 March 5, 2014 - 2:26pm | Hhmm.. The Dec of Independ. says we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Obama just announced that the minimum wage should be raised because people who work full time should not live in poverty. That actually sounded like he was making it a right. Its interesting that there is a qualification on that: working full time but what if you company doesn't let you work full time and you average 32-35 hours? And there are a lot of reasons for poverty and raising the minimum wage will not fix. I can remember a family that won the lottery up in Maine and a year latter after the husband and wife had already quit their decent paying jobs they were broke and having a tough time finding work. Should someone who wins the lottery live in poverty? Probably not but they can end up there through their "pursuit of happiness" as they make choices that lead to poverty. The same is likely just as true for poeple who have not won the lottery but work for a minimum wage. Will we legistlate away poverty? I suspect that the above minimum wage position I hold along with the 3 raises I've had in 4 years will not mean much when the minimum is suddenly raised to within a quarter or two of what I make. And since my company employs a host of workers that make less then me the massive wack to the payroll is not going to put them in the mood to raise my wage to keep pace so I'll suddenly become a minimum wage worker with little prospect for advancement. Clearly my company will need to raise its rates on catering and I expect that to dry up some of our business. and what about all the contracts we have with the state? Will the sudden increase jephardize those contracts. From a social standpoint I'm sure that raising the minimum wage sounds like a good idea but i rather suspect that its going to have a lot of negatives that impact everyone's life. And since tipping has not returned to what it was before O'bama was President this move is sure to dry up tips even further. I suppose this is what we get for electing a known socialist to the oval office. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
 April 2, 2014 - 7:29am | Rollo, I think you've mistaken me for a democrat. I simply point out the failures of government. And since when is every democrat, or even the majority of democrats Jew haters? Those people are just exploiting the protests as an opportunity to voice their hate and gain recruits. Jew haters are on both sides. I certainly am not one of them. So now that you understand that I don't care what the crimes of democrats are when we're talking about a specific issue (Obamacare), I'm going to stay on topic, not get sidetracked on generalized issues having nothing to do with the subject. Stay focused. On that matter, you're confusing the demands of the people with the demands of the politicians. The people want to go left, but the politicians are going right. Don't confuse them. This is a democracy, not an autocracy. There's a difference between doing something badly (Democrats) and not doing anything at all. (Republicans) Remember, the Republicans are the ones who specialize in fillibusters, which were virtually non-existent before 1991. Slavery? That's a slippery slope if I ever saw one. Republicans don't just not produce bad healthcare reform. They don't want healthcare reform at all, so they block it. 15 years without healthcare reform is the fault of Republicans, not Democrats. When Roosevelt introduced the healthcare system, he had the full support of both parties. What changed? The shear amount of greed for corporate dollars. Healthcare is good for the people, not the corporations. By the way, I'm in a discussion with Republicans and I still don't hear anyone offering anything better, just a lot of complaints about what is and ridiculous speculations about what will be rather than saying, "here is how I think it should be." But I think that's because Republicans are afraid of the rabid response they'll get from their own party for their own ideas, because Republicans have become rabid, vocal opposers rather than patriotic compromisers. If you don't want to be part of the discussion, don't enter the thread. No one twisted your arm to post. I got involved because I felt it had become a conservative love fest. These silly discussions happen regardless of how anyone feels. People will be people and we can't control them, or do you not believe in personal freedoms? But the ignorance that goes around in them just makes me want to show that there's more to the story than 5 diehard Republicans can hash out. So if you're going to participate, stay focused on Obamacare, which is what this thread is about. View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write. "It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi "That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild) |
 April 2, 2014 - 7:30am | I loathe the Republicans - probably to the point iof hating them. The trouble is, the democrats are a thousand times worse. The Democrat party platform today practically mirrors the Nazi party's platform of the 20's and 30's. Right down to wanting to oppress minorities. The Democrat party leadership doesn't admit to that opression part, but it is very mainstream in their party rank and file. During those 'Occupy Wall Street' rallies that happened here and there around the nation, there were dozens of YouTube clips of democrat rallies where the speakers were directly blaming 'jews' for all the financial troubles of the nation. Is this Poe's Law in action or did you seriously pull a Godwin's Law? I seriously hope its the former, because none of what you said... err.. typed (even the stuff not quoted) made any sense whatsoever.  |
April 2, 2014 - 7:33am | My point was in my original post for the reasons listed in said post...that raising the minimum wage will hinder more than it helps.
Your original post ignores the fact that if inflation increases and the minimum wage doesn't, the gap between the rich and the poor increases exponentially. What is good for the people is that the minimum wage stay constant with inflation, but it doesn't. That's why the minimum wage has to be raised from time to time. You're saying to sacrifice those at the bottom so that the rich can get richer and the middle class can disappear. Because without raising the minimum wage, the middle class also does not do anything more than fall behind inflation while the rich get richer. View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write. "It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi "That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild) |
April 2, 2014 - 11:16am | There is a danger with the income disparity that everyone seems to overlook. It is well-established that low and middle income earners spend much of their income right way — mostly on the cost of living — while high earners usually have a lot of surplus, even after taking to account the money that goes into running a business. The idea of Reaganomics is that by lowing taxes on top earners, they would put more money into their business, thus adding more jobs and making the economy grow, but in truth they just sit on it. Being a consumer-based economy, sitting on large surplus of cash does not benefit the economy in any way. Another problem is that when people are too poor, they spend less and become more dependent on government subsidies in order to survive — they are not lazy, immoral moochers, nor do anyone whats to be in that depressing kind of state (trust me, there are way too many people who really want a good job and too settle down, but times are tough). The danger comes in when too many people are poor, with too much money is in the hands of people who have more money then they know what to do with it, and where there is not enough people in the middle to pull the slack. Some knot-heads would say that I'm just "inciting class warfare" or that I want to "punish success", but such whinny liberal melodrama ignores the fact that income disparity in this level that we see today is a prerequisite to a total economic collapses, and that it is that sense of narcissist entitlement by the greedy few that would cause the collapses! |
 April 2, 2014 - 11:35am | I agree that minimum wage has to increase to meet inflation. I just don't agree with the proposed increase being laid out (re: $10-15/hr). All that will do is increase the wage to minimum or just above for those already making above minimum (if you make $10.50 and hour and minimum goes up from $7.whatever it is now to $10, do you really believe your wage will see a parallel gain?), and as noted cut backs will be the result. Meaning more unemployment added to the existing unemployment, most of which has been ignored by the data collectors (labor department). But since said data collectors base that number on new claims...well, unemployment actually will go up no matter how they want to pad the stats. Since the problem is inflation, printing more money isn't helping the issue either. Neither is spending it like it's burning holes in your pockets. Borrowing isn't working out very well either. Even the most despised of "rich, regardless if they're getting richer" will tell you that borrowing should be the last resort, not the first. Get inflation under control and minimum wage suddenly disappears as a tangible issue. But hey, since our government spends out of control, so should we. Still, everything being ballyhooed about minimum wage ignores the fact that a minimum wage job is an entry level job, not a career. As I noted earlier, the typical American doesn't want that job anyways. Well, we want the job, we just want to be paid more than it's worth. We want entry level work with top salary pay instead of entry level work and --- perish the thought --- WORK toward a better job/salary. Nay, everything being proposed now is aimed at getting that counter person at McDonald's (who can barely figure out the keypad on the cash register) to make as much as a broiler chef in a gourmet restaurant. And no, this isn't a post 2008 Bush/Obama recession issue either, that work ethic has been alive and well long before this current fiasco erupted. |
April 2, 2014 - 1:21pm | The reason for the steap suggested increase is because of how long it has been since there has been a minimum wage increase, and how long it had been before the last increase and how insufficient it was. It also has to do with how drastically inflation has risen since 2006. Inflation is already three times what it was in 2006. Nicely stated, Malcadon. View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write. "It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi "That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild) |
April 2, 2014 - 3:10pm | So the solution is to ignore inflation and raise the wage? And furthermore the solution is to screw work ethics and pay more anyways? Sorry, but something tells me that even if the minimum wage was raised to $50/hour we'd still end up in an even bigger shit bucket in six months. I want to know what's wrong with tackling the inflation problem. I want to know what's wrong with tackling the government spending problem. I want to know what's wrong with tackling the causes of the wage problem. |
April 2, 2014 - 3:53pm | The problem is that the way to recover an economy is to spend. You can't save government money and expect the economy to recover. You can't hold back money from the people and expect them to spend more. That's called artificially creating inflation, because the only way to make them spend more with less is to raise prices. So the opposite is necessary: lower prices and pay the people more and help their money buy more. The government must also provide restrictions on companies to force the companies to stop hording and start reinvesting their money back into the economy by supporting their workers and lowering costs for the consumer. To do that, the government must then provide insentives to the corporations to do so, not in a way that makes them horde, but in a way that makes them expand, which also helps the work force, reducing joblessness. That has always been the way to recover the economy. Austerity has never, and will never, work. Einstein said that "insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." Greece failed, Iceland failed, Italy failed, Hungary failed, Germany failed, and America failed every single time they applied austerity measures. But each of those counteries experienced recovery when they invested in the economy as I described above. Austerity DOES NOT WORK. It is the greedy corporations who create inflation when in good times they start hording their money, laying off workers and raising prices to capitalize on the good times. Then it just spirals out of control. When the economy begins to suffer, the corporations use it as an excuse to tighten their belts further, laying off more workers, cutting costs and raising prices. View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write. "It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi "That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild) |
 April 3, 2014 - 9:11pm | It is well-established that low and middle income earners spend much of their income right way — mostly on the cost of living — while high earners usually have a lot of surplus, even after taking to account the money that goes into running a business. The idea of Reaganomics is that by lowing taxes on top earners, they would put more money into their business, thus adding more jobs and making the economy grow, but in truth they just sit on it. A lot of misconceptions in this paragraph alone. Let's start with "Reaganomics". There is no such thing. That's just a made up term by Democratics trying to win election against a popular President. President Reagan lowered taxes a little bit on everyone but not by as much as many people think. You have to understand how taxes work. There are the tax rates, which were lowered by the 1986 tax act. Tax rates are the % that you multiply against another number, taxable income or the tax base as some call it. Rate x Base = Taxes. You have to look at both the Rate and the Base to see how high taxes are. Few people understand that. I can cut your tax rates in half while doubling your tax bill just by playing with the equation. Tax rates were once as high as around 94% under FDR--but you have to understand that no one paid at that rate because the Base was set very low. Almost everything was tax deductible and there were few rules to prevent those that could afford good accountants from avoiding paying taxes. So while on the surface that may have seemed very progressive it was actually screwing the lower and middle income people who couldnt afford expensive CPAs and tax shelters. Then Reagan lowered the rates but increased the Base. That means a lot of the tax shelters rich people used to avoid paying taxes were eliminated, thus increasing the base on which higher income individuals pay taxes on. Overall that is a fairer system. Why should you pay more in taxes than your co-worker who makes the same as you just because he chooses to live in a big house and you have an apartment? Next, is consumption. The wealthy spend just as anyone else, the only difference is they have more to spend and can spend on more discretionary goods and services whereas poorer people spend all their money on food and rent. The wealthy are a major factor in the consumer economy. What they don't spend they save which makes the money available for poor people to borrow and start businesses of their own or attend college. In other words it benefits everyone. Some knot-heads would say that I'm just "inciting class warfare" or that I want to "punish success", but such whinny liberal melodrama ignores the fact that income disparity in this level that we see today is a prerequisite to a total economic collapses, and that it is that sense of narcissist entitlement by the greedy few that would cause the collapses! I agree with you that income inequality is a serious problem, all over the world. However, it's not as simple as simple voting Democrat (or Republican) or just passing laws or new taxes. The problem is it's caused by things beyond our control: globalization, automation, technology and even women in the workforce. Once upon a time, businesses (including actors and athletes) could only market their products to consumers in their local town. Then technology expanded their reach to regions; then nationwide. Now businesses are global and the profits are so much greater. That's why CEOs make so much. But it's not just businessmen. Athletes and Actors used to make peanuts but now they make more in a day than their predecessors made in a lifetime. That's globalization. The talented, intelligent, and lucky can make a fortune while the average person competes with workers in the third world for wages. There isn't an easy answer to that.
|
April 4, 2014 - 7:14pm | Mother, you seem to have your own misconceptions. It was 92% individual payroll taxation in 1952-1953 (After FDR) and 91% the rest of the time from 1944 to 1963. Only 2 of those years of 91% overlap with FDR's presidency. FDR proposed an equalizing taxation on higher incomes, but was shot down. It was congress who introduced most of the rising taxation in those days to help pay for the war effort. It maxed at the end of the war and after in order to pay for recovery. (Are you saying that the bipartisan support for the tax to help keep the country strong was wrong?) It was Kennedy that put an end to it when recovery was no longer necessary. Reagan lowered the rates further later. Must I remind you, though, that in decreasing taxes, along with increasing military spending 43% over the carter administration without improving conditions for military troops or producing any effective military objectives, Reagan increased the federal deficit many times over. It would have been more if he had not sold weapons to militaries that eventually turned around and used them against us. Despite his cutting taxes and the high employment rate, we were still experiencing austerity. Inflation was reduced under Reagan, but economic recovery was at least as slow as it has been under Obama. Globalization is not to blame specifically for inflation. Inflation is affected when more money goes out of the economy than comes in. Inflation most certainly is within our control, which is why we control it after it gets out of control. Within a capitalist country, inflation is controlled by the spending/conservatiion practices of corporations. They are the ones that have the power to inflate or deflate the economy based upon the prevailing activity and attitudes of the corporate community. Neither the president nor congress are the ones with the responsibility to heal the economy. Their responsiblity is to make sure that the corporations are fulfilling their corporate responsiblities to maintain a healthy economy, but the corporations don't want to, because the greater the desparity between the rich and poor, the greater their own wealth and power. Thus, since the corporations won't do it, the government has to step in and essentially force them to do it. The wealthy most certainly do not spend the way the rest spend. They invest and then live off the residuals. If the poor tried doing that, they'd starve to death. They also often retain large offshore non-taxable bank accounts in which they horde untold amounts of cash. Investment money is money that is not being spent, but borrowed. Borrowed money is neutral to spending, but encourages economic activity, rather than growth. It is when the interest on borrowed money gets horded by the rich that economic stagnation occurs and inflation magnifies, which is why high interest rates force inflation, contrary to what Republican economists would have you believe. (They can provide a temporary short-term economic infusion, but in the long term, they drive inflation,) The wealthy are not wealthy because they spend money. They're wealthy because they know how to invest it and save it. Then there is the matter of corporations and the rich taking advantage of tax loopholes and the use of tax havens to evade taxes. Any economist will tell you that it is the presence of a strong middle class that shows a healthy economy. When the middle class is wealthy enough to put a little aside for little Donna's college fund, (Yes, Donna, a girl's name, because women can work if they want to,) the economy is healthy. Edit: Added Reagan's shortcomings to offset the Republican white-washing. View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write. "It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi "That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild) |
April 5, 2014 - 6:50am | By the way, Mother, I don't know where you heard that technology drives inflation, but it's just flat wrong. The technology sector drives deflation because of the long term sustainability of its workforce even past the retirement age while retaining a high pay grade and inflation-consistent pay rise due to the valuation and dependence upon the workforce to drive production. It's a service provided as a consumable, which makes it high demand and provides job security. The cost benefit to the company and the need for already trained staff cuts out much of the costs to the company, giving them insentive to provide for the needs of the employees to keep them happy, as trained personnel is a quality item in corporate business. Also, mail order has always been the bread and butter of a consumer economy, and with the advent of online purchasing, it has made it easier to provide e-order products in much larger quantities, giving a consistent boost to a consumer economy. With the advent of online games, companies can provide instantaneous consumer products without the overhead of packaging. All of this drives deflation, not inflation. That is why technology gets cheaper (deflation), not more expensive (inflation). Even while everything else has been inflating drastically, technology costs have been deflating drastically. Finally, new technologies have always been a boon to consumer economies, and the technology sector is constantly providing new technology and people are striving like randy dogs to have the next big thing. This bolsters the economy, not damages it. The only place where technology has proven a problem is people using it for unsecured stock trades and stock traders using the stock prediction program to do all their trades for them. But that has less to do with the technology and more to do with human incompetence. View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write. "It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi "That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild) |
April 6, 2014 - 12:09am | So once more --- what happens to all the jobs that are already paying $10-15/hour? Are those employees somehow contributing to the economy or are they just getting by as well? How does raising minimum to that level make the economy better? What incentive is there to continue working those jobs when the burger flipper suddenly is worth as much as they are? Meaning why should a security guard or a mechanic continue working his/her profession and spend hundreds of dollars for the certifications to qualify for that job when they can just flip burgers for the same rate of pay and not worry about the responsibilities? |
April 6, 2014 - 6:01am | So once more --- what happens to all the jobs that are already paying $10-15/hour? Are those employees somehow contributing to the economy or are they just getting by as well? How does raising minimum to that level make the economy better? What incentive is there to continue working those jobs when the burger flipper suddenly is worth as much as they are? Meaning why should a security guard or a mechanic continue working his/her profession and spend hundreds of dollars for the certifications to qualify for that job when they can just flip burgers for the same rate of pay and not worry about the responsibilities? Kind of what I'm looking at, I've gained 3 raises and 1 benefit from a family own company in 3 years based on performance. The company has around 70-90 employees and makes a lot of money but it also has a lot of overhead. A large percentage of employees are probably minimum wage (I haven't asked) but they are clearly bottom teir in the pay structure and provide grunt labor. If they all were suddenly elevated in the pay structure they become equal with all of those with skills that command more. That will be a hit to the overhead. At a time when the company is taking a hit to the overhead its not going to be happy about increasing that overhead further in the case of the skilled laborers. Certainly some companies will be forced to throw some bones to some skill employees to keep them happy. But across america the net effect will be the socialist leveling of the masses to the same level. But this is no great surprise since Obama always was a socialist before upgrading to a Democrat. The rich will of course remain rich and the poor and the lower middle class will get leveled some. I rather resent being made equal to a minimum wage work when I've been building my position and earning raises on merit establishing value with the owner. Now the bar back who is perpetually depressed as well as perpetually a little liquored up because wife is openly sleeping with another man will suddenly be close to or equal with me in wage. He's minimum wage because of the value he brings to the company. I'm a skilled worker who has risen above others in my position based on the value I've demonstrated.The bar back will remain what he is and will be excited to have more money to spend on vodka nips but will find their rather cheap price of $1 to 1.5 doubled since all companies with laborers will be hit with higher payroll and can only remedy that through higher prices. He'll shrug and just lay out more money because he has more but the net effect will be the same. I, however, will not get that big jump in my pay check but I will be paying the same increased prices. Welcome to the suck! I'm not against an increase in minimum wage if it was more modest but doubling it? That's just not a good idea. EDIT: The Declaration of Independence affirmed the right to pursue happiness which is about opportunity. The bar back in my company has the same opportunity as me even if he's an immigrant since plenty of other people in my position are also immigrants and one of those immigrants make more than I do. However, he pursues happiness through vodka nips and beer and to some extant it is part of the reason for why he's where he is. His job prospects will always be collecting shopping carts, or grunt labor because he has no real ambition to be anthing else. Obama wants to legistlate outcome for him and its doomed to fail. Increasing minimum wage will not change outcomes. Prices will increase and people will be what they choose to be, legistlation wont change that. Creating opportunities and addressing the rising costs in education would change things for those that wish to pursue something more. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
April 6, 2014 - 5:07pm | Employees should be addressing the problem of the corporation's lack of keeping up with inflation. If you get a raise and it doesn't equate with inflation, then you are being reemed without benefit. Yes, they should work out a means of increasing minimum wage over time to catch up with inflation. This will partially assuage the pain from an extreme increase. But the fault belongs wholely and squarely on the corporations. They should not be rewarded for their greed. When employees do not get a raise that matches inflation since their previous raise or higher rate, then they should view that as the company robbing them, because that is exactly what is happening. Most corporations are money-hungry thieves and you have to treat them accordingly. Minimum wage is not a legislative issue. The courts already established many, many years ago, that minimum wage cannot be legislated. All the government can do is impose penalties and sanctions in other areas, ("Extortion", if you want to be negative about it,) if corporations do not raise minimum wage. jedion, your quote about the pursuit of happiness applies more to the poor than to anyone else. Not giving the low income earners cost of living increases is working against that principle more than for anyone else. SS, "incentive" is exactly what I was saying. The government must provide incentives, and extortion, if you will, in order to get the corporations to do what they should already be doing. Believe me, Obama is no doubt bending over backwards trying to do just that to get such an extreme minimum wage increase. I personally don't care about what Obama is doing to provide those incentives. If you want to find out what they are, go listen to his proposals or read a document somewhere. I don't do research for other people. What most people seem to fail to understand, and which I've already covered repeatedly, is that corporations, not the government, are responsible for the condition of the economy. Banks also play a role. The government provides legislation and enforcement. THAT IS ALL. Control of the economy belongs to those through whose hands the money flows. You can blame Obama, or any president, all you want, but that does not make the president responsible unless his executive order leads directly to a negative economic impact. There has been only one executive order of that sort in the past 35 years, and that is when Dubia used 9/11 as an excuse to "suspend" the majority of Clinton's economic reforms. He promised he would only suspend them for 2 years, which would have been good for that short period of time, but I said, the moment he said it, that he was never going to reinstate them and that it would result in economic disaster. And of course, he didn't, and it, as he admitted later, lead directly to the economic collapse, as the economic bubble ballooned out of control and burst because of it. It was those repeals that also lead to the gas prices spiraling out of control. (Does no one remember when the oil companies tried drastically increasing the prices in '96 and Clinton's swift response?) If not for the FED, the government could control its contribution to inflation through how much money is available. But the principle of lending on money one doesn't have (credit) has become the replacement for hard currency. So the inflation/deflation caused by available money, or lack thereof, now lands squarely on the banks. And because that bubble exceeded control, the government bailed them out on the "too big to fail" principle because the devestation to the economy would have been intense as the banks would have been forced to call in all their loan contracts and then fold up shop. Where the government failed was in not legislating a change in how banks operate in that matter and failed to hold accountable those responsible. The Republicans ended up blaming some woman who tried, exhaustively, to warn them of the coming collapse. As if one woman, who was ignored, could be responsible for a system doomed to failure from its inception and from lack of regulation. Dubia set up the fail and the banks and the corporations fell headlong into it because they have no self-regulation. The president is supposed to be the janitor, not the author of economic collapse. Obama is only acting as the janitor at this point, however defective he may be in that role. View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write. "It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi "That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild) |
April 6, 2014 - 6:29pm | By the way, the corporations are the ones with the power to deflate the economy. If they want to spare the middle class workers (Trust me, they don't,) they could cause a deflation so that they don't have to raise the minimum wage so much. (That's a pipe dream given the unchecked greed of the corporations.) View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write. "It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi "That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild) |
April 7, 2014 - 5:07am | SS, "incentive" is exactly what I was saying. The government must provide incentives, and extortion, if you will, in order to get the corporations to do what they should already be doing. The incentive I spoke of is the people already making the $10-15/hr now. If minimum wage is boosted to the level of the higher skilled jobs, what happens to those jobs? They don't get the proportional increase. In other words, there is no more incentive to spend hundreds of dollars for the certifications needed to keep those jobs when they can make the same money flipping burgers at McDonalds. There's no reason to accept a job with more responsibilities if the entry level position pays the same. |
April 7, 2014 - 11:44am | SS, "incentive" is exactly what I was saying. The government must provide incentives, and extortion, if you will, in order to get the corporations to do what they should already be doing. The incentive I spoke of is the people already making the $10-15/hr now. If minimum wage is boosted to the level of the higher skilled jobs, what happens to those jobs? They don't get the proportional increase. In other words, there is no more incentive to spend hundreds of dollars for the certifications needed to keep those jobs when they can make the same money flipping burgers at McDonalds. There's no reason to accept a job with more responsibilities if the entry level position pays the same. what i was on about if the wage goes to $15/hour I'm suddenly minimum wage working for a company that's taken the hit to their overhead so they're just not likely to want to increase my wage. You can go on about how the corporations are screwing us and I'm inclined to agree with you but but the hard facts are that doubling the minimun wage to 15 screws me over big time. i dont get the big jump in pay that minimum wage earners get but i do get to pay the inevitable higher prices that that pay hike brings. So sure minimum wage laborers make out, some, but i lose. Excuse me but it sort of looks like redistribution of wealth in my opinion. the minimum wage earners will have the illusion of getting more money but increased prices will mean their net position is the same. skilled workers will not get the increase in pay but will pay more for goods and services and their net position will be worse than now. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
April 7, 2014 - 3:22pm | The reason I'm "going on about the corporations" is because you all are blaming the wrong people. You should be screaming over the corporations who made it necessary to put you in this position. But it is not incentive the working class needs. It's time. Time can be provided in one of two ways in this situation: 1) slowly increase minimum wage by increments as the company increases wages across the board to also account for inflation (Pipe dream, trust me, but actually the one that favors the corporations as they continue to make money off of their thievery) or 2) increase minimum wage all at once and let the corporations slowly increase the other wages to make them appear more valuable again. Option 1 is less painful and lets the corporations benefit in the meantime, but is the least likely to happen, as the corporations are happy to fight it until it hurts the worst it could possibly hurt for everyone, including themselves, because that's what career thieves do. If the workers don't want stuff like this happening, then they have to step up to the plate and guard their own livelihoods. The government can only do so much to preserve the middle class. But trust me, if all you're making is $15/hr, you're not middle-class. You're in the poverty range. Raising minimum wage preserves the middle class. Keeping it low diminishes the middle class. The reason Republican politicians like to call Democrat constituents "socialists" is because that is what Democrats have to be to account for corporate greed. The only answer to corporate greed is socialism, because what the corporations take away from the people, the government has to give to the people to ease their suffering. What you're saying is that you will only help those less fortunate than you as long as you stay above their pay grade and that "Who caused this doesn't matter, slap them on the wrist and let's move on so that I can have the appearance of being in a better position than the less fortunate." It doesn't matter how poor you are, as long as you're not that poor; as long as you are not on the bottom rung for any period of time. Though you don't realize that you're already there. You would rather the poor get poorer and the middle-class disappear as long as you don't have to feel like you're not already at the bottom. Consequences be damned. When minimum wage goes up, those who appear to drop to the bottom rung will demand to be lifted up to their deserved standard. Thus forcing a remedy. Call it the middle-class's incentive to fight for itself in a way it would not otherwise do, eventually disappearing, as it already just about has. View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write. "It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi "That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild) |
April 8, 2014 - 4:51am | The actual ammount of money you make can have less to do with whether you live in poverty or not. Sure, Boston where I live costs a lot to live and a cheap rent is $900/month yet in Maine where my parents live $15/hour can equal some serious lifestyle simply because a house with land will cost $500/month morage and a good rent would be $350/month. However a lot will depend on individual choices and motivation. Its also a misconception to blame this all on the corporations and over look all of the small businesses in America. I was unable to find out how much of the workforce is employed by the corporate sector but without a doubt there are more small businesses than corporations in America and the minimum wage is probably more important for preventing abuse by the small little Mom and Pop operations from paying people rediculously low wages because they can, or because the wage earner is family, or because they know the wage earner is over a barrel somehow and wont go to any authorities because of that barrel they're over. The government provides this regulation and everyone knows what it is so it prevents a lot. Blaming the corporations for paying only minimum wage is not entirely correct. I've work for several corporations over the years and everytime except for 1 shoe manufacturer I was paid significantly above minimum. oops I forgot a small corporation that paid me minimum but also gave me another compensation but even there my effective wage was far and above minimum due to that extra compensation and tips. Manufacturing corporations I've worked for all trained you and then paid you far better than any other business in the local economy. Admittedly I've never worked in fast food so all I know about that industry is what I've experienced as a customer which is seriously poor quality food, poor quality serice, and less than stellar cleanliness which doesn't surprise me that the prevailing wage at a McDs might be minimum. (Its also the source of my rule that I wont eat ant any place that has a dollar menu). I've generally had more benefits when I worked at a corporation than when I worked for a small business. Corporations are far more likely to give you vacation time. Vacation time at a small business is more likely to be time off without pay. Despite the public perception of corporations being greedy money grubbers I've done better working for coporations than small businesses. Do you realize that local and federal government combine represent, according to the federal gov's own statistics, the largest segment of the American workforce? More than healthcare, more than retail trade or more than manufacturing. Government jobs are among the top earners in the US and yet they produce nothing. If anything deserved to be crucified it would seem to be government but that is perhaps grist for another thread. Forgive me if my impression of your position is wrong but is feels like you are crucifying the corporation exclusively. The economy is far more complicated than that. Your previous post had a dig on me asking if I will only help those that are less fortunate as long as I stay above their pay grade. As if I'm sitting fat dumn and happy above their paygrade looking down on them. I got where I am through drive determination and merit and any of them could do the same and some of those "poor immigrants" that make up the bottom tier of our company have. Its not about who's less fortunate. That was latching onto a piece of what I said and ignoring the point. MY point is that you cannot legistlate people out of poverty like the Obama sound bite suggested in the first post of this thread. Poverty is much more complicated than than simply raising the minimum wage. A lot of things will depend on personal drive and ambition and lifestyle choices. However, simply waving a magic legistlative wand and doubling the minimum wage is going to impact the economy in a multitude of ways. Many of which are going to do more harm than good. We are really dancing around entitlement here. That was what Obama's statement was about and legislating entitlements will hurt the American economy. when the economy suffers it the people at the bottom that suffer the most. This little bit of social engineering of doubling the wage is irresponsible, its not reasoned and its dangerous. Its probably more about a final term president planning for his legacy. If it was a moderate increase I would side with you but since its dramatic move of doubling I doubt its about any concern for the poor. Its about saying "I doubled the minimum wage." Finally, Democrats are not socialists, they have a lot of social concerns but that does not translate to being a socialist. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
April 8, 2014 - 6:09am | Actually, you missed my point. I wasn't saying that you were "sitting fat dumb and happy." I was saying that you were in bad shape and did not realize it as long as you weren't sitting at their level. I wasn't actually trying to bite you. I was trying to get you to see what you were actually saying. It may sting, but that's the nature of seeing the cold hard truth. Yes, corporations do provide more than mom and pops, but you actually have a misconception regarding corporations. There may be more mom and pops than corporations, but the majority of mom and pops do not actually hire outside the immediate family, and if they do, it's maybe 1 or 2 employees, or else are farmers with farm hands, which hardly counts. Corporations employ 90% of employed Americans. So yes, they are responsible. The rest are self-employed or unemployed. About a 10th of the work force is under-employed, meaning they do not get full time. The median pay range for employed Americans is $20. Does that sound very profitable to you, when that kind of earning can't even rent a house in most places? Raise the minimum wage and that median will go up. That means more money into the economy, so long as corporations are kept from raising their prices to compensate. They have already raised their prices enough. The mom and pops also keep their costs low, which is good for the economy because it keeps the buying power of the dollar strong. So does a dollar menu. McDonalds is one of the few corporations that understands the nature of an economy and does what it can to contribute. They actually pay more than minimum wage and even provide a benefits package. Not much, true, but they make up for it by passing what they don't pay the employees on to the customer, who are also often employees, with the dollar menu and low prices. (Their prices force other fast food companies to keep their prices low. They help the poor to survive and set a standard far above any other fast food company. They still provide real beef and take monetary penalties because they refuse to compromise on the quality of their fries. Hit them all you want, but they don't ever get protested or called before a house committee. If they raised their prices ridiculously and understaffed their restaurants, then they would be guilty of the same things as other companies. I live in one of the 5 cheapest places to live in the country (spending most of the time at #1) and $15/hr can't buy diddly squat. A person spends all their time just trying to keep up with the medical bills, let alone the cost of living in an apartment. Actually, how many work for the government depends upon what you think qualifies as "working for the government". Only 4.4 million Americans (2%), that's including military, receive a paycheck directly from the federal government. I prefer to leave out the contractors, charities and researchers. They only count when you want to calculate the budget. As for government workers, they get benefits equal to the average corporation and are paid well above minimum wage. But then, since the government is not a corporation and therefore makes no money out of the economy, they are actually putting money into the economy by employing workers. The more workers they employ when inflation is out of control, the healthier the economy. If it were not for the government employing people, the unemployment figures would be much greater. When corporations are "tightening their belts" (read: hording cash) and laying off workers, the government has to pick up the slack, so bigger government. If you want smaller government, then the corporations have to start hiring and paying better than the government is willing to pay them. Even the mom and pops have to be given tax relief as incentive to hire. View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write. "It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi "That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild) |
April 8, 2014 - 11:56am | By the way, you speak of "paid above minimum wage" as if you have completely shoved aside my point. $15/hr is the comparative level of minimum wage in 2006. If you earn $15 an hour, you are earning 2006 minimum wage level. Minimum wage today is half of what it should be if minimum wage were raised in proportion to cost of living. That's right, at $7.25, minimum wage paychecks buy less than half of what minimum wage bought in 2006. Just because technology has remained just as purchasable for the poor as it did then, doesn't mean food and housing has. If not for McDonald's keeping fast food affordable, I would still be living off of oatmeal and ramen right now, as I had to from 2007 to 2011, when inflation was still trying to keep up with the oil and gas companies raping us from behind without a courtesy. View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write. "It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi "That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild) |
April 8, 2014 - 8:31pm | Yes, corporations do provide more than mom and pops, but you actually have a misconception regarding corporations. There may be more mom and pops than corporations, but the majority of mom and pops do not actually hire outside the immediate family, and if they do, it's maybe 1 or 2 employees, or else are farmers with farm hands, which hardly counts. And you have a misconception about private businesses. I frequent many of them here, and very few of them have more relatives than non-relatives working for them. In fact most of them don't even have relatives working for them. About a 10th of the work force is under-employed, meaning they do not get full time. A tenth? Try 90% out here in the casino industry. The median pay range for employed Americans is $20. Does that sound very profitable to you, when that kind of earning can't even rent a house in most places? Raise the minimum wage and that median will go up. Raise the minimum to $15 and anyone making below $15 will make $15. If you're making $15.50 you'll still make $15.50. For someone who vilifies corporate greed, you seem to have a lot of faith in their generosity to raise everyone else's wages accordingly. The mom and pops also keep their costs low, which is good for the economy because it keeps the buying power of the dollar strong. So does a dollar menu. McDonalds is one of the few corporations that understands the nature of an economy and does what it can to contribute. And how will doubling the minimum wage affect that dollar menu? They're already increasing prices on that dollar menu without raising the wage. If they raised their prices ridiculously and understaffed their restaurants, then they would be guilty of the same things as other companies. Like I said above, already increasing their prices. Also like I said in my first post: Five workers earning $8/hr or four earning $10/hr. Double the wage, half the staff. Either way, something will have to give. As for government workers, they get benefits equal to the average corporation Okay you owe me a new keyboard, I just snorted Mountain Dew out of my nostrils. and are paid well above minimum wage. 100% true. Actually, closer to 50% above the average non-government jobs. But then, since the government is not a corporation and therefore makes no money out of the economy, As is evident with entities like the Post Office, operating in the red at nearly the same efficeincy as the government themselves. they are actually putting money into the economy by employing workers. The more workers they employ when inflation is out of control, the healthier the economy. After taking money from the taxpayers to pay them. Which doesn't even cover the wages...hire more, tax more. C'mon, this is the U.S. government, they don't need an excuse to tax us. But they'll sure find a few that relate to the cause. |
April 8, 2014 - 10:41pm | The Post Office was cut loose from the government years ago and never was a profit-making branch when part of government. They were a corporation up until recently. Government is not allowed to make money, so the post office will not longer be a profit entity. They could not survive as a profitable entity which is why they are returning to government and why they have discontinued all profit enterprises. Look who the government taxes. Not the poor, but income earners who can afford to. How much do they tax? 25%. Tax-wise, I'd say we have a lot of wiggle room there and no room to judge. 25% is more than reasonable considering the nation's tax history and the taxes collected by most countries. American citiziens consistently pay the lowest taxes. American corporations, however, consistently pay zilch, or in some cases, receive money back. Though some companies do pay their share. Non-Indian casinos make up less than 0.01% of the workforce. Why is 90% of their workforce being underpaid supposed to impress me? Besides, that's exactly what I'm talking about. the casinos make hand over fist and then pay their workers squat. Also, most of the brick and mortar businesses you refer to are actually franchised corporations. You also missed what I said. Government provides both incentives and extortion to force companies to employ more at higher wages by means of expanding their business interests. Look, we're just going in circles now. I'm repeating myself more than I care for. The questions you ask get answered and then you all just ignore the answers to appear justified. I've given all the solutions. But as I said at the outset, Republicans are not very solution-oriented. Asking 10,000 questions and ignoring all the answers is ignoring the solution. Economy comes down to supply and demand. If you want to heal the economy, identify the suppliers and you identify those with the power who are responsible for the economy. The employees/consumers (Those making the demand) are in the position of needing to be taken care of. If the suppliers abuse the employees/consumers, the economy suffers. The money comes from the companies, goes to the employees who then give the money back as consumers. Government can inject money into any part of that circle and it serves the same purpose, except that the suppliers have the power to horde any and all money they choose, so that the government has to force them to put their money into the economy (raising wages, induce hiring and lowering prices for consumers). All solutions lead to this circle. Anything that allows the suppliers to horde cash is bad for the economy. Anything that forces them to increase wages, hire instead of fire, and lower prices is good for the economy. The power of the dollar is strengthened when we can buy our own goods for cheap and sell them to other countries for bank. That is all I have to say. View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write. "It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi "That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild) |
April 9, 2014 - 10:15am | The Post Office was cut loose from the government years ago and never was a profit-making branch when part of government. Then why do their employees belong to a public workers union? If it's not a government entity shouldn't they be in a privatized union? Non-Indian casinos make up less than 0.01% of the workforce. Why is 90% of their workforce being underpaid supposed to impress me? It's not supposed to impress anyone. I personally don't find the unemployment/underemployment situation impressive to begin with and have no idea why anyone would WANT to be impressed with it. What you are missing is that here in Nevada that industry is one of the top job providers. Care to guess how that affects the other job providers out here? Sure, one state isn't a representation of the total, but 10% sounds like something drummed up by the Labor Department A.K.A. the least accurate data collector. Also, most of the brick and mortar businesses you refer to are actually franchised corporations. I had no idea you were personally tracking my shopping experiences. I never knew that most of these privately owned businesses I frequent were franchised corporations. Please shed some light on this one for me as to which of these places I frequent are franchised businesses. The only franchise business I mentioned in my prior post was McDonald's and that had nothing to do with the point I was making of private businesses...my McDonalds example related to the gradual disappearance of the dollar menu even before the minimum wage sees any boost. You also missed what I said. Government provides both incentives and extortion to force companies to employ more at higher wages by means of expanding their business interests. I got that part. There may be that incentive/extortion in effect, but it still doesn't make it happen. It's been 29 years since I worked for minimum wage (there's that "minimum wage is not a career" issue raising it's ugly head again), and MW has gone up from from the $3.25 I was making back in those days. Each time it did increase, I never saw any increases while making above minimum. I just don't see this trend magically changing if the minimum wage is doubled. The questions you ask get answered and then you all just ignore the answers to appear justified. I've given all the solutions. I've seen plenty of evidence offered against the solutions. Does ignoring that evidence justify the solutions? |
April 9, 2014 - 2:24pm | Evidence against a solution is not a solution. No solution mankind can provide is ever going to be perfect. If you are looking for perfect, you won't find it in human governments. When it comes to human efforts, you have to accept imperfect solutions. But it is better to accept imperfect solutions than to sit around complaining about how imperfect the solutions are while providing none. 2 + 2 = 4 Yes, but 2 isn't 3, and the other 2 isn't 1, and the 4 doesn't provide a 5 or 6, let alone a 2.5. So the whole solution is completely wrong, so let's not solve anything at all. Makes sense to me. Now I understand why all the committees I was on got nowhere. There were filibuster-minded Republicans in those groups. (Or as I like to think of them: ostriches.)  View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write. "It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi "That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild) |
April 9, 2014 - 5:19pm | Feel free to continue the lamentation of Republicans or any other party you see fit to chastise, I've already explained my stance on that one so it's wasted keystrokes on your behalf. On that note, I'm still looking for what's supposed to be impressive about un/underemployment rates regardless of what source you may get those figures from, along with how a leading regional industry situation will or won't have an effect on the other regional industries. Although that probably treads on the ugly state versus federal rights thing that is mentioned in that pesky document known as the Constitution. Also looking for which private businesses that I frequent are franchised operations I can buy into. Also waiting to hear how 29 years of no increases during MW hikes is going to be changed this time around. I concede that one idea is better than no idea, but that doesn't make the only idea the right one to pursue. If the only idea was everyone should jump off a cliff, that doesn't make it a good idea. At least it's not an idea I'm willing to follow anyways, your mileage may vary. |
April 9, 2014 - 5:38pm | "Lambasting". I didn't respond because it was just more complaints, and just another question to ignore the answer of. How does it feel to be ignored? Oh yeah, and it still wasn't a solution. View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write. "It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi "That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild) |
April 10, 2014 - 4:08pm | Lambasting, lamenting, whatever. It's still wasted key strokes just the same. I didn't respond because it was just more complaints, and just another question to ignore the answer of. How does it feel to be ignored? I'd ignore me too if, having neer seen me before, I had made claims about what kind of businesses I frequent from several states away. Jumping off a cliff is the right idea if it means getting away from a burning building onto a fireman's giant air cushion. 2+2=4 but what if there's a 3 and a 1 and maybe a 5 or 6...I see what you did there. |
April 10, 2014 - 9:43pm | Yeah, interesting, that. I provided a solution. Go figure. These little quips are getting fun. I see now why you really participate in these discussions. Getting clever with meaningless banter is an amusing time-wasting diversion. Who needs solutions when you can bat around the nonsense? View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write. "It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi "That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild) |
April 11, 2014 - 4:53am | The quip that has not been adressed yet is the bullet point - minimum wage is not a career. |
