don't pay at all.

That's right! If you're a high school kid working a minimum wage job, why should you see that as any kind of ladder rung? Why should a pittance in the pocket provide you with any skill that might help you down the road?

So take this day of proposed striking at fast food outlets (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FAST_FOOD_STRIKES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-12-05-06-44-47) and look at some other opportunities.


Why not join one of the many groups laboring on your behalf? They won't pay you a nickel, of course - these are groups that favor other people paying higher labor costs, just as they generally favor other people paying everything.

For example, Organizing For Action (http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/03/work-for-obama-grassroots-organization-for-free/), that kind of creepy newfangled 4H political arm of President Obama, is looking for talented, hard-working, ambitious folks to fill 14-week unpaid intern positions.

Among the work you might perform there free of charge? Agitating for an increase in the minimum wage!

Similarly, among those fabled dens of journalistic rabble rousing (http://www.vice.com/read/the-exploited-laborers-of-the-liberal-media) that do so much to stoke the rage against evil huge employers like Wal-Mart, Subway, McDonald's and so many others, there are plenty of outlets looking for bright young people to man the barricades.

Again, for little or no pay.

The left-wing heroes at Mother Jones, bothered by the appearance of having unpaid interns, raised the job status to "fellows" and began paying them the royal wage of $1,000 a month. Assuming a normal work-week, alas, that's well below the minimum wage mandated in its California editorial home.

Across country, in the cheap space of Manhattan, editorial interns at Salon are, alas, unpaid. That hasn't stopped the magazine from publishing pieces excoriating the allegedly underpaid masses.

Well, at least former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich is one man who won't stand for that sort of thing. At the left-wing American Prospect magazine he helped found, interns get a healthy $100-per-week stipend. That's less than a third of what some exploited slob would get working 40 hours at minimum wage, but, hey, are you only in it for the money?

Some of the folks who have long pushed for a so-called "living wage" were the good people of the now defunct ACORN. In fact, they were successful enough to help push through minimum wage increases in California.

Unfortunately, the higher wages carried a price for the noble community organizers: they couldn't hire as many people (http://www.epionline.org/studies/epi_acorn_05-2003.pdf). So they sued. They lost in California courts.

[Tgo01]

It's only evil when large corporations do it.

[Taernath]

Fast food worker strikes are probably good for the nation's health.

[Tgo01]

Fast food worker strikes are probably good for the nation's health.

So Obamacare pays fast food workers to not work to lower healthcare costs for everyone? Maybe I misjudged Obama...

[Jarvan]

So Obamacare pays fast food workers to not work to lower healthcare costs for everyone? Maybe I misjudged Obama...

Next, Obamacare will need to pay factory workers to not show up so there are no more chips and sweets.

[Tgo01]

Next, Obamacare will need to pay factory workers to not show up so there are no more chips and sweets.

The government should go the route they did with bullets for a while there; buy all of the ingredients that go into making chips so the chip makers have a hard time buying the supplies they need.

The Government: Give us your money so we can protect you from yourself.

[~Rocktar~]

We have protesters here, and of course TV cameras and the whole circus. If I had not lost my voice from a respiratory infection over the past 2 weeks I would be out there counter protesting. I think a nice sign saying something like "Don't like minimum wage, upgrade your skills, libraries are free" I figure it should get me some police protection or something. Maybe a 30 second spot on TV with everything edited out of context and manipulated to hell. Would be fun.

My brother runs a fencing company and he has all the work he can stand, he can't get people to show up and work a full day most of the time at $10.50 an hour.

[Tgo01]

My brother runs a fencing company and he has all the work he can stand, he can't get people to show up and work a full day most of the time at $10.50 an hour.

http://academyfencingclub.webs.com/fence3.jpg

Fencing?

http://www.fencewi.com/3.jpg

Fencing?

http://businesstm.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/blackmarket.jpg

Fencing?

[Jeril]

Dork.

[Jarvan]

Come on, that was great.

He needs to learn to be specific, Bob. (if you don't get that reference, shame on you)

[Latrinsorm]

Comparing wage workers to interns strikes me as disingenuous.

[Tgo01]

Comparing wage workers to interns strikes me as disingenuous.

I think the next step is McDonald's interns.

[Warriorbird]

Those poor abused fast food companies.

[~Rocktar~]

http://academyfencingclub.webs.com/fence3.jpg

Fencing?

This would be a fencing school, not a fencing company.



http://businesstm.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/blackmarket.jpg

Fencing?

This would be a Fence, also not a fencing company.



http://www.fencewi.com/3.jpg

Fencing?

This is a nice wooden fence that appears to been installed a few weeks previous to the picture since the grass shows signs of recovery from the foot traffic necessary during installation. It likely was installed by a fencing company and they did a very nice job though it was not likely my brother's company since he prefers to use a distinctive cut top post design and not a capped wooden post such as shown.

Nice troll, great reading comprehension fail.

[Tgo01]

Nice troll, great reading comprehension fail.

:forehead:

[Thondalar]

The Government: Give us your freedom so we can protect you from yourself.


fixed.

[Thondalar]

Comparing wage workers to interns strikes me as disingenuous.

To a degree, except that the minimum wage warriors have already managed to remove most unpaid internships.

[Thondalar]

I've already given my thoughts on this particular topic in a few other threads over the years, but since it's being brought up again, I'll share them again.

Simply put, minimum wage causes unemployment. I say this as a person who runs a business every day for a living. It's very simple math. If I have ten dollars to spend on labor, I can either hire two people at 5 dollars each or one person at 9 dollars and save a dollar and overwork that one person.

All of you who don't run a business for a living and say "oh! why not just spend more on labor?!!?" or whatever idiotic argument you have because you don't actually understand how it works can just nip it. Get educated.

[cwolff]

I've already given my thoughts on this particular topic in a few other threads over the years, but since it's being brought up again, I'll share them again.

Simply put, minimum wage causes unemployment. I say this as a person who runs a business every day for a living. It's very simple math. If I have ten dollars to spend on labor, I can either hire two people at 5 dollars each or one person at 9 dollars and save a dollar and overwork that one person.

All of you who don't run a business for a living and say "oh! why not just spend more on labor?!!?" or whatever idiotic argument you have because you don't actually understand how it works can just nip it. Get educated.

In one sense you're right. When minimum wage was last raised significantly fast food joints introduced self serve soda machine and were able to absorb the pay increase by cutting employees. It's also true though that paying people more leads to greater spending and more jobs. They may be new or different jobs and there will be turmoil while things settle out, but it won't hurt us to pay a higher minimum wage.

This whole minimum wage thing is just a symptom of a bigger problem. We're all making less than we used to and wealth is being consolidated by a very small group. The fast food workers are striking now because it's hitting them first and hardest. If this keeps up it will hit the rest of us too.

We need to raise taxes back up to where they used to be. Trickle down and supply side economics hasn't worked.

[Bobmuhthol]

It's also true though that paying people more leads to greater spending and more jobs. They may be new or different jobs and there will be turmoil while things settle out, but it won't hurt us to pay a higher minimum wage.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss

Merely saying something does not make it true, especially when it's false.

[Thondalar]

In one sense you're right. When minimum wage was last raised significantly fast food joints introduced self serve soda machine and were able to absorb the pay increase by cutting employees. It's also true though that paying people more leads to greater spending and more jobs. They may be new or different jobs and there will be turmoil while things settle out, but it won't hurt us to pay a higher minimum wage.

This whole minimum wage thing is just a symptom of a bigger problem. We're all making less than we used to and wealth is being consolidated by a very small group. The fast food workers are striking now because it's hitting them first and hardest. If this keeps up it will hit the rest of us too.

We need to raise taxes back up to where they used to be. Trickle down and supply side economics hasn't worked.

Fast-food jobs have never been career positions...management, sure...and management in fast food makes a surprisingly good living...but the normal hourly employees...you see one of three kinds of people working hourly jobs in fast food. Teenagers, elderly, or burnouts. Minimum wage jobs do not affect the majority of our working class...it's just another feel-good political grandstand that nobody will stand against because if you do you hate poor people.

Raising taxes only does one thing...hurts the working class and the economy in general. Regardless of where you raise taxes. Raise it on the super wealthy business owners? Sure. They'll just raise prices on their products. Pure, unregulated capitalism is the only true path...this hybrid socialist/capitalist thing we're doing isn't working. History has proven pure Socialism/Communism doesn't work, and never will...how about we try pure Capitalism, for once?

[Thondalar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss

Merely saying something does not make it true, especially when it's false.

Well done, Bob.

[cwolff]

Fast-food jobs have never been career positions...management, sure...and management in fast food makes a surprisingly good living...but the normal hourly employees...you see one of three kinds of people working hourly jobs in fast food. Teenagers, elderly, or burnouts. Minimum wage jobs do not affect the majority of our working class...it's just another feel-good political grandstand that nobody will stand against because if you do you hate poor people.

Raising taxes only does one thing...hurts the working class and the economy in general. Regardless of where you raise taxes. Raise it on the super wealthy business owners? Sure. They'll just raise prices on their products. Pure, unregulated capitalism is the only true path...this hybrid socialist/capitalist thing we're doing isn't working. History has proven pure Socialism/Communism doesn't work, and never will...how about we try pure Capitalism, for once?

Ya, Managers can do very well in fast food. As far as the average fast food worker goes though the average age is 29 with 70% of all fast food workers being 20 or older. A quarter of them are parents. The reason for this is that we have shitty jobs. Fast food is a good example of that. It's growing because we don't have money to spend and the food's cheap which means more hiring for these jobs. We've got 52% of fast food workers supplementing their income through government assistance. It's a mess. Raise the minimum wage, give the employees more income and let some of these places go under. We need to shift away from what we're doing and find something else because, like you said, what we're doing just isn't working right now.

Unregulated capitalism will never work. Any group of people, no matter how small, requires some sort of regulation. As far as low taxes goes, we've run that experiment and it's also not working. Reagan dropped the highest tax rate from 70% to 50%. After that it quickly dropped down to below 40% where it's stayed ever since. The net result to date is that the rich get richer and KEEP it. Raise the rates and provide an incentive to re-invest that money.

[Gelston]

I looked it up, damn, 29 is the average age. The ones around here generally look to be around 18 or so.

[Thondalar]

Ya, Managers can do very well in fast food. As far as the average fast food worker goes though the average age is 29 with 70% of all fast food workers being 20 or older. A quarter of them are parents. The reason for this is that we have shitty jobs. Fast food is a good example of that. It's growing because we don't have money to spend and the food's cheap which means more hiring for these jobs. We've got 52% of fast food workers supplementing their income through government assistance. It's a mess. Raise the minimum wage, give the employees more income and let some of these places go under. We need to shift away from what we're doing and find something else because, like you said, what we're doing just isn't working right now.

Unregulated capitalism will never work. Any group of people, no matter how small, requires some sort of regulation. As far as low taxes goes, we've run that experiment and it's also not working. Reagan dropped the highest tax rate from 70% to 50%. After that it quickly dropped down to below 40% where it's stayed ever since. The net result to date is that the rich get richer and KEEP it. Raise the rates and provide an incentive to re-invest that money.

You don't know that unregulated capitalism will never work, because nobody has tried it yet. You say we require some sort of regulation because you assume it to be so. There's nothing backing up that claim...on the other hand, we have volumes of evidence where a little regulation has gone terribly wrong, and a lot of regulation still goes wrong...difference being with a lot of regulation, it takes longer to see the effects, but they're much worse in the end. Keynesian economics simply do not work...it just puts a Band-Aid on a severed limb...eventually the blood loss is too great.

I'd like to know where you get your statistics from, although I don't disagree that a quarter of them are parents...that would be the elderly I previously mentioned (and the teenagers, if your county is anything like mine). I do, however, agree that we have shitty jobs. The reality is, we can't all be doctors and lawyers. Society must have it's blue collar. I can almost guarantee this will be taken the wrong way, but I'll say it anyway...we can't have slaves anymore. This means we have to pay the dregs something. If you elevate fast food workers, and ditch diggers, and garbage collectors, and motel maids, and bike messengers, and paper boys, and grocery baggers, and everyone etc. etc. to the same pay rate as doctors and lawyers, you end up with massive unemployment, and no drive or desire to do anything greater. As much as it pains your communist soul, the fact is, most people respond to incentives. I would even say the vast majority. A pure capitalist system would employ people based on their actual, static worth...not some imagined number. Reality exists regardless of your perception.

[Gelston]

I'd say a big incentive to white collar jobs is not being splattered with grease or garbage or mud.

[Bobmuhthol]

I looked it up, damn, 29 is the average age. The ones around here generally look to be around 18 or so.Averages generally don't mean shit. If 2/3 are 20 years old and 1/3 are 50 years old, the average age will be 30, even though no one in this case is 30.

[Gelston]

Averages generally don't mean shit. If 2/3 are 20 years old and 1/3 are 50 years old, the average age will be 30, even though no one in this case is 30.

The report I just read said the median is over 28, which, obviously, is different then saying average. Someone accidentally said average instead of median in another one of them.

When split into age groups, the one age group with the most is, however, 20-24.

[Thondalar]

Averages generally don't mean shit. If 2/3 are 20 years old and 1/3 are 50 years old, the average age will be 30, even though no one in this case is 30.

Which goes back to exactly what I said...teenagers and retirees...average those out, what do you get?

[Candor]

I've already given my thoughts on this particular topic in a few other threads over the years, but since it's being brought up again, I'll share them again.

Simply put, minimum wage causes unemployment. I say this as a person who runs a business every day for a living. It's very simple math. If I have ten dollars to spend on labor, I can either hire two people at 5 dollars each or one person at 9 dollars and save a dollar and overwork that one person.

All of you who don't run a business for a living and say "oh! why not just spend more on labor?!!?" or whatever idiotic argument you have because you don't actually understand how it works can just nip it. Get educated.

Well stated.

[Candor]

Which goes back to exactly what I said...teenagers and retirees...average those out, what do you get?

An old person with bad judgement?

[Gelston]

Which goes back to exactly what I said...teenagers and retirees...average those out, what do you get?

Well, except the majority age group for workers are, apparently, 20s and 30s.

[Thondalar]

Well, except the majority age group for workers are, apparently, 20s and 30s.

No, early 20's. Which is a relatively new trend...all those idiots who got Liberal Arts degrees and thought it would mean something, and now living with their parents working at McDonalds.

Which brings me to another topic. Education-wise, for high school range anyway, we're WAY behind the global average. But our federal government spends more money on education than most. Could this possibly be because other nations actually educate their children in silly things like math, science, and history...whereas we educate our children about cultural diversity and sex?

Just saying...throwing money at it hasn't helped, after 30 years...maybe we should take a second look at the curriculum?

edit: Sorry, not behind the global average...we're slightly above average. But we're not the best. Chalk it up to American exceptionalism, but I don't like having lower test scores than Singapore.

[Gelston]

No, early 20's. Which is a relatively new trend...all those idiots who got Liberal Arts degrees and thought it would mean something, and now living with their parents working at McDonalds.

Which brings me to another topic. Education-wise, for high school range anyway, we're WAY behind the global average. But our federal government spends more money on education than most. Could this possibly be because other nations actually educate their children in silly things like math, science, and history...whereas we educate our children about cultural diversity and sex?

Just saying...throwing money at it hasn't helped, after 30 years...maybe we should take a second look at the curriculum?

edit: Sorry, not behind the global average...we're slightly above average. But we're not the best. Chalk it up to American exceptionalism, but I don't like having lower test scores than Singapore.

Your early 20s doesn't jive with the federal Bureau of Labor Statistcs. The largest single age group is 20-24, but the majority is older than 25, with the Median age being 29.2 as of 2012.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzR_9M-1WtJTTF9qcG5zY1B5NXM/edit

See page 6. While 24 and under does make a sizable group, it is less than half.

[Warriorbird]

No, early 20's. Which is a relatively new trend...all those idiots who got Liberal Arts degrees and thought it would mean something, and now living with their parents working at McDonalds.

Which brings me to another topic. Education-wise, for high school range anyway, we're WAY behind the global average. But our federal government spends more money on education than most. Could this possibly be because other nations actually educate their children in silly things like math, science, and history...whereas we educate our children about cultural diversity and sex?

Just saying...throwing money at it hasn't helped, after 30 years...maybe we should take a second look at the curriculum?

edit: Sorry, not behind the global average...we're slightly above average. But we're not the best. Chalk it up to American exceptionalism, but I don't like having lower test scores than Singapore.

A lot of it has to do with the Clinton/Bush/Obama standardized test culture and too many administrators/aides versus actual teachers, if you're looking at our educational issues.

Finland and South Korea are two models of how to do it much better. As far as states go, more should be like Nebraska and resist federal control.

[Gelston]

A lot of it has to do with the Clinton/Bush/Obama standardized test culture and too many administrators/aides versus actual teachers, if you're looking at our educational issues.

Finland and South Korea are two models of how to do it much better. As far as states go, more should be like Nebraska and resist federal control.

But then we'd have shitty football teams like the Cornhuskers.

[Warriorbird]

But then we'd have shitty football teams like the Cornhuskers.

Well yes. If you want to produce a great football team the SEC regions do it quite well. I wouldn't exactly suggest them as an educational model for America though, where if you choose to gauge by scores (on our best test) they're about dead last.

EDIT:

Notably, in their defense, in the most recent test group the SEC states did beat West Virginia! That's not saying much though. The Midwest/Northeast pretty much run the show scores wise.

[Gelston]

Well yes. If you want to produce a great football team the SEC regions do it quite well. I wouldn't exactly suggest them as an educational model for America though, where if you choose to gauge by scores they're about dead last.

That is what we have Vandy for. Our Graduate schools are pretty good though, that seems to matter more then a plain Bachelor's these days anyways.

Edit to add: Oh yeah, we have Texas A&M now too!

[Warriorbird]

That is what we have Vandy for. Our Graduate schools are pretty good though, that seems to matter more then a plain Bachelor's these days anyways.

Edit to add: Oh yeah, we have Texas A&M now too!

Grad school in the SEC is not bad at all. Undergrad, not so much. K-12 not so much.

[Gelston]

Heh, yeah, well, my motto has always been (growing up) that as long as Mississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas exist I don't have the worst education in the US.

[~Rocktar~]

Well yes. If you want to produce a great football team the SEC regions do it quite well. I wouldn't exactly suggest them as an educational model for America though, where if you choose to gauge by scores (on our best test) they're about dead last.

Since the College Board has it's main offices in the Northeast and they are the primary governing body of educational testing, it has been argued that there is regional and racial bias in their testing. Of course, if the South improved, who would Yankees make fun of then? We will just continue to make superior generals, win the nations wars and keep Coka-Cola safe for the rest of the world.

[Thondalar]

A lot of it has to do with the Clinton/Bush/Obama standardized test culture and too many administrators/aides versus actual teachers, if you're looking at our educational issues.

Finland and South Korea are two models of how to do it much better. As far as states go, more should be like Nebraska and resist federal control.

Holy shit, I agree with Back and WB in the same week...fucking right states should resist federal control. I've brought this up before, and hopefully I've opened a few eyes...the federal Department of Education is a black hole. It hasn't accomplished ANYTHING but make our international test scores continue to decline...it needs to be completely abolished. You can't say that though, because if you do it means you hate children or education, or education of children...

Reality exists regardless of your perception.

[Warriorbird]

Since the College Board has it's main offices in the Northeast and they are the primary governing body of educational testing, it has been argued that there is regional and racial bias in their testing. Of course, if the South improved, who would Yankees make fun of then? We will just continue to make superior generals, win the nations wars and keep Coka-Cola safe for the rest of the world.

I'm not sure it isn't true for the College Board tests. Those rankings have a lot of distortion in them though.

The two main rankings I was considering were the NAEP (which the board doesn't produce, but only part of the country takes per year) (which I think is a pretty good test) and NCLB testing (which I think is lousy, but also not crafted by the College Board.)

The thoroughly strange SAT rankings.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AvFGx7TzUi-ZdEp3OWt5Wm05S3B2X0xJWWtXZkpsUmc&output=html

ACT looks much worse for the Deep South.

http://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2012/states.html


Holy shit, I agree with Back and WB in the same week...fucking right states should resist federal control. I've brought this up before, and hopefully I've opened a few eyes...the federal Department of Education is a black hole. It hasn't accomplished ANYTHING but make our international test scores continue to decline...it needs to be completely abolished. You can't say that though, because if you do it means you hate children or education, or education of children...

Reality exists regardless of your perception.

Homeland Security and Education are two departments I'd cut were I to play the cut executive departments game. Neither has done a damn thing. International test wise we're pretty stagnant though rather than declining.

[Thondalar]

Homeland Security and Education are two departments I'd cut were I to play the cut executive departments game. Neither has done a damn thing. International test wise we're pretty stagnant though rather than declining.

If by "cut" you mean "completely abolish", you've got a friend in me.

[Warriorbird]

If by "cut" you mean "completely abolish", you've got a friend in me.

I certainly do. The other departments actually do things.

[Gelston]

Hey, the Coast Guard does stuff buddy. They are Homeland Security!

[Warriorbird]

Hey, the Coast Guard does stuff buddy. They are Homeland Security!

I have quite a lot of appreciation for the Coast Guard.

They did stuff before Homeland Security became a department. They'll do stuff after it hopefully ceases to be.

[kutter]

DHS is actually the 3rd Department the CG has been a part of, beginning with Treasury, then Transportation, and now DHS. I knew Transportation and DHS, I preferred how it was run under Transportation, but part of that was because the CG took on a much different role in the post 911 era. We still do everything we did before, but port security eats up a lot more of an ever shrinking budget and so far it does not seem to pay much in dividends for the time, effort, and money expended.

[Gelston]

DHS is actually the 3rd Department the CG has been a part of, beginning with Treasury, then Transportation, and now DHS. I knew Transportation and DHS, I preferred how it was run under Transportation, but part of that was because the CG took on a much different role in the post 911 era. We still do everything we did before, but port security eats up a lot more of an ever shrinking budget and so far it does not seem to pay much in dividends for the time, effort, and money expended.

Was the entirety of the Coast Guard put under the Navy during WW2 or just parts of it?

[kutter]

When Congress declares War then the CG is transferred to the DoD, not the Navy, but that may be a recent thing since I think it used to be the Navy, then once hostilities cease it goes back to whatever department it was a part of. And it is all of it.

[Jarvan]

We kinda got away from the real conversation here...

Lets look at things in perspective.

Fast Food workers want 15$ an hour.

Where I live.. lets look at some jobs that require skill to do. (not ness education)

Mechanics average wage 16.36

Construction worker average wage 17.79

Plumber average wage 12.50

Electrician average wage 18.27

Painter average wage 16.35

So what do we see here.. paying people 15.00 to flip burgers, take orders (and get them wrong when the have a fucking touch screen with pictures!!!!) and make fries would mean that they are getting almost as much money, if not in some cases as much or more, then other "working" jobs that require at least some skill. There would never be an incentive for people to move on from fast food jobs.

I think the real issue is the people that think you should be able to raise a family of 5, buy a 4 bedroom house with a white picket fence and 2 cars, a boat, and an RV. Take vacations to Europe, and wear designer clothing all on a fast food salary.

Then there are those that argue that the economy has gone to shit, or any other reason, and there are not good paying jobs out there anymore. Not true, there are jobs, most people just don't want to do them, or they need training or SKILL. Something people don't seem to want to do anymore.

I seriously couldn't even begin to imagine what would happen to our country if some nut jobs somehow passed a national minimum wage increase to around 15$ an hour.

[Parkbandit]

We kinda got away from the real conversation here...

Lets look at things in perspective.

Fast Food workers want 15$ an hour.

Where I live.. lets look at some jobs that require skill to do. (not ness education)

Mechanics average wage 16.36

Construction worker average wage 17.79

Plumber average wage 12.50

Electrician average wage 18.27

Painter average wage 16.35

So what do we see here.. paying people 15.00 to flip burgers, take orders (and get them wrong when the have a fucking touch screen with pictures!!!!) and make fries would mean that they are getting almost as much money, if not in some cases as much or more, then other "working" jobs that require at least some skill. There would never be an incentive for people to move on from fast food jobs.

I think the real issue is the people that think you should be able to raise a family of 5, buy a 4 bedroom house with a white picket fence and 2 cars, a boat, and an RV. Take vacations to Europe, and wear designer clothing all on a fast food salary.

Then there are those that argue that the economy has gone to shit, or any other reason, and there are not good paying jobs out there anymore. Not true, there are jobs, most people just don't want to do them, or they need training or SKILL. Something people don't seem to want to do anymore.

I seriously couldn't even begin to imagine what would happen to our country if some nut jobs somehow passed a national minimum wage increase to around 15$ an hour.

That's not what happens though... the industries that require experienced and trained employees will be forced to raise their wages to compete.. charge more for their services... everything will cost more until the equilibrium is met... and those $15 jobs will once again bitch and complain because they need more money for their unskilled labor.

[Wrathbringer]

That's not what happens though... the industries that require experienced and trained employees will be forced to raise their wages to compete.. charge more for their services... everything will cost more until the equilibrium is met... and those $15 jobs will once again bitch and complain because they need more money for their unskilled labor.

I dunno. If I'm skilled, trained and have the choice, no way I'm working fast food. Odds are, jobs requiring skill and training are already paying at least 15/hr, no? Even at $12/hr I'd prefer my skilled job to fast food at 15. IM just not certain fast food is so desirable a career path that skilled and trained workers will leave their careers for a buck more an hour.

[Gelston]

I'd imagine skilled labor has more room for advancement, whereas in McDonalds you can advance to drive-thru captain.

[crb]

My first job was bagging groceries at 15 years old. This job doesn't exist anymore. My wife's first job was McDonalds, that job still exists, for now.

What is the unemployment rate among teens? Especially minority teens? Do we need to legislate even more entry level jobs out of position? Sure. McDonalds might not seem like the first rung of a career later, it doesn't teach skills you can take to some really high paying job. Except of course customer service, responsibility, punctuality, respect.

Minimum wage jobs are like the preschool of the job market. You don't learn any reading, writing, or math in preschool, but you learn all the little things about structure and socialization, how to put your own boots on, how to play nice with others. It is important for your future school experience to have that. Minimum wage jobs do teach and prepare workers for future jobs, even if they're in disparate fields.

If you're an adult, and the best you can do is a job where you're next to a 16 year old, you've made poor life choices and that is your fault, legislation will not fix you. If grocery baggers existed anymore do you think raising their wage would help the economy, or help them? They buy their food at the grocery store where they work, grocery stores have notoriously low margins of around 2%, any increase in costs will be passed along to customers, including their own employees. IF you make $40 more per week but your grocery bill goes up $40 did you win? Maybe the government wins through more payroll tax revenue, but I don't think you win.

I remember reading an article once and irony had to have been lost on the journalist who wrote it. The featured woman in the story was in her 50s and making minimum wage slinging pizzas for Pizza Hut, with both children and grandchildren. At the very least had she started working fastfood at age 18 and showed a modicum of initiative and responsibility she'd be a manager by the age of 50, and yet she is sitting there at entry level. She managed to have children, who are now adults, and they apparently can't help her out either, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree apparently.

America is still known as the land of opportunity, hard working immigrants come here every day and many others would likely cut off a finger for the chance to come here legally. Opportunity to better yourself abounds in our society, there are stories all over of people who come from nothing making it big. If there are people who do not take advantage of those opportunities, why do we feel the need to futilely legislate them a raise? Why reward the unambitious? Some people feel content to go through life doing the absolute minimum, and for them, we have the minimum wage.

[crb]

We kinda got away from the real conversation here...

Lets look at things in perspective.

Fast Food workers want 15$ an hour.

Where I live.. lets look at some jobs that require skill to do. (not ness education)

Mechanics average wage 16.36

Construction worker average wage 17.79

Plumber average wage 12.50

Electrician average wage 18.27

Painter average wage 16.35

So what do we see here.. paying people 15.00 to flip burgers, take orders (and get them wrong when the have a fucking touch screen with pictures!!!!) and make fries would mean that they are getting almost as much money, if not in some cases as much or more, then other "working" jobs that require at least some skill. There would never be an incentive for people to move on from fast food jobs.

I think the real issue is the people that think you should be able to raise a family of 5, buy a 4 bedroom house with a white picket fence and 2 cars, a boat, and an RV. Take vacations to Europe, and wear designer clothing all on a fast food salary.

Then there are those that argue that the economy has gone to shit, or any other reason, and there are not good paying jobs out there anymore. Not true, there are jobs, most people just don't want to do them, or they need training or SKILL. Something people don't seem to want to do anymore.

I seriously couldn't even begin to imagine what would happen to our country if some nut jobs somehow passed a national minimum wage increase to around 15$ an hour.

That is sort of the point. Why are the big unions, who do not represent fast food workers, trying to get this done? They want upper pressure put on wages so their unionized employees working in other industries can also negotiate for higher pay.

[crb]

No, early 20's. Which is a relatively new trend...all those idiots who got Liberal Arts degrees and thought it would mean something, and now living with their parents working at McDonalds.

Which brings me to another topic. Education-wise, for high school range anyway, we're WAY behind the global average. But our federal government spends more money on education than most. Could this possibly be because other nations actually educate their children in silly things like math, science, and history...whereas we educate our children about cultural diversity and sex?

Just saying...throwing money at it hasn't helped, after 30 years...maybe we should take a second look at the curriculum?

edit: Sorry, not behind the global average...we're slightly above average. But we're not the best. Chalk it up to American exceptionalism, but I don't like having lower test scores than Singapore.

Tangent, but as Bob said, averages mean shit. Probably the only accurate thing he has ever posted.

I read a study recently that showed that if you segregate with race our education system is as good as the rest of the world. Our suburban white kids do as good as kids in Finland, our asians do as good as kids in asia. Why brings our averages down are the inner city minorities. Which is not to present a racist argument, but rather to underline that inner city public schools are in a separate level of shitty. That, and there is no culture of education among poor innercity minorities.

[Warriorbird]

Tangent, but as Bob said, averages mean shit. Probably the only accurate thing he has ever posted.

I read a study recently that showed that if you segregate with race our education system is as good as the rest of the world. Our suburban white kids do as good as kids in Finland, our asians do as good as kids in asia. Why brings our averages down are the inner city minorities. Which is not to present a racist argument, but rather to underline that inner city public schools are in a separate level of shitty. That, and there is no culture of education among poor innercity minorities.

If you were to only compare the suburbs and the city you could make up some theory about this. Truthfully though, its our high tax base areas that do closer to the top performing schools worldwide. Why I never mention Chinese schools as great schools (even though they claim it) is they only give their high tax base areas. Finland and South Korea are both more valid because they don't cheat on that stuff.

Class far more than silly Bell Curve ideas.

EDIT:

I wasn't calling CRB a racist, just the study he cites somewhat misguided. The Freakonomics guys (University of Chicago devotees both) suggest that one of the greatest contributors to a region's success at education and business is observing successful/professional people within the community itself.

[Latrinsorm]

Pure, unregulated capitalism is the only true path...this hybrid socialist/capitalist thing we're doing isn't working. History has proven pure Socialism/Communism doesn't work, and never will...how about we try pure Capitalism, for once?Well, there can be no argument that the United States has been hybrid socialist/capitalist for at least 100 years, but the United States became the world's largest economy in that time span, is currently twice as large as the second largest economy, and is five times larger than it per capita. You speak of history and proof, what are your criteria for "working"? I can see the argument that our recent stumbles indicate that we have gone too far on the socialist side, but as you say, we have never tried pure capitalism. You don't feel any period of the last century demonstrates a successful economy?
That's not what happens though... the industries that require experienced and trained employees will be forced to raise their wages to compete.. charge more for their services... everything will cost more until the equilibrium is met... and those $15 jobs will once again bitch and complain because they need more money for their unskilled labor.
If grocery baggers existed anymore do you think raising their wage would help the economy, or help them? They buy their food at the grocery store where they work, grocery stores have notoriously low margins of around 2%, any increase in costs will be passed along to customers, including their own employees. IF you make $40 more per week but your grocery bill goes up $40 did you win?Or, the stores will be forced to become more efficient and maintain their margins without raising prices. This is why minimum wage increases are empirically uncorrelated with inflation.

You can keep saying they do otherwise, but there's a phrase that comes to mind: "Reality exists regardless of your perception."

[Jarvan]

If you were to only compare the suburbs and the city you could make up some theory about this. Truthfully though, its our high tax base areas that do closer to the top performing schools worldwide. Why I never mention Chinese schools as great schools (even though they claim it) is they only give their high tax base areas. Finland and South Korea are both more valid because they don't cheat on that stuff.

Class far more than silly Bell Curve ideas.

EDIT:

I wasn't calling CRB a racist, just the study he cites somewhat misguided. The Freakonomics guys (University of Chicago devotees both) suggest that one of the greatest contributors to a region's success at education and business is observing successful/professional people within the community itself.

Are you suggesting with your statements that high income areas do good in school because of them having more money, the schools having more money or is it a social/cultural thing for those areas?



Or, the stores will be forced to become more efficient and maintain their margins without raising prices. This is why minimum wage increases are empirically uncorrelated with inflation.

You can keep saying they do otherwise, but there's a phrase that comes to mind: "Reality exists regardless of your perception."

Yeah, they would replace all the checkouts with automated ones. No more cashiers. Likely cut back on bakery employees as well. Stockers would work one shift a day, and if they ran out of something in the mean time, oh well.

And.. they would raise their prices some. Or reduce their sales at least. So the 10 people they employ would make 15 bucks an hour, the 20 people they laid off would make Zero.

[Wrathbringer]

Yeah, they would replace all the checkouts with automated ones. No more cashiers. Likely cut back on bakery employees as well. Stockers would work one shift a day, and if they ran out of something in the mean time, oh well.

And.. they would raise their prices some. Or reduce their sales at least. So the 10 people they employ would make 15 bucks an hour, the 20 people they laid off would make Zero.

Agreed. You can bet any government mandated cost, be it via taxes or to comply with any new/updated regulation is going to be passed on to the customer or they'll lay off workers, etc. The money has to come from somewhere and they're obviously not going to cut into their profits, which is what people are wanting them to do.

[Back]

Pointing at journalistic businesses who report, repeat, report on the minimum wage who hire unpaid interns and calling them hypocrites for doing so shows that the person or people who are trying to push this message have little interest in truth and more interest in distortion to deceive people who can't bother thinking on their own.

If you are that hungry for crap go to McDonald's. It's not as bad for you as the bullshit in the first post.

[Gelston]

Yeah, they would replace all the checkouts with automated ones. No more cashiers. Likely cut back on bakery employees as well. Stockers would work one shift a day, and if they ran out of something in the mean time, oh well.

And.. they would raise their prices some. Or reduce their sales at least. So the 10 people they employ would make 15 bucks an hour, the 20 people they laid off would make Zero.

There will always be manned check out lanes. Automated checkouts can't sell booze.

[Warriorbird]

Are you suggesting with your statements that high income areas do good in school because of them having more money, the schools having more money or is it a social/cultural thing for those areas?

I think it has to do with exposure, funding (Fairfax gets $87,000 per student, Wytheville gets like $11,000 within Virginia), community expectations, and family/home enevironment.

The Freakonomics guys put it all on exposure. They say their data suggests it comes down, entirely separate from race or culture, on kids seeing successful people within their community.

[Tgo01]

There will always be manned check out lanes. Automated checkouts can't sell booze.

I dunno, the grocery store near me only has automated checkouts open after I think 11PM. The register alerts an employee if someone attempts to buy something that has an age restriction on it.

[Gelston]

All the ones here have a sign saying "No Alcohol" I imagine between 2AM and 6AM they can go to all automated though.

[Bobmuhthol]

I dunno, the grocery store near me only has automated checkouts open after I think 11PM. The register alerts an employee if someone attempts to buy something that has an age restriction on it.Alcohol can only be purchased until 11PM in MA, so I'm guessing it's true in other states as well.

[Gelston]

Alcohol can only be purchased until 11PM in MA, so I'm guessing it's true in other states as well.

2AM here. It varies greatly by states. Bars away from the riverfront, 2AM, bars at the Riverfront District, 6AM.

[Jarvan]

I think it has to do with exposure, funding (Fairfax gets $87,000 per student, Wytheville gets like $11,000 within Virginia), community expectations, and family/home enevironment.

The Freakonomics guys put it all on exposure. They say their data suggests it comes down, entirely separate from race or culture, on kids seeing successful people within their community.

I didn't go to a true "inner city" school. But my school did have a lot of kids that would be considered such, as we had a place we called the "projects" HUD funded housing where the occupants paid nothing really to live there.

Suffice it to say, those kids went to the same school as me, but I would say most of them thought their only shot out of poverty was sports, music, or gangs. Since my town still doesn't have a professional athlete, or a music star... but we now have 5 different rival gangs... guess which one sorta worked in the end? We do have a lot of successful people in and around my community. A few even came from the projects. Lets face it though, a lot of this has to do with cultural and social factors. There is not a lot of pressure from within the family, or the schools really in inner city neighborhoods to study instead of joining a gang.

This isn't a black thing either. Certainly applies to Hispanic kids as well. I am sure it applies to white kids in some areas too. All the gangs where I live are Hispanic/Black. Though the one black gang does allow white kids.. but I think they are there for comic relief. (I mean seriously.. it's always funny seeing a white kid act like a black gangbanger.. pants around his knees with plaid boxers... cap sideways.. gold teeth)


I dunno, the grocery store near me only has automated checkouts open after I think 11PM. The register alerts an employee if someone attempts to buy something that has an age restriction on it.

My state does booze differently. State run stores. BUT.. there is a grocery store that -cough- Bought -cough- the right to sell wine and beer. There if you try to go thru the automated line with them, it alerts the customer service person on duty to come over. Just like if you want cigs you have to ask at the front counter. Stores can easily go fully automated with 1-2 people on duty to watch them and help out issues. They don't because as of yet, a large number of people still liek the human interaction, and having someone else do it for them. You mandate 15 bucks an hour to the cashier, and see how fast there are no cashiers anymore.

On a side note.. I wonder if Back's hotdog stand would stay in business if he had to pay them 15 an hour. We already know that Ceyrin's wouldn't Since he already pays himself around 5.50 an hour according to him. Paying his employees more would mean he did it for free.

[~Rocktar~]

Automated checkout lines are the best thing to happen to shoplifters in decades. Until you get the magical RF tagging that is cost effective and not easily defeated, they will continue to be a shoplifter's paradise. It's cheaper in many instances to hire a checker than to pay for the amount of merchandise that goes out the door unpaid for in these lanes.

[Gelston]

Automated checkout lines are the best thing to happen to shoplifters in decades. Until you get the magical RF tagging that is cost effective and not easily defeated, they will continue to be a shoplifter's paradise. It's cheaper in many instances to hire a checker than to pay for the amount of merchandise that goes out the door unpaid for in these lanes.

It is already a shoplifter's paradise and has been for years. Loss/prevention in most cases aren't allowed to do anymore than tell someone to stop and call the police.

[~Rocktar~]

Yeah, that's true, sad, but true.

[Warriorbird]

I didn't go to a true "inner city" school. But my school did have a lot of kids that would be considered such, as we had a place we called the "projects" HUD funded housing where the occupants paid nothing really to live there.

Suffice it to say, those kids went to the same school as me, but I would say most of them thought their only shot out of poverty was sports, music, or gangs. Since my town still doesn't have a professional athlete, or a music star... but we now have 5 different rival gangs... guess which one sorta worked in the end? We do have a lot of successful people in and around my community. A few even came from the projects. Lets face it though, a lot of this has to do with cultural and social factors. There is not a lot of pressure from within the family, or the schools really in inner city neighborhoods to study instead of joining a gang.

This isn't a black thing either. Certainly applies to Hispanic kids as well. I am sure it applies to white kids in some areas too. All the gangs where I live are Hispanic/Black. Though the one black gang does allow white kids.. but I think they are there for comic relief. (I mean seriously.. it's always funny seeing a white kid act like a black gangbanger.. pants around his knees with plaid boxers... cap sideways.. gold teeth)

I think the bit Dubner/Leavitt would point out is that those kids saw less successful people within their own community than you did.

I think there's a lot of factors personally.

[crb]

Or, the stores will be forced to become more efficient and maintain their margins without raising prices. This is why minimum wage increases are empirically uncorrelated with inflation.

And if they do that, how do they do it most often?

I didn't think it necessary to point out the obvious scenario: The grocery bagger loses his job.

[Gelston]

The grocery bagger has a two fold job. He bags and pushes the cart out to the car and corrals the carts in the lot. They can't replace them, unless they get rid of carts. Thirdly, it adds a little bit of personality to the store, which could well determine whether someone shops there or somewhere else.

[Tgo01]

The grocery bagger has a two fold job. He bags and pushes the cart out to the car and corrals the carts in the lot. They can't replace them, unless they get rid of carts. Thirdly, it adds a little bit of personality to the store, which could well determine whether someone shops there or somewhere else.

They could go the route of Aldi's which makes customer put a deposit of a quarter to use the shopping cart and they get their quarter back when they return the shopping cart to a corral next to the store.

[Gelston]

They could go the route of Aldi's which makes customer put a deposit of a quarter to use the shopping cart and they get their quarter back when they return the shopping cart to a corral next to the store.

They could, and I imagine most people wouldn't care about a quarter so they'd have to rely on random homeless people who converge on the unoccupied carts to push them in and get the deposits.

[Jarvan]

The grocery bagger has a two fold job. He bags and pushes the cart out to the car and corrals the carts in the lot. They can't replace them, unless they get rid of carts. Thirdly, it adds a little bit of personality to the store, which could well determine whether someone shops there or somewhere else.

A local store solved the cart issue.

They charge you for using the cart. You get the money back if it is returned.

[Thondalar]

2AM here. It varies greatly by states. Bars away from the riverfront, 2AM, bars at the Riverfront District, 6AM.

Usually it varies by County. Where I'm at it's 2am mon-sat, midnight sun...one county over it's 3am 7 days a week.

[Gelston]

Usually it varies by County. Where I'm at it's 2am mon-sat, midnight sun...one county over it's 3am 7 days a week.

Yeah, it does vary by Parish. State has ultimate authority, and the Parish can add to, but not take away. Here, I think the only requirement by state for a bar is that it must be closed for one hour a day, but the Parish adds more to it, such as no bars on Sunday, and no hard liquor sales before noon.

[Rallorick]

I don't understand how someone can defend the current minimum pay by characterizing the people as young, retired, or burned out... and then attack the welfare/food assistance participants by characterizing them as lazy cheats, when you have to know you're talking about the same demographic on the majority, and one is directly correlative to the other.

Seriously, how about leaving your presumptions aside and taking an honest approach to what is really a complex problem that's only bound to get bigger. Not that you're going to solve it, I get that, but if you're going to have an opinion... at least make it a consistent one.

[Jarvan]

I don't understand how someone can defend the current minimum pay by characterizing the people as young, retired, or burned out... and then attack the welfare/food assistance participants by characterizing them as lazy cheats, when you have to know you're talking about the same demographic on the majority, and one is directly correlative to the other.

Seriously, how about leaving your presumptions aside and taking an honest approach to what is really a complex problem that's only bound to get bigger. Not that you're going to solve it, I get that, but if you're going to have an opinion... at least make it a consistent one.

I like the people that think we can solve the wage disparity issue by just paying people more money. If that were the case, the Government would just mandate everyone get paid at least 75k a year, and we would be the richest country on earth, with zero people in poverty.

There is no solution to people that don't/can't progress to more advanced jobs. One of the reasons I can think of is, a lot less manufacturing jobs. They may not have paid great, but usually paid decently above minimum wage. Sadly, a number of different reasons pushed them overseas. The ones that are left, are SKILLED labor, and we don't train people for them really anymore. Also, it seems that a large group of people in politics thinks that 90% of our population needs to go to college to get a degree. This doesn't help the skilled labor pool.

No one working unskilled labor should expect their job to offer them all the things someone that spent 1-2 years in an apprentice program, or accredited school, to get. Otherwise there really is no incentive to ever make anything of yourself. Why bother. You get paid good, and likely STILL get free stuff from the fed.

[Wrathbringer]

5960

[Rallorick]

yeah... or, as you pointed out in the unsigned rep, they could get different jobs... very well thought out Jarven.

you truly are a think tank above all others. that never occurred to me.

[Bobmuhthol]

5960I can't even begin to understand what the point of this is.

[Wrathbringer]

I can't even begin to understand what the point of this is.

We know.

[Latrinsorm]

Agreed. You can bet any government mandated cost, be it via taxes or to comply with any new/updated regulation is going to be passed on to the customer or they'll lay off workers, etc. The money has to come from somewhere and they're obviously not going to cut into their profits, which is what people are wanting them to do.Raising prices and laying off workers carries cost as well. Why doesn't the store just charge $100 more for a gallon of milk? If they can't mandate people buy from them in that scenario, why could they in the scenario where they're passing on $1 of cost? Note that is not accurate to say that every other store is doing it, as we can determine from Thondalar's favorite subject (history). It is also expressly illegal for the stores to consort between themselves and all agree to raise prices.
And if they do that, how do they do it most often?

I didn't think it necessary to point out the obvious scenario: The grocery bagger loses his job.Let me ask you this. When you go to the grocery store by yourself, would you rather go to a lane with a bagger or without, all else being equal? Unless the bagger is massively incompetent, going to that lane saves you time and energy. The same principle applies to going to a store with a bagger or without, therefore economics compels you to go bagger stores if they exist. Economics also compels those stores to exist, because a minute of your time is worth dramatically more to you than ten minutes of a bagger's time is to them, thus the bagger store breaks even by your entire order being $0.20 higher, but you place far more value than twenty cents on that minute.

Note how in this case you are paying for a service, whereas in the increased price case you are paying for nothing. That tends to annoy people, although in America of course annoyance doesn't generally lead to anything but griping.

[Wrathbringer]

Raising prices and laying off workers carries cost as well. Why doesn't the store just charge $100 more for a gallon of milk? If they can't mandate people buy from them in that scenario, why could they in the scenario where they're passing on $1 of cost? Note that is not accurate to say that every other store is doing it, as we can determine from Thondalar's favorite subject (history). It is also expressly illegal for the stores to consort between themselves and all agree to raise prices.

A store can't mandate people buy from them in any scenerio (yet), so I'm not sure this is a valid analogy. I think your point is that they'll eventually dip into profits if/when they're unsuccessful in passing off the newly increased cost of doing business in other ways?

[Jarvan]

yeah... or, as you pointed out in the unsigned rep, they could get different jobs... very well thought out Jarven.

you truly are a think tank above all others. that never occurred to me.

Yeah, I don't do unsigned rep. I'll sign my neg rep or pos rep. But yeah, they COULD get different jobs if they wanted to. The only reason to not progress past an entry level job is you are to Lazy, stoned, or drunk to go further.

[Rallorick]

Yeah, I don't do unsigned rep..

sure... ok.


they COULD get different jobs if they wanted to. The only reason to not progress past an entry level job is you are to Lazy, stoned, or drunk to go further.

really... oversimplifying a problem obviously leads to the best solutions. we see this repeatedly in history. this has never gone wrong. if you have a belief, the best thing to do is throw out generalizations... Also, if something is not working, it's best to approach the problem the same way over and over, and expect different results. This is well established best practice.

[Jarvan]

sure... ok.



really... oversimplifying a problem obviously leads to the best solutions. we see this repeatedly in history. this has never gone wrong. if you have a belief, the best thing to do is throw out generalizations... Also, if something is not working, it's best to approach the problem the same way over and over, and expect different results. This is well established best practice.

So what do you say the reason is then for someone working at McDonalds as a burger flipper for 27 years? They love to do it?

And no I don't do anon neg rep. There is no point to it. I like people to know I am calling them a fucktard or some such in my rep. Non-signed just shows you are a pussy. Which is why most of the people here don't sign theirs.

[Rallorick]

Rep comment: Thread: Minimum Wage Hypocrites

Why not just force people to pay a minimum $25 an hour. We would eliminate poverty. Problem with liberals like you, you don't think through problems.

Because, as I already stated, it's a complicated problem... large shocks in the economy, like this, tend to cause hyper-inflation, but not because companies pass on to the consumer - this is a myth. Company's price according to what consumers will pay. Consumers don't care about your sunk costs, they only purchase when the perceived value is net or surplus of the cost. The issue is in the demand, more disposable income lead to larger demand on production. People who subsist on, below, or around the poverty level tend to not save. This is somewhat a generalization, I know, but it's also somewhat reliable. Larger demand is what causes the inflation.

This leads to people who are not affected by the increase start to tighten up their purchases, as they are now less wealthy... and you've completely screwed up your equilibrium. You can theorize how it will land, but likely it will have adverse long term effects, depending on countless variables.

My point is not that we need to raise the minimum pay in a shocking level. My point is that the current situation makes it terribly difficult to criticize people if:

1. They are looked down on as unskilled labor who should be happy for what they get, even if it's not livable wages.
2. They are crooks who steal from the government if they don't take the social scraps and work a job that doesn't pay them enough to get by.

There's no incentive, what the hell do people expect? I don't know... just seems there's a lot of broken things, and if we don't figure it out, we'll lose.

[~Rocktar~]

If paying people to not be poor worked then no one in this country would be poor, after all we have paid enough. This is just more of the same while expecting yet again, a different outcome.

[Rallorick]

well, keep telling yourself this as we continue to slip in the ranks.

People need incentive to be better. They need options, and not anecdotal micro-level outreach programs. These are generally feel good political publicity stunts. I get this.

I'm just saying that where I've gotten in life has had its share of lucky breaks. Granted that I worked hard to be in a position to take advantage of those breaks when they came up, but I would hate to be in the position of never seeing those breaks as a possibility in my world... it would probably be enough to break me down and I can understand why people give up. And I do find it sad that we can't do better when our country was founded on the idea of incentive and improvement.

[Jarvan]

Rep comment: Thread: Minimum Wage Hypocrites

Why not just force people to pay a minimum $25 an hour. We would eliminate poverty. Problem with liberals like you, you don't think through problems.

Because, as I already stated, it's a complicated problem... large shocks in the economy, like this, tend to cause hyper-inflation, but not because companies pass on to the consumer - this is a myth. Company's price according to what consumers will pay. Consumers don't care about your sunk costs, they only purchase when the perceived value is net or surplus of the cost. The issue is in the demand, more disposable income lead to larger demand on production. People who subsist on, below, or around the poverty level tend to not save. This is somewhat a generalization, I know, but it's also somewhat reliable. Larger demand is what causes the inflation.

This leads to people who are not affected by the increase start to tighten up their purchases, as they are now less wealthy... and you've completely screwed up your equilibrium. You can theorize how it will land, but likely it will have adverse long term effects, depending on countless variables.

My point is not that we need to raise the minimum pay in a shocking level. My point is that the current situation makes it terribly difficult to criticize people if:

1. They are looked down on as unskilled labor who should be happy for what they get, even if it's not livable wages.
2. They are crooks who steal from the government if they don't take the social scraps and work a job that doesn't pay them enough to get by.

There's no incentive, what the hell do people expect? I don't know... just seems there's a lot of broken things, and if we don't figure it out, we'll lose.

Sorry, but it doesn't matter what you raise the minimum wage to. There will always be a "poverty class" it's just that if you make it 15 bucks an hour, that will be the new poverty class.

As for a myth about companies passing on costs to the consumer.. I am pretty sure that myth has been busted time and time again. They may not visibly pass on 100% of the increase, but they certainly don't absorb all the costs.

Hell, look at Stores and CC sales. Stores don't eat that 4% of CC sales (or so) they pass that onto the consumers. If someone buys in cash, they just made a bit more profit.

http://www.ilsr.org/soaring-credit-card-transaction-fees-squeeze-independent-businesses/

So that's one hole in your myth.

Here is another.. in 2008 a 1.45 oz Hershey's candy bar typically cost .75 cents at my local store. (I could buy 2 for 1.50 or sometimes on sale for 2 for a buck)

Now they cost 2/3$. Sometimes I am lucky and find them 2/2$.

Now, inflation according to the fed was only 8.05% since then, so they should cost .81 cents. But actual product costs went up more then inflation (duh) the companies didn't eat (haha) the costs, they passed on the price to the stores, which passed on the price to consumers. The other way this do this.. is product size. Have you noticed that OJ cartons are smaller now? Used to be 64 oz, now they are 59. So once again, the companies are passing increased costs onto the consumer. Pasta sauces used to be thick, now they seem to be runny. Watered down, another cost saving scheme. Why? Because increasing the cost significantly will cause people to not buy it.

Let's just look at a McDonald's. Lets say they are open 6am to midnight and need 150 man hours of staffing a day. At 30 days a month, that's 4500 man hours. If you increase their base wage to 15, assuming they are at say.. 8 now.. that's an increase of 31,500 in operating costs per month. Or 378k a year. Per store. Can the stores eat that? Likely, yes, they can. Will they? No. After all, would you take a 378k cut in pay per year?

I seriously doubt there is a single small business owner on these boards that would be willing to see up to a doubling in labor costs.

The thing is, jobs better then minimum wage, are not disappearing, but now being filled with college graduates that couldn't find "real work" for their misc degrees they thought they needed. Customer service jobs are now requiring 4 year degrees to answer the phone. These used to be the middle road jobs that minimum wage graduated to, now it's what the college kids find themselves doing.

College used to be something generally the best and brightest, or richest, did. It wasn't something you did just so you could get a mediocre job.

[Latrinsorm]

A store can't mandate people buy from them in any scenerio (yet), so I'm not sure this is a valid analogy. I think your point is that they'll eventually dip into profits if/when they're unsuccessful in passing off the newly increased cost of doing business in other ways?Yes.

Also, that they have been unsuccessful doing so in the past, or haven't bothered trying. Please note how it does not matter what they say they will do, or what they say they must do, or what they say at all. Repurpose some of the cynicism you have towards politicians for use on business owners, they are all people after all. (And as we learned in the 2004 debates, President Bush himself was a small business owner.) Why are business owners so vehemently against min wage increases if they'll make the same profits and it therefore won't affect them? Surely they have a limit on the amount of protesting they can do, therefore they have an incentive to protest only those things that hurt them, therefore economics forbids them from protesting things that don't. QED.
If paying people to not be poor worked then no one in this country would be poor, after all we have paid enough. This is just more of the same while expecting yet again, a different outcome.The point in minimum wage increases is not to eradicate poverty. The point is to keep pace with inflation. If your understanding is that min wage increases cause inflation, this makes no sense to you, I understand. But the fact of the matter is that inflation occurs regardless of min wage increases, so the latter have to occur. This is one of the costs of a flexible money supply.

[Rallorick]

Sorry, but it doesn't matter what you raise the minimum wage to. There will always be a "poverty class" it's just that if you make it 15 bucks an hour, that will be the new poverty class.

WFT dude... isn't that what I said?? did you even read the post before you quoted it and replied?

As for the rest of your post, the argument would be that it's effect looking for a cause. If those price increases caused reduction in demand, do you really think companies would respond by sticking to their guns that they need to pass their costs along to the consumer and protect the sanctity of their 15% margin? Or do you think they would analyze it and realize that the volume on 12% margin creates a higher level of profit?

As I said, people purchase when the perceived value is net or surplus of the cost. What these companies did was eat into the surplus value. if they were at net, they would indeed eat the cost... it's fairly simple math on the supply/demand curve.

sorry your candy bars cost more now.

[Warriorbird]

If paying people to not be poor worked then no one in this country would be poor, after all we have paid enough. This is just more of the same while expecting yet again, a different outcome.

You used to work for a company that sets out to take advantage of paying people so little that they go on government benefits. This is pretty funny coming from you.

[Bobmuhthol]

So many "economists" in this thread.

Special shout out to Jarvan for having absolutely no fucking clue what inflation is.

[Wrathbringer]

Yes.

Also, that they have been unsuccessful doing so in the past, or haven't bothered trying. Please note how it does not matter what they say they will do, or what they say they must do, or what they say at all. Repurpose some of the cynicism you have towards politicians for use on business owners, they are all people after all. (And as we learned in the 2004 debates, President Bush himself was a small business owner.) Why are business owners so vehemently against min wage increases if they'll make the same profits and it therefore won't affect them? Surely they have a limit on the amount of protesting they can do, therefore they have an incentive to protest only those things that hurt them, therefore economics forbids them from protesting things that don't. QED.The point in minimum wage increases is not to eradicate poverty. The point is to keep pace with inflation. If your understanding is that min wage increases cause inflation, this makes no sense to you, I understand. But the fact of the matter is that inflation occurs regardless of min wage increases, so the latter have to occur. This is one of the costs of a flexible money supply.

If the point of minimum wage increases is to keep pace with inflation, then you'll agree that an increase to $15/hr exceeds that (I think you will, anyway). Since this is still somewhat America, I have no problem with businesses guarding their profits. It's why they exist. To profit. I'd much rather see businesses use any money they have to hire more people rather than just double the pay of the people they already have. One of those is conducive to growing a business and an economy, and the other is decidedly not. Somewhere in there, we disagree, I'll bet. ;)

[Warriorbird]

If the point of minimum wage increases is to keep pace with inflation, then you'll agree that an increase to $15/hr exceeds that (I think you will, anyway). Since this is still somewhat America, I have no problem with businesses guarding their profits. It's why they exist. To profit. I'd much rather see businesses use any money they have to hire more people rather than just double the pay of the people they already have. One of those is conducive to growing a business and an economy, and the other is decidedly not. Somewhere in there, we disagree, I'll bet. ;)

It's great hearing how businesses aren't amoral from the amoral guy.

[~Rocktar~]

You used to work for a company that sets out to take advantage of paying people so little that they go on government benefits. This is pretty funny coming from you.

Yes I did, and somehow, I managed to pay a car note, student loans and all my bills without going on assistance. Of course I didn't have cable, didn't have a fancy cell phone, don't drive a new car, didn't wear AE clothing, didn't go out to eat or movies and didn't eat name brand stuff. AND I don't work there anymore either. People on welfare made more money than I did and yet I managed to not get on welfare and had a roof, heat and food. Funny, all it took was some self discipline and understanding the fundamental difference between want and need. By the way, no one takes a gun out and forces people to work at Walmart or McDonalds or anywhere else. There are no press gangs other than for the flesh trade in big cities.

As I said about the sign I would carry as an anti-protester "Don't like minimum wage, improve your skills, public libraries are free."

OH, and what difficulty have you overcome wine boy? Or should I call you Whine boy? As I recall, you went to law school on your parent's dime and work on the family winery? Must be a tough life knowing mommy and daddy have your back, huh?

Your post is vapid and of no value. Keep up the good work.

[Rallorick]

vapid.

word of the day nomination!!

except that you followed it up with 'and of no value'...

[Wrathbringer]

It's great hearing how businesses aren't amoral from the amoral guy.

Glad you enjoyed it.

[Warriorbird]

Yes I did, and somehow, I managed to pay a car note, student loans and all my bills without going on assistance. Of course I didn't have cable, didn't have a fancy cell phone, don't drive a new car, didn't wear AE clothing, didn't go out to eat or movies and didn't eat name brand stuff. AND I don't work there anymore either. People on welfare made more money than I did and yet I managed to not get on welfare and had a roof, heat and food. Funny, all it took was some self discipline and understanding the fundamental difference between want and need. By the way, no one takes a gun out and forces people to work at Walmart or McDonalds or anywhere else. There are no press gangs other than for the flesh trade in big cities.

As I said about the sign I would carry as an anti-protester "Don't like minimum wage, improve your skills, public libraries are free."

OH, and what difficulty have you overcome wine boy? Or should I call you Whine boy? As I recall, you went to law school on your parent's dime and work on the family winery? Must be a tough life knowing mommy and daddy have your back, huh?

Your post is vapid and of no value. Keep up the good work.

I paid my own undergrad loans. I paid my own grad loans. I paid for my entire time in law school myself. The rest of your rant makes a lot less sense when you insert that point.

It's cool how you avoid assigning any blame to a company that makes people taking government assistance part of their planning.

Corporations are saints!

[Jarvan]

So many "economists" in this thread.

Special shout out to Jarvan for having absolutely no fucking clue what inflation is.

Oh hey look, it's the expert on every single subject in the universe. Solved all the worlds problems yet? No? Didn't think so jackass.

Better yet, you have an economics degree from MIT right? Or at least a math one, so OBVIOUSLY you can solve this problem lickity split.

So Bob, Enlighten us feeble minded people. What is the correct answer? Hmmm?

[Wrathbringer]

Oh hey look, it's the expert on every single subject in the universe. Solved all the worlds problems yet? No? Didn't think so jackass.

Better yet, you have an economics degree from MIT right? Or at least a math one, so OBVIOUSLY you can solve this problem lickity split.

So Bob, Enlighten us feeble minded people. What is the correct answer? Hmmm?

He was obviously desperate for someone to ask for his input. Wish you hadn't complied, but you did.

[Wrathbringer]

I paid my own undergrad loans. I paid my own grad loans. I paid for my entire time in law school myself. The rest of your rant makes a lot less sense when you insert that point.

It's cool how you avoid assigning any blame to a company that makes people taking government assistance part of their planning.

Corporations are saints!

With a job from an evil business, right?

[Jarvan]

He was obviously desperate for someone to ask for his input. Wish you hadn't complied, but you did.

Well, to be honest I am still wondering why we even have poor people, or a feeble economy, since we have Bob that can solve all the worlds problems with his expert knowledge.

[Warriorbird]

With a job from an evil business, right?

There's a difference between lacking morality and evil. You should know. You don't think freeloading off the rest of us makes you evil, do you?

[Latrinsorm]

If the point of minimum wage increases is to keep pace with inflation, then you'll agree that an increase to $15/hr exceeds that (I think you will, anyway). Since this is still somewhat America, I have no problem with businesses guarding their profits. It's why they exist. To profit. I'd much rather see businesses use any money they have to hire more people rather than just double the pay of the people they already have. One of those is conducive to growing a business and an economy, and the other is decidedly not. Somewhere in there, we disagree, I'll bet. ;)I would not advise a $15/hr minimum wage, no, but this does not mean minimum wage increases of any kind are inadvisable. The obvious solution is to just code inflation adjustments into the min wage law and be done with it.

I am not sure how well we can enforce a law that businesses hire people. Given the recent saber-rattling from business owners about firing people so as not to have to provide them insurance, I would assume the option has already been considered and rejected as unfeasible. We can enforce a minimum wage law pretty well, though. I also think you underestimate the value (to the economy) of more money in the pockets of the poor.

[Wrathbringer]

There's a difference between lacking morality and evil. You should know. You don't think freeloading off the rest of us makes you evil, do you?

Glad you're here to tell us where that line between lacking morality and evil is. Otherwise, we'd just have to guess. Where you worked = lacking morality. Where everyone else works = evil. Have I got it?

[Wrathbringer]

I would not advise a $15/hr minimum wage, no, but this does not mean minimum wage increases of any kind are inadvisable. The obvious solution is to just code inflation adjustments into the min wage law and be done with it.

I am not sure how well we can enforce a law that businesses hire people. Given the recent saber-rattling from business owners about firing people so as not to have to provide them insurance, I would assume the option has already been considered and rejected as unfeasible. We can enforce a minimum wage law pretty well, though. I also think you underestimate the value (to the economy) of more money in the pockets of the poor.

Part 1: Agreed, well said.

Part 2: Wot? Who mentioned a law that businesses hire people?

Part 3: No problem with more money in the pockets of the poor. I just don't think giving it to them is the answer in most cases.

[Warriorbird]

Glad you're here to tell us where that line between lacking morality and evil is. Otherwise, we'd just have to guess. Where you worked = lacking morality. Where everyone else works = evil. Have I got it?

Note the first person to bring up evil in this thread. Guilty consience?

[~Rocktar~]

I paid my own undergrad loans. I paid my own grad loans. I paid for my entire time in law school myself. The rest of your rant makes a lot less sense when you insert that point.

Working at mommie and daddie's winery, right?


It's cool how you avoid assigning any blame to a company that makes people taking government assistance part of their planning.

That's funny, I don't remember discussing anything other than my experience and my thought that an individual is responsible for their own results in the world.


Corporations are saints!

You think so?

[Wrathbringer]

Note the first person to bring up evil in this thread. Guilty consience?

It's "Conscience." Con-science is how I always remember it. Also, you're mean. You don't see me launching morality attacks at you because you work for an amoral business in order to profit personally. I'm just going to assume you're having a bad day, but really, if you're going to take the time to post an insult, you could at least have the common courtesy to add something relevant to the conversation afterwards. Or before, if you like. I'll take it however I can get it.

[Warriorbird]

Working at mommie and daddie's winery, right?

Working for Tyco and then working for The Stone Group. I'm sorry it doesn't fit in with your fantasy projections. It's all right if you've never had a job creator in your family. I know you worship them so you're probably bitter about it.


That's funny, I don't remember discussing anything other than my experience and my thought that an individual is responsible for their own results in the world.

Right. So we ought to forbid them from banding together and forming unions and standing up for themselves.

[Warriorbird]

It's "Conscience." Con-science is how I always remember it. Also, you're mean. You don't see me launching morality attacks at you because you work for an amoral business in order to profit personally. I'm just going to assume you're having a bad day, but really, if you're going to take the time to post an insult, you could at least have the common courtesy to add something relevant to the conversation afterwards. Or before, if you like. I'll take it however I can get it.

I think it's hypocritical to bash people for trying to get a minimum wage for themselves as though they're somehow taking advantage of society when you're taking advantage of society.

People having a much higher minimum wage has not destroyed the world. If the only business I am involved in with hourly employees had to pay higher wages we would get by.

If you don't pay taxes why does it bother you? I also find the notion that the "savings" from not paying a minimum wage would be spent on hiring more employees almost laughable in its naiveté.

[Jarvan]

I think it's hypocritical to bash people for trying to get a minimum wage for themselves as though they're somehow taking advantage of society when you're taking advantage of society.

People having a much higher minimum wage has not destroyed the world. If the only business I am involved in with hourly employees had to pay higher wages we would get by.

If you don't pay taxes why does it bother you? I also find the notion that the "savings" from not paying a minimum wage would be spent on hiring more employees almost laughable in its naiveté.

LOL. Which business do you work for that has hourly employees, how many, and what do they get paid? Calculate the increase in labor costs, then ask your CEO if they would be willing to absorb those costs. THEN tell him you think they should do it.

.....

How does unemployment feel?


Right. So we ought to forbid them from banding together and forming unions and standing up for themselves.

Unions once served a purpose. Now it's just legal extortion.

"Give us XYZ, or we will shut this company down."

[Wrathbringer]

I think it's hypocritical to bash people for trying to get a minimum wage for themselves as though they're somehow taking advantage of society when you're taking advantage of society.

People having a much higher minimum wage has not destroyed the world. If the only business I am involved in with hourly employees had to pay higher wages we would get by.

If you don't pay taxes why does it bother you?

Have to quote PB here: lolwut? I have bashed no one, for any reason, and certainly not people who work or want minimum wage jobs. So not sure what that's about. Then, by not paying those higher wages, the business you're involved in is immoral, right? It's "immoral", btw. From your post earlier? "Amoral" means neither moral nor immoral, such as a rock or a tree is amoral. Thought you'd like to know. How much profit is okay before immorality sets in?

[Wrathbringer]

I also find the notion that the "savings" from not paying a minimum wage would be spent on hiring more employees almost laughable in its naiveté.

It's almost laughable to believe that any business would attempt to expand in order to make more money? Why do you find this almost laughable?

[cwolff]

It's almost laughable to believe that any business would attempt to expand in order to make more money? Why do you find this almost laughable?

Expansion certainly doesn't = increased profit. This is the thinking that brought us Trickle Down. There's no telling what people will do with more profit. Right now for example; corporate profits are through the roof, but they are keeping the money and not re-investing into expansion. It blows up that whole myth about the job creators.

[Rallorick]

It's almost laughable to believe that any business would attempt to expand in order to make more money? Why do you find this almost laughable?

sort of... expansion is more of a market condition, though, and that's the determining factor, not really 'over-staffing because people are cheap'. If you're going to expand your operation, you're probably in a very reasonable profit situation because you can't meet current demand, which doesn't have a whole lot to do with whether you pay minimum wage at $10/hr or $15.

His point is that if you have a restaurant that employees one dishwasher, and that's enough to cover the work... they aren't going to hire two because they are cheap... they will still hire one and pocket the difference.

[Back]

I'd be curious to hear who here has worked for minimum wage and for how long?

When I first entered the workforce I was hired by a print shop for minimum wage. That was on a 90 day basis. If I stuck with the company they promised an automatic raise. That was the first, and last, time I worked for minimum wage and it was only for 90 days.

[Back]

Expansion certainly doesn't = increased profit. This is the thinking that brought us Trickle Down. There's no telling what people will do with more profit. Right now for example; corporate profits are through the roof, but they are keeping the money and not re-investing into expansion. It blows up that whole myth about the job creators.

http://freakoutnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/reaganomics-trickle-down.jpg

[Wrathbringer]

Expansion certainly doesn't = increased profit. This is the thinking that brought us Trickle Down. There's no telling what people will do with more profit. Right now for example; corporate profits are through the roof, but they are keeping the money and not re-investing into expansion. It blows up that whole myth about the job creators.

I made no such absolute statement. I'm just making the simple point that if my business can make enough more money over and above the cost of hiring an additional worker due to the increase in productivity, it makes financial sense to hire someone. If there is no profit, there's certainly no new jobs then. As for the current job climate, it's not static. At least... let's hope it's not, so that doesn't blow up anything, really. It just...blows.

[Warriorbird]

LOL. Which business do you work for that has hourly employees, how many, and what do they get paid? Calculate the increase in labor costs, then ask your CEO if they would be willing to absorb those costs. THEN tell him you think they should do it.

.....

How does unemployment feel?



Unions once served a purpose. Now it's just legal extortion.

"Give us XYZ, or we will shut this company down."

I already had this discussion with my grandfather and the winemaker related to both healthcare and minimum wage. Some of the fringe benefits that our workers enjoy (that most of the workers for our competitors already don't have) would go away. There would be no free product per festival worked and we'd no longer offer their 50% employee discount. The savings on both of those alone would more than offset any losses.

Opposition to unions existing seems a whole lot like you want a free market to exist for some people but not all people.


Have to quote PB here: lolwut? I have bashed no one, for any reason, and certainly not people who work or want minimum wage jobs. So not sure what that's about. Then, by not paying those higher wages, the business you're involved in is immoral, right? It's "immoral", btw. From your post earlier? "Amoral" means neither moral nor immoral, such as a rock or a tree is amoral. Thought you'd like to know. How much profit is okay before immorality sets in?

You somehow think I didn't mean amoral. That's cool.

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg

[Bobmuhthol]

Oh hey look, it's the expert on every single subject in the universe. Solved all the worlds problems yet? No? Didn't think so jackass.

Better yet, you have an economics degree from MIT right? Or at least a math one, so OBVIOUSLY you can solve this problem lickity split.

So Bob, Enlighten us feeble minded people. What is the correct answer? Hmmm?All I said was that you don't know what inflation is, and I'm not wrong.

[Rallorick]

inflation isn't a complicated term, it's just a measurement on the delta in your purchasing power between two points in time - at least in a basic sense.

Maybe I missed something, but I don't really see what you're referring to... in any event - problem solved, I guess.

[Jarvan]

I already had this discussion with my grandfather and the winemaker related to both healthcare and minimum wage. Some of the fringe benefits that our workers enjoy (that most of the workers for our competitors already don't have) would go away. There would be no free product per festival worked and we'd no longer offer their 50% employee discount. The savings on both of those alone would more than offset any losses.

Opposition to unions existing seems a whole lot like you want a free market to exist for some people but not all people.



You somehow think I didn't mean amoral. That's cool.

Ok.. so you talked to family about it. Did you talk to your Corporate CEO? As for the winery.. you would increase employee pay, then decrease employee benefits, which is a form of pay. So their pay would stay static, and in a way decrease. After all you said that taking away benefits from the workers would more then offset any losses in increased pay and healthcare. Good to see that your family's winery is a moral company.


Do you think it's ok with some people to say.. "give us X,Y and Z or we will shut this company down." Then shut down the company when they don't get what they want?

[Jarvan]

All I said was that you don't know what inflation is, and I'm not wrong.

Think whatever you like Bob.

On a side note.. I would be happy to tie you to the mast of my boat sometime and take you out sailing.

[Warriorbird]

Ok.. so you talked to family about it. Did you talk to your Corporate CEO? As for the winery.. you would increase employee pay, then decrease employee benefits, which is a form of pay. So their pay would stay static, and in a way decrease. After all you said that taking away benefits from the workers would more then offset any losses in increased pay and healthcare. Good to see that your family's winery is a moral company.


Do you think it's ok with some people to say.. "give us X,Y and Z or we will shut this company down." Then shut down the company when they don't get what they want?

My grandfather acts as CEO with the winemaker as the other person with a prime ownership stake. Salary for hourly employees is just a small part of the cost of doing business. I expect it is an even smaller part for most fast food restaurants.

Is it okay for a company to say "Take a pay cut or we'll shut the company down?"

[Back]

Still curious how many people in this thread have actually worked minimum wage? For how long? Was it enough for you to live on? When was it?

[Tgo01]

Still curious how many people in this thread have actually worked minimum wage? For how long? Was it enough for you to live on? When was it?

The last job I had making minimum wage was when I was 16 and it kept me well stocked in hookers and condoms.

[Jarvan]

Still curious how many people in this thread have actually worked minimum wage? For how long? Was it enough for you to live on? When was it?

Last job I had at minimum wage was when I was 14. When I was 16 I was making 8.50 an hour, that was.. awhile ago, and above minimum wage.

That being said, if you are single living on your own, Minimum wage is likely hard to live on. Specially now when we seem to have 2x as many monthly bills.

The real question always becomes tho... why are people at minimum wage so long? I don't personally know anyone that stayed at a minimum wage job for more then 9 months.

[Back]

why are people at minimum age so long?

Good question.

[Back]

The last job I had making minimum wage was when I was 16 and it kept me well stocked in hookers and condoms.

As usual you are completely full of shit and of no value to the conversation.

[Tgo01]

As usual you are completely full of shit and of no value to the conversation.

You asked who worked a minimum wage job and when it was, I answered you. I'm sorry you're always so angry that you must lash out at me all of the time, that must suck :(

[Gelston]

Gentlemen, gentlemen, calm down. Be happy. The SEC is in the BCS Championship. The world is right, once more.

[Back]

Hookers. LOL.

[Gelston]

Hookers. LOL.

Are you calling football players hookers? I am pretty certain they would not appreciate that.

[Back]

So now this thread is about college football? Dang.

Ok.

[Gelston]

Every thread is about college football.

[Jarvan]

Every thread is about college football.

I thought every thread was about hookers and beer?

[Gelston]

I thought every thread was about hookers and beer?

Exactly, college football.

[Rallorick]

Last job I had at minimum wage was when I was 14. When I was 16 I was making 8.50 an hour, that was.. awhile ago, and above minimum wage. .

holy crap... when I worked for minimum wage, it was like 4.75, or something ridiculous - and that was Washington state minimum, which was likely higher than federal, since we tend to have one of the highest in the nation.


To answer Back's question, no it's obviously not enough to live on, not then not now, and I don't think anyone thinks it is. it sort of sounds like the argument is that some people seem to think since it isn't a career, it doesn't need to be enough, which others disagree with... but hopefully nobody here is oblivious enough to think you can get by on minimum wage.

[Gelston]

When I was 15-16 I made 17 under the table. I got paid in ones though. I WAS NOT A YOUNG BOY STRIPPER.

[Thondalar]

Still curious how many people in this thread have actually worked minimum wage? For how long? Was it enough for you to live on? When was it?

I've technically never made minimum wage...my first (and lowest-paying) job was in high school, and I was a busser for a higher-end steakhouse. I made $4.25 per hour, but I also got a tip share from the servers in my section. Additionally, I would roll silverware for them or do other side work they didn't want to do and they would pay me to do it for them so they could get out of work faster. For an average 6-hour shift, I would get $25.50 from my base pay, and another $50-$75 on average from tip outs. Add another $10 dollars from each server to do their silverware for them, and on an average night I would go home with roughly $125, for a 6-hour shift. Since the side work pay was under the table, though, counting just my base pay and claimed tip out I was making (average) $12-$13 per hour, in 1995.

[Thondalar]

To answer Back's question, no it's obviously not enough to live on, not then not now, and I don't think anyone thinks it is. it sort of sounds like the argument is that some people seem to think since it isn't a career, it doesn't need to be enough, which others disagree with... but hopefully nobody here is oblivious enough to think you can get by on minimum wage.

This is why adults who are on minimum wage usually supplement their income with government assistance.

[Jarvan]

This is why adults who are on minimum wage usually supplement their income with government assistance.

The question remains though.... WHY are they working a minimum wage job? Even with no HS Diploma or GED, you can work hard and get a job that pays more then minimum wage.

[muyakslayer]

I worked minimum wage when i was in high school and college. I even kept my college job for year when i first started my real current profession. I have been working for the same company for eight years now. I am 31.

What if we didnt think of this as a minimum wage problem but a moral hazzard problem. 7.25 an hour would gross you 1160 for a full month of work. Now that seems small if you WANT a cell phone, cable, car payment, go out to eat, party, have children, live by yourself....ext ext.

We have a spending problem. It is not just a lower class problem. The middle class is even worse. That is what put us into this mess. I feel liberals like to fix peoples bad choices. I think Republicans are too afraid to say what everyone else it thinking.

Great example is the whole thing with debate started with MCD's employees making less than the minimum wage for a family of 4. Well my answer to that would be dont have a family if your only job options are MCD or some other Minimum wage. If you do then your partner should get a job.

Moral and ethical decisions are ruining America not minimum wage, taxes, rich people, and healthcare. Problem is no one cares about that.

On a side note. Obama wants healthcare for all because we arent as health as other nations and that is because apparently not everyone has access to health care. If they really cared about our health why not force everyone to go to the gym for 30 mins every day. That has a much better chance at lowering health care expenses that this stupid obamacare......wrap your mind around that

[Jarvan]

I worked minimum wage when i was in high school and college. I even kept my college job for year when i first started my real current profession. I have been working for the same company for eight years now. I am 31.

What if we didnt think of this as a minimum wage problem but a moral hazzard problem. 7.25 an hour would gross you 1160 for a full month of work. Now that seems small if you WANT a cell phone, cable, car payment, go out to eat, party, have children, live by yourself....ext ext.

We have a spending problem. It is not just a lower class problem. The middle class is even worse. That is what put us into this mess. I feel liberals like to fix peoples bad choices. I think Republicans are too afraid to say what everyone else it thinking.

Great example is the whole thing with debate started with MCD's employees making less than the minimum wage for a family of 4. Well my answer to that would be dont have a family if your only job options are MCD or some other Minimum wage. If you do then your partner should get a job.

Moral and ethical decisions are ruining America not minimum wage, taxes, rich people, and healthcare. Problem is no one cares about that.

On a side note. Obama wants healthcare for all because we arent as health as other nations and that is because apparently not everyone has access to health care. If they really cared about our health why not force everyone to go to the gym for 30 mins every day. That has a much better chance at lowering health care expenses that this stupid obamacare......wrap your mind around that

Couple of points.. Obamacare first. That's around the corner. Now that the Government have major fingers in healthcare, they can say they need to reduce costs by us being healthier and mandate pretty much anything they want. Wouldn't even need to be passed by congress. And if we don't do it, the IRS taxes us.

As for moral and ethical choices ruining America, absolutely. Problem with them is, both sides try to use it to their advantage, the Dems are better at it though. Don't want to increase minimum wage, you hate poor people.. don't want to give free healthcare to people, you are evil.. etc etc.

And yes, we have a spending problem, we don't NEED cell phone, internet access, wifi, 500 cable channels, a new car every 3 years, an Ipad, Iphone, Ipod, MacAir, and 60 inch LED 3d tv. But everyone wants them, and some people try to say that it's a minimum standard of living now, and if you don't have those things, then you are poor and the government should give you most of them for free.

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

Couple of points.. Obamacare first. That's around the corner. Now that the Government have major fingers in healthcare, they can say they need to reduce costs by us being healthier and mandate pretty much anything they want. Wouldn't even need to be passed by congress. And if we don't do it, the IRS taxes us.

As for moral and ethical choices ruining America, absolutely. Problem with them is, both sides try to use it to their advantage, the Dems are better at it though. Don't want to increase minimum wage, you hate poor people.. don't want to give free healthcare to people, you are evil.. etc etc.

And yes, we have a spending problem, we don't NEED cell phone, internet access, wifi, 500 cable channels, a new car every 3 years, an Ipad, Iphone, Ipod, MacAir, and 60 inch LED 3d tv. But everyone wants them, and some people try to say that it's a minimum standard of living now, and if you don't have those things, then you are poor and the government should give you most of them for free.

Don't forget that if you don't vote for Hillary in 2016, you obviously hate women.

[Jarvan]

Don't forget that if you don't vote for Hillary in 2016, you obviously hate women.

You mean women AND gays.

[Warriorbird]

Gentlemen, gentlemen, calm down. Be happy. The SEC is in the BCS Championship. The world is right, once more.

It is the answer.

[Jarvan]

So.. WB. Is it ok for a group of people to demand X,Y, and Z otherwise they will block a company from working as much as they can?

[Warriorbird]

So.. WB. Is it ok for a group of people to demand X,Y, and Z otherwise they will block a company from working as much as they can?

The desire to assign corporations more rights than individuals is a symptom of the disease that afflicts the modern Republican Party.

You want a free market but you believe in a peculiar sort of collectivism where only the rich and corporations should have the right to act. It's right up there with trying to stop individuals from suing.

The party of "individualism" has left them behind.

[Parkbandit]

My grandfather acts as CEO with the winemaker as the other person with a prime ownership stake. Salary for hourly employees is just a small part of the cost of doing business. I expect it is an even smaller part for most fast food restaurants.

I'm not sure most people who own a business would consider 25% - 40% of total revenue " an even smaller part". Labor / benefits is my #1 expense. That was the case when I managed hotels and even in the restaurants in those hotels, labor/benefits was still the #1 expense.



Is it okay for a company to say "Take a pay cut or we'll shut the company down?"

Yes... since it's their company.

[cwolff]

I worked minimum wage when i was in high school and college. I even kept my college job for year when i first started my real current profession. I have been working for the same company for eight years now. I am 31.

What if we didnt think of this as a minimum wage problem but a moral hazzard problem. 7.25 an hour would gross you 1160 for a full month of work. Now that seems small if you WANT a cell phone, cable, car payment, go out to eat, party, have children, live by yourself....ext ext.

We have a spending problem. It is not just a lower class problem. The middle class is even worse. That is what put us into this mess. I feel liberals like to fix peoples bad choices. I think Republicans are too afraid to say what everyone else it thinking.

Great example is the whole thing with debate started with MCD's employees making less than the minimum wage for a family of 4. Well my answer to that would be dont have a family if your only job options are MCD or some other Minimum wage. If you do then your partner should get a job.

Moral and ethical decisions are ruining America not minimum wage, taxes, rich people, and healthcare. Problem is no one cares about that.

On a side note. Obama wants healthcare for all because we arent as health as other nations and that is because apparently not everyone has access to health care. If they really cared about our health why not force everyone to go to the gym for 30 mins every day. That has a much better chance at lowering health care expenses that this stupid obamacare......wrap your mind around that

Blaming the min. wage worker is not the answer. We can't all be Horatio Alger. It's true we have a spending problem but it's not even a class issue. It's bigger than that. Our economy is based on consumption, growth - more more more. Even if you have to borrow to do it. It's a house of cards.

Well, in the sense that the underlying decision making is what is hurting the country I do agree with you.

[Jarvan]

The desire to assign corporations more rights than individuals is a symptom of the disease that afflicts the modern Republican Party.

You want a free market but you believe in a peculiar sort of collectivism where only the rich and corporations should have the right to act. It's right up there with trying to stop individuals from suing.

The party of "individualism" has left them behind.

Are you saying it is perfectly fine for them to do so? Can you even give a straight yes or no answer? Or are you practicing for running for congress?

[Warriorbird]

Yes... since it's their company.

And of course it should be. I just don't believe in a world where we extend corporations rights but not people.


Are you saying it is perfectly fine for them to do so? Can you even give a straight yes or no answer? Or are you practicing for running for congress?

You're trying to set up "extortion!" I'm pointing out that you want to give corporations more rights than individuals.

[Parkbandit]

And of course it should be. I just don't believe in a world where we extend corporations rights but not people.


Well, you also believe in a world where labor is a small percentage of business... so I'm not sure we exist in the same reality.

And what rights are you extending to companies that are not being extended to people?

I think you might be regurgitating the wrong soundbites here...

[Jarvan]

And of course it should be. I just don't believe in a world where we extend corporations rights but not people.



You're trying to set up "extortion!" I'm pointing out that you want to give corporations more rights than individuals.

Not at all, tho yes, it is a form of extortion.

Frankly, I was just going to point out that a subset of a company shutdown a company recently by demanding X, Y, and Z... and you freaked out over it. Yes, the American government. Yes, it's not the same, but it isn't much different really.

I am also not really sure where you are trying to go with corporations have more rights.. blah blah blah. How is saying I don't think a group of people should be able to shutdown a company, and possibly bankrupt a company, just because they are not happy with how much they are making, the same as saying it would give corporations more rights? There is no "right" to collectively bargain. People have the ability to try, but there is no right. If it is, please point it out to me in our constitution.

Come to think of it though.. maybe I could organize a group of people together, and go around to businesses and tell them that we want X, Y, and Z otherwise we will shut their business down... wait.. didn't the Mob do just that? Wasn't that illegal.. oh, right, the Mob became the unions and now it's legal.

[Warriorbird]

Not at all, tho yes, it is a form of extortion.

Frankly, I was just going to point out that a subset of a company shutdown a company recently by demanding X, Y, and Z... and you freaked out over it. Yes, the American government. Yes, it's not the same, but it isn't much different really.

I am also not really sure where you are trying to go with corporations have more rights.. blah blah blah. How is saying I don't think a group of people should be able to shutdown a company, and possibly bankrupt a company, just because they are not happy with how much they are making, the same as saying it would give corporations more rights? There is no "right" to collectively bargain. People have the ability to try, but there is no right. If it is, please point it out to me in our constitution.

Come to think of it though.. maybe I could organize a group of people together, and go around to businesses and tell them that we want X, Y, and Z otherwise we will shut their business down... wait.. didn't the Mob do just that? Wasn't that illegal.. oh, right, the Mob became the unions and now it's legal.

You're obviously in favor of corporations negotiating better terms for themselves but not in favor of employees doing it in an intelligent fashion.

You think it's fine when Republicans shut down the government (which is maybe, just maybe, as you pointed out a tiny bit different) but not when the average employee chooses to negotiate in an organized fashion.


Well, you also believe in a world where labor is a small percentage of business... so I'm not sure we exist in the same reality.

And what rights are you extending to companies that are not being extended to people?

I think you might be regurgitating the wrong soundbites here...

There's a big difference between hourly and not hourly labor in the percentage of the winery's total business. I'm sure you understand that hotels might have a higher percentage of hourly labor than other businesses.

You and all the other anti union/anti lawsuit people want to discourage individuals from negotiating from a position of power or actually being able to use the court system to make a significant impact on a corporation.

[Jarvan]

You're obviously in favor of corporations negotiating better terms for themselves but not in favor of employees doing it in an intelligent fashion.

You think it's fine when Republicans shut down the government (which is maybe, just maybe, as you pointed out a tiny bit different) but not when the average employee chooses to negotiate in an organized fashion.



There's a big difference between hourly and not hourly labor in the percentage of the winery's total business. I'm sure you understand that hotels might have a higher percentage of hourly labor than other businesses.

You and all the other anti union/anti lawsuit people want to discourage individuals from negotiating from a position of power or actually being able to use the court system to make a significant impact on a corporation.

Actually, I wasn't in favor of the Shutdown. I did say they had the ability to do it, and it was within the law really. But not that it was right. I think they went about it very stupidly.

Also.. how exactly am I in favor of a corporation negotiating better terms? In what way? Where exactly did I say this?

As for employees having rights, they have rights. They have the right to look for another job if they don't get what they want. "Collectively bargain" really is just code for "extortion" since you brought it up.

I really don't see why any individual should be able to tell a corporation what to do, which is basically what you are advocating.

If Adam wants a raise, and he merits one, the company will give him one, or lose a good employee. If Joe wants a raise, and he doesn't merit one, and isn't a good employee, he won't get one, and he can leave if he doesn't like it.

Unions on the other hand, try and usually do, get a raise for both Adam and Joe. Which is funny, because since people like you LOVE fairness, how is that fair? Lets say Adam does 120% Quota a day, Joe does 90% and both have been there the same length of time. Should they REALLY get paid the same? Or should Adam be able to get raises independent of Joe?

If the hourly workers at your winery came to management and demanded a 5 dollar an hour raise, or they would stop working, what would your grandfather do?

[crb]

You're obviously in favor of corporations negotiating better terms for themselves but not in favor of employees doing it in an intelligent fashion.

You think it's fine when Republicans shut down the government (which is maybe, just maybe, as you pointed out a tiny bit different) but not when the average employee chooses to negotiate in an organized fashion.



There's a big difference between hourly and not hourly labor in the percentage of the winery's total business. I'm sure you understand that hotels might have a higher percentage of hourly labor than other businesses.

You and all the other anti union/anti lawsuit people want to discourage individuals from negotiating from a position of power or actually being able to use the court system to make a significant impact on a corporation.

You're really trying to dry an analogy between a labor strike and the "republican" shutdown of the federal government.

Let me count the ways in which you're deluded.

1. Republican shutdown? It takes two parties to refuse to negotiate you know. It takes two people to play chicken. The republicans passed multiple bills to keep the government open, what did Harry Reid do? Hmm, in the end the republicans dropped all demands except the requirement that congressional staffers be forced to use obamacare, and over that issue democrats still refused to negotiate. Their original demand, delay obamacare for 1 year, was later partially implemented by Barack Obama as he utilized his nonexistant line item veto power to give another year of life to old health plans slated for cancellation. The only thing at this point that hasn't been delayed a year is the individual mandate, and they keep pushing back their enforcement date on that by a month here, a month there. So really, it was the republican shutdown?

2. Monopolies are illegal in our country. Cartels, price fixing, collusion, all illegal. The only reason why labor unions are not also illegal as monopolistic price fixing cartels is because of specific carve outs in our antitrust laws thanks to their political power.

http://www.antitrustinstitute.org/content/labor-collective-bargaining

Labor unions so specifically otherwise would fall under these laws that they, themselves, the labor unions, lobbied to be exempted from them. That is an implicit admission that their behavior is equivalent to a price fixing cartel.

People who hate unions generally don't do it because, as you say, we hate individuals. There are lots of reasons to hate unions. I personally hate all monopolies, I don't exempt unions from that hatred. I also hold them in contempt because too much job security breeds mediocrity. I think they're selfish self indulgent bullies, fraught with corruption.

This is a free country, if you dislike your job, you can quit and find another, or slack off until you're fired. If you hate a company you can boycott it, or try to start a competitor, or work on a way to buy it and change it. Some of these things may be difficult for an unambitious coaster, but not everything in life will be handed to you.

What isn't cool though is trying to fix the price of labor by forming what should be an illegal trust. Likewise, if all the cell phone companies got together and agreed to charge no less than $100 a month for unlimited data, that'd also be uncool. Price fixing isn't cool no matter who does it.

If a bunch of twits get together and say "We're not going to work harder, we're not going to work longer, we're not going to educate ourselves, instead to get ahead we'll for a cabal of workers and corner the market on labor for company X, with the blessing of our government thanks to our power as a voting block and campaign contributions, and we'll force the company to pay us the price we fix, and that is how we'll get ahead." It sorta rubs people the wrong way.

[Back]

As for employees having rights, they have rights. They have the right to look for another job if they don't get what they want. "Collectively bargain" really is just code for "extortion" since you brought it up.

Extortion? I guess you are in favor of going back to the days of .50 an hour, 12 hour days, 8 days a week, and if you get hurt on the job the health care plan is you get fired because you can't work anymore.

[Jarvan]

Extortion? I guess you are in favor of going back to the days of .50 an hour, 12 hour days, 8 days a week, and if you get hurt on the job the health care plan is you get fired because you can't work anymore.

LOL. You do realize we have LAWS now don't you?

No wait.. I doubt you do.

[Jarvan]

Lets look at this another way WB.


lets say I own a McDonald's franchise, just one. I own it outright, I have an LLC for protection, but I am the sole owner.

Now lets say my Workers unionize. Then they demand more pay or they will strike.

In your world, I have no rights to protect myself from this, because the individual is more important then a corporation... but wait.. an individual IS the corporation. Where are MY rights? I have the right to do what.. pay them more or go out of business?

[Back]

LOL. You do realize we have LAWS now don't you?

No wait.. I doubt you do.

Can't argue with someone who can't remember what they posted 2 minutes ago.

[Jarvan]

Can't argue with someone who can't remember what they posted 2 minutes ago.

Huh?


Extortion? I guess you are in favor of going back to the days of .50 an hour, 12 hour days, 8 days a week, and if you get hurt on the job the health care plan is you get fired because you can't work anymore.

There are laws against .50 cents an hour, there are no laws against 12 hour days, if you can find a company that requires employees work 8 hour days, I will print out this thread and eat it, if you get hurt on the job, they can actually fire you believe it or not, the law doesn't protect you from that directly. They have to pay you for disability, but that is what THEIR insurance is for.

But yes, if I told you Back that I wanted 10 grand from you, or I would shutdown your "restaurant".. that would be extortion. Now if I was a union worker and did that, it would be a "negotiation tactic", see the problem here?

Unions served their purpose, when they fought corrupt companies, and forced the federal government to protect the workers from unsafe practices. Now that there are laws in place protecting workers from unsafe practices.. the only.. ONLY thing unions do, is demand more money, and protect their lazy workers. (by protecting ALL workers)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/chrysler-workers-drinking_n_2272291.html

Case in point. Why in gods name do YOU condone the above link? And yes, if you are pro union, you condone it. Because that's what unions do, and is one of only two things unions really do.

If The Gov abolished unions tomorrow.. we wouldn't return to .50 cent an hour jobs, or mine supports made out of paper mache.

[Parkbandit]

There's a big difference between hourly and not hourly labor in the percentage of the winery's total business. I'm sure you understand that hotels might have a higher percentage of hourly labor than other businesses.

I understand it perfectly. YOU are the one that clearly has no idea what you post. Here is exactly what you posted, I even bolded the really, really wrong part:


My grandfather acts as CEO with the winemaker as the other person with a prime ownership stake. Salary for hourly employees is just a small part of the cost of doing business. I expect it is an even smaller part for most fast food restaurants.


You are the only one in this entire thread that is making the case that since labor is such a small part of a business expense, then raising the wages shouldn't be a big deal. Pretty fucking ignorant.



You and all the other anti union/anti lawsuit people want to discourage individuals from negotiating from a position of power or actually being able to use the court system to make a significant impact on a corporation.

Absolutely. I abhore unions.. I've seen what they have done to businesses/governments when they try to extort higher wages/benefits.

[Back]

Huh?

There are laws against .50 cents an hour, there are no laws against 12 hour days, if you can find a company that requires employees work 8 hour days, I will print out this thread and eat it, if you get hurt on the job, they can actually fire you believe it or not, the law doesn't protect you from that directly. They have to pay you for disability, but that is what THEIR insurance is for.

But yes, if I told you Back that I wanted 10 grand from you, or I would shutdown your "restaurant".. that would be extortion. Now if I was a union worker and did that, it would be a "negotiation tactic", see the problem here?

Unions served their purpose, when they fought corrupt companies, and forced the federal government to protect the workers from unsafe practices. Now that there are laws in place protecting workers from unsafe practices.. the only.. ONLY thing unions do, is demand more money, and protect their lazy workers. (by protecting ALL workers)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/chrysler-workers-drinking_n_2272291.html

Case in point. Why in gods name do YOU condone the above link? And yes, if you are pro union, you condone it. Because that's what unions do, and is one of only two things unions really do.

If The Gov abolished unions tomorrow.. we wouldn't return to .50 cent an hour jobs, or mine supports made out of paper mache.

You called "collective bargaining" extortion. Now you are espousing the evils of unions because of some lazy workers? The scenario you paint about my business would never happen. You are all over the place.

People want a better minimum wage. It's not uncommon for people to ask for raises.

[Bobmuhthol]

You're all still retarded, and monopolies are not illegal.

[Jarvan]

You called "collective bargaining" extortion. Now you are espousing the evils of unions because of some lazy workers? The scenario you paint about my business would never happen. You are all over the place.

People want a better minimum wage. It's not uncommon for people to ask for raises.

Collective bargaining is extortion, it's legal extortion.

~~~~~~

ex·tor·tion (k-stôrshn)
n.
1. The act or an instance of extorting.
2. Illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage.
3. An excessive or exorbitant charge.
4. Something extorted.
ex·tortion·ary (-sh-nr) adj.
ex·tortion·ist, ex·tortion·er n.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
extortion [ɪkˈstɔːʃən]
n
the act of securing money, favours, etc. by intimidation or violence; blackmail
extortioner , extortionist n

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
ex•tor•tion (ɪkˈstɔr ʃən)

n.
1. an act or instance of extorting.
2. the crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one's office or authority.
3. anything extorted.
[1250–1300; Middle English < Late Latin]

What makes "collective bargaining" not extortion is that it's "legal".

collective bargaining noun
[noncount] : talks between an employer and the leaders of a union about how much a group of workers will be paid, how many hours they will work, etc.

Now.. if your "talks" have give us more money or we will shut you down, in it... how is that NOT legal extortion?

And no, it is not uncommon for people to ask for a raise. it should be unreasonable for a person to say "give me a raise or I will force your factory to stop working".

[Jarvan]

You're all still retarded, and monopolies are not illegal.

Both true and untrue. Monopolies are illegal, unless the Government says they are legal.

There have been several antitrust lawsuits. If Monopolies were legal, there wouldn't have been.

[Thondalar]

People want a better minimum wage. It's not uncommon for people to ask for raises.

There is a huge difference between an individual who believes their job performance warrants a raise and asking for one, and everyone in the country getting a raise, deserving or not.

[Bobmuhthol]

No monopoly has ever been broken up on the grounds that it is too good. It is illegal to interfere with competition, but not to beat everyone else. Also, every patent in history has established a monopoly; that's their entire purpose.

[Back]

Collective bargaining is extortion, it's legal extortion.

~~~~~~

ex·tor·tion (k-stôrshn)
n.
1. The act or an instance of extorting.
2. Illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage.
3. An excessive or exorbitant charge.
4. Something extorted.
ex·tortion·ary (-sh-nr) adj.
ex·tortion·ist, ex·tortion·er n.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
extortion [ɪkˈstɔːʃən]
n
the act of securing money, favours, etc. by intimidation or violence; blackmail
extortioner , extortionist n

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
ex•tor•tion (ɪkˈstɔr ʃən)

n.
1. an act or instance of extorting.
2. the crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one's office or authority.
3. anything extorted.
[1250–1300; Middle English < Late Latin]

What makes "collective bargaining" not extortion is that it's "legal".

collective bargaining noun
[noncount] : talks between an employer and the leaders of a union about how much a group of workers will be paid, how many hours they will work, etc.

Now.. if your "talks" have give us more money or we will shut you down, in it... how is that NOT legal extortion?

And no, it is not uncommon for people to ask for a raise. it should be unreasonable for a person to say "give me a raise or I will force your factory to stop working".

You're putting a lot of effort into trying to prove your hypothetical situation of unions shutting down businesses if their unrealistic demands aren't met.

I'm glad you understand the difference between collective bargaining and extortion as one is legal and the other is not. Thats a pretty big difference that I was trying to point out a few posts back.

[Rallorick]

No monopoly has ever been broken up on the grounds that it is too good. It is illegal to interfere with competition, but not to beat everyone else. Also, every patent in history has established a monopoly; that's their entire purpose.

patents are designed to protect invention, though - fairness to the creator from competition moving in and profiting off other's sunk R&D

Better examples are industries like cable companies, who for years were given regional monopoly because there is almost no barrier to market entry, and competition would actually destroy the viability of the market... of course, cable companies took entire advantage of this and made huge profits from the 80s up through sometime around 2005, when satellite cable became more widespread.

[Bobmuhthol]

No barrier to entry? How about the entire infrastructure required to wire the house of every single customer you have?

Let's be very clear that cable is a natural monopoly. Cable companies do not have "permission" to be a monopoly, and in fact the government regulates cable prices because there is such a huge barrier to entry that competition is effectively impossible.

[Back]

There is a huge difference between an individual who believes their job performance warrants a raise and asking for one, and everyone in the country getting a raise, deserving or not.

Minimum wage has gone up in the past and will continue to do so just like the cost of living. Right now people are feeling the pinch so they are asking for more money.

[Latrinsorm]

Do you think it's ok with some people to say.. "give us X,Y and Z or we will shut this company down." Then shut down the company when they don't get what they want?Generally speaking, an owner has more employees than an employee has jobs. This puts any individual employee at a disadvantage in negotiations: the owner can get along with 98% of his employees for a lot longer than the employee can get along with 0% of his jobs. It is only when the owner can be threatened with trying to get along with 0% of his employees that negotiations can be made on a level playing field. That is why it is okay.

Incidentally, this is a very plausible explanation for why inflation is not correlated with min wage increases. It's all well and good to say "give me a raise or I'll quit, because my job warrants more than Min Wage Job X but is now paid the same", but doing so raises the possibility your employer says "no thanks, see you later". As above, unless you already have MWJX you enter an indefinite period of no paycheck, while your employer merely enters an indefinite period of marginally reduced production. Hence there is no domino effect, hence there is no inflation.
Frankly, I was just going to point out that a subset of a company shutdown a company recently by demanding X, Y, and Z... and you freaked out over it. Yes, the American government. Yes, it's not the same, but it isn't much different really.There are a few problems with this comparison.
1. The President cannot terminate Senators. (In fact, it is the other way around.)
2. Senators cannot seek employment elsewhere as US Senators, and the President cannot relocate the United States.
3. Unlike companies, the government is built as a balance between three powers.
You are better off deriding the US government as a monopoly on government. Even though that would be a silly thing to say, it would at least be coherent.
Case in point. Why in gods name do YOU condone the above link? And yes, if you are pro union, you condone it. Because that's what unions do, and is one of only two things unions really do.I am pro-government even though the government does horrible, unspeakable things. Unions don't do as bad or as good things as government, but on balance I still find them ahead, so I am pro-union.

This is the real world. If you want an option that is always good and never bad, you are out of luck.

[Rallorick]

No barrier to entry? How about the entire infrastructure required to wire the house of every single customer you have?

Let's be very clear that cable is a natural monopoly. Cable companies do not have "permission" to be a monopoly, and in fact the government regulates cable prices because there is such a huge barrier to entry that competition is effectively impossible.

You think the cable companies paid for the infrastructure?

But what do I know... I only worked in the industry for a decade... you probably know better than me, right?

The main infrastructure is paid for by the government, rolling it out to the houses themselves, yeah, I guess that's the cable company... but the costs aren't ridiculous, and about half of it is outsourced. But if you think a license to operate a cable company is not 'permission' for monopoly... explain how you define permission? how many licenses are granted in a single region, you think? take a guess... I'll tell you if you're right.

[Gelston]

The phone company owns all those poles. The cable company pays them to use them.

[Bobmuhthol]

I worked in the telecom industry for four years, but that has nothing to do with whether there exists a barrier to entry, which there fucking obviously does. I don't understand totally moronic arguments like that. Are you the founder of Bell Atlantic? If you're not, nobody gives a fuck that you "worked in the industry." I work for a mutual fund; I must know everything about mutual funds, and no one else could possibly know anything.

[Tgo01]

I work for a mutual fund; I must know everything about mutual funds, and no one else could possibly know anything.

Uh...don't you know everything about mutual funds though?

[Thondalar]

And of course it should be. I just don't believe in a world where we extend corporations rights but not people.

If you don't like your pay and your benefits, you have the right to leave that job and find a different one. You have the right to work harder and get promoted. The corporation has a right to maintain profitability. These are the ONLY rights involved.

[Rallorick]

I worked in the telecom industry for four years, but that has nothing to do with whether there exists a barrier to entry, which there fucking obviously does. I don't understand totally moronic arguments like that. Are you the founder of Bell Atlantic? If you're not, nobody gives a fuck that you "worked in the industry." I work for a mutual fund; I must know everything about mutual funds, and no one else could possibly know anything.

oh my god... you are quite the douche, aren't you? ridiculously arrogant... when your argument can't stand on it's own, you just call other people morons? how is that working for you? pretty good?

So that I was a finance manager in a cable and television for 10 years doesn't mean shit, but your econ degree - this makes you an expect... but wait. I got one of those too... fuck, I don't get your irony. you win.

[Bobmuhthol]

Uh...don't you know everything about mutual funds though?That's just a coincidence ;)

[Bobmuhthol]

oh my god... you are quite the douche, aren't you? ridiculously arrogant... when your argument can't stand on it's own, you just call other people morons? how is that working for you? pretty good?

So that I was a finance manager in a cable and television for 10 years doesn't mean shit, but your econ degree - this makes you an expect... but wait. I got one of those too... fuck, I don't get your irony. you win. Bro, your argument was "I worked in the industry and you didn't, so I know better."

[Rallorick]

Bro, your argument was "I worked in the industry and you didn't, so I know better."

Not really. the comment I made was to establish that I'm not completely talking out my ass about the subject, which is what you tend to think of other people.

The first post I read from you in this discussion was 'so many economists in this thread' or something to that effect. You tend to assume people don't know what they are talking about, like they have no understanding of the subject. The only point of the comment was to dismiss that presumption on your part. I'm aware that I'm not an expert, but I do have an understanding.

I don't understand why you have the drive to come across like such a dick. I actually look forward to your comments in threads like these, because of your background... but you always deliver like a total douche.

[Bobmuhthol]

Not really. the comment I made was to establish that I'm not completely talking out my ass about the subject, which is what you tend to think of other people.

The first post I read from you in this discussion was 'so many economists in this thread' or something to that effect. You tend to assume people don't know what they are talking about, like they have no understanding of the subject. The only point of the comment was to dismiss that presumption on your part. I'm aware that I'm not an expert, but I do have an understanding.

I don't understand why you have the drive to come across like such a dick. I actually look forward to your comments in threads like these, because of your background... but you always deliver like a total douche.Call it attrition. Being told for the last ten years that nothing I said was valid because I didn't have "real world" experience got old much sooner than ten years. And people like Jarvan with absolutely zero economics training making fun of me with terribly incorrect arguments isn't exactly worth responding to kindly.

[Jarvan]

I worked in the telecom industry for four years, but that has nothing to do with whether there exists a barrier to entry, which there fucking obviously does. I don't understand totally moronic arguments like that. Are you the founder of Bell Atlantic? If you're not, nobody gives a fuck that you "worked in the industry." I work for a mutual fund; I must know everything about mutual funds, and no one else could possibly know anything.

What telecom industry did you work in? Selling cell phones doesn't really count you know. That would be like if I was a bank teller and claimed to work in the banking industry.

As for your argument that monopolies are legal, I think the us government would disagree. But hey, what would the DOJ and Congress know, I mean, you once took an economics class, so obviously you know better.

BTW.. if I was a janitor for a mutual fund would that also count as me working for a mutual fund?

[Bobmuhthol]

I never sold cell phones. I did work in physical layer management for telephone, Ethernet, and fiber networks, however. As usual, your straw men are very entertaining, but massively inaccurate. One of us worked at a T-Mobile call center, and it wasn't me.

I hate to defer to my education, since it seems to have no value here, but I studied law in undergrad and specifically studied antitrust law in grad school. I am right and you are wrong.

[Jarvan]

I never sold cell phones. I did work in physical layer management for telephone, Ethernet, and fiber networks, however. As usual, your straw men are very entertaining, but massively inaccurate. One of us worked at a T-Mobile call center, and it wasn't me.

I hate to defer to my education, since it seems to have no value here, but I studied law in undergrad and specifically studied antitrust law in grad school. I am right and you are wrong.

So there is NO US law that prohibits monopolies? That is funny.

I do think it's funny that your PLM for telephone, ethernet and fiber network experience makes you an expert in cable companies, yet you disparage me and my 5 years working for T-Mobile in a call center. Pretty sure you have no idea what I did for T-Mobile.

Of course if we are going to use work experience to determine ability to talk about specific things with knowledge, then I would qualify for telecom, healthcare, food services, retail, and product testing.

[Bobmuhthol]

I don't need to know what you did in a call center to be completely confident that it wasn't impressive (case in point: you worked in a call center).

I don't understand why you still, after being crushed countless times, elect to say stupid shit under the guise of undermining someone else's argument. I never said that no United States law prohibited monopolies. I did say that monopolies are not illegal. How could monopolies operate if they are illegal? That doesn't make very much sense. How could monopolies have safe harbor defenses against antitrust statutes if they are illegal? That doesn't make very much sense.

Maybe, Jarvan, you should try to discredit me again by saying something retarded like, "if you are so knowledgeable, why doesn't anyone pay you 6 figures for your advice?" That one was hilarious, and now someone does exactly that.

[Jarvan]

I don't need to know what you did in a call center to be completely confident that it wasn't impressive (case in point: you worked in a call center).

I don't understand why you still, after being crushed countless times, elect to say stupid shit under the guise of undermining someone else's argument. I never said that no United States law prohibited monopolies. I did say that monopolies are not illegal. How could monopolies operate if they are illegal? That doesn't make very much sense. How could monopolies have safe harbor defenses against antitrust statutes if they are illegal? That doesn't make very much sense.

Maybe, Jarvan, you should try to discredit me again by saying something retarded like, "if you are so knowledgeable, why doesn't anyone pay you 6 figures for your advice?" That one was hilarious, and now someone does exactly that.


Both true and untrue. Monopolies are illegal, unless the Government says they are legal.

There have been several antitrust lawsuits. If Monopolies were legal, there wouldn't have been.

Ok, I will grant you that it is not illegal to HAVE a monopoly in and of itself, it's just illegal to use it in various ways.

Also, it's not possible for a company to really become a monopoly anymore, and I am sure you know that. Look at the recent airline merger. Do you really think Delta and United could merge? And then merge with American? I mean, it wouldn't be "illegal" for them to merge, except that the federal government wouldn't allow it... which is a de facto form of illegal.

On another note.. Since you have never worked in a call center, they must be worthless meaningless things that impact nothing at all for a company huh. I am sure all those people are worthless pieces of shit that have insignificant jobs. The fact that my call center was the fraud division, the corporate accounts division, offline reporting division, region hub for technical support, including cell phone tower and repair and Mobile tower division (which sent 10 portal towers to NYC on 9/11 to ensure continued network coverage).

The fact that if you had a mobile phone through voicestream or T-Mobile and had a billing issue, not where you didn't understand or went over, but where the system billed you wrong, the three years the Team in PA was working it, it went through my desk. I worked directly with the billing code, picked it apart and worked with the coders to fix it. Actually, I was the one that found, reported, and worked with the programers to fix night and weekend minute issues due to Daylight savings time and Indiana. I wrote up the reports for my division every day, and reported directly to a VP. I fixed million dollar roaming errors for international companies. (sure you heard of Sony) Among other things, some pointless, others infuriating (stupid shits didn't like my advice to push data instead of Text).

Yeah, I just worked in a call center. I am sure your 4 years of PLM you worked in the corporate offices.. went to board meetings, and handled multimillion dollar deals. My bad.

[Bobmuhthol]

Also, it's not possible for a company to really become a monopoly anymore, and I am sure you know that. Look at the recent airline merger. Do you really think Delta and United could merge? And then merge with American? I mean, it wouldn't be "illegal" for them to merge, except that the federal government wouldn't allow it... which is a de facto form of illegal.You're clearly still clueless here if this is your counterpoint.

I'm glad you think your job was important, and that's cool. However, please, please do not try to one-up me on dollar amounts. I am the sole person responsible for calculating and reporting risk for all hedge fund accounts in my company, which total billions in AUM, and I routinely meet with chief officers. There is one layer of management between me and the Board of Directors. You're not going to beat me.

[Gelston]

You both still have tiny penises.

[Jarvan]

You're clearly still clueless here if this is your counterpoint.

I'm glad you think your job was important, and that's cool. However, please, please do not try to one-up me on dollar amounts. I am the sole person responsible for calculating and reporting risk for all hedge fund accounts in my company, which total billions in AUM, and I routinely meet with chief officers. There is one layer of management between me and the Board of Directors. You're not going to beat me.[/COLOR]

LOL. You are such an egotistical bastard it isn't even funny. I have never said I was trying to beat you. Yes, you have a degree and a good job, but that doesn't mean all the rest of us "little people" are insignificant.

I was simply pointing out that "call center" is not just a laughable thing as you seem to think it is.

Remember when you said...


I don't need to know what you did in a call center to be completely confident that it wasn't impressive (case in point: you worked in a call center).

It's good to know that every single call center position in the world is "unimpressive" to you.

I wonder.. where do 911 calls go..

[Jarvan]

You both still have tiny penises.

The Hubble was actually launched so a Dr could see mine.

True story.

[Bobmuhthol]

I wonder.. where do 911 calls go.. Not to T-Mobile customer service.

As far as not trying to beat me, why, then, did you minimize my previous experience while simultaneously touting your super cool job listening to other businesses' problems?

Oh, and maybe I'm truly a dick, but I have just a little more respect for first responders than I do for 911 operators when it comes to saving lives. You seem to have the same complex as George Zimmerman.

[Latrinsorm]

If you don't like your pay and your benefits, you have the right to leave that job and find a different one. You have the right to work harder and get promoted. The corporation has a right to maintain profitability. These are the ONLY rights involved.Why don't I have the right to try and convince my fellow workers that none of our pay is acceptable? Why don't I have the right to point out that they call it "divide and conquer" and not "conquer and divide", and then raise my eyebrows suggestively? Those seem like pretty reasonable (and unlicensed!) uses of free speech, whereas your rights seem to come ex nihilo. Unlike you, I prefer to rely on the United States Constitution of the United States of America.

This country was built on the notion that a union is stronger than its constituent parts. E pluribus AFL-CIO!

[Jarvan]

Not to T-Mobile customer service.

As far as not trying to beat me, why, then, did you minimize my previous experience while simultaneously touting your super cool job listening to other businesses' problems?

Oh, and maybe I'm truly a dick, but I have just a little more respect for first responders than I do for 911 operators when it comes to saving lives. You seem to have the same complex as George Zimmerman.

Hmm..


I don't need to know what you did in a call center to be completely confident that it wasn't impressive (case in point: you worked in a call center).

May want to edit your post to say case in point you worked in a t-mobile call center. Also.. we took a shit ton of calls from people INSIDE the towers that day, and from police and firefighters. I remember conferencing people because they couldn't get thru on their own. But that's another story.

Yes, first responders get more respect from me as well... but I just wonder how those police and fire fighters know where to go. You just love minimizing my stuff too you know. As for your previous Telecom experience.. when you explain how exactly a PLM has anything to do with a cable company and knowing it's licensing and such, then I will grant that your 4 years monitoring the computer network or some such means jack shit in regards to understanding a cable companies monopoly.

[Bobmuhthol]

I know how monopolies work because I know law and economics. My experience in networks is merely experience in networks. I didn't bring it up until I was told that only someone with industry experience could understand the industry.

[Rallorick]

If you don't like your pay and your benefits, you have the right to leave that job and find a different one. You have the right to work harder and get promoted. The corporation has a right to maintain profitability. These are the ONLY rights involved.

any business, be it corporation or small business llc, sole proprietor, etc... that would lose their profitability by paying their labor a living wage, is a weak company that has no right to exist.

earlier in this thread, I believe it was you who made the point that your brother couldn't get people to show up to work, and you could hire twice as many people if only... if only... the government would get out of the way and allow you to pay half as much - which I don't really know that's true, you might just pay half as much to a person who is twice as desperate, and pocket the difference.

Does it not occur that this mentality is why you have labor problems? Would you work for yourself for the pay? Would you care about that job, and feel any sense of loyalty?

[Jeril]

I am curious about something, Latrin and Thond, a poor woman is courted by a rich man, at first he is overly charming but soon after they marry he becomes abusive, what should that woman do?

[Thondalar]

I am curious about something, Latrin and Thond, a poor woman is courted by a rich man, at first he is overly charming but soon after they marry he becomes abusive, what should that woman do?

Press charges and divorce him.

[neimanz1]

1- get divorce and get as much as possible
2-sleep with his dad,brother, and bff. if available and order doesn't matter
3-look for another sucka

rinse & repeat

[Tgo01]

I agree with neimanz1 for the most part except I'd suggest...


1- get divorce and get as much as possible
2-marry me

[Thondalar]

any business, be it corporation or small business llc, sole proprietor, etc... that would lose their profitability by paying their labor a living wage, is a weak company that has no right to exist.

earlier in this thread, I believe it was you who made the point that your brother couldn't get people to show up to work, and you could hire twice as many people if only... if only... the government would get out of the way and allow you to pay half as much - which I don't really know that's true, you might just pay half as much to a person who is twice as desperate, and pocket the difference.

Does it not occur that this mentality is why you have labor problems? Would you work for yourself for the pay? Would you care about that job, and feel any sense of loyalty?

I think the "living wage" part of it is what we're not able to agree on. As to the rest of it, I don't have a brother, but I do run a business, and I don't have any labor problems.

My original comment was that if I have $10 to spend on labor, I could either hire two people at 5$ or one person at $10. Minimum wage creates unemployment.

Why does the left hate poor people? Taking away their jobs so that others can make more money? Doesn't seem like their MO.

[Latrinsorm]

I am curious about something, Latrin and Thond, a poor woman is courted by a rich man, at first he is overly charming but soon after they marry he becomes abusive, what should that woman do?"Don't go to the police. Hire a hit man." - Jack McCoy
My original comment was that if I have $10 to spend on labor, I could either hire two people at 5$ or one person at $10. Minimum wage creates unemployment.There are (at least) two other options: hire one person at $5 and pocket the $5, hire nobody and pocket the $10. If you need one worker and no more than one worker, minimum wage improves their situation without adversely affecting any other worker.

[Rallorick]

Yeah, but truth is labor works just like any other product. If you have a job that needs to hire out, you will either pay what you need to pay or you won't fill the job.

You seem to apply different rules to labor than you do for other commodities... you don't walk into the store, and tell the clerk you're going to pay a quarter for a gallon of milk, because you, as a business owner, have one quarter for milk... so they should be happy with your offerings, no matter how abysmal they appear.

On the other hand, you generally don't over-hire if labor is cheap... maybe you do, but generally people hire to fill a labor need, not a quota of money they need to spend... so truth is, they would pay the half, and pocket the rest.

if labor is more expensive, businesses complain, but the good ones (who are likely already paying above the minimum) still survive.

[Warriorbird]

I think the "living wage" part of it is what we're not able to agree on. As to the rest of it, I don't have a brother, but I do run a business, and I don't have any labor problems.

My original comment was that if I have $10 to spend on labor, I could either hire two people at 5$ or one person at $10. Minimum wage creates unemployment.

Why does the left hate poor people? Taking away their jobs so that others can make more money? Doesn't seem like their MO.

In this mythical land if you have money and run a business you're always going to hire more people. This isn't at all the case.

[Warriorbird]

If you don't like your pay and your benefits, you have the right to leave that job and find a different one. You have the right to work harder and get promoted. The corporation has a right to maintain profitability. These are the ONLY rights involved.

Because you think corporations are sacred and never do wrong you think the individual shouldn't be able to do their best to negotiate? Got it.

[Rallorick]

to put it a different way, why don't you look at people like their own small business - and their product is their labor?

The corporation has a right to maintain profitability

by profitability, I would think you mean actually making a profit - as in their revenue exceeds their costs... then businesses don't seem to have the right to devalue a persons labor to such an extent that they make their labor operate in unprofitable conditions.

[Warriorbird]

I understand it perfectly. YOU are the one that clearly has no idea what you post. Here is exactly what you posted, I even bolded the really, really wrong part:



You are the only one in this entire thread that is making the case that since labor is such a small part of a business expense, then raising the wages shouldn't be a big deal. Pretty fucking ignorant.



Absolutely. I abhore unions.. I've seen what they have done to businesses/governments when they try to extort higher wages/benefits.

And curiously enough, McDonalds, on average, spends less on labor than hotels do. The point you're missing on purpose is the difference between hourly and non hourly labor to attempt to overstate your point.

[Thondalar]

There are (at least) two other options: hire one person at $5 and pocket the $5, hire nobody and pocket the $10. If you need one worker and no more than one worker, minimum wage improves their situation without adversely affecting any other worker.

I could hire someone for the bare minimum and keep the rest, but as a business owner I want the best people working for me, so my product is better than my competition and brings me more business. This generally means I have to pay them better than my competition. Effectively, what happens when the minimum wage increases, is some people lose their jobs, and the rest have to work harder to make up the difference. In my own business, we just put more on the shoulders of salaried employees...there have been weeks that my salary, if averaged by the hour, worked out to about $8 bucks an hour.

If I don't hire anyone, I don't have a business, and there's no $10 to pocket.

In your specific situation, minimum wage would improve the situation of that one worker without adversely affecting anyone else. What business only has one worker?

[Thondalar]

Yeah, but truth is labor works just like any other product. If you have a job that needs to hire out, you will either pay what you need to pay or you won't fill the job.

You seem to apply different rules to labor than you do for other commodities... you don't walk into the store, and tell the clerk you're going to pay a quarter for a gallon of milk, because you, as a business owner, have one quarter for milk... so they should be happy with your offerings, no matter how abysmal they appear.

This is the sort of thing I was talking about when I stated uneducated people should probably nip it. This is, quite possibly, the most ridiculously incorrect thing anyone has ever posted on PC, and that's saying a LOT.

The money I have to pay for my labor comes directly from my revenue. If I spend more on my labor than I'm making to spend on labor, the business will fail. It's really not a difficult concept.



On the other hand, you generally don't over-hire if labor is cheap... maybe you do, but generally people hire to fill a labor need, not a quota of money they need to spend... so truth is, they would pay the half, and pocket the rest.

Again, this is a symptom of the "evil corporate business owners" mentality that seems to be rampant with the "me" generation. There is no "cheap" or "expensive" labor, in the sense that gas prices are sometimes cheaper than other times. You can either pay more for more qualified people, or pay less for less qualified people. If I have more money to spend on labor, it's because my revenue is up, which means I'm doing more business...and I need to hire more people.



if labor is more expensive, businesses complain, but the good ones (who are likely already paying above the minimum) still survive.

Of course they survive. They lay off workers and raise prices on their products.

[Thondalar]

In this mythical land if you have money and run a business you're always going to hire more people. This isn't at all the case.

Generally if you have more money you reinvest it in the business...if you have more money that means revenue is up, and you'll most likely need to hire more people to keep up with the demand. So, more often than not, that's exactly the case.

[Rallorick]

This is the sort of thing I was talking about when I stated uneducated people should probably nip it. This is, quite possibly, the most ridiculously incorrect thing anyone has ever posted on PC, and that's saying a LOT..


Really? that's the best you have? boiled down comment: nu-uh, yer stupid!

typical brilliant thondolar response. k thanks!

[Rallorick]

I am neither anti-corporation, nor am I a 'me' generation, whatever the fuck that even means.

I assure you I am quite pro-corporation. I also believe companies can pay a person a living wage without it 'damaging' others... you build this argument because you want to make it sound noble with the whole - hey! they create twice the jobs, at half the pay', that is complete bullshit.

Your response indicates that you didn't even understand the point.. You pay the market rate, the problem with poverty, is that it breeds desperation... everyone knows this... people in desperate situations will undersell themselves... this also is common knowledge.

your argument for removing the minimum wage leads to an attempt to squeeze that desperation further - it does not create jobs, it does not help the poor... it helps the business... so climb off the high horse, you look ridiculous up there.

[Thondalar]

Really? that's the best you have? boiled down comment: nu-uh, yer stupid!

typical brilliant thondolar response. k thanks!

That's not all I said. Good job totally ignoring the rest of the post, though.

[Thondalar]

I am neither anti-corporation, nor am I a 'me' generation, whatever the fuck that even means.

I assure you I am quite pro-corporation. I also believe companies can pay a person a living wage without it 'damaging' others... you build this argument because you want to make it sound noble with the whole - hey! they create twice the jobs, at half the pay', that is complete bullshit.

Your response indicates that you didn't even understand the point.. You pay the market rate, the problem with poverty, is that it breeds desperation... everyone knows this... people in desperate situations will undersell themselves... this also is common knowledge.

your argument for removing the minimum wage leads to an attempt to squeeze that desperation further - it does not create jobs, it does not help the poor... it helps the business... so climb off the high horse, you look ridiculous up there.

Prove it?

[Rallorick]

I responded to it separately - one to call you a douche, the other to show you why

[Rallorick]

Prove it?

well, because I know how companies look at headcount.

The good ones say 'hey we need a guy who runs that machine' they don't say... 'hey labor costs are down, hire more folks'.

How do I prove that?

[Thondalar]

well, because I know how companies look at headcount.

The good ones say 'hey we need a guy who runs that machine' they don't say... 'hey labor costs are down, hire more folks'.

How do I prove that?

Again with this "labor costs are down" thing. I don't even know what that means. The price of labor doesn't fluctuate like the price of corn. If your labor cost is down, that means your revenue is up, which means you're doing more business and will need to hire more employees to keep up with the greater demand. Why do I have to keep repeating this?

[Bobmuhthol]

Again with this "labor costs are down" thing. I don't even know what that means. The price of labor doesn't fluctuate like the price of corn. If your labor cost is down, that means your revenue is up, which means you're doing more business and will need to hire more employees to keep up with the greater demand. Why do I have to keep repeating this?Dude, it's painfully fucking obvious that you have never studied economics.

[Thondalar]

I responded to it separately - one to deflect, the other to say a bunch of stuff that isn't actually true but it fits my narrative

fixed.

[Thondalar]

Dude, it's painfully fucking obvious that you have never studied economics.

If your study of economics taught you something different, you need to contact your educational institution for a refund.

[Bobmuhthol]

If your study of economics taught you something different, you need to contact your educational institution for a refund.You have no understanding of the labor market, so I'm going to pretend you didn't say this.

[Thondalar]

You have no understanding of the labor market, so I'm going to pretend you didn't say this.

I have 103 employees. I have a stack of applications on my desk a mile high. Don't pretend I didn't say it, prove me wrong.

[Bobmuhthol]

I have 103 employees. I have a stack of applications on my desk a mile high. Don't pretend I didn't say it, prove me wrong.You think that labor costs go down when revenue goes up, so I don't really need to prove anything (mostly because you wouldn't understand anything I say anyway).

[Rallorick]

Again with this "labor costs are down" thing. I don't even know what that means. The price of labor doesn't fluctuate like the price of corn. If your labor cost is down, that means your revenue is up, which means you're doing more business and will need to hire more employees to keep up with the greater demand. Why do I have to keep repeating this?

costs and revenue have nothing to do with one another... I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and hope you mean 'labor costs are down, which means profit is up'... because you don't make any sales off your labor costs... and last I checked, your revenue exclusively comes from sales.

if you mean 'labor costs are down, which means profit is up' that too is incorrect, but at least closer... again, costs are only part of the equation, and where your profit lands is way more dependent on your revenue situation than your cost situation. you might have heard the saying 'you can't save your way to prosperity', which means when your sales are down, you can try to cut corners, but eventually, your market dictates your success WAY more than adjustments to your labor.

Min. wage labor tends to be direct labor, not overhead labor... this is not always true, but in general, it is far more correlative to operation. Direct labor, runs somewhere around 10% of your total cost in a manufacturing environment... the higher costs are buried in your materials, burden, and fixed/variable overhead - there are the basic components of standard costing.

labor costs do fluctuate a great deal, because it's linked to volume... which is linked to headcount... you staff according to through put, not 'gosh, I can afford more people'. It's just a little more scientific than that.

but... then I'm not a business owner like you... I should nip it.

[Rallorick]

I assure you, I don't need to deflect in an argument with you Thon...

This much, I can promise.

[Latrinsorm]

I could hire someone for the bare minimum and keep the rest, but as a business owner I want the best people working for me, so my product is better than my competition and brings me more business. This generally means I have to pay them better than my competition. Effectively, what happens when the minimum wage increases, is some people lose their jobs, and the rest have to work harder to make up the difference. In my own business, we just put more on the shoulders of salaried employees...there have been weeks that my salary, if averaged by the hour, worked out to about $8 bucks an hour.

If I don't hire anyone, I don't have a business, and there's no $10 to pocket.

In your specific situation, minimum wage would improve the situation of that one worker without adversely affecting anyone else. What business only has one worker?About as many businesses as can spend only $10/hr on labor, I would expect. The question is not which businesses are looking to hire only one worker, but which businesses are looking to hire only one more.

I would also like to expound on your method of overloading salaried employees. Why don't they leave for another salaried position that loads them properly, or even underloads them? They obviously have an incentive to do so: they would get more money per work. If they don't leave, why would the best workers of some other company leave to work for more hourly wages (more money per work) for you?
the "me" generation.I know I've beat this to death, but that term was originally coined to refer to baby boomers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_generation). All of this has happened before, and all of it will happen again.
I have 103 employees. I have a stack of applications on my desk a mile high. Don't pretend I didn't say it, prove me wrong.If you had 0 applications on your desk, would you be more concerned about losing employees? Would you therefore be more amenable to giving one a raise if he or she asked for it, regardless of your opinion of their work? A mediocre worker is better than no worker at all, right? Would it therefore be fair to say that the price of labor varies?

[Thondalar]

You think that labor costs go down when revenue goes up, so I don't really need to prove anything (mostly because you wouldn't understand anything I say anyway).

My labor cost goal for the back of House is 6.5%, and 8.5% for front. Percent of what, you might ask? Why, percentage of revenue, of course! If I'm over 6.5%, I send a cook home. He doesn't get hours. If I'm under 6.5%, I keep a cook. He gets hours.

I'm noticing a disconcerting lack of real-world knowledge in you college kids these days.

[Bobmuhthol]

My labor cost goal for the back of House is 6.5%, and 8.5% for front. Percent of what, you might ask? Why, percentage of revenue, of course! If I'm over 6.5%, I send a cook home. He doesn't get hours. If I'm under 6.5%, I keep a cook. He gets hours.

I'm noticing a disconcerting lack of real-world knowledge in you college kids these days.Not everyone who runs a business runs one with stupidly variable hours (and expects to keep his employees). I can promise you that I would quit the second my employer told me to leave because there was no work for me. Then again, I don't make minimum wage and don't have a boss that exploits me.

By the way, you very recently said that the price of labor does not fluctuate, and made fun of two people with economics degrees for knowing that's a ridiculous statement. Probably not the best time to say college educated people are lacking in real world knowledge.

[Rallorick]

I'm noticing a disconcerting lack of real-world knowledge in you college kids these days.

holy shit... the arrogance. I see Bob's point now.

PS - you should let your staff know that they need to work less, so you can make more sales... it sounds like that really works for you.

[Thondalar]

About as many businesses as can spend only $10/hr on labor, I would expect. The question is not which businesses are looking to hire only one worker, but which businesses are looking to hire only one more.

My original statement was a simplification. Although i'm sure there are a lot of businesses who would like to hire one more person, that's not even remotely the point of any of this.


I would also like to expound on your method of overloading salaried employees. Why don't they leave for another salaried position that loads them properly, or even underloads them?

Some do. I lost one of my assistants to US Foods a few months ago. Everyone has their own reasons for staying in or leaving a job, I wouldn't feel comfortable attempting to make a blanket statement about them.


I know I've beat this to death, but that term was originally coined to refer to baby boomers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_generation). All of this has happened before, and all of it will happen again.

If you mean this in the sense that eventually we'll self-destruct and see another dark age before beginning the cycle anew, you're probably right.


If you had 0 applications on your desk, would you be more concerned about losing employees? Would you therefore be more amenable to giving one a raise if he or she asked for it, regardless of your opinion of their work? A mediocre worker is better than no worker at all, right? Would it therefore be fair to say that the price of labor varies?

If I had zero applications, I would probably look in to advertising on job-seeking sites, newspapers, etc. I already work hard to keep my employees...something else people who don't run a business either aren't aware of, or don't care about...it costs me money to hire people, besides just their base pay. I have to invest in them, be it training, uniform costs, etc. It's cheaper for me to take care of the workers I have than to have a constant revolving door of new employees I have to spend more money on.

[Thondalar]

Not everyone who runs a business runs one with stupidly variable hours (and expects to keep his employees). I can promise you that I would quit the second my employer told me to leave because there was no work for me. Then again, I don't make minimum wage and don't have a boss that exploits me.

No, you're on salary, which means you're paid a set amount to get the work done that you're required to do. This thread is about low-wage hourly employees.


By the way, you very recently said that the price of labor does not fluctuate, and made fun of two people with economics degrees for knowing that's a ridiculous statement. Probably not the best time to say college educated people are lacking in real world knowledge.

I would think two people with economics degrees would be able to provide something that backs up their arguments.

[Bobmuhthol]

No, you're on salary, which means you're paid a set amount to get the work done that you're required to do. This thread is about low-wage hourly employees. I am not a salaried employee. I am paid hourly. But you're right that my wage is not low.

For what it's worth, our arguments can be backed up by drawing two intersecting lines on some axes, and calling them "supply" and "demand." It's truly that rudimentary.

[Thondalar]

holy shit... the arrogance. I see Bob's point now.

How is an observation arrogance?


PS - you should let your staff know that they need to work less, so you can make more sales... it sounds like that really works for you.

Not sure where you get that from, but sure.

[Thondalar]

costs and revenue have nothing to do with one another... I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and hope you mean 'labor costs are down, which means profit is up'... because you don't make any sales off your labor costs... and last I checked, your revenue exclusively comes from sales.

Wow. Profit is the left-over from my costs being deducted from my revenue. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and hope this is some sort of really bad troll attempt.


if you mean 'labor costs are down, which means profit is up' that too is incorrect, but at least closer... again, costs are only part of the equation, and where your profit lands is way more dependent on your revenue situation than your cost situation.

see above.


Min. wage labor tends to be direct labor, not overhead labor... this is not always true, but in general, it is far more correlative to operation. Direct labor, runs somewhere around 10% of your total cost in a manufacturing environment... the higher costs are buried in your materials, burden, and fixed/variable overhead - there are the basic components of standard costing.

Only four people at my job are overhead labor, the rest are direct labor. My total labor goal is 15%. As a single category, it is the smallest of three, with food cost being the single highest and overhead/operation being second. This does not mean I can go over 15%, just because it's the least of my expenses.


labor costs do fluctuate a great deal, because it's linked to volume... which is linked to headcount... you staff according to through put, not 'gosh, I can afford more people'. It's just a little more scientific than that.

I never said staffing isn't planned and tracked, I said if I have more money to spend on labor, it's because my revenue is up. This could come from savings in other operational expenses, but the vast majority of the time it comes from making more sales.


but... then I'm not a business owner like you... I should nip it.

I don't own the business, I just operate it.

[Bobmuhthol]

No, seriously, costs and revenue are not related to each other. I'm not sure that you're not trolling at this point.

I'm extremely unsurprised that you do not own the business. Maybe you should stop claiming to have employees, too, since they are employed by the business and not by you.

[Parkbandit]

And curiously enough, McDonalds, on average, spends less on labor than hotels do. The point you're missing on purpose is the difference between hourly and non hourly labor to attempt to overstate your point.

You made the ignorant assumption that labor is a small portion of a company's expenses.

It isn't. Most cases, it's the biggest expense.

Please stop. Stick to teaching, because you obviously can't do.

[Thondalar]

No, seriously, costs and revenue are not related to each other. I'm not sure that you're not trolling at this point.

I'm sorry, maybe we have different definitions for things. By "revenue" I mean the income my business takes in from the sale of goods and services, and by "costs" I mean the money the business spends to maintain itself.

How are these things not related?

[Bobmuhthol]

I'm sorry, maybe we have different definitions for things. By "revenue" I mean the income my business takes in from the sale of goods and services, and by "costs" I mean the money the business spends to maintain itself.

How are these things not related? More sales do not affect costs, and more costs do not affect revenue. The end.

There is an entire subset of business management for sales maximization, and an independent subset for cost minimization, with good reason.