# Job creation from a 1%er



## begreen

This was a thoughtful TED talk by Nick Hanauer. He's a successful multi-millionaire that challenges the notion that the very wealthy create jobs. A local boy, he is pushing for $15 minimum wage here.



http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2022920936_hanauerprofilexml.html


----------



## razerface

He did not convince me of anything. He misses the definition of "consumer" and "job creator". If someone who makes money spends it on "stuff",,,they are consumers. If you take your money and start a company, you are a "job creator".

Someone making $15 hr, does not go out and start companies. It takes more money then that,,,so if you take away that larger amount of money some people have,,,jobs will not be created. A group of hourly workers will not start a company and create jobs.

If you raise wages, the price of the product has to also be raised, so will you again raise wages?  . It is all simple math,,,


I started and own my own company. I make more money then my employees, and always will. If my company goes bankrupt and in debt,,the employees will not assume any of that debt,,,just me. The employees risk nothing,, I risk it all. 

My employees make $15 hr, but I know other less skilled jobs that cannot pay that or they will go out of business. It is wrong to think everyone should make the same wage. The cost of supplies and raw materials and other things would quickly rise as a result of the min wage increase, since it is a cost for business to be added in,,,,quickly cancelling any short term benefit of raising of min wage.

In short,, I believe "middle out" is wrong,, middle class consumers do not CREATE jobs,,,they SUPPORT them after someone with money created them.


----------



## Frozen Canuck

Thanks BG. This fellow & many more like him "get it". Demand drives it all. Who creates demand? A healthy middle class with money in their pockets that want "stuff".


----------



## razerface

Frozen Canuck said:


> Thanks BG. This fellow & many more like him "get it". Demand drives it all. Who creates demand? A healthy middle class with money in their pockets that want "stuff".


That is exactly why he is wrong! They create DEMAND,,,,not jobs! They want the "stuff" ,,,, but do not create the way to "make" the stuff.


----------



## begreen

It's said locally that every Boeing job creates 10 others. That's because a worker there buys things like cars, a home, insurance, tvs, haircuts, plumbing, landscaping, furniture, etc. 200 Boeing workers are going to buy a ton more stuff and services than one CEO in spite of the CEO making the same amount as those 200 workers.
The more a worker is paid the more likely that person will upgrade their life with more things and services. That means more jobs for bakers and bankers, waitresses and welders.


----------



## Frozen Canuck

Jobs are a byproduct of demand. No demand = no jobs. Like someone said simple math. 

BTW engineers & other science types who are largely employees create the way to "make" stuff. Not business owners. 

A business owner sees a demand & seeks to satisfy it in hopes of a profit, simple capitalism. 

Just like the video stated creating a job is among the last things a business owner wants to do, it is not a goal of capitalism, rather it is done as a last resort when all non job creating methods of satisfying a demand have failed. 

Really do you think I hire people to sit out on the pipelines in hope of there being something for them to do? Thereby creating jobs. Or do I respond to the demand & employ only as many people as necessary?

BTW this all goes in the ditch when robotics gets several more generations under it's belt. Then I & many others can satisfy demand while only needing a small fraction of current employees. Will I then go out & create jobs where no need for them is present? I am not a job creator! I am a demand satisfier, hopefully at a profit.


----------



## razerface

begreen said:


> It's said locally that every Boeing job creates 10 others.



and who created Boeing,,, an hourly worker? 

That old wifes tale is untrue anyway. 
If it was true, 1 Boeing worker is spending enough to support 10 other people, unless they only make 1/10 of what the Boeing worker makes,,,,,,



> The more a worker is paid the more likely that person will upgrade their life with more things and services.



yes, and as soon as enough workers want to buy the same object (demand),,,,,,,some rich guy will start a business to produce the object,(create jobs)


----------



## ChipTam

Ah, the trickle down effect. Just love that fairy tale.  It's promoted to justify the existence of the 1%.


----------



## bassJAM

Frozen Canuck said:


> BTW this all goes in the ditch when robotics gets several more generations under it's belt. Then I & many others can satisfy demand while only needing a small fraction of current employees. Will I then go out & create jobs where no need for them is present? I am not a job creator! I am a demand satisfier, hopefully at a profit.



The place I co-oped during college had a lady complaining that the $17/hour she was making wasn't enough.  It was an unskilled job where she picked up an item at the end of an assembly line and packed it in a box.  She only made that much because she was able to do it very quickly, thereby allowing the whole line to speed up.  The complaining became too much and she was replaced by an $80k machine that will never complain.  RTI was like 2 years, so now that machine is bringing pure profit to the company.  Unskilled workers seem to forget how cheaply robotics can replace their unskilled jobs.  If they push too hard for an unreasonable high minimum wage, they may find themselves jobless.


----------



## razerface

Frozen Canuck said:


> Jobs are a byproduct of demand. No demand = no jobs. Like someone said simple math.


 that is correct,,,but the wealthy are the ones who create the jobs to satisfy the demand! 



> BTW engineers & other science types who are largely employees create the way to "make" stuff. Not business owners.


really? Who created the engineers job? Who hired the engineer? Without the job, the engineer is unemployed.



> A business owner sees a demand & seeks to satisfy it in hopes of a profit, simple capitalism.


 you are making my point beautifully



> I am not a job creator! I am a demand satisfier, hopefully at a profit.


 that is a play on words,,,if you hire someone,,you created the job


----------



## Frozen Canuck

razerface said:


> but the wealthy are the ones who create the jobs to satisfy the demand!



Majority of businesses are started by average Jane's & Joe's. Trust me the wealthy are far more interested in stock earnings & the power of compounding interest, oh & avoiding all tax, all the time, as well as having the average Jane & Joe pickup all of the tab, all of the time….don't tax my yacht, don't tax my overseas accounts or any of the many other ways the 1% avoids paying anything. Heck farming the tax codes looking for revenue, never mind tax avoidance happens on both sides of the 49th, how screwed up is that?



razerface said:


> Who created the engineers job? Who hired the engineer? Without the job, the engineer is unemployed.



The people who demanded the "stuff" that the engineer had the skills & knowledge/creativity to make…..Someone who wanted to satisfy demand for a profit, only after they realized that the demand could not be satisfied without hiring the engineer….Or the engineer becomes self employed & satisfies that demand using their own skills. Those with skills, knowledge & creativity really have little to no need for the 1%. It's the other way around, the 1% needs these folks to maintain/improve their station in the capitalist model.



razerface said:


> if you hire someone,,you created the job



I don't hire people unless a demand exists & only after trying to fill that demand without hiring anyone. I don't seek to hire employees, I seek to satisfy demand hopefully for a profit, if I feel there is no profit in satisfying a demand then I hire no one & abandon seeking to satisfy that particular demand. One is a byproduct (sometimes) of the other. No matter how much you try, the cart will always be best placed behind the horse, not in front. 

Like I said above, demand drives it all & a healthy middle class with money in their pockets largely drives demand. The 1% already has all the stuff they can use & unless they can find a way for the rest to pay for it they won't go out & buy more stuff to "create" jobs.


----------



## BrotherBart

Who is the job creator. The pimp or the john?


----------



## razerface

Frozen Canuck said:


> Trust me the wealthy are far more interested in stock earnings & the power of compounding interest, oh & avoiding all tax,


trust me,, so are the Jane's & Joe's. It is called retirement




> Those with skills, knowledge & creativity really have little to no need for the 1%.


 hmmm, wonder why banks exist. Must be a demand for loans,,,so they create jobs for loan officers. I wonder if the 1% put big money in the banks to be loaned out to Jane and Joe,,,,nawwww,,,,,i bet it's under their mattress.




> The 1% already has all the stuff they can use & unless they can find a way for the rest to pay for it they won't go out & buy more stuff to "create" jobs.


 LOL,, why do they need someone else to pay for it?  They have money!


----------



## Adios Pantalones

Wage stagnation means expendable income stagnation. If you don't see that the "gozinta" and the "gozoutta" are connected (dems enginnerin' turms), then the whole thing slowly sinks.

A related topic: The evolution of our economy seems to have been just plain ignored by a large segment of society. Too many people are hanging their hats on some amorphous thing they call "manufacturing". Nobody owes anyone else the opportunity to pull a lever for a living wage- companies start up to do a lot more than make widgets now. The idea that we are going to solve employment/wage issues with "more manufacturing" is a fantasy.


----------



## razerface

I suppose the only way to prove middle class demand DOES NOT create jobs is,,,,,,

Right now there is a large demand from middle class for more jobs,,,,,,is that working?

Who will satisfy that demand? 

Someone with money.


----------



## Adios Pantalones

razerface said:


> I suppose the only way to prove middle class demand DOES NOT create jobs is,,,,,,
> 
> Right now there is a large demand from middle class for more jobs,,,,,,is that working?


----------



## razerface

BrotherBart said:


> Who is the job creator. The pimp or the john?


the pimp,,, the john is wanting it,,but cannot buy it till someone sells it.


----------



## Adios Pantalones

Supply side economics. I didn't think there were any of you guys left


----------



## razerface

Adios Pantalones said:


> Supply side economics. I didn't think there were any of you guys left


look up at the big front office wherever you work,,,,you'll see more of us!


----------



## Adios Pantalones

razerface said:


> look up at the big front office wherever you work,,,,you'll see more of us!


Uhhh- not at my day job. 

I am 1/2 time a small business owner as well. No matter how much stuff I make, it doesn't sell more.

Don't customers see that there's more stuff to buy with their relative shrinking income? Are they too stupid to spend their money on my increasing pile of wares?

nyuck, nyuck


----------



## Jags

BrotherBart said:


> Who is the job creator. The pimp or the john?


----------



## jharkin

razerface said:


> That is exactly why he is wrong! They create DEMAND,,,,not jobs! They want the "stuff" ,,,, but do not create the way to "make" the stuff.



You cant make a profit "making stuff" if there is nobody around to buy that "stuff"


----------



## razerface

jharkin said:


> You cant make a profit "making stuff" if there is nobody around to buy that "stuff"


did someone say you could?


----------



## ironpony

razerface said:


> He did not convince me of anything. He misses the definition of "consumer" and "job creator". If someone who makes money spends it on "stuff",,,they are consumers. If you take your money and start a company, you are a "job creator".
> 
> Someone making $15 hr, does not go out and start companies. It takes more money then that,,,so if you take away that larger amount of money some people have,,,jobs will not be created. A group of hourly workers will not start a company and create jobs.
> 
> If you raise wages, the price of the product has to also be raised, so will you again raise wages?  . It is all simple math,,,
> 
> 
> I started and own my own company. I make more money then my employees, and always will. If my company goes bankrupt and in debt,,the employees will not assume any of that debt,,,just me. The employees risk nothing,, I risk it all.
> 
> My employees make $15 hr, but I know other less skilled jobs that cannot pay that or they will go out of business. It is wrong to think everyone should make the same wage. The cost of supplies and raw materials and other things would quickly rise as a result of the min wage increase, since it is a cost for business to be added in,,,,quickly cancelling any short term benefit of raising of min wage.
> 
> In short,, I believe "middle out" is wrong,, middle class consumers do not CREATE jobs,,,they SUPPORT them after someone with money created them.


 

my thoughts
I barely have a high school diploma
I had no money, back then
I had a drive to succeed
I now employee 28 people full time, avg 40,000+ a year
I am the *employee* that started the *company* that employees 28 people


sounds like you did the same, kinda debunks your theory of employees not starting the company, or were you the rich kid with the silver spoon?

your choice, go


----------



## ironpony

oh and if you want a good example the guy that now owns Gulfstream, was a mechanic there before he bought the company.


----------



## razerface

ironpony said:


> sounds like you did the same, kinda debunks your theory of employees not starting the company, or were you the rich kid with the silver spoon?



In general,,, hourly employees do not create jobs was my point. You can find exceptions to anything. If you started the company,,aren't you the owner, not the employee?

Most hourly employees are hourly, because they want to be. My own son refuses to enter my business other then  as my employee, because he does not want the workload it requires. He prefers 10 hours and go home. I find nothing wrong with that, no matter what I wish for.



I quit my hourly job to start my company. I started my company with hard work. I sold everything I owned to finance it. Once I made money,,, I created more jobs and hired people to do them, at my company. The demand was already there,,, the jobs were not there until I created them. The demand was doing nothing,,,,

IF I was forced to pay my employees more money then they are worth, due to a change in the min wage law,,,, I would find a way to be more efficient, cut costs, do the same work with less people, and someone might loose their job. So the theory of "paying higher wages will stimulate the economy", will not work at my shop,,,and will have the same result at many others.


----------



## bassJAM

Honestly I don't think taxing the 1% more will hurt jobs much, if at all.  They create jobs, but so does many in the middle class on their way to becoming the 1%.  I do find it very wrong to basically steal a larger percentage of their money, just because it hurts them less.  It's even more wrong to do so just because you think it's unfair that they make that much.

At the same time, it's wrong to force employers to pay low skilled workers more than they are worth.  In no reality is a high school student worth $15/hour to take orders at a window and punch those in on a screen.  And just because another person doing the exact same job is 40 with 3 kids at home, doesn't mean he/she deserves a higher pay because chances are either their intelligence level or work ethic is the reason they are doing a high schooler's job.  Force McDonald's hand, and I guarantee you they'll pay their skilled workers (engineers) to figure out a way to automate the process, and some more smart people (marketing) a way to spin it so we are happy about interacting with a computer vs a person.  Give it 5 years and it'll probably be way more accurate then a person too.

I just don't see why some people don't see that artificially creating higher wages is a really bad thing.


----------



## Ashful

begreen said:


> It's said locally that every Boeing job creates 10 others. That's because a worker there buys things like cars, a home, insurance, tvs, haircuts, plumbing, landscaping, furniture, etc.


That may not hold true, if the price of cars, TV's, haircuts, and furniture is raised due to an increase in the minimum wage.


----------



## begreen

That's unfounded speculation. A burger flipper at McDonalds in Austrailia has made $16/hr. for a while now. Although their minimum wage is like what, twice here people are still buying. Cars and tvs don't cost much more either. Check it out.

http://www.holden.com.au

The $16 worker may not be "creating" jobs per se, but he is creating demand which in turn supports many jobs. Face it, if you are poor you cut hair at home to save $15-20. If you make a bit more, you go to the barber.


----------



## Frozen Canuck

You folks that seem to be arguing in favour of a race to the bottom need to take a trip to Bangladesh & see with your own eyes just how far down the bottom is. 

Plenty of people there who would be thrilled to have a job at $1.50/day. Do you really want your nation to be competing in the race to the bottom when the bottom is that far down?

bassJAM: Burger flipping jobs pay $16/hr here & the help wanted sign is always out, every order contains a flyer with the message come work for us….please. 

Guess it depends on your Zip code. Me I want to live in a high wage Zip code, as I have no interest in winning a race to the bottom.


----------



## razerface

Joful said:


> That may not hold true, if the price of cars, TV's, haircuts, and furniture is raised due to an increase in the minimum wage.


It is not true now! If a person working at Boeing makes $75,000 per year,,,how does he take that 75 grand and spend enough to support 10 more jobs/people? $7,500 a year jobs? Plus the Boeing person saves some of his 75 grand for his own bank account,,,,so maybe the 10 jobs he creates are worth $5,000 each ?


----------



## begreen

200 Boeing workers living in pretty much the same community are a lot of haircuts. Jobs enough to support several barbers, bakers, bankers and baristas. If those people can have a decent living then they are spending too.


----------



## razerface

Frozen Canuck said:


> bassJAM: Burger flipping jobs pay $16/hr here & the help wanted sign is always out, every order contains a flyer with the message come work for us….please.


curious, what does a burger cost in Canada?  I will have to stop at mcd'ees to see as I don't know what they cost here. Lets say a Whopper with cheese. Anybody know?

Here is what I find for min wage in Canada, but I have no idea if it is accurate

http://www.expatfocus.com/expatriate-canada-salaries?gclid=CP7zv_vk-bwCFYY7Mgodsi8Alw

Each province operates a minimum wage system and this applies to adult workers. The rates do vary across the country. At the current time, the province of Alberta has set the minimum wage at $8.80 per hour while in British Columbia it is $8.75. Manitoba has a rate of $9.50 and this is the same in New Brunswick. Newfoundland and the Northwest Territories are set at $10 per hour. In Nova Scotia and Quebec the rate is $9.65 per hour and Nunavut has the highest rate at $11 per hour. Yukon and Prince Edward Island both have rates at $9 per hour and Saskatchewan has a rate of $9.25 per hour. Finally, Ontario has a minimum wage of $10.25 per hour.


----------



## razerface

begreen said:


> 200 Boeing workers living in pretty much the same community are a lot of haircuts. Jobs enough to support several barbers, bakers, bankers and baristas. If those people can have a decent living then they are spending too.


yes, but the wording is that "each job creates 10 jobs",,,so you have to support 2000 barbers, bakers,ect. with  the 200 Boeing workers. Dividing their paychecks by 2000 ,,,,just don't work! Of course some other people would also benifit and support those related jobs too.

I wonder if the saying got turned around over the years,,,maybe 10 Boeing jobs equal 1 "related" job


----------



## begreen

My bad, you are correct. I likely munged the wording of the original statement. Your wording is more accurate. Or perhaps one Boeing worker supports 10 related jobs? It still holds true and was frequently in the news with the 777X contract as the argument for making concessions to the big B to keep jobs in WA state. Job "creation" still occurs, but more like if those 200 Boeing workers want pizza in their neighborhood they could  create 10 jobs in new pizza place. The job "support" of a well paid workforce the size of Boeing is enormous.


----------



## bassJAM

Frozen Canuck said:


> bassJAM: Burger flipping jobs pay $16/hr here & the help wanted sign is always out, every order contains a flyer with the message come work for us….please.



If Razerface's info is correct, than McDonalds is paying those wages on their own.  Which is completely different than the government telling them to do so.  And it sounds like they are only paying that much because people just don't want to flip burgers no matter how much they earn.


----------



## Frozen Canuck

razer: If I were to offer min wage for any position here with the family business I would hear…crickets. A totally meaningless number. 

Burger fries & a drink $10. About the same as I pay in Orlando Fl or Kihei HI or Anaheim CA.


----------



## BrotherBart

This is funny to read. For 17 years every study has shown that small businesses destroy about the same number of jobs that they "create". Year in and year out.


bassJAM said:


> If Razerface's info is correct, than McDonalds is paying those wages on their own.  Which is completely different than the government telling them to do so.  And it sounds like they are only paying that much because people just don't want to flip burgers no matter how much they earn.



BG said McDonald's in Australia. Where the govt. mandated minimum wage is $16.88 an hour.


----------



## razerface

Frozen Canuck said:


> razer: If I were to offer min wage for any position here with the family business I would hear…crickets. A totally meaningless number.
> 
> .


same here in places where economy is rolling,,,Texas, N Dakota, but not Ohio.


----------



## razerface

BrotherBart said:


> This is funny to read. For 17 years every study has shown that small businesses destroy about the same number of jobs that they "create". Year in and year out.
> 
> 
> BG said McDonald's in Australia. Where the govt. mandated minimum wage is $16.88 an hour.


Frozen Canuck brought the mcdonalds wage in Canada back a few posts. (post 30)

Maybe the destroyed jobs are the failure rate of small business?


----------



## BrotherBart

razerface said:


> Maybe the destroyed jobs are the failure rate of small business?



In fact they are. Every study for the last 17 years has proven beyond a doubt that year in and year out small businesses destroy the same number as they create. The net increase has been zero since the seventies.


----------



## razerface

BrotherBart said:


> In fact they are. Every study for the last 17 years has proven beyond a doubt that year in and year out small businesses destroy the same number as they create. The net increase has been zero since the seventies.


LOL,,,doesn't that take us full circle to the rich guys and large companies creating the jobs?


----------



## BrotherBart

No but it debunks the BS about making it easier to start a small business being a way to create jobs. But companies being the cause of job creation is bunk in and of itself.

When I started mine in 2000 by 2003 things had taken off and I was killing myself keeping up. My banker was on my butt to put on some employees. I told her I had been about as entertained by employees in my life as I cared to be.


----------



## jatoxico

razerface said:


> LOL,,,doesn't that take us full circle to the rich guys and large companies creating the jobs?


Seems the rich guys are creating most of the jobs in other countries and their middle classes (such as they are) are growing.


----------



## Frozen Canuck

jatoxico said:


> Seems the rich guys are creating most of the jobs in other countries and their middle classes (such as they are) are growing.



You mean like all the Scandic nations, throw in Germany & Austria & a few others. All of whom have opted out of the race to the bottom & most of whom who have protected their middle sized manufacturers (middle stein) in Germany IIRC. Leave out England, their in the same race to the bottom with predictable results.


----------



## Frozen Canuck

BB, not to poke a stick….but wasn't it about 17 years ago that we started to bring in laws, tax & otherwise, that favoured the really big co's at the expense of the smaller ones & employees? The dawn of the age of share holder being of more importance than company long term growth & health? Just curious but my old memory seems to think that's pretty close to when we started to go round the drain in a really aggressive fashion. What we are seeing & hearing now is just a symptom of circling that drain faster & more folks waking up to that fact.


----------



## BrotherBart

Frozen Canuck said:


> The dawn of the age of share holder being of more importance than company long term growth & health?



That was done singlehandedly in the eighties by Boone Pickens greenmailing officers and boards with the mantra of creating "shareholder value".


----------



## Frozen Canuck

Ahh yes Pickens, Goldsmith, Murdock et al.


----------



## ironpony

I am surprised no one brought this up, by raising the minimum wage they will raise salaries above the poverty line cutting federal subsidies.
They will create a whole new class of working poor, who in turn won't work so they can get free stuff.


----------



## Frozen Canuck

ironpony said:


> who in turn won't work so they can get free stuff.



I am just guessing but don't you have qualifiers south of 49 same as we do north of? 

IOW the vast majority can't just stop working to get "free stuff". They have to qualify for assistance. Gotta be some really good "free stuff" to justify giving up a job to get it!


----------



## webbie

Plenty of examples for anything and everything you want to "prove".

But how about the "job creators" explaining something simple to this high school dropout.

When I started working in 1972 in low wage TN, I made
$3.60 per hour at Manpower - a temp unskilled agency
$5 per hour as an unskilled laborer on a house construction site (carrying studs, cleaning up).

Those two figures equate to 
$20. per hour
and
$28 per hour today....

Explain to me in a sentence or two why the same worker get's well less than 1/2 those amounts today. Go.


----------



## ironpony

one word, greed.
low wages, government subsidies to workers, corporations pocket profits, pay minimal taxes to support subsidies vicious cycle.


----------



## webbie

ironpony said:


> one word, greed.
> low wages, government subsidies to workers, corporations pocket profits, pay minimal taxes to support subsidies vicious cycle.



Well, then, we are in agreement! Since greed will never subside, we need to set a floor in terms of how greedy folks can be.....

BTW, I never paid any employee anywhere near as low as min. wage. A starting wage (unskilled) at my retail store in the early 1990's was about 25K, which would equate to about 40K today. We also provided bonuses, profit sharing, some medical insurance, etc....and I made plenty for myself.

I never once asked myself "how little can I get away with paying them", so find it completely foreign that folks argue FOR not increasing the min. wage, etc.

Yes, I'd rather pay 82 cents for a taco instead of 79 cents to give the taco builder a slight break. 

Frankly, if I made my living for those decades on the backs of folks low wages...as opposed to actually helping to support real families in real houses with real cars (paid for by wages I paid), I'd feel bad.  But you can't legislate morality to a large degree which is why you legislate numbers (wages).


----------



## Butcher

I think it's called capitalism? You know, I got the money, I pay you to do your job to make a product or service that is marketable to the human race. You as a wage earner are required to show up for work, do your job. Buy a lunch box, punch in before your shift, punch out after and make a reasonable attempt to be productive. Not get to work and brag how you spent most of the time doing absolutely nothing at work but still got paid for it. The business owner on the other hand is the 1 that gets up early, deals with the customer, stays late and eventually has his nuts swinging in the wind when it comes to the money end of it. I think a lot of folks really don't understand how the chit works because they really don't care or are to entrenched in what the status quo tells them. You explain to me this. I have half a million dollar cash flow in a landscape business. That's not counting repairs or equipment costs or insurance or workmans comp or social security payments that have to be met by the employer or this new health care deal or dealing with workers that cant seem to keep a drivers license when driving a $50,000 company owned vehicle is a must not to mention the fact that its hard to find any body that wants to work since it so easy to get a government hand out any more. I am sorry but your reasoning is all messed up. I hope you don't like to eat at 1 of them stinking fast food places like McDonalds cuz if you do your 1 dollar happy meal will some day cost you about 20 bucks. That pimple faced kid who served you your meal will still not be on an even flow with the owner of the restaurant cuz that's just how it all works.
Unless of coarse you are all into socialism. Let me know how that works out for you.


----------



## Warm_in_NH

Why do so many people look at "the rich" as villains?

When did it suddenly become okay to pick out the person who isn't like most of the others and treat them differently? 

In what world of logic does rewarding those who under achieve and punishing those who over achieve result in a long term sustainable model?

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- 
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me."

I've never lived in such a divided country, it's sad. The worst part, in my opinion,  is most believe that their political party is the right one. I think we all need to open our eyes and look at all the fat cats in DC on both sides of the isle and the size of the machine that is dividing us. 

First objective in taking over a civilization is to divide it. Our government is cutting us to pieces, be it on economic,  social,  or race issues, it's happening daily. Hmmmmm....


----------



## ironpony

all our employees have health insurance, to keep the premiums down we raised deductibles, in turn we cover the employees deductible thru a HSA. No employees no money to be made. We truly try to take good care of our workers, most other business owners we deal with say were nuts for doing so.


----------



## jharkin

webbie said:


> Explain to me in a sentence or two why the same worker get's well less than 1/2 those amounts today. Go.



You know why they cant web, FoxNews hasn't given them the talking point yet.  just give it time.......


----------



## webbie

jharkin said:


> You know why they cant web, FoxNews hasn't given them the talking point yet.  just give it time.......



A couple lifetimes and things will be just fine. 
I guess math, statistics and reality are thrown out the door when some folks try to make their point. Never mind that it cost less than a nickel extra on a 2 dollar item for Wal-Mart to give better health care and wages!
We have to scream that it will cost $25 for that $1.88 item to make our point, and then call anyone who disagrees with that a name!

No gray areas. If someone is willing to do a job for a penny or a scrap of food, it seems like some would applaud that. 

Big News, Folks. The sky is not falling. You and I will pass onwards and people will still be debating, bs'ing and everything else....on their apple ipads, which at that point will be made by folks who probably make more than we do here!


I'll come back in 150 years and we'll see who is right.....


----------



## Ktm300

Butcher said:


> I think it's called capitalism? You know, I got the money, I pay you to do your job to make a product or service that is marketable to the human race. You as a wage earner are required to show up for work, do your job. Buy a lunch box, punch in before your shift, punch out after and make a reasonable attempt to be productive. Not get to work and brag how you spent most of the time doing absolutely nothing at work but still got paid for it. The business owner on the other hand is the 1 that gets up early, deals with the customer, stays late and eventually has his nuts swinging in the wind when it comes to the money end of it. I think a lot of folks really don't understand how the chit works because they really don't care or are to entrenched in what the status quo tells them. You explain to me this. I have half a million dollar cash flow in a landscape business. That's not counting repairs or equipment costs or insurance or workmans comp or social security payments that have to be met by the employer or this new health care deal or dealing with workers that cant seem to keep a drivers license when driving a $50,000 company owned vehicle is a must not to mention the fact that its hard to find any body that wants to work since it so easy to get a government hand out any more. I am sorry but your reasoning is all messed up. I hope you don't like to eat at 1 of them stinking fast food places like McDonalds cuz if you do your 1 dollar happy meal will some day cost you about 20 bucks. That pimple faced kid who served you your meal will still not be on an even flow with the owner of the restaurant cuz that's just how it all works.
> Unless of coarse you are all into socialism. Let me know how that works out for you.


Well said. Fact of life: The fruit is always high in the tree and far out on the branch. The one with the biggest balls gets the fruit. Also the one that pays the most for failure. The one who takes the risk gets paid more. End of story. Nice flag!


----------



## Warm_in_NH

> Big News, Folks. The sky is not falling. You and I will pass onwards and people will still be debating, bs'ing and everything else....on their apple ipads, which at that point will be made by folks who probably make more than we do here!
> 
> 
> I'll come back in 150 years and we'll see who is right.....



 True.......


----------



## webbie

Butcher said:


> I think it's called capitalism?
> 
> You explain to me this. I have half a million dollar cash flow in a landscape business. That's not counting repairs or equipment costs or insurance or workmans comp or social security payments that have to be met by the employer or this new health care deal or dealing with workers that cant seem to keep a drivers license when driving a $50,000 company owned vehicle is a must not to mention the fact that its hard to find any body that wants to work



Actually, this is slightly off-subject, but may answer some of your concerns. The landscape biz is ultra-competitive and folks are usually always willing to lose money to do the job for less and less. This drives down prices, wages and causes problems for employers. My dad and I studied it down in Florida (my dad works for SCORE - Service Corp of Retired Executives) and has quite a few landscape companies as clients. We came to the conclusion that they should simply exit the business. No hope.

May not be the case with you....but many trades (more and more) are being killed by the "low bidder" deal which includes low pay for employees.

Here's an interesting little test which was done. Lots of people on the web write stuff for money....much of it by the word or article. A test was set up to see how little people would work for. In other words, this site (and many others) work on "bid" basis.

It was found that workers in the USA were willing to work for less than most any country in the world (granted, this was probably english writing).....I forget the actual figure, but it was something ridiculous where the writer would make about 75 cents an hour.

I have to say - with all the "agendas", the simplest basic point gets lost. Does a good days work deserve decent pay? And, if so, why is the pay 1/2 of what it was in 1972?
I was in the mid-south!

People seem to have to dump on some "talking point du jour" as opposed to answering the simple question of why wages have been cut in 1/2 or more...for people who actually work? And while you are at it, how does Costco pay $20 an hour and more to retail employees and still have low prices?

Don't answer. Just think about it.


----------



## razerface

jharkin said:


> You know why they cant web, FoxNews hasn't given them the talking point yet.  just give it time.......


Yea, that's why,,,,good god. Really?



One simple answer of why wages are not keeping up is " competition" from around the world. 
Remember that global economy ya'll are so hip on?  We'll, it's putting a lot of people out of jobs around here.


----------



## razerface

webbie said:


> And while you are at it, how does Costco pay $20 an hour and more to retail employees and still have low prices?
> 
> Don't answer. Just think about it.


I must answer that just for info sake. It happens that my nephew works at costco. He makes a little over $13 hr. I will ask him if I can post his pay stub. According to conversations with him,,,,$20 is not what his average co worker makes. Starting pay is just over $11


----------



## Butcher

webbie said:


> Actually, this is slightly off-subject, but may answer some of your concerns. The landscape biz is ultra-competitive and folks are usually always willing to lose money to do the job for less and less. This drives down prices, wages and causes problems for employers. My dad and I studied it down in Florida (my dad works for SCORE - Service Corp of Retired Executives) and has quite a few landscape companies as clients. We came to the conclusion that they should simply exit the business. No hope.
> 
> May not be the case with you....but many trades (more and more) are being killed by the "low bidder" deal which includes low pay for employees.
> 
> Here's an interesting little test which was done. Lots of people on the web write stuff for money....much of it by the word or article. A test was set up to see how little people would work for. In other words, this site (and many others) work on "bid" basis.
> 
> It was found that workers in the USA were willing to work for less than most any country in the world (granted, this was probably english writing).....I forget the actual figure, but it was something ridiculous where the writer would make about 75 cents an hour.
> 
> I have to say - with all the "agendas", the simplest basic point gets lost. Does a good days work deserve decent pay? And, if so, why is the pay 1/2 of what it was in 1972?
> I was in the mid-south!
> 
> People seem to have to dump on some "talking point du jour" as opposed to answering the simple question of why wages have been cut in 1/2 or more...for people who actually work? And while you are at it, how does Costco pay $20 an hour and more to retail employees and still have low prices?
> 
> Don't answer. Just think about it.


 Don't answer? Is this how it works? You are assuming that a study done by some one in a state over half a continent away has any bearing on how business is run here in the mid west? It may be the talking point du jour as you call it but it will and I am certain of this, impact the lives of every one that buys, sells, or barters to even exsist any more. Costco paying 20 bucks an hour? We have no Costco here in the Midwest in my area and if they were to be here and paying that kind of money per hour I would sell all my equipment and go to work as a Costco employee. I'm not making this argument as a political statement but as a purely economic point of view. I love a good debate and don't want to get out of hand and am always very interested in the other side of the debate. I am always listening. Seems as though some seem to want to close their minds and not have a respectable conversation on the issues. I'm a simple man and have nothing but a high school education and a common sense point of view so I am sure that some one  smarter than me could prove me wrong but, well, so be it.


----------



## jharkin

So is this the 'nook... or the can ?


----------



## razerface

Butcher said:


> Costco paying 20 bucks an hour? We have no Costco here in the Midwest in my area and if they were to be here and paying that kind of money per hour I would sell all my equipment and go to work as a Costco employee.


Nephew says he thinks there are higher paid people there, but he is a stock boy, actually  working. For sure everyone there is not making that money.


----------



## Ashful

webbie said:


> When I started working in 1972 in low wage TN, I made
> $3.60 per hour at Manpower - a temp unskilled agency
> $5 per hour as an unskilled laborer on a house construction site (carrying studs, cleaning up).
> 
> Those two figures equate to
> $20. per hour
> and
> $28 per hour today....
> 
> Explain to me in a sentence or two why the same worker get's well less than 1/2 those amounts today. Go.


Maybe you were grossly overpaid in 1972?


----------



## begreen

Don't think so. I was making $5 hr straight out of high school in 1966 in NYS.


----------



## Frozen Canuck

jharkin said:


> So is this the 'nook... or the can ?



How about the Canook?


----------



## Frozen Canuck

Well the back & forth makes for some interesting reading if nothing else. 

One question for those who say they are self employed, hire employees & are basically talking about lowering wages…what type of margin do you operate on? I operate on a profit margin…i.e. the higher my costs the higher my potential profit margin or at least the total $ amount I expect as profit…so in other words I would be pleased to live in an economy where wages are climbing…why?, because my potential profit margin or total $ of profit climbs right along with those wages. 

Think about it for a minute...do you have greater room for profit on employees that are making $100/hr or .01/hr? Even if your margins are equal as a % of wages, in this case how many more employees do you need to have at .01/hr rather than $100/hr to get the same $ in profit? Face facts an economy where there is upward pressure on wages is good for business & profits. I enjoy upward pressure on costs in our business as I know it will give me more opportunity for profit. I hope you understand that when you argue for lowering wages the expectation from customers is that your profits will come down right along with those lowering wages.


----------



## razerface

Frozen Canuck said:


> One question for those who say they are self employed, hire employees & are basically talking about lowering wages…what type of margin do you operate on?



Good Morning! Unless I missed a post,,,you will be the only answer i think,,,,you are the only one talking about lowering wages.


----------



## webbie

Butcher said:


> . Seems as though some seem to want to close their minds and not have a respectable conversation on the issues. I'm a simple man and have nothing but a high school education and a common sense point of view so I am sure that some one  smarter than me could prove me wrong but, well, so be it.



I've read a lot about the economy in your neck of the woods. It seems that wages used to be much higher and folks could make a living even working in meat plants and ag.

Buyouts and mergers came in the 70's and wages were cut in 1/2. Sometimes in 1/3. It was done for "business and economic" reasons. It resulted in the destruction of many towns (societies) and an epidemic of meth which was unheard of among the good people there. It turned out that meth was the perfect drug for those working condition - now you could work 2 or 3 jobs (for less money) and, if you were smart, you could even make or sell some yourself.

Point is - actions have consequences. Paying people less does not just stand by itself. Like it or not, we are interdependent...and to some extent we rise and fall together. That's why places like VA and MA are called "commonwealths".

No one is suggesting to pay an employee as much as the Boss or CEO. But look at the charts and you will see that the CEO pay has gone up - in relation to employee/worker pay - by a factor of 10X (1000%).

I don't have the answers...but it's clear that greed is good to only a certain extent. Caring, compassion, education and inclusion are probably more important to the future success of our society....that is, if we end up succeeding. Current trends are  somewhat disturbing.

As a separate fact, I always looked at my employees as the ones doing the hard work. I counted the money in the back room and stared at the charts on my wall. Did I tell you I love charts?


----------



## Ehouse

I have a friend who years ago was chauffeur to the late Averell Harriman, former gov. of NY, Railroad tycoon, etc..  He says Mr. Harriman in his dotage was fond of pronouncing ad infinitum/ad nauseum;  "A man's worth one dollar an hour from the neck down!". 

The wealthy have been allowed to rig the game of late to allow this arrogant conceit to approach reality.

The dynamic tension balance of collective bargaining where no one wins but everybody gains has been scuttled for a winner take all scenario focusing only on individual profit, to the detriment of the larger concept of our national economy.

It is only mildly socialist to say that the greater objective here is not profit but commerce.


----------



## razerface

Ehouse said:


> He says Mr. Harriman in his dotage was fond of pronouncing ad infinitum/ad nauseum;  "A man's worth one dollar an hour from the waist down!".
> 
> The wealthy have been allowed to rig the game of late to allow this arrogant conceit to approach reality.


I don't understand what you are getting at,,,but,,,I think the quote means that Mr Harriman valued the "thinking half" of a man more then the "physical half"

I think maybe you misunderstood the quote? Or did I?


----------



## Frozen Canuck

razerface said:


> Unless I missed a post,,,you will be the only answer i think,,,,you are the only one talking about lowering wages.



Oh I think you may have missed just a few bemoaning the proposed increase in min wages for a start. Care to have a go at the question? What type of margin does your business operate on? Do you have increased potential for profit as your expenses & employees wages increase? If not, why not? For that matter why even continue if when your costs rise your potential profit does not?


----------



## Jags

Depends FC - there are two schools of thought.  Straight markup from cost or profit percent.  My company works off of profit margin.  We have a competitor that works off of markup.  That can pose for some interesting pricing and customer conversations.


----------



## Frozen Canuck

Jags said:


> My company works off of profit margin.



Same here. Relatively easy to tell by looking at expenses what total revenue should be to provide that margin & make adjustments when necessary. I will say though that looking at the posts in this thread many posters are stating wage levels that are less than half of what a similar job pays here. That's not good. Too much downward pressure on wages for too long.


----------



## Jags

If you are a high school graduate and can maintain a CDL drivers license and are willing to work hard...I have many employees that make a very good wage with bennys.  We like to keep good people.


----------



## razerface

Frozen Canuck said:


> Oh I think you may have missed just a few bemoaning the proposed increase in min wages for a start. Care to have a go at the question? What type of margin does your business operate on? Do you have increased potential for profit as your expenses & employees wages increase? If not, why not? For that matter why even continue if when your costs rise your potential profit does not?


 Yes, I saw people not agreeing with "increasing" the min wage,,,,no one talked of lowering them except you. You know,,,increase and decrease are opposites? 

No we don't have increased potential for profit as our expenses go up. We must charge more for the product when our expenses go up.  When that happens we risk loosing the job to someone who's expenses have not gone up, or have found a way to control them. I 



I do not understand why you think your profits will go up as you raise your expenses and employee wages. If that was true,,, please hire me and pay me thousands of dollars per hour, and pay your suppliers double what you do now,,,think of the potential profit you can make!


----------



## Frozen Canuck

razerface said:


> I do not understand why you think your profits will go up as you raise your expenses and employee wages. If that was true,,, please hire me and pay me thousands of dollars per hour, and pay your suppliers double what you do now,,,think of the potential profit you can make!



I think you completely misunderstand the concept of profit margin.


----------



## razerface

Frozen Canuck said:


> I think you completely misunderstand the concept of profit margin.


I think I understand, and my bottom line agrees



> Do you have increased potential for profit as your expenses & employees wages increase? If not, why not?


above is the question you asked, that I remarked on.


----------



## begreen

One small way that profits may improve with higher wages is employee retention. This is especially important with a skilled labor pool. Pay your employees well and give them good working conditions and you will retain them. If your competition doesn't get this, you will succeed where they fail.Training is costly.


----------



## razerface

begreen said:


> One small way that profits may improve with higher wages is employee retention. This is especially important with a skilled labor pool. Pay your employees well and give them good working conditions and you will retain them. If your competition doesn't get this, you will succeed where they fail.Training is costly.




that is a fact.


----------



## ironpony

begreen said:


> One small way that profits may improve with higher wages is employee retention. This is especially important with a skilled labor pool. Pay your employees well and give them good working conditions and you will retain them. If your competition doesn't get this, you will succeed where they fail.Training is costly.


 

 In my business it costs me several thousand dollars before the employee can even go ON the first jobsite. Then we can find out if they is good or not. If they are good they get a raise and we do everything to keep them.


----------



## Ashful

begreen said:


> Pay your employees well and give them good working conditions and you will retain them. If your competition doesn't get this, you will succeed where they fail.Training is costly.


I thought this was a discussion about raising the minimum wage, somewhat forcing your competition to "get this."


----------



## begreen

It was, yesterday. Good to bring it back on topic.


----------



## ironpony

minimum wage wont affect me, all my employees are higher than that.
Back on topic......


----------



## razerface

ironpony said:


> minimum wage wont affect me, all my employees are higher than that.
> Back on topic......


If they made the min wage $15 in ohio, it would effect us. We have people in that wage area. If we were forced to start untrained, unskilled workers at that hourly rate,,,everybody in the shop  would want a raise, so it would cost us more then just the new hires.

Then it would cost us more in workmans comp too.


----------



## Butcher

ironpony said:


> minimum wage wont affect me, all my employees are higher than that.
> Back on topic......


 That may be so but in my profession and in my market area the base pay rate is very low. As the minimum wage climbs higher that means it is getting closer to what experienced employees are making per hour. That can have a huge impact on employee moral when I have to pay a man right off the street a wage that is close to someone who has been there for some time. I'm of the mind set that happy workers are productive workers so I feel the need to compensate my regular guys with a raise. That means in order to maintain a reasonable profit margin I need to pass that cost on to the customer. As a landscaper/nurseryman what I'm selling isn't an essential commodity to day to day life. As my prices get higher my customer base is going to think long and hard as to weather they really need my service or not. I could very easily hire a bunch of Mexicans for lower wages but we are a small family owned business that has been in the same place for 85 years and I refuse to do that just to make a buck. Besides, I know my market and it wouldn't go over well. What I'm having a hard time wrapping my pea brain around is how some can say that raising the minimum wage is going to create jobs or help an already floundering economy. In my view I see it driving many business' under as well as raising price to all consumers. Isn't the cost of labor in this country already the reason so many companies have been shipping jobs over seas? I'm not trying to get into an internet pizzin match with any one, just trying to under stand the logic behind this topic.


----------



## jharkin

Butcher said:


> That may be so but in my profession and in my market area the base pay rate is very low. As the minimum wage climbs higher that means it is getting closer to what experienced employees are making per hour. That can have a huge impact on employee moral when I have to pay a man right off the street a wage that is close to someone who has been there for some time. I'm of the mind set that happy workers are productive workers so I feel the need to compensate my regular guys with a raise.



Yes, hopefully raising hte miimum wage has the effect of driving all wages up. The point that some of us are trying to make is that when the wage spread keeps compressing to the point that 99% of employees make nothing or close to nothing and the the ownership keeps it all then you can kiss the middle class goodby.  No middle class = nobody to buy products and services  = more and more businesses giong under.  Its a vicious cycle and we have to have the courage to break it or it will just get worse.

Think of Henry Ford.  He is known for a couple great innovations - the assmebly line and standard parts is one of them (an idea he himself borrowed), and the other idea was actually paying his employees enough that they could afford to buy the product they where making.  And we know how that worked out for him 




> Isn't the cost of labor in this country already the reason so many companies have been shipping jobs over seas? I'm not trying to get into an internet pizzin match with any one, just trying to under stand the logic behind this topic.



That's the race to the bottom... Its not that our labor has gotten too expensive, its just that cheap trade/transport/communicatins have made it practical to use cheap labor elsewhere.  Do you really want our country to "get competitive" by reducing our standard of living _*down*_ to the 3rd world?


----------



## begreen

This map puts the pain of working at a minimum wage into a national perspective. Just affording an apartment eats up over 30% of their income.


----------



## Butcher

jharkin said:


> That's the race to the bottom... Its not that our labor has gotten too expensive, its just that cheap trade/transport/communicatins have made it practical to use cheap labor elsewhere.  Do you really want our country to "get competitive" by reducing our standard of living down to the 3rd world?


 No I don't want to see us become a third world economy but then since you stated that its more practical to use cheap labor else where I think you answered my question. But then most of the trade imbalances and prices caused by them are more of a political matter and I'm not going to get started on that dirt road.


jharkin said:


> Yes, hopefully raising hte miimum wage has the effect of driving all wages up.


 Sounds like a good recipe for run a way inflation to me.
Like I said, I'm just trying to understand. I know in my case it is not a good deal. I'm not a smart man, just a guy who runs a shovel, wheelbarrow and grows things for a living.


----------



## bmblank

begreen said:


> This map puts the pain of working at a minimum wage into a national perspective. Just affording an apartment eats up over 30% of their income.
> 
> View attachment 129008


I don't mean to start anything, but in that map I can't help but notice that the states in which more hours are required are generally states in which the minimum wage is higher.
I haven't done any research on that, just noticed that the higher state are generally (generally) blue states.


----------



## begreen

?? Texas, Louisiana, Florida, Georgia all require more hours than WA which has higher minimum wage.


----------



## Adios Pantalones

Correlation isn't causation, but here's something about WA state's minimum wage and job creation

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...t-minimum-wage-state-beats-u-s-with-jobs.html


----------



## bmblank

begreen said:


> ?? Texas, Louisiana, Florida, Georgia all require more hours than WA which has higher minimum wage.


And California has a higher min wage than Michigan. I'm just pointing out that map doesn't mean a whole lot in this discussion.


----------



## bassJAM

begreen said:


> This map puts the pain of working at a minimum wage into a national perspective. Just affording an apartment eats up over 30% of their income.
> 
> View attachment 129008



Having your own apartment isn't a right guaranteed by the Constitution.  Which is why you see so many foreigners living together when they move here, so they can afford rent.  The argument that minimum wage isn't enough to live on doesn't hold water to me.  Most of the people making minimum wage are pretty much kids, who either live with their parents or on their parents dime at school.  They don't NEED to make a living wage.


----------



## ironpony

Butcher said:


> That may be so but in my profession and in my market area the base pay rate is very low. As the minimum wage climbs higher that means it is getting closer to what experienced employees are making per hour. That can have a huge impact on employee moral when I have to pay a man right off the street a wage that is close to someone who has been there for some time. I'm of the mind set that happy workers are productive workers so I feel the need to compensate my regular guys with a raise. That means in order to maintain a reasonable profit margin I need to pass that cost on to the customer. As a landscaper/nurseryman what I'm selling isn't an essential commodity to day to day life. As my prices get higher my customer base is going to think long and hard as to weather they really need my service or not. I could very easily hire a bunch of *Mexicans* for lower wages but we are a small family owned business that has been in the same place for 85 years and I refuse to do that just to make a buck. Besides, I know my market and it wouldn't go over well. What I'm having a hard time wrapping my pea brain around is how some can say that raising the minimum wage is going to create jobs or help an already floundering economy. In my view I see it driving many business' under as well as raising price to all consumers. Isn't the cost of labor in this country already the reason so many companies have been shipping jobs over seas? I'm not trying to get into an internet pizzin match with any one, just trying to under stand the logic behind this topic.


 

Most of my work force is Latino, and some front office too. Spanish is spoken here as much as English. we have one line for the spanish only speakers to call into the office and have Anilde answer so she can communicate with them. All my supervisors are bilingual most from South America. Yes they are all here legally, because we do background checks and most of the companies we work for require we provide that documentation. We do very hard work and the "white boys" are to good to *work *for 18 dollars an hour plus benefits, retirement and health care. Do not get me started on that one. There is a lot more to people wanting to work than the minimum wage.


----------



## Ashful

jharkin said:


> Yes, hopefully raising hte miimum wage has the effect of driving all wages up... Do you really want our country to "get competitive" by reducing our standard of living _*down*_ to the 3rd world?



I think that what a few here have been trying to point out is that falsely forcing up the bottom will not solve any problem.  After some short term gain for those at the bottom, and some short-term pain for those at the top, the free market that put us where we are today will eventually set everything "right" again.  As I see the salaries of those below me coming up, I'm going to be in my boss's office demanding more.  Those with skills harder to replace will always have more pull than those closer to minimum wage.


----------



## Butcher

ironpony said:


> Most of my work force is Latino, and some front office too. Spanish is spoken here as much as English. we have one line for the spanish only speakers to call into the office and have Anilde answer so she can communicate with them. All my supervisors are bilingual most from South America. Yes they are all here legally, because we do background checks and most of the companies we work for require we provide that documentation. We do very hard work and the "white boys" are to good to work for 18 dollars an hour plus benefits, retirement and health care. Do not get me started on that one. There is a lot more to people wanting to work than the minimum wage.


 Well I never said I had a problem with that. All I mean as that in my market and my line of work it would not work well at all. In "Podunk" Iowa the home owners I deal with on a daily basis have a different out look as to who does their work for them. If I was to be doing purely commercial jobs or in a factory situation my hiring policy's would be completely different. I wasn't trying to raise racisms ugly head with my comment. This whole debate has completely different impacts on people who are in completely different situations I think.


----------



## jharkin

Well, I must be filthy rich then , cause you could double or even triple minimum wage and I still wouldn't feel all that worried that I'm undercompensated..........


----------



## Frozen Canuck

Nope you seem to be a pretty normal fellow. You just don't see those who earn less than you, getting more as being a threat to you!


----------



## Butcher

Joful said:


> I think that what a few here have been trying to point out is that falsely forcing up the bottom will not solve any problem.  After some short term gain for those at the bottom, and some short-term pain for those at the top, the free market that put us where we are today will eventually set everything "right" again.  As I see the salaries of those below me coming up, I'm going to be in my boss's office demanding more.  Those with skills harder to replace will always have more pull than those closer to minimum wage.


 Getting closer to the point I was trying to make. Joful. What I'm taking away from this discussion is that many folks want to see every body make more money regardless of experience, work ethic or the economic climate in any particular spot on the map. So lets all just say we should all make the same amount of money. We all will go to work next week and make the exact same salary. Every one is all even Steven. Sounds like pure socialism to me and that I have a serious problem with. Or we could ramp up the scenario a knotch when the wage rate got to high and say that no one will any longer be paid for the work they perform. I will go to work for nothing producing widgets and the next guy goes to work for nothing making trinkets. When I need a trinket, I call him and he gives me a trinket. I pay him in widgets. Maybe he don't need a widget but if he wants to get rid of his trinkets that's the deal. We cant have it both ways. Higher wages mean higher costs for the goods and services we consume. Its that simple and I don't see how any one can see it any other way unless they have a perpetual motion machine hidden in their basement.


----------



## Frozen Canuck

Butcher said:


> Higher wages mean higher costs for the goods and services we consume. Its that simple and I don't see how any one can see it any other way



Which is a sign of a healthy, growing economy & that's a good thing or at least I was taught it was. 

Winner of the race to the bottom gets what? 

What is at the bottom that anyone would want to get there?, gotta be something real good if we are willing to exchange our standard of living for what the third world has.


----------



## bassJAM

Joful said:


> I think that what a few here have been trying to point out is that falsely forcing up the bottom will not solve any problem.  After some short term gain for those at the bottom, and some short-term pain for those at the top, the free market that put us where we are today will eventually set everything "right" again.  As I see the salaries of those below me coming up, I'm going to be in my boss's office demanding more.  Those with skills harder to replace will always have more pull than those closer to minimum wage.



Really this all goes back to that darned Supply and Demand curve.  If there's more workers on the bottom making more, the demand for products goes up.  Following a demand, there's less of a supply, so prices go up.  With the increased prices, employers can pay their employees a little more, so then those workers can afford to buy more, and it all eventually balloons until we are back in the same place, where $15 only buys what $8 bought a few year ago.  Without fully controlling the market (I'm NOT advocating that!!), things even out on their own and all we're left with is this same stupid argument about raising the minimum wage again in a few years.


----------



## Warm_in_NH

A minimum wage job shouldn't be a career choice. When you work a crap job for crap money you've got an incentive to better yourself and move on. 
Minimum wage jobs are generally those that are barely needed,  they employ a lot of kids and a lot of retirees.
Raise the minimum wage and get used to a lot more self checkout lanes, more ATM machines, I can just as easily punch my order into a screen at McBurger joints rather than giving it to someone, etc....

I think we need to try to keep it in line with inflation,  but that's about it.  Raising the bottom rung on the ladder is essentially going to raise every rung on the ladder, everyone pays more all the way around.


----------



## Butcher

[


Frozen Canuck said:


> Which is a sign of a healthy, growing economy & that's a good thing or at least I was taught it was.
> 
> Winner of the race to the bottom gets what?
> 
> What is at the bottom that anyone would want to get there?, gotta be something real good if we are willing to exchange our standard of living for what the third world has.


 Sorry, I must have missed the memo. I didn't realize that Canada or any of it's inhabitants had any say so what so ever in the policy's of the U.S. This aint a personal bash but, just sayin.


----------



## razerface

Frozen Canuck said:


> Nope you seem to be a pretty normal fellow. You just don't see those who earn less than you, getting more as being a threat to you!


No, but I can tell you what workers DO see, since you seem to be so out of touch.
People who have spent years, money, hard work and schooling, or years of experience, to master their trade or job, rightfully believe their knowledge and experience is worth more per hour then someone who walked in off the street , knowing nothing of the skills needed to perform that job,,,,they are correct.

Why should the unschooled, unskilled, make the same money as the guy who is required to train him? Of course they want more money when those unskilled workers approach their wages!

For you guys to deny that is just very close to lying, or just trolling.  Minimum wage is pay for minimum skill,, not experienced people.


----------



## Frozen Canuck

Care to have a go at the question Butcher. What does the winner of the race to the bottom get? 

This evil foreigner, barbarian, Kanuckistanian, invader & a whole lot of other derogatory terms, that you can fill in later, will wait.


----------



## Frozen Canuck

razerface said:


> Why should the unschooled, unskilled, make the same money as the guy who is required to train him?



Well to quote you "who said that", so far just you.


----------



## ironpony

Butcher said:


> [
> 
> Sorry, I must have missed the memo. I didn't realize that Canada or any of it's inhabitants had any say so what so ever in the policy's of the U.S. This aint a personal bash but, just sayin.




FC probably cant read this, after all Canada speaks in French.   ( insert sarcasm here)


----------



## razerface

jharkin said:


> Well, I must be filthy rich then , cause you could double or even triple minimum wage and I still wouldn't feel all that worried that I'm undercompensated..........


Maybe you are over compensated then?  

maybe you should share your pay with the less fortunate underpaid minimum wage worker?


----------



## ironpony

razerface said:


> No, but I can tell you what workers DO see, since you seem to be so out of touch.
> People who have spent years, money, hard work and schooling, or years of experience, to master their trade or job, rightfully believe their knowledge and experience is worth more per hour then someone who walked in off the street , knowing nothing of the skills needed to perform that job,,,,they are correct.
> 
> Why should the unschooled, unskilled, make the same money as the guy who is required to train him? Of course they want more money when those unskilled workers approach their wages!
> 
> For you guys to deny that is just very close to lying, or just trolling.  Minimum wage is pay for minimum skill,, not experienced people.





Well if you are the skilled master of your field and someone making 15 dollars an hour is a threat, there is a problem.


----------



## razerface

Frozen Canuck said:


> Well to quote you "who said that", so far just you.


Yes, I just said that. 5 minutes later, I stand behind it. Around here, that is what 15hr would do to a lot of shops


----------



## razerface

ironpony said:


> Well if you are the skilled master of your field and someone making 15 dollars an hour is a threat, there is a problem.


Don't you live in ohio? Lots of people make under 15 bucks an hour here. Lots of them...

  I don't care what they do for a living,,,when they get experience at it, they are worth more then the "new guy" starting pay.


----------



## razerface

ironpony said:


> Well if you are the skilled master of your field and someone making 15 dollars an hour is a threat, there is a problem.


I saw you post hinting that your workers make 18 hr. And you spend thousands on them before they go to the job site. So if the experienced make 18, they won't think the new guy making 15 is too close to their wages?


----------



## razerface

ironpony said:


> FC probably cant read this, after all Canada speaks in French.   ( insert sarcasm here)


Frozen C,,,,,say something in French! 

Don't be nasty, the web has translators


----------



## ironpony

razerface said:


> I saw you post hinting that your workers make 18 hr. And you spend thousands on them before they go to the job site. So if the experienced make 18, they won't think the new guy making 15 is too close to their wages?




mis interpreted a little, the experienced guys are well above that. For my situation 15 in the door would be OK to see what they have ability wise. We raise the pay fairly quick so a guy with a couple years would not feel threatened because that's where they started. Now if everyone started at 8 dollars an hour and with  the new  rules a guy started at 15, yes it would cause friction. Each situation is going to have different problems, raising the minimum wage is not going to make people want to work if they do not want to work. Most kids think they are entitled to big money with no experience or knowledge.


----------



## BrotherBart

ironpony said:


> FC probably cant read this, after all Canada speaks in French.   ( insert sarcasm here)



Si.


----------



## Frozen Canuck

razerface said:


> Yes, I just said that. 5 minutes later, I stand behind it. Around here, that is what 15hr would do to a lot of shops



That's the source of the issue, (I think) it's not that someone isn't worth $15/hr to start, it's that wages have been beaten down in a lot of sectors to the point where some/many are working for that same wage after they have been there awhile. So really the 15 isn't the problem, the beating down of wages is. Raising the minimum wage will have upward pressure on other wages & that's a good thing. So in time all above that 15 could expect a similar increase. Not right away but in time.


----------



## Frozen Canuck

Sorry you will have to wait awhile on the French, I have far too many R rated French words in my normal vocabulary &  I have to clean it up to pass the G rating.


----------



## jharkin

Frozen Canuck said:


> That's the source of the issue, (I think) it's not that someone isn't worth $15/hr to start, it's that wages have been beaten down in a lot of sectors to the point where some/many are working for that same wage after they have been there awhile. So really the 15 isn't the problem, the beating down of wages is. Raising the minimum wage will have upward pressure on other wages & that's a good thing. So in time all above that 15 could expect a similar increase. Not right away but in time.



Ding ding ding.....

BINGO


If we want to get philosophical we also have to address the bigger problem. The population keeps growing while more and more labor is eliminated by technology and automation. It easy to just say that if folks don't like a basic wage job they should get educated and move up... Problem is that we can't have a society where everyone is a CEO, doctor, movie star.  We just simply don't need 300 million PhD,s to keep a nation of 300 million housed and fed. So what to we do with everyone else?


----------



## razerface

Frozen Canuck said:


> That's the source of the issue, (I think) it's not that someone isn't worth $15/hr to start, it's that wages have been beaten down in a lot of sectors to the point where some/many are working for that same wage after they have been there awhile. So really the 15 isn't the problem, the beating down of wages is. Raising the minimum wage will have upward pressure on other wages & that's a good thing. So in time all above that 15 could expect a similar increase. Not right away but in time.


For some reason, you think there will be no consequences to just raising wages higher. Even the govt studies admit it will cause approx 500,000 jobs lost.  Granted, I have slim confidence in govt to know anything,, but you lefties seem to love govt,,so why don't you believe them on this?


----------



## razerface

Inflation will be another result.


I must go,, apple pie and ice cream are waiting.


----------



## BrotherBart

razerface said:


> Even the govt studies admit it will cause approx 500,000 jobs lost.



1/2 of 1% of US employment.


----------



## Warm_in_NH

This guy would make more money at his new job...


----------



## razerface

BrotherBart said:


> 1/2 of 1% of US employment.


Are you saying that is acceptable casualties, or do you just like converting?


----------



## BrotherBart

You neglected to mention that overall US income would increase. Mostly at the bottom rungs. From the same CBO analysis.


----------



## BrotherBart

Warm_in_NH said:


> This guy would make more money at his new job...
> View attachment 129028



I am suing. They shouldn't have released that. I was in a bad mood that day.


----------



## Warm_in_NH

BrotherBart said:


> I am suing. They shouldn't have released that. I was in a bad mood that day.


----------



## Frozen Canuck

jharkin said:


> If we want to get philosophical we also have to address the bigger problem. The population keeps growing while more and more labor is eliminated by technology and automation.



Yes that's one of the elephants in the closet, probably the largest one. The, or an answer, that's the tough part. 

Even in the trades with the relative lack of onsite robotics it's amazing how much work is accomplished with fewer people over the decades, primarily through improvements in equipment, materials & technology. Heck we even have robotic pipeline welders now & they don't mind a 24 hr shift at all. 

Now when some smart young science type figures out robotics to the point where they are job site capable with interchangeable hands & feet & why limit those to just two each, then we are going to have some major decisions on our hands, just the two we have. I will likely miss that one but our kids & grandkids….well.


----------



## begreen

Butcher said:


> [
> 
> Sorry, I must have missed the memo. I didn't realize that Canada or any of it's inhabitants had any say so what so ever in the policy's of the U.S. This aint a personal bash but, just sayin.


No opinion about Putin in Ukraine?


razerface said:


> For some reason, you think there will be no consequences to just raising wages higher. Even the govt studies admit it will cause approx 500,000 jobs lost.  Granted, I have slim confidence in govt to know anything,, but you lefties seem to love govt,,so why don't you believe them on this?


Stop with the right/left stuff or this thread is canned. We're all in this together (as the famous Canadian said). So far it has been a good, civil discussion. Let's keep it that way.


----------



## Butcher

begreen said:


> No opinion about Putin in Ukraine?
> 
> Stop with the right/left stuff or this thread is canned. We're all in this together (as the famous Canadian said). So far it has been a good, civil discussion. Let's keep it that way.


 I steered away from a political point of view on this discussion I believe. If what I have typed here was taken that way then so be it. I have other places to voice my political beliefs. When I do so it is a face to face debate not a blown out of proportion internet match of the mindless. Trying to state the obvious to the oblivious is getting tiresome any ways. I will resign myself to sitting in my ivory tower and ordering my serfs to do my bidding since they will soon be able to afford to take over the monetary risks involved in the day to day operation of a small business. Good day Gentlemen.


----------



## Ashful

jharkin said:


> So what to we do with everyone else?


Scavenge them for spare parts.


----------



## Frozen Canuck

Joful said:


> Scavenge them for spare parts.



Soylent Green anyone?


----------



## razerface

BrotherBart said:


> You neglected to mention that overall US income would increase. Mostly at the bottom rungs. From the same CBO analysis.


All from the bottom rungs. All upper rungs would decrease. The money has to come from "somewhere"

In all wealth redistribution plans, someone gives up money when another takes it.

I believe the lower rung is a starting point,,, not a career. It should have min wage so there is an incentive to step up to the next rung,,,,NOT a living wage. I do not believe a person should be able to make a living on min wage.


Also, that study is done on a proposed increase to $10. How many jobs would be lost if it was $15 as the OP is suggesting! The economy would be devastated! Job loss would be enormous! I believe it would break the economy.


----------



## Doug MacIVER

well let's see. back in the day when we had to fight for new employees, our pay rates were driven by labor competition. if other shoe related companies in our area were paying $3-4.00 /hr back in the $2.50 days, we paid $3-4.00/hr. hell, even the fast food people pay over in good times. I imagine that most industries are the same. our labor pool extended some 23-30 miles out with people taking public trans. today with a lot of industries it is world wide. change, I guess.


----------



## ironpony

so, if they raise the minimum wage to 15, what is really going to change? its not like we are all going to go out and hire 20 people because they raised it. We are going to continue what we do, it will affect lower level service jobs, and probably not all that much. Around here most fast foods pay more than minimum now. A few dollars for the ones at the bottom is not bad and if you hire them and they are no good you will get rid of them no matter what the wage. Look at it this way, if you are paying 8 an hour and they get govt subsidies, which they can you are just paying it in taxes to support them. Might as well try to get them to work and get them off the system.


----------



## razerface

ironpony said:


> so, if they raise the minimum wage to 15, what is really going to change? (snip) Around here most fast foods pay more than minimum now




What would happen at your company if you had to raise wages over 50%? No effect?

Mcdonalds in ohio makes $7.95-$9 per hr(per mcdonalds employment ad). To go to 15 an hour would almost DOUBLE the wages.

What would happen at your company if you had to double wages? Still no effect?


----------



## jharkin

razerface said:


> All from the bottom rungs. All upper rungs would decrease. The money has to come from "somewhere"
> 
> In all wealth redistribution plans, someone gives up money when another takes it.
> 
> I believe the lower rung is a starting point,,, not a career. It should have min wage so there is an incentive to step up to the next rung,,,,NOT a living wage. I do not believe a person should be able to make a living on min wage.
> 
> 
> Also, that study is done on a proposed increase to $10. How many jobs would be lost if it was $15 as the OP is suggesting! The economy would be devastated! Job loss would be enormous! I believe it would break the economy.



The entire economy is one big money redistribution system. MOney has to keep flowing for the machine to operate properly

Thin about it, there are a LOT of people out there who dont have the skills or education for much more than basic manual labor.  If we dont pay them a living wage are they going to be living in a cardboard box out in the street?  Probably not, they will be living in govt subsidised housing and buying food with govt subsidized EBT cards and getting free health care at the ER because they cant pay the bill.  All of which get paid for by the rest of us through taxes and insurance premiums. Money which is recycling back into the economy to buy goods and services.

Instead, force employers to have a heart and actually pay a living wage and they can buy all those things themselves, and the money still recycles back into the economy to buy goods and services. The only difference is this time Uncle Sam isn't playing middleman.  And since those folks are earning the money rathre than getting a handout, maybe they have a little more pride and incentive to want to go out and educate/better themselves??

30 years ago we didn't have this problem because automation and foreign labor couldn't do these jobs.  But we cant turn back time so we have to deal with what we've got.



But what the heck do I know. I'm just a bleeding heart sap.


----------



## jharkin

razerface said:


> What would happen at your company if you had to raise wages over 50%? No effect?
> 
> Mcdonalds in ohio makes $7.95-$9 per hr(per mcdonalds employment ad). To go to 15 an hour would almost DOUBLE the wages.
> 
> What would happen at your company if you had to double wages? Still no effect?



It would mean a lot more money right back into the system buying the  products and services you sell.  People at the bottom spend every dollar they make and save almost nothing.


----------



## razerface

jharkin said:


> It would mean a lot more money right back into the system buying the  products and services you sell.  People at the bottom spend every dollar they make and save almost nothing.


no, it would mean that thousands of small companies would have to increase the cost of their products to cover those new expenses, so the income gained would at the same time, be lost to increased prices. Called inflation. Costs are passed on to the consumer.

That would not happen to all of them,,,,some of them would go down in income, because their job would not exist anymore due to companies shutting down. I read in an earlier post that FC thinks that should happen. If a company  cannot make money because of this increase in costs,,, they should go out of business. That sure solves it. I know people that prefer the low wages, rather then no wages.

I also have opinions on some of these people who you claim "spend it all" You are correct, I have seen it. Down at the bar,,buying beer and cigs,,,lottery tickets,,the list goes on and on.  I have sat at the bar and listened to the whining about how they can't pay their bills,,,then they buy another beer. I have seen, and hired people who whine they can not pay their bills,,then have to fire them because they fail to show up every day at work. I offer a job,,,but require them to work. Not all people at the bottom are in this group, but a large percentage are.

The people with drive and ambition,, are just in the bottom group for a short time. Then they advance. The ones who stay there,,,are playing on your bleeding heart, so you will pay them, or give them, enough money and social programs so they are not required to work hard and advance. They make welfare a career. We now see 2nd and 3rd generation "welfare careers" Parents are showing their children how to do it.


----------



## ironpony

razerface said:


> What would happen at your company if you had to raise wages over 50%? No effect?
> 
> Mcdonalds in ohio makes $7.95-$9 per hr(per mcdonalds employment ad). To go to 15 an hour would almost DOUBLE the wages.
> 
> What would happen at your company if you had to double wages? Still no effect?


 


I wont have to I pay a good wage now.
Mc Donalds profits might go down and all their employees receiving govt benefits would not need govt benefits anymore. and your Happy meal price will go up.
again I pay a living wage now, with retirement and healthcare.

look up Wal mart and Mcd's they have info on their websites for employees to apply for govt assistance. Think they might know they need to pay more???
how much profit do they need?? pay a living wage to your employees that  make you able to live the way you do. if you cant you need to change your business model..


----------



## razerface

jharkin said:


> Thin about it, there are a LOT of people out there who dont have the skills or education for much more than basic manual labor.  If we dont pay them a living wage are they going to be living in a cardboard box out in the street?  Probably not, they will be living in govt subsidised housing and buying food with govt subsidized EBT cards and getting free health care at the ER because they cant pay the bill.  All of which get paid for by the rest of us through taxes and insurance premiums.



A LOT of lazy people. Anyone can learn a skill or get an education. We already have those programs in place. If they do not work and do their part to get ahead,,,we should not give them increases in pay for that,,they will have to be satisfied with the crumbs since that is all they will work for. 

They get all this free stuff because we give it to them! If it was not available,,,they would have to work for it!





> But what the heck do I know. I'm just a bleeding heart sap.


I agree


----------



## ironpony

razerface said:


> *no, it would mean that thousands of small companies would have to increase the cost of their products to cover those new expenses, so the income gained would at the same time, be lost to increased prices. Called inflation. Costs are passed on to the consumer.*
> 
> That would not happen to all of them,,,,some of them would go down in income, because their job would not exist anymore due to companies shutting down. I read in an earlier post that FC thinks that should happen. If a company  cannot make money because of this increase in costs,,, they should go out of business. That sure solves it. I know people that prefer the low wages, rather then no wages.
> 
> I also have opinions on some of these people who you claim "spend it all" You are correct, I have seen it. Down at the bar,,buying beer and cigs,,,lottery tickets,,the list goes on and on.  I have sat at the bar and listened to the whining about how they can't pay their bills,,,then they buy another beer. I have seen, and hired people who whine they can not pay their bills,,then have to fire them because they fail to show up every day at work. I offer a job,,,but require them to work. Not all people at the bottom are in this group, but a large percentage are.
> 
> The people with drive and ambition,, are just in the bottom group for a short time. Then they advance. The ones who stay there,,,are playing on your bleeding heart, so you will pay them, or give them, enough money and social programs so they are not required to work hard and advance. They make welfare a career. We now see 2nd and 3rd generation "welfare careers" Parents are showing their children how to do it.


 


1) most small companies are paying better than mega corps

2) some jobs may be lost and prices may increase slightly.

3) if they are sitting at the bar with you, its not about the money now is it?? if they are useless you are going to fire them no matter what the wage.

4) people with ambition need to be able to live for a year to move up, playing on *my* heart......their fired!

5) welfare careers, you can pay 50 dollar minimum wage they are still going to be welfare recipients.


----------



## razerface

ironpony said:


> again I pay a living wage now, with retirement and healthcare.


you are missing the point. I'm glad you pay good wages for good skills. Everyone is not in the same industry as you, and cannot pay those high wages. 

There are companies that would have to double the wages to meet $15.  *What if you had to?*  Just pretend,,,,,You are telling me it would not effect your company?


----------



## ironpony

razerface said:


> A LOT of lazy people. Anyone can learn a skill or get an education. We already have those programs in place. If they do not work and do their part to get ahead,,,we should not give them increases in pay for that,,they will have to be satisfied with the crumbs since that is all they will work for.
> 
> *They get all this free stuff because we give it to them! If it was not available,,,they would have to work for it!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree


 



if you paid a living wage they would not be eligible for the free stuff.......


----------



## razerface

ironpony said:


> 1) most small companies are paying better than mega corps


ok, I give up on you,,,you have no idea what wages are out here.


----------



## ironpony

razerface said:


> you are missing the point. I'm glad you pay good wages for good skills. Everyone is not in the same industry as you, and cannot pay those high wages.
> 
> *There are companies that would have to double the wages to meet $15*.  *What if you had to?*  Just pretend,,,,,You are telling me it would not effect your company?


 



most of these companies are mega corps that know how to control the system and buy the votes to keep it the way they want it/.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

BrotherBart said:


> Who is the job creator. The pimp or the john?


Neither, The pimp is the middle man,the john is the end user or customer. Must be the hooker. Shes got the raw materials.


----------



## razerface

ironpony said:


> if you paid a living wage they would not be eligible for the free stuff.......


sure they would,,,if they make min wage, no matter what it is,,,they would still be on the bottom,,,we have programs to help "people on the bottom"

reference your #5 above on welfare careers


----------



## razerface

Seasoned Oak said:


> Neither, The pimp is the middle man,the john is the end user or customer. Must be the hooker. Shes got the raw materials.


the pimp hired the hooker (job creator).
The hooker could have started her own business and been self-employed(job creator)

The john could have taken care of the need himself, but no job would have been created, and no money would change hands, proving that "demand" does not create jobs


----------



## ironpony

razerface said:


> ok, I give up on you,,,you have no idea what wages are out here.


 


Oh, but I do. 2 companies with approx. 100 people total. One project right now with 60 people working. also interface with dozens of local small businesses.
Are there better out ther? yesAre there worse out there? Yes
make me a list of all your examples of companies paying minimum wage......
Wal Mart McD's  BK Target and all the other mega corps minimum wage and no benies. but billion dollar bottom lines.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Dotn forget $15 an hour probably cost the employer about $25 an hour. TiIl he pays things like UC taxes,workmens comp. taxes,his share of SS taxes and employee benefits.


----------



## ironpony

razerface said:


> sure they would,,,if they make min wage, no matter what it is,,,they would still be on the bottom,,,we have programs to help "people on the bottom"


 


not at the bottom, below a certain income.


----------



## ironpony

razerface said:


> the pimp hired the hooker (job creator).
> The hooker could have started her own business and been self-employed(job creator)
> 
> The john could have taken care of the need himself, but no job would have been created, and no money would change hands, proving that "demand" does not create jobs


 


the john is like the welfare recipient, unwilling to put in the time to get ahead.


----------



## jharkin

razerface said:


> no money would change hands, proving that "demand" does not create jobs



Again you are back trying to prove that hte wealthy create all jobs by giving out "their" money.  But where do "they" get it from? Where does it originate? Money doesnt just appear out of thin air...

.. or maybe it does? If Grisu was around we would be getting a lecture about now on how the Fed and big banks actually create the money out of nothing via lending.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

razerface said:


> the pimp hired the hooker (job creator).
> The hooker could have started her own business and been self-employed(job creator)
> 
> The john could have taken care of the need himself, but no job would have been created, and no money would change hands, proving that "demand" does not create jobs


Pimps collect commissions for security and representation and job placement ,sort of like a temp agency or "unions"


----------



## ironpony

Seasoned Oak said:


> Dotn forget $15 an hour probably cost the employer about $25 an hour. TiIl he pays things like UC taxes,workmens comp. taxes,his share of SS taxes and employee benefits.


 


more like 19.50/hr 30% front load


----------



## ironpony

Seasoned Oak said:


> Pimps collect commissions for security and representation and job placement ,sort of like a temp agency or "unions"


 


ya, pimp, johns, hooker probably not a good example of a business model.


----------



## razerface

ironpony said:


> Oh, but I do. 2 companies with approx. 100 people total. One project right now with 60 people working. also interface with dozens of local small businesses.
> Are there better out ther? yesAre there worse out there? Yes
> make me a list of all your examples of companies paying minimum wage......
> Wal Mart McD's  BK Target and all the other mega corps minimum wage and no benies. but billion dollar bottom lines.



you know YOUR companies wages. I will not do your research for you. If all small companies paid more then large ones,,we would not be talking about raising the min wage,,,since small companies are the majority,,,by far.


----------



## jharkin

razerface said:


> no, it would mean that thousands of small companies would have to increase the cost of their products to cover those new expenses, so the income gained would at the same time, be lost to increased prices. Called inflation. Costs are passed on to the consumer.



Yes, you will pay more and you will raise your prices. Since the workers are earning more money they can afford the higher prices.  That's inflation.  Some inflation is good, necessary in fact to keep a growth based economy functioning, and as long as the population is growing the economy has to grow at pace to keep everyone employed. 

When population finally peaks and then declines the economists are all going to be busy as hell trying to figure out how to make a steady state economy work in a no growth environment.  Thats beyond my pay grade but its a problem we might have to deal with in some of our lifetimes.  Maybe by then we will all sit at the beach while the robots and AI do the work and feed us.




> I also have opinions on some of these people who you claim "spend it all" You are correct, I have seen it. Down at the bar,,buying beer and cigs,,,lottery tickets,,the list goes on and on.  I have sat at the bar and listened to the whining about how they can't pay their bills,,,then they buy another beer. I have seen, and hired people who whine they can not pay their bills,,then have to fire them because they fail to show up every day at work. I offer a job,,,but require them to work. Not all people at the bottom are in this group, but a large percentage are.
> 
> The people with drive and ambition,, are just in the bottom group for a short time. Then they advance. The ones who stay there,,,are playing on your bleeding heart, so you will pay them, or give them, enough money and social programs so they are not required to work hard and advance. They make welfare a career. We now see 2nd and 3rd generation "welfare careers" Parents are showing their children how to do it.



Its not just my claim - its something you can look up in published statistics, the vast majority of personal savings in this country is from folks in the top income brackets.I have to look it up but I think its something like the entire bottom 50% of households save almost nothing at all.

Yes, there are people at the bottom who work the system. Always will be.  But how is the solution to that keeping wages low so that they stay on assistance?  How about we _raise _wages, but at the same time _dont raise_ the income thresholds for assistance so that we lift more of those folks at the bottom up and off the assistance roles.  I'm offering that as a real idea to try. Where is *your *idea/solution??? (other than complaining and just maintiaing the status quo that hurts us all).


----------



## razerface

ironpony said:


> not at the bottom, below a certain income.


that threshold would immediatly change if incomes were raised. Ever seen gov't give up tax money before? Inflation would go smoking across the land to take care of that.

There will ALWAYS be lower and higher incomes. It is unsolvable by rules. It must be solved by the individual worker as to how hard they want to work and succeed.


----------



## razerface

ironpony said:


> ya, pimp, johns, hooker probably not a good example of a business model.


tax free!


----------



## ironpony

razerface said:


> that threshold would immediatly change if incomes were raised. Ever seen gov't give up tax money before? Inflation would go smoking across the land to take care of that.
> 
> There will ALWAYS be lower and higher incomes. It is unsolvable by rules. It must be solved by the individual worker as to how hard they want to work and succeed.


 


if they raise the threshold, govt gives away more money. If you get people working govt collects taxes. Govt would be collecting taxes at 15 hr instesd of paying out assistance.
Inflation is a necessary evil, Govt has artificially kept inflation very low, you see how good we are doing now(sarcasm)


----------



## Ashful

*yawn*  Seems we're going in circles.


----------



## jharkin

Joful said:


> *yawn*  Seems we're going in circles.



there we agree


----------



## ironpony

Joful said:


> *yawn*  Seems we're going in circles.


 

more of an ellipse...


----------



## ironpony

jharkin said:


> there we agree


 

you east coasters have no idea of what we are going thru in the mid west..........


----------



## razerface

jharkin said:


> Its not just my claim - its something you can look up in published statistics, the vast majority of personal savings in this country is from folks in the top income brackets.I have to look it up but I think its something like the entire bottom 50% of households save almost nothing at all..



shrug,, i agreed with you. I just pointed out their priorities are one of  the reasons they do not save anything. Buy the beer and lottery tickets,,,to hell with the rent or childs cloths.   Too many easily available social programs are another. Do they need free phones at my expense?



> Where is *your *idea/solution??? (other than complaining and just maintiaing the status quo that hurts us all).



I am not complaining,,,In the end,,people get what they work for, usually. If crumbs are what they want to work at getting,,give them crumbs. I have been telling you my solution for days! Leave  min wage low enough so that people have the chance to enter the job market with no skills,,,learn a skill and move up the ladder instead of paying them to never advance,,,since there is no reason to do so.

Remember, nobody gets out alive,,,,so do whatever you want, but don't expect me to do it for you,,,,, I am busy


----------



## Ashful

ironpony said:


> you east coasters have no idea of what we are going thru in the mid west..........


Probably true, but you'd be as grumpy as us, if you had to deal with our traffic.



razerface said:


> I am not complaining,,,In the end,,people get what they work for, usually. If crumbs are what they want to work at getting,,give them crumbs.


Amen.  Well said.


----------



## ironpony

Joful said:


> Probably true, but you'd be as grumpy as us, if you had to deal with our traffic.


 

I grew up in New York, that's why I live here now.....soon to be St.Croix


----------



## Doug MacIVER

jharkin said:


> It would mean a lot more money right back into the system buying the  products and services you sell.  People at the bottom spend every dollar they make and save almost nothing.


staples just announced closing 255 stores. 10% of their brick and mortar. the goes how many jobs with a fraction added due to internet sales, answer center probably in suburban  city, take your pick india, china ??? not even min wages can save or preserve jobs.


----------



## ironpony

Doug MacIVER said:


> staples just announced closing 255 stores. 10% of their brick and mortar. the goes how many jobs with a fraction added due to internet sales, answer center probably in suburban  city, take your pick india, china ??? not even min wages can save or preserve jobs.


 

right back to corporate greed, sales probably will not change and costs will decrease significantly. not sure what they pay or benefits but that is a lot of people out of work.


----------



## Ehouse

jharkin said:


> Yes, you will pay more and you will raise your prices. Since the workers are earning more money they can afford the higher prices.  That's inflation.  Some inflation is good, necessary in fact to keep a growth based economy functioning, and as long as the population is growing the economy has to grow at pace to keep everyone employed.
> 
> When population finally peaks and then declines the economists are all going to be busy as hell trying to figure out how to make a steady state economy work in a no growth environment.  Thats beyond my pay grade but its a problem we might have to deal with in some of our lifetimes.  Maybe by then we will all sit at the beach while the robots and AI do the work and feed us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not just my claim - its something you can look up in published statistics, the vast majority of personal savings in this country is from folks in the top income brackets.I have to look it up but I think its something like the entire bottom 50% of households save almost nothing at all.
> 
> Yes, there are people at the bottom who work the system. Always will be.  But how is the solution to that keeping wages low so that they stay on assistance?  How about we _raise _wages, but at the same time _dont raise_ the income thresholds for assistance so that we lift more of those folks at the bottom up and off the assistance roles.  I'm offering that as a real idea to try. Where is *your *idea/solution??? (other than complaining and just maintiaing the status quo that hurts us all).




Eliminate all "thresh holds", "brackets", and other hard demarcation lines and go to a sliding scale with income "to the penny", and subsidy "to the penny".  All you need to know is at what income the subsidy (or Tax for that matter) begins and ends.  Picture a nice smooth set of intersecting curves in an hour glass shape.  The node at the waist represents point of end subsidy/begin tax.  Eliminate internal resentment and save a ton of money.


----------



## Ashful

jharkin said:


> It would mean a lot more money right back into the system buying the  products and services you sell.  People at the bottom spend every dollar they make and save almost nothing.


I've seen you echo this sentiment several times, and it's flawed logic.  Yes, folks at the bottom might spend every dime they make, but they're still spending a hell of a lot less than me.  I spent more on home improvement last year than someone making minimum wage will even make in a year, all money directly back into the economy.  Hell, I spend more on my combined utility bills than some people make per year.  Al Gore spends more on jet fuel each year than you'll make between now and you're retirement.  Folks at the bottom might not be saving much, but they're certainly not spending much either.

Now, to add another bit of unsupported claim to the fray, I'd argue that those at the top of the ladder are adding more to job creation at the local level (I have at least one contractor working at my house almost every week), than those at the bottom of the ladder (who are spending a larger percentage of their money at mega-corp WalMart and McD's).  How many stone masons, carpenters, and painters is someone making minimum wage going to support?


----------



## jharkin

Joful said:


> I've seen you echo this sentiment several times, and it's flawed logic.  Yes, folks at the bottom might spend every dime they make, but they're still spending a hell of a lot less than me.  I spent more on home improvement last year than someone making minimum wage will even make in a year, all money directly back into the economy.  Hell, I spend more on my combined utility bills than some people make per year.  Al Gore spends more on jet fuel each year than you'll make between now and you're retirement.  Folks at the bottom might not be saving much, but they're certainly not spending much either.
> 
> Now, to add another bit of unsupported claim to the fray, I'd argue that those at the top of the ladder are adding more to job creation at the local level (I have at least one contractor working at my house almost every week), than those at the bottom of the ladder (who are spending a larger percentage of their money at mega-corp WalMart and McD's).  How many stone masons, carpenters, and painters is someone making minimum wage going to support?



And Ive got more money invested into my radio control flying "toys" than a minimum wage guy earns in a year....

But what are we proving here?... other than the fact you could buy and sell me, and in turn I could buy and sell somebody on minimum wage.

Sure its in my best interest for me to shut up and go along, since right now wage inequality disproportionately benefits me just as it does you (I saw the writing on the wall when engineering was going overseas and did the mercenary jump to management track as my friends got laid off)   but long term is constantly increasing inequality good for the health of our society?   Does the CEO of my company really need to make 50x what I make, or could he be just as happy at a mere 5x what I make? (and at a company like GE its more like a 500x ratio to the line employees)
Is it really good if we end up with 99% of the population living in project housing while 1% of us live on 50 acre country estates? Sounds like a recipe for an American spring someday...

Rome had the answer for that I guess... Bread and Circuses...  Gladiator games...  today we call it welfare and reality TV.


[ Dont take this as a personal attack Joful... I have a lot of respect for you, just a point we disagree on. ]


----------



## Ashful

jharkin said:


> [ Dont take this as a personal attack Joful... I have a lot of respect for you, just a point we disagree on. ]


No problem, or offense taken, Jeremy.  You know I intentionally throw these little jabs out for just that effect.  



jharkin said:


> Does the CEO of my company really need to make 50x what I make, or could he be just as happy at a mere 5x what I make? (and at a company like GE its more like a 500x ratio to the line employees)
> Is it really good if we end up with 99% of the population living in project housing while 1% of us live on 50 acre country estates?


I think these are different issues, and on these I think we agree.  Very few CEO's are worth the salaries they make.  However, there's not a direct line from here to there, when bringing this into a debate on minimum wage, without dragging in a whole bunch of people in between.  These guys aren't the 1%, they're the 0.001%.

BTW... I'm not even a 1%'er.  Currently hovering around 4% - 5%..


----------



## jharkin

Joful said:


> No problem, or offense taken, Jeremy.  You know I intentionally throw these little jabs out for just that effect.




hahahaha I know, I should admit I do it a lot too. Bomb a thread then watch the fireworks...


----------



## razerface

Ehouse said:


> Eliminate all "thresh holds", "brackets", and other hard demarcation lines and go to a sliding scale with income "to the penny", and subsidy "to the penny".  All you need to know is at what income the subsidy (or Tax for that matter) begins and ends.  Picture a nice smooth set of intersecting curves in an hour glass shape.  The node at the waist represents point of end subsidy/begin tax.  Eliminate internal resentment and save a ton of money.



that sounds like socialism to me. If we all make the same wages,,,,I am going to quit and join the unproductive people. Every other worker will too. Why bust my butt to give it to other people while they sit on their butts?

  When the workers get tired of supporting the non-workers,,, and join them,,it is all over. It won't be long now! 

Store up some food and get some wood cut before you can't buy any gas!


----------



## razerface

Doug MacIVER said:


> staples just announced closing 255 stores. 10% of their brick and mortar. the goes how many jobs with a fraction added due to internet sales, answer center probably in suburban  city, take your pick india, china ??? not even min wages can save or preserve jobs.


If only they had read this thread! Then they could have doubled the wages of the workers there and stayed in business! Their profits would have increased! My god why didn't we tell them!  Why! Why!


----------



## Seasoned Oak

ironpony said:


> more like 19.50/hr 30% front load


That depends on the benefits.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Todays BIg business model is buy products for pennies from slave labor countries,import them at a 3% tariff, and sell for huge markups to american consumers. Interrupt that  model and they quickly go under.


----------



## Frozen Canuck

This back & forth is fun to read. 

I sure would appreciate someone telling me what is so valuable at the bottom that we should work so hard to get there? 

I have seen what I would consider close to the bottom in my travels. Folks from Haiti can be quite enlightening on just what being near the bottom is like, parts of the Dominican as well, throw in some areas of Mexico while I am at it. 

From their descriptions of what being near the bottom is like, I know that I want nothing to do with it. So still I remain curious as to what is there (at the bottom) that anyone would want to be there. Gotta be something real good if we are willing to give up all that we have compared to them to get to where they are.

We have members that can comment on China & India & what it's like there for the average Joe. Bangladesh is close to them & I would consider them to be at the bottom currently, however with so many (seemingly) wishing to get down there & compete with Bangladesh in terms of wages, well they may have some fierce competition for the bottom rung soon.

Gotta be something real good at the bottom to justify all this effort to get there. Anyone care to share what they hope to find at the bottom? Genie in a bottle?, free booze & cigs?, all the houses made of Ginger bread? Or is it what I imagine, a life of total squaller with virtually no opportunity.


----------



## bmblank

Nowhere in this thread has anybody said we're asking for the bottom (except for you). We just have differing ideas on how to make the country prosper.


----------



## bmblank

As far as I'm concerned, doubling the minimum wage would be a sure step in the race to the bottom


----------



## jharkin

Frozen Canuck said:


> We have members that can comment on China & India & what it's like there for the average Joe. Bangladesh is close to them & I would consider them to be at the bottom currently, however with so many (seemingly) wishing to get down there & compete with Bangladesh in terms of wages, well they may have some fierce competition for the bottom rung soon.



Ive been to both countries 3 times each.  My dealings over there are with well off middle class professionals, and even what they deal with I would not like to live.  Ive seen the living conditions of the poor there, but only from a car window.  We dont want to go there.  not even close.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

We have a lot of high school dropouts to employ here in america. As a job creator myself, iv found just as often my employee may make more than i do ,if everything dont go as planned. I like to pay by the job lately instead of by the hour. It s amazing how little some can do in an hours time. Everything changes when its pay for results.


----------



## Frozen Canuck

jharkin said:


> We dont want to go there. not even close.



Agreed & a large part of the reason I see no logic in the lower wage side of this discussion. We can see what lower wages leads to = lower living conditions. Are we not supposed to be elevating or a the very least maintaining what we have?


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Frozen Canuck said:


> This back & forth is fun to read.
> 
> I sure would appreciate someone telling me what is so valuable at the bottom that we should work so hard to get there?


Its our Govt and their trade policies,that have wages racing to the bottom. That force americans to compete with corrupt, impoverished countries you describe. THose decisions are way above our pay grade. Why is it Happening? I suppose the 1% ers here in america have so much money thay can bend and craft govt policies to benefit them and not the other 99% .


----------



## bmblank

The fact that Bangladesh has both lower wages and a lower standard of living is not proof that lower wages cause a lower standard of living.


----------



## Jags

If we raise min. wage to $15.00 and that is good - wouldn't $30 be twice as good?


----------



## razerface

Frozen Canuck,, you certainly are obsessed with this bottom thing.  Like was mentioned,,no one else is but you,,,,,but hey! If thats what you want to pretend is happening, lets look at that.

Since you know so much about people "on the bottom" in other parts of the world,,,you should know they are poor. We'll compare them to the minumum wage guy in the US.

Some of those poor people "on the bottom"  around the world live in a hut,,, and that is all they have. Hmmm,,, done with them already.

Min wage people in US have:         
cell phones                                                                                  
cars
homes
toys
support children
color tv
radio's
stereos
mp3s
different colored shoelaces
candles
gloves
food
bicycles
tape measures
internet
computers
guns
beer
cigs
hats
expensive drugs
cheap drugs
pocket knives
shoes
socks
cable
fingernail clippers
sofa
bed
pay for haircuts
pets they don't eat
heat
air conditioning
motorcycles
showers
soap
x box
patio chairs
tents
more childrens toys
car seats
welfare
free education
free emergency room care
Canadians trying to get them raises

i could go on and on and on and on,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

maybe we are far from "on the bottom" here? Maybe you see a non existing problem?


----------



## Seasoned Oak

jharkin said:


> Ive been to both countries 3 times each.  My dealings over there are with well off middle class professionals, and even what they deal with I would not like to live.  Ive seen the living conditions of the poor there, but only from a car window.  We dont want to go there.  not even close.


Same here,those people dont like their situation any more than we like ours. Iv seen the living conditions close up ,as in living with people in 3rd world countries for months at a time. In those countries the rich rule openly with an iron fist. Here in america they do it from cover.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Razor face is right on that one. 3#rd world poor have nothing. Really nothing. Iv been there. Your sick in a 3rd world country and you just might die.
Unless you have relative or friends to help you your screwed. Govt only helps thenselves there.
Edit razorface,they do have fingernail clippers and soap(on your list) .Most expensive possession is usually a reloadable cell phone. May not have a minute load all the time though.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Disclaimer: I have nothing against the rich. Many of us aspire to be just that. I do have a problem when some of the 1% in collusion with lawmakers (many of whom are in the 1%) tilt and manipulate the playing field so that they are the only group prospering in the country,as its been for the last 20-30 years.


----------



## Ashful

Frozen Canuck said:


> I sure would appreciate someone telling me what is so valuable at the bottom that we should work so hard to get there?


Frankly, I never understood the question.  Bottom of what?  I make more each year, and plan to continue doing so.  Am I in a race to the "top"?  You can have the bottom, whatever it is.


----------



## jharkin

Joful said:


> Frankly, I never understood the question.  Bottom of what?  I make more each year, and plan to continue doing so.  Am I in a race to the "top"?  You can have the bottom, whatever it is.



The race to the bottom is responding to the idea that to be competitive with 3rd world labor our labor here at home has to get cheaper (i.e. lower wages).  To be honest at this point the thread is so convoluted I'm not sure who or even if anyone actually said that


----------



## ironpony

Joful said:


> Frankly, I never understood the question.  Bottom of what?  I make more each year, and plan to continue doing so.  Am I in a race to the "top"?  You can have the bottom, whatever it is.


 


I agree, upwards one more year then I am cashing out. Heading to ST Croix retired, 54, should give me a few good years on the beach. It will be a slightly lower standard of living but the money will go far.
Maybe I am voluntarily moving to the bottom?? make room at the top for the young guns.


----------



## ironpony

jharkin said:


> The race to the bottom is responding to the idea that to be competitive with 3rd world labor our labor here at home has to get cheaper (i.e. lower wages).  To be honest at this point the thread is so convoluted I'm not sure who or even if anyone actually said that


 

One of the recent presidents had said the world will be equal or something like that, no one realized it meant we were going down, not them coming up.
Although with 3rd world country wages slightly increasing there is less value in going over there.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

ironpony said:


> I agree, upwards one more year then I am cashing out. Heading to ST Croix retired, 54, should give me a few good years on the beach. It will be a slightly lower standard of living but the money will go far.
> Maybe I am voluntarily moving to the bottom?? make room at the top for the young guns.


Is the cost of living that low in St croix? I do beach time in the philippines and the money goes pretty far there. Also  i dont mind simple accomodatiuons ,its the scenery and the nature im there for.


----------



## ironpony

Seasoned Oak said:


> Is the cost of living that low in St croix? I do beach time in the philippines and the money goes pretty far there. Also  i dont mind simple accomodatiuons ,its the scenery and the nature im there for.


 

housing less, property taxes a flat 377 per 100,000, no other taxes. general merchandise similar, no heating, minimal cooling. still part of US, no voting.
I can still do some rehab as I feel like it to keep busy or maybe do maintenance on some of the million dollar homes.


----------



## ironpony

this is the view form the property I am considering 1/2 acre beachfront


----------



## Jags

Hey - thats the same one I am looking at....


----------



## ironpony

Jags said:


> Hey - thats the same one I am looking at....


 

you can come visit it


----------



## Seasoned Oak

I like to rent, iv found in some places the cost to buy is many times the rental charge. Plus not tied down to one location.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

ironpony said:


> this is the view form the property I am considering 1/2 acre beachfront


Hows the crime, in some of these places the law is few and far between. Isolated places can be risky.


----------



## jharkin

ironpony said:


> this is the view form the property I am considering 1/2 acre beachfront



Looks pretty damn perfect to me.  Congrats IP, I'll probably have to work well past 54 to make it myself......


----------



## Ehouse

ironpony said:


> this is the view form the property I am considering 1/2 acre beachfront




Under water in 10 years.


----------



## ironpony

Seasoned Oak said:


> Hows the crime, in some of these places the law is few and far between. Isolated places can be risky.


 


seems low have to look into that further, renting seems way high there. I am a builder by trade and if I build it the value for it finished far exceeds buying a finished home. also looking at a couple that are partially finished where the owner ran out of money.


----------



## ironpony

Ehouse said:


> Under water in 10 years.


 

I am building it watertite. reef front property


----------



## Ehouse

razerface said:


> that sounds like socialism to me. If we all make the same wages,,,,I am going to quit and join the unproductive people. Every other worker will too. Why bust my butt to give it to other people while they sit on their butts?
> 
> When the workers get tired of supporting the non-workers,,, and join them,,it is all over. It won't be long now!
> 
> Store up some food and get some wood cut before you can't buy any gas!




Socialism, yes, but not more socialism, and probably a lot less costly.  It's just an alternate template for distribution.

Some measure of socialism is inescapable, for reasons of stability (keeping the unwashed masses from storming the estates of the wealthy, and let's not forget "to big to fail") and also to combat disease,  limit crime, raise taxes, promote moral standards, create and maintain infrastructure and architectural standards, maintain an adequate and functional military etc., and in short draw all citizens together to achieve all the collective advantages a civilized culture is capable of. 

Without a living wage, we are dead meat.


----------



## Jags

Ehouse said:


> Without a living wage, we are dead meat.


Who gets to define a living wage?  And does this include cable and your own bedroom?
Does a living wage dictate lifestyle?  Or maybe the lowest "acceptable" lifestyle?

I am not arguing, I am trying to provoke thought.  If I yell out $40,000 - there will be a group that salivates and there will be a group that cringes.

I am still waiting for someone to entertain my first question.  If $15 per hour min. wage is good - then $30 must be better?


----------



## Grisu

Why people don't like socialism: They don't need to do well, they just need to do better than their neighbor.


----------



## Warm_in_NH

jharkin said:


> Thin about it, there are a LOT of people out there who dont have the skills or education for much more than basic manual labor. If we dont pay them a living wage are they going to be living in a cardboard box out in the street? Probably not, they will be living in govt subsidised housing and buying food with govt subsidized EBT cards and getting free health care at the ER because they cant pay the bill. All of which get paid for by the rest of us through taxes and insurance premiums. Money which is recycling back into the economy to buy goods and services.




I've run that same thought pattern through my head, thinking along the same lines. However, new proposed federal minimum wage is $10 and change an hour. So if a person works at a job for a full 40 hours a week and a full 52 weeks a year, they're still only going to make about $21,000 a year. They're still going to get aid on a state and federal level, and if they have kids, they'll get even more, but now we just upped the wages too, so we end up paying more on both ends. I'm not a tax guru, maybe it all balances out, but I do know a few dead beats that play the system and it amazes me as much as it infuriates me to see what they get away with while I'm at work busting my hump to support their butts.


----------



## Ehouse

Jags said:


> Who gets to define a living wage?  And does this include cable and your own bedroom?
> Does a living wage dictate lifestyle?  Or maybe the lowest "acceptable" lifestyle?
> 
> I am not arguing, I am trying to provoke thought.  If I yell out $40,000 - there will be a group that salivates and there will be a group that cringes.
> 
> I am still waiting for someone to entertain my first question.  If $15 per hour min. wage is good - then $30 must be better?




Collective bargaining by employers and employees with input from consumers and manufacturing seemed to work pretty well for a while but taking workers out of the loop has proven to be a big mistake.  Short answer.  Gotta go.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

jharkin said:


> The entire economy is one big money redistribution system. MOney has to keep flowing for the machine to operate properly
> 
> Thin about it, there are a LOT of people out there who dont have the skills or education for much more than basic manual labor.


Or ambition to strive to improve. If we make it too comfortable to stay poor we will get a lot more of it. Its hard to push a $10 minimum wage on people when the govt is paying $20+ an hour in benefits in most states to do nothiing. I believe in PA its $24


----------



## Cynnergy

Can we please stop with the 'poor people are just lazy' stereotype?  There are lazy people everywhere.  I just recently did an interview with the local food bank for a food security project that I'm working on - 90% of the people using my town's food bank are the working poor.  200 families, just in MY TOWN (of about 30 000), that survive on 2 lb. of pasta, 1 lb. of ground beef, 4L of frozen milk, and a load of chocolate bars and chips per week for a family of four because they get what they're given and that's what's being donated.  Apparently they get really excited on the weeks that they get bagged salad in because it's a treat.  Seriously they are excited for SALAD.  They can't all be just lazy - who would voluntarily live like that?  

There is a lot of research about poverty and why it leads to bad decision making, here is just one article: http://www.theatlantic.com/business...oor-people-seem-to-make-bad-decisions/281780/

And I live in Socialist Canadia-land.  I can't imagine what it's like in the States.


----------



## webbie

Jags said:


> I am still waiting for someone to entertain my first question.  If $15 per hour min. wage is good - then $30 must be better?



Nah, if one pint of Ben and Jerrys is good, two pints can get you sick and fat.......

That's not really a logic argument, IMHO. I don't think min. wage needs to be "a living wage", but it does need to be enough so that life is not indentured servitude or quasi-slavery.
Keep in mind that today - even at min. wage - many employees exercise a awfully strict set of rules which the employee must follow.

My general theory - which holds true in many ways, is that the less you make, the harder you work. If you make vast sums, you are in a nice eatery with a "lunch meeting", or on the golf course for a business meeting. If you make nothing, someone (or cameras) are watching your every second and measuring your output of burgers....


----------



## webbie

My niece moved to panama and now runs her own (and also others) web sites trying to get folks to move there. 

Panama is the opposite of socialist. In fact, the natives are largely poor and suppressed and people from all over the world ($$$) have taken over for centuries...due to the location. Not much crime. Cheap. Beaches. Close by.....her blog (geared toward younger would-be ex-pats)....

http://www.permanentlypanama.com/
(don't blame me for her partying ways! She was raised in Florida!).


----------



## ironpony

webbie said:


> My niece moved to panama and now runs her own (and also others) web sites trying to get folks to move there.
> 
> Panama is the opposite of socialist. In fact, the natives are largely poor and suppressed and people from all over the world ($$$) have taken over for centuries...due to the location. Not much crime. Cheap. Beaches. Close by.....her blog (geared toward younger would-be ex-pats)....
> 
> http://www.permanentlypanama.com/
> (don't blame me for her partying ways! She was raised in Florida!).





hey, no linking to other websites...................


----------



## webbie

ironpony said:


> hey, no linking to other websites...................



Wait - I thought I read earlier in this thread that the 5% (hey, I'm not 1%, so I gotta try for 5), get to make their own rules???


----------



## Jags

Everything that would happen at $30 will happen at $15, just to a lesser degree.  It may be more palatable because it isn't so dramatic but it will have the same effect.  

Why not figure our poverty line, then figure our min wage to be above that and pin both to inflation.  That way we don't have to rehash min wage every couple of years. We loose a whole sector of welfare - the working poor.  That allows us to use and monitor the welfare system much better (far less users). And a whole host of other positive things that come with it. (Like reduce the funding to welfare)
It will be painful at first but it will only take a couple of years to adjust to.


----------



## webbie

I agree it should be indexed to something - but it's not and we can watch while the next battle goes on. Although a majority of Americans think it should be raised, they are not the "right" Americans, meaning they are not the big corps, think tanks, etc.....just folks like maybe you and I.

Most of us are not going to vote...or not vote - based on a promise to raise some other poor suckers wages...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/160913/back-raising-minimum-wage.aspx
"*Most Democrats and independents, and half of Republicans, favor increase to $9"*


----------



## stoveguy2esw

ok, held out as long as I could.

here's the way I see it;
1. a "living wage" is simply that , making enough money to subsist on in today's economy. now if it can be done on 15 bucks an hour (and it can I know plenty of folks who are able to do it with less and not take subsidies) ive managed to do so in the past at considerably less. ive worked at 6 bucks an hour and managed to get it done (though it was 20 years ago) of course I wasn't driving a new car or carrying a smartphone or playing golf every weekend at the club, but I managed to get us by until I started making more money.

now, part of the problem we see today is the change in worker demographics. we are no longer as heavy with manufacturing jobs as we were a generation ago (mostly due to offshoring a crapload of industries we used to do predominantly here , textiles for instance) component factories such as the ones which make blowers and such for our stoves, now they are in mexico or china along with electronics , appliances and the list goes on. now, whats left? service related jobs, retail, food industry, and such (not saying there are NO professional or factory type jobs , just that they are scarcer and the population is higher) these jobs are generally "lower skillset" jobs mostly in years past filled by retirees who want a part time job to have some additional income or the younger subset (high school kids and such) they weren't ever intended to be a career occupation. nowadays these jobs are increasingly held by folks who are trying to use them as such due to the lesser percentage of higher paying manufacturing jobs out there for a larger workforce. so the question becomes this *"should the companies which set their business models years ago around having less expensive labor using the subsets I mentioned before have to change their model to supply a "living wage" simply because the living wage job market has dried up?"  *just asking the question.

2. do we as a nation really "need" cable tv with "the hoppa" dvr, cellphones, hundred dollar sneakers, k cup coffee makers (I have one and love it) great big houses, more than one car, tv in every room, x boxes and all the other crap we seem to not be able to live without?

here's the deal, both sides of this argument have merit, on one hand the argument of raising the minimum wage makes a bit of sense as the cost of living has risen, heck look at what it costs just to get to work thanks to high gas prices (not everyone can take da bus) food costs have risen quite a bit also. problem is when the minimum wage rises the cost of living shortly after rises as well , so its a short term gain followed by the same situation in a couple years. its a sugar pill though probably a necessary one. what is truly needed though is a return to domestic manufacturing. I would applaud in a way POTUS's "technology centers" idea, but I do not think this is going to help that much as the training will be done here and the trained will then go elsewhere to use the training as that's where the higher end jobs will be for the most part. work on the supply side in a way that favors domestic manufacturing use taxes and tariffs in a way that promotes domestic production. the biggest problem we have with produced goods imported from abroad is we cannot match the price point with domestic products as our wages (though apparently not high enough) are much higher than they are in the countries which are underselling our stuff. not to mention the added costs of increased regulation which will never ever make it cheaper to make anything at all.

if we want to increase the standard of living we have to bring back the durable goods industries in a way that they can compete in price point with foreign made products. obviously we cant do this by paying wages such as they are in these places (as they are way lower), so its up to the government to level the playing field in other ways, through tariffs and reduced regulation within reason to ease the costs of manufacturing so we can compete.

ohh and BTW, I also think that the richest should pay higher taxes so don't label me a neocon just yet.


----------



## webbie

I don't think the "no TV" types of argument hold much weight anymore. You can go to the most impoverished places in the world and they have TV and stoves and other "luxuries". 
In terms of big money it would be wiser to argue the "need car, insurance and health insurance" at minimum to live and work angle....and I think most of us know this is near impossible on $8 an hour. 

There are obviously differences in costs throughout the country..especially in housing. But it's not really so in cars, gas, health care and basic foodstuffs. 

Poverty guidelines for a family of 4 are about 30K per year. If that is "before tax" money, that would be $15 an hour or so. Keep in mind that even at poverty levels they would qualify for a lot of public assistance.

I guess from where I sit an immediate increase to about $10 would be a start - then we can argue over it more in the long run. Maybe it should be $12 or $15 in NYC or such places, but that should be done at the state and local levels. I'd support $12 in MA, but wouldn't want to force it elsewhere (we are a high wage state - we can afford it - and costs are high here to live).


----------



## stoveguy2esw

webbie said:


> I agree it should be indexed to something - but it's not and we can watch while the next battle goes on. Although a majority of Americans think it should be raised, they are not the "right" Americans, meaning they are not the big corps, think tanks, etc.....just folks like maybe you and I.
> 
> Most of us are not going to vote...or not vote - based on a promise to raise some other poor suckers wages...
> 
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/160913/back-raising-minimum-wage.aspx
> "*Most Democrats and independents, and half of Republicans, favor increase to $9"*


 

I dunno web. im with ya on the concept, but I still think just tying the wage to the poverty level is simply admitting defeat and continuing the cycle. FWIW im one of those republicans that does favor raising it , but not for the same effects that most think we would get from it.

think of it this way, you should identify with this line of thought and probably agree with it

say you raise the wage, this puts more money in the hands of the folks who have less of it now , they spend it, where do you think its going to eventually end up? same place it is now, in the hands of the wealthy, with the added baggage of raising the cost of living in the process. so what happens , you raise it again, and the cycle continues

as I said above im not against raising taxes on the rich, though I think the current "definition" is a bit off. 250K? heck there are hundreds that make that a month, buffet probably makes that much in a week without lifting a finger. I like changing the cap gains tax to make it more of a scaled tax as well.  what I disagree with is the mindset that businesses are there simply for the benefit of the employed. if I started a business im not doing it to make more people "middle class" im doing it to make money, if I do make someone "middle class" in the process that's great, but its not the reason im going to put myself in hock for millions for. taxes aren't necessarily for the "redistribution of wealth, though they will tend to do this , they are for the purpose of keeping wealth moving in and of itself. money does noting unless its exchanged. moving it from the poor to the rich perpetually seems the only game in town but directly taking it and handing it out is counterproductive. taking it and spending it indirectly on things like education makes more sense. to simplify "give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man to fish he eats every day"  we spend too much "handing out fish" as I also said above , I applaud POTUS for his efforts in the "technology centers' idea for the thought, but im not sure its all the way thought out. its deeper than just throwing money at it. aside from the education part, more work needs to be done in bringing a level playing field to manufacturing domestically versus manufacturing abroad. if a country can make a product then ship it half way around the world and undersell what we make in out own back yard we're gonna continue to slide. we have to find a way to slow the loss of manufacturing jobs to the rest of the world who are able to undercut us on price point at every turn. let them sell to the rest of the world, we can make any product here that anyone can make elsewhere at just as high if not a higher quality, we simply cannot do it cheaper than they can at this point.


----------



## stoveguy2esw

webbie said:


> (we are a high wage state - we can afford it - and costs are high here to live).


 

this is key. what you guys have for a cost of living is much higher than in other states. why do you think that is?


----------



## Ehouse

stoveguy2esw said:


> this is key. what you guys have for a cost of living is much higher than in other states. why do you think that is?




.....and, a related question I think is where was the "sweet spot" in the last hundred years and is it possible to approximate that balance again?


----------



## webbie

I don't think that when the poor spend a few more bucks on things that it all ends up in the hands of the wealthy! In fact, I think these issues are complex - much ends up in the hands of folks like me who THEN become wealthier (that is, they shop at my stove shop, etc.)....

Higher incomes, in general, mean less in societal and family problems. Not a panacea, but income does correlate with happiness up to a certain level. Adults who make a decent living feel better about themselves, their families, their society, etc. 
More money for education. Some folks may be able to take their kids out of bad schools and send them to the local parochial school, etc.

Hopelessness and substance abuse and domestic violence could do down...

Yeah, I know it sounds utopian, but reality is that these things do correlate. Here are some charts....not telling you to buy them at face value - look up the stuff for yourselves. 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/maps-of-the-south-bad-place_n_4855191.html

No one can doubt we have major problems here in the good ole USA. At the same time, much of it is self-inflicted. My doc does a lot of volunteer service in Haiti and he says virtually all the people he deals with are very happy. So we need more than money to create happiness....but, maybe in our case, it will at least curtail a bit of hopelessness.

We set the bar high here. We told generations that, if you work hard, the streets were paved with gold. We never told them that they would have to work 2 or 3 jobs and even still barely survive. Either we lied....or, we have allowed the income inequality to get too large...or we are spending it all on the wrong stuff. Probably a little of all three and more.....

But, as an "executive", the past doesn't matter much to me. I like to take a "let's fix it now...this is what is" type of outlook. 

When I was the Boss at the shop, I had an employee come to me and say "Craig, I like working here and want to stay. Problem is, I don't want to work those crazy hours you have on nights and weekends and I want to have a home life. Tell you what...if you want me, I want to go home at 5 and work 40 hours a week".

I kept the guy. He wanted a job AND a life. Good for him. 
I think that's what most Americans want...and too many don't have it.


----------



## Ehouse

A major problem is that a raise in the minimum wage as a solution to our economic problems is being pushed as an unfunded mandate for the merchant class.  they don't have the money to fund it.  Even the dollar stores around here are going belly up.


----------



## webbie

Ehouse said:


> A major problem is that a raise in the minimum wage as a solution to our economic problems is being pushed as an unfunded mandate for the merchant class.  they don't have the money to fund it.  Even the dollar stores around here are going belly up.



Yeah, it's horrible. I went into one today and (seriously) everything is 1.09 plus tax......

What a travesty!


PS. I can't believe what they sell for 1.09.
Thanks, China!

(Got a heck of a back scratcher for $1.09 - even has a shoehorn on the opposite end)


----------



## stoveguy2esw

Ehouse said:


> .....and, a related question I think is where was the "sweet spot" in the last hundred years and is it possible to approximate that balance again?


 

I think the "sweet spot" is tied to the job demographic. when we have more productive types of jobs available to the "career oriented" job seekers the less attractive lower paying jobs will revert back to the workers I mentioned above , the high schoolers and older folks looking to pad their retirement.


----------



## fossil

webbie said:


> You can go to the most impoverished places in the world and they have TV and stoves and other "luxuries".



http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/03/25/more-people-have-cell-phones-than-toilets-u-n-study-shows/


----------



## Ashful

I think a federal minimum wage is a flawed concept.  $15/hr in a rural part of Iowa likely buys a different lifestyle than $15/hr in Newport, RI.  Allow the states to do what they were designed to do.  Allow the populace to vote with their feet.


----------



## woodgeek

Fun conversation, but why is everyone saying $15?  I thought the proposal was for $10.10, and to index it to inflation going forward (for the first time).


----------



## Ehouse

webbie said:


> Yeah, it's horrible. I went into one today and (seriously) everything is 1.09 plus tax......
> 
> What a travesty!
> 
> 
> PS. I can't believe what they sell for 1.09.
> Thanks, China!
> 
> (Got a heck of a back scratcher for $1.09 - even has a shoehorn on the opposite end)




Yankee Dollar is liquidating at 69 cents per item with many twofers at the moment.  My recycled plastic bag contained reading glasses (bought 10 pair), drill mounted paint stirrers (5-10 bucks at the hardware store), various duct, masking, and packaging tapes (twofers), couple of tennis hats, (tres fasionable'), 2 pair of great Chinese boot socks (probably army surplus), a bag of neoprene gloves for boat varnishing, and various cans of sardines (yum!), pasta, and other food stuffs.

Yer stuck in a first world value system Web!


----------



## Retired Guy

bassJAM said:


> Honestly I don't think taxing the 1% more will hurt jobs much, if at all.  They create jobs, but so does many in the middle class on their way to becoming the 1%.  I do find it very wrong to basically steal a larger percentage of their money, just because it hurts them less.  It's even more wrong to do so just because you think it's unfair that they make that much.
> 
> At the same time, it's wrong to force employers to pay low skilled workers more than they are worth.  In no reality is a high school student worth $15/hour to take orders at a window and punch those in on a screen.  And just because another person doing the exact same job is 40 with 3 kids at home, doesn't mean he/she deserves a higher pay because chances are either their intelligence level or work ethic is the reason they are doing a high schooler's job.  Force McDonald's hand, and I guarantee you they'll pay their skilled workers (engineers) to figure out a way to automate the process, and some more smart people (marketing) a way to spin it so we are happy about interacting with a computer vs a person.  Give it 5 years and it'll probably be way more accurate then a person too.
> 
> I just don't see why some people don't see that artificially creating higher wages is a really bad thing.


Depending on how much the tax is, the 1% will create the jobs elsewhere, business friendly state or third world country. Watch what happens in NYC if taxes on the 1% skyrocket as the new mayor promised  during the campaign.


----------



## Grisu

The idea behind the minimum wage is to reverse the trend of a falling wage share compared to total income (GDP). Here are two links to show how dramatic that trend has become in the last 10 years:
http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/trends/2012/0212/01gropro.cfm
http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/commentary/2012/2012-13.cfm

That means the return on capital has been much higher than the return on labor or to put it in lay language: It has been more profitable to lend your money out than to work. That trend is not sustainable in the long run as in the end we all want the products of labor for which we need workers who produce those. Increasing the wage share by raising the minimum wage is an attempt to fix that but IMHO a rather blunt and insufficient tool. To balance out income distribution again we will need to reduce capital gains and increase total wages in relation to GDP. 

Here is a (longer) article how a wage-led growth strategy may be much better in the long-run:
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/pu...travail/documents/publication/wcms_192507.pdf


----------



## Seasoned Oak

webbie said:


> My niece moved to panama and now runs her own (and also others) web sites trying to get folks to move there.
> 
> Panama is the opposite of socialist. In fact, the natives are largely poor and suppressed and people from all over the world ($$$) have taken over for centuries...due to the location. Not much crime. Cheap. Beaches. Close by.....her blog (geared toward younger would-be ex-pats)....
> 
> http://www.permanentlypanama.com/
> (don't blame me for her partying ways! She was raised in Florida!).


Thats a great site. Theres one independent girl.  For those of us who enjoy traveling abroad we can relate to her reasons for doing it. I wish her the best. Iv spent a month in costa rica which should be similar to panama. Interesting place.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Cynnergy said:


> Can we please stop with the 'poor people are just lazy' stereotype? .


Your right,most of the poor people i know are not lazy. But by the same token most of the lazy people i know are poor.(By american standards) And will remain poor,(and lazy)as long as their every need is being met by others. I was born dirt poor.Back then you only had one choice,get movin cuz it was all up to you. The biggest poverty driver in america today IMO is poor trade policies that decimated low skilled MFG.Thats where most of the poor and middle class used to work. If we are forced to compete with slave labor countries then will eventually live like them with vast numbers of poor and jobless.


----------



## vinny11950

Seasoned Oak said:


> Your right,most of the poor people i know are not lazy. But by the same token most of the lazy people i know are poor.(By american standards) And will remain poor,(and lazy)as long as their every need is being met by others. I was born dirt poor.Back then you only had one choice,get movin cuz it was all up to you. The biggest poverty driver in america today IMO is poor trade policies that decimated low skilled MFG.Thats where most of the poor and middle class used to work. If we are forced to compete with slave labor countries then will eventually live like them with vast numbers of poor and jobless.



AMEN!


----------



## Ashful

Grisu said:


> The idea behind the minimum wage is to reverse the trend of a falling wage share compared to total income (GDP). Here are two links to show how dramatic that trend has become in the last 10 years:
> http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/trends/2012/0212/01gropro.cfm
> http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/commentary/2012/2012-13.cfm


I'm a reasonably smart engineer, which is why I always have trouble with the funny math financial analysts prefer, so let me ask this... could this graph be affected by the fact that, due to automation and better design, less actual labor is required to produce a given product?



Seasoned Oak said:


> Your right,most of the poor people i know are not lazy. But by the same token most of the lazy people i know are poor.


Amen.


----------



## webbie

woodgeek said:


> Fun conversation, but why is everyone saying $15?  I thought the proposal was for $10.10, and to index it to inflation going forward (for the first time).



That's easy. Many naysayers can only make their point by gross exaggeration. It's much easier than addressing the subject at hand, such as my original question of why I got paid so much in rural TN in the early 70's...and, somehow, the country didn't fall apart.

Any other questions??


----------



## webbie

Most of the lazy people I know are NOT poor. 

Rather, they have made money by "crook" (insurance settlements which are sometimes suspect), been born with a silver spoon or stole one from their folks and family, etc. 
Or, they simply went into a white color or similar job and stayed the course....not making waves often raises you up far (in certain settings). Sometimes, the one left standing is the one who gets the job. 

On the other hand, I don't know many ambitious, smart and hardworking people who are very poor. But these generalizations probably don't mean much....anecdotal stuff. 

Like blogging and web sites....if everyone did it (was hard working, ambitious and smart and had access to capital), then there would be very few left to serve those masters and help them attain their goals. So society will always be stratified to some degree based on "luck" and "karma"....of where, when and how you were born and your environment, etc.


----------



## Grisu

Joful said:


> I'm a reasonably smart engineer, which is why I always have trouble with the funny math financial analysts prefer, so let me ask this... could this graph be affected by the fact that, due to automation and better design, less actual labor is required to produce a given product?



Great question. As far as I know the literature, the role of technological change in the wage share reduction is at most minor. Some literature:
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/pu...travail/documents/publication/wcms_202352.pdf
http://www.epi.org/publication/technology-inequality-dont-blame-the-robots/

Since robots don't buy products we will always need consumers who create demand and therefore need an income. Since we believe it's best that people work for their income we will need to create other jobs and pay sufficient wages to buy the output we produce. So far, we compensated for the declining wage share by increased borrowing which kept GDP growing. As that is not happening anymore since 2008, GDP growth is anemic to say the least. The proper response would be for the people who have the capital (aka savings) to spend it again which would create jobs and increase total wages. Instead they try to lend it out which bids up financial asset prices (bonds, stocks etc.) but does not provide jobs.


----------



## ironpony

Joful said:


> I'm a *reasonably smart engineer*, which is why I always have trouble with the funny math financial analysts prefer, so let me ask this... could this graph be affected by the fact that, due to automation and better design, less actual labor is required to produce a given product?
> 
> 
> Amen.


 


you drive a train? woo woo


----------



## razerface

woodgeek said:


> Fun conversation, but why is everyone saying $15?  I thought the proposal was for $10.10, and to index it to inflation going forward (for the first time).






webbie said:


> That's easy. Many naysayers can only make their point by gross exaggeration. It's much easier than addressing the subject at hand, such as my original question of why I got paid so much in rural TN in the early 70's...and, somehow, the country didn't fall apart.
> 
> Any other questions??


No,,,the OP begreen had put in a movie where the guy who was giving a speech was advocating 15 hr min wage in his state. It is the original purpose of this thread,,,read post #1


----------



## webbie

Founder, CEO....google, Bell Labs, Sun and many more...has something to say about all this:
http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/07/go...ity-will-be-number-one-issue-for-democracies/

He sorta mentions what I did. Not everyone can hold a science and tech job. Those who can't will lose out. 

Interesting read, anyway....


----------



## Seasoned Oak

webbie said:


> Like blogging and web sites....if everyone did it (was hard working, ambitious and smart and had access to capital), then there would be very few left to serve those masters and help them attain their goals. .


Quite true. I make a living from those who cant manage their money well enough to finance a home through a bank the traditional way and do it through me at higher rates. Even though many of these people earn a higher annual salary than i do. No shortage of customers, but still a win win and mutually beneficial.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

woodgeek said:


> Fun conversation, but why is everyone saying $15?  I thought the proposal was for $10.10, and to index it to inflation going forward (for the first time).


Thats why they call it 'Unskilled labor" No particular skill required. Usually skilled pay requires some sort of skill.


----------



## Cynnergy

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

*Ducks and runs*


----------



## stoveguy2esw

webbie said:


> Founder, CEO....google, Bell Labs, Sun and many more...has something to say about all this:
> http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/07/go...ity-will-be-number-one-issue-for-democracies/
> 
> He sorta mentions what I did. Not everyone can hold a science and tech job. Those who can't will lose out.
> 
> Interesting read, anyway....


 

nuts and bolts will never go away. no matter how complicated the device is , somebody has to assemble it. look at automobiles, no matter how complex they are you still have a guy with a wrench there. manufacturing is what it is. the gateway to the middle class. now the folks who write code, and such for these tech companies are more valuable in one respect, you don't learn how to do it in high school, you need higher education and you need a mind that can absorb the knowledge to do this and invent new ways to do this.

there is a simple truth to understand here. in America our creed is that "all men are created equal" this is true. but not all men are created equal in the simple fact that some folks have different abilities. not everyone has the ability to learn to create software like a gates or jobs, though they may well be a superior mechanic than either of them.

its like web has said several times in the past "there's a butt for every seat" in my mind , "there's a mind for every task". but this doesn't necessarily translate to equal monetary value for service.

in my mind those who do not have the ability to hold a "tech " job, shouldn't lose out as long as the nuts and bolts are still necessary, and they always will be. question is , are we going to recognize that we have the ability to bring those "nuts and bolts jobs" back here or will we allow ourselves to continue to welcome the outsourcing of these jobs to countries which pay 10% of the wages we do. quality wise we can compete with ANYBODY I know this for a fact , I see it when I walk along the assembly lines we have at ESW. what we cannot compete with is companies abroad who can make and ship products here for less than we can produce them locally because of the wage scale they are able to pay for the same work (taking nothing away from the "line worker" in Taiwan, or Bangladesh, as they im sure are as proud of what they make as my guys are here in the Old Dominion. but when they get paid 10 bucks a day and a welder might make 25-30 bucks AN HOUR  then the company which has a 3% labor cost on their P and L is going to have a boatload of extra room to lower pricing. we cannot compete with that, this is where government has to step in and level the playing field. until that happens our labor force will continue to rot away into the "boutique" workforce instead of the manufacturing workforce of a couple generations ago


----------



## stoveguy2esw

Cynnergy said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
> 
> *Ducks and runs*


 

you should    it does fit the discussion though


----------



## TradEddie

> If my company goes bankrupt and in debt,,the employees will not assume any of that debt,,,just me. The employees risk nothing,, I risk it all.



Apologies if someone else has brought this up, but if the statement above is true, you need a new corporate lawyer.  Almost the entire point of creating a company is to shield the owners from liability and debt. You should never lose more than your own investment.

TE


----------



## stoveguy2esw

Seasoned Oak said:


> Thats why they call it 'Unskilled labor" No particular skill required. Usually skilled pay requires some sort of skill.


 

no matter what you do for a living it requires a "skill"  go pick lettuce or better yet , artichokes for a day. not intending this at all to be racist but picking cotton is a skill. it may not be the same skill as writing a custom program for some mainframe but its a skill none the less.  my wife has worked as a cashier for stores for most of her working life, god help you if she saw that post , she'd drag you to a register and say "go ahead show me how its unskilled"  trust me dude, you would be hating life in seconds.

"unskilled labor" is an oxymoron. even loading hay bales is "skilled" in a way as if you do not know the proper technique for doing it you wont make it through a single day (I've seen this personally)  I personally abhor the term "unskilled labor" even though I understand its implied meaning I do not accept its definition. tying ones shoes is a skill, we learn it in kindergarten if not sooner at home, I have never nor would I ever describe a person who worked in my plant in such a manner I don't care if he/she swept the floor or scrubbed the john. I detest the descriptive.

that said , a cashier isn't going to possess the same degree of technical training as a programmer, or a doctor, and nowhere near the level of technical training or education. so therefore the "trade" these docs and techies are trained in will command a higher salary. if the salary weren't higher why would a potential doctor spend the first 35 years of their life learning the trade before they picked up a scalpel and walked in the OR?


----------



## stoveguy2esw

TradEddie said:


> Apologies if someone else has brought this up, but if the statement above is true, you need a new corporate lawyer.  Almost the entire point of creating a company is to shield the owners from liability and debt. You should never lose more than your own investment.
> 
> TE


 

that's fine if your investment is next to nothing , granted you might not lose your house, but you still lose what you put into the business itself. what if that investment is your life savings? what if you mortgage your house to get the capital to start up?
when you do this you probably do not have the extra money laying around to pay for a "corporate lawyer"

the statement above is perfectly factual. you do not start a business by putting a quarter in a bubble gum machine and twisting the handle. its a major risk, a person could end up destitute in a start up.


----------



## TradEddie

I own my own company too, I've put my money, time and effort into it, but the entire point of creating a company is a) tax breaks, b) severance of liability.  The poster stated that if his company is in debt, and goes bankrupt, he assumes that debt, that should never, ever be the case. If the poster mortgaged his house to start a business, I admire that, but that's not what he said. Some of the greatest entrepreneurs ever have left a trail of bankrupt companies and unpaid creditors behind before they hit the big one. 

TE


----------



## Grisu

stoveguy2esw said:


> that said , a cashier isn't going to possess the same degree of technical training as a programmer, or a doctor, and nowhere near the level of technical training or education. so therefore the "trade" these docs and techies are trained in will command a higher salary. if the salary weren't higher why would a potential doctor spend the first 35 years of their life learning the trade before they picked up a scalpel and walked in the OR?



Like the first part of the post but don't really agree with this. A lot of doctors actually want to help people (and detest the rest that comes with the job). I venture that the guys who go into a profession just because of the money are more often than not the worst in their jobs. Or they study finance right away and go straight to Wall Street.  Does our society really benefit from having people choose certain jobs just because of the money, not because they like what they are doing? How many great teachers or nurses end up in an office instead of a school/hospital? How many responsible farmers are sitting behind a desk? 

The idea that you need to pay a high salary to make certain jobs attractive is a very flawed one. Or is picking lettuce/hauling trash really that more attractive than treating the sick or putting numbers in a spreadsheet even assuming the same pay? Low wages are NOT paid because so many people like to do those jobs. They are paid because many people have no other choice.


----------



## stoveguy2esw

TradEddie said:


> I own my own company too, I've put my money, time and effort into it, but the entire point of creating a company is a) tax breaks, b) severance of liability.  The poster stated that if his company is in debt, and goes bankrupt, he assumes that debt, that should never, ever be the case. If the poster mortgaged his house to start a business, I admire that, but that's not what he said. Some of the greatest entrepreneurs ever have left a trail of bankrupt companies and unpaid creditors behind before they hit the big one.
> 
> TE


 

ok, i'l bite , if you have a company and it is unable to pay its debts and goes bankrupt , then who is responsible for the money that is owed?  im all ears. do the creditors just have to "eat the loss"?


----------



## stoveguy2esw

Grisu said:


> Low wages are NOT paid because so many people like to do those jobs. They are paid because many people have no other choice.


 

why do they not have that choice?


----------



## Grisu

stoveguy2esw said:


> ok, i'l bite , if you have a company and it is unable to pay its debts and goes bankrupt , then who is responsible for the money that is owed?  im all ears. do the creditors just have to "eat the loss"?



Not so sure about American bankruptcy law but my Mom does exactly that in Germany and the answer is simply: Yes, the creditors will eat the loss. They get all the material assets (buildings, machines etc.) but the private wealth of the owner is unaffected when the business was set up correctly (meaning the owner did not put up any of his private wealth as collateral). (I think LLC would be the appropriate equivalent here but don't nail me on that.)


----------



## Ehouse

stoveguy2esw said:


> no matter what you do for a living it requires a "skill"  go pick lettuce or better yet , artichokes for a day. not intending this at all to be racist but picking cotton is a skill. it may not be the same skill as writing a custom program for some mainframe but its a skill none the less.  my wife has worked as a cashier for stores for most of her working life, god help you if she saw that post , she'd drag you to a register and say "go ahead show me how its unskilled"  trust me dude, you would be hating life in seconds.
> 
> "unskilled labor" is an oxymoron. even loading hay bales is "skilled" in a way as if you do not know the proper technique for doing it you wont make it through a single day (I've seen this personally)  I personally abhor the term "unskilled labor" even though I understand its implied meaning I do not accept its definition. tying ones shoes is a skill, we learn it in kindergarten if not sooner at home, I have never nor would I ever describe a person who worked in my plant in such a manner I don't care if he/she swept the floor or scrubbed the john. I detest the descriptive.
> 
> that said , a cashier isn't going to possess the same degree of technical training as a programmer, or a doctor, and nowhere near the level of technical training or education. so therefore the "trade" these docs and techies are trained in will command a higher salary. if the salary weren't higher why would a potential doctor spend the first 35 years of their life learning the trade before they picked up a scalpel and walked in the OR?




I agree and I think a better way of looking at employment is to say there's a skill component, a risk component, and a time component to any job. I think we tend to overvalue the skill component, severely undervalue the risk component, and don't acknowledge the sacrifice inherent in the time component.  It's the time component the minimum wage attempts to address.


----------



## stoveguy2esw

Grisu said:


> Like the first part of the post but don't really agree with this. A lot of doctors actually want to help people (and detest the rest that comes with the job). I venture that the guys who go into a profession just because of the money are more often than not the worst in their jobs. Or they study finance right away and go straight to Wall Street.  Does our society really benefit from having people choose certain jobs just because of the money, not because they like what they are doing? How many great teachers or nurses end up in an office instead of a school/hospital? How many responsible farmers are sitting behind a desk?
> 
> The idea that you need to pay a high salary to make certain jobs attractive is a very flawed one. Or is picking lettuce/hauling trash really that more attractive than treating the sick or putting numbers in a spreadsheet even assuming the same pay? Low wages are NOT paid because so many people like to do those jobs. They are paid because many people have no other choice.


 

when it comes down to the brass tacks , people do not work because its a benefit to society they do so because its a benefit to their self (otherwise why work?)  now some have the 'higher calling' they become doctors or priests or whatever because they want to help their fellow man. that said , they have to put in the time to learn the task they have taken for themselves to do. education costs my friend, both in time and in money. most doctors literally are in school between actual school and training until approximately 35 years old. (how many "doogie howsers" have you met? the guy at UVA that did my wife's last surgery from what I understand is a "prodigy" and he is almost 40.

there's a lot to be said for being happy with what you do OTOH, but its not usually the greatest thing financially. I myself could have on a few occasions doubled or in one case tripled my annual salary with offers I have had in the past. didn't take em as I do like what I do and I was unsure if I would like the new job. its nice to be secure enough in my occupation to be able to turn those offers down


----------



## Grisu

stoveguy2esw said:


> why do they not have that choice?



Because they would go hungry otherwise?! The real unemployment rate is ~14%; that puts the number at about 30 million people without steady job. Are there really 30 million open positions in "career-jobs" in this country? In addition, what would we do if all those farmworkers, line cooks, janitors would do what everyone suggests: Get an education and do something "better"? Are we really sure those jobs are not needed?


----------



## razerface

TradEddie said:


> I own my own company too, I've put my money, time and effort into it, but the entire point of creating a company is a) tax breaks, b) severance of liability.  The poster stated that if his company is in debt, and goes bankrupt, he assumes that debt, that should never, ever be the case. If the poster mortgaged his house to start a business, I admire that, but that's not what he said. Some of the greatest entrepreneurs ever have left a trail of bankrupt companies and unpaid creditors behind before they hit the big one.
> 
> TE


In fact, in an earlier post, I did say I sold everything I owned to start my business.

I do not consider anyone who screws people out of their money, until they finally " hit the big one" to be a great anything,,just a dishonest crook. I have watched these crooks put the hurts on a lot of companies ,including mine, by filing bankruptcy to not pay what they owe us and other people, then, right back in business.

My company is an LLC,,,but it still would not totally absolve me from debts. When we get loans for machinery and buildings,,ect,,the bank make us sign personal guarantees,,,which could come after our personal possessions to pay off debts. This is happening more and more as loans became tougher.


----------



## Grisu

stoveguy2esw said:


> when it comes down to the brass tacks , people do not work because its a benefit to society they do so because its a benefit to their self (otherwise why work?)



If it is not a benefit to society why pay them? For what? 



> there's a lot to be said for being happy with what you do OTOH, but its not usually the greatest thing financially.



Because we think that some work is more "valuable" than other. I am just wondering why the people providing my food or teaching my kids earn way less than the guys designing the next I-Phone app or peddling the newest financial instrument. Our meaning of "value" needs some serious readjustment.


----------



## stoveguy2esw

Grisu said:


> Because they would go hungry otherwise?! The real unemployment rate is ~14%; that puts the number at about 30 million people without steady job. Are there really 30 million open positions in "career-jobs" in this country? In addition, what would we do if all those farmworkers, line cooks, janitors would do what everyone suggests: Get an education and do something "better"? Are we really sure those jobs are not needed?


 

sure they are needed, but should they be filled by a guy with a masters degree? better yet , should a person spend the first 35 years of their life being educated to make 8 bucks a hour? I wouldn't. if I were going to make the same amount regardless of what I did i'd probably not have completed high school. what's the use, im not going to live any more comfortably than the neighbor who drives a truck around a sucks the crap outta portajohns. why go into hock for a hundred grand to make no money when I get done? ive worked at those low paying jobs before heck I can remember making 3.35 an hour, what did I learn form that? I learned I didn't want to make that  any longer, so I did what I needed to do to get beyond that and make a reasonable living. my dad , he was a papermaker. when I was quite young we moved several times each time we moved it was so that he could start at a new plant in a higher position eventually we ended up here in Va where he was hired by a mill as a foreman, he worked at the mill until he retired (now he plays golf every day and earned every round) but when he started  he was bringing home like 40 bucks a week. he figured he could do better, eventually he did , he learned the craft and excelled at it. when we moved up here they ended up paying him more than they initially offered him due to the skill set he learned. in the papermaking community he is quite respected and still gets calls from the occasional start up asking him to come help them get dialed in and he hasn't watched a machine run in a plant in over a decade. now , dad has no degree, no paper saying he is an expert, but he has the respect of quite many who do.

this is how it works, it doesn't work to just demand higher wages at the same job just because you do not wish to put in the effort to better yourself. im sorry , ive lived it , im not going to be convinced otherwise by words, heck my degree has nothing to do with what I do , I gained it because I wanted to. and I did it well after I graduated high school.


----------



## stoveguy2esw

stoveguy2esw said:


> ok, i'l bite , if you have a company and it is unable to pay its debts and goes bankrupt , then who is responsible for the money that is owed?  im all ears. do the creditors just have to "eat the loss"?


 

still waiting on an answer to this one


----------



## Grisu

stoveguy2esw said:


> still waiting on an answer to this one



http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/personally-liable-business-bebts-business-bankruptcy.html


----------



## stoveguy2esw

Grisu said:


> If it is not a benefit to society why pay them? For what?
> 
> *never said It didn't "benefit society" there is a demand , the demand is met and those who do so are paid to do so.
> the guy who picks up your garbage benefits society right? , but do you think we should pay him doctors wages?
> the doctor who you see whan you are sick "benefits society as well, but do you think he should earn the same payment as the guy who tosses yoru trash in the back of a garbage truck?*
> 
> 
> 
> Because we think that some work is more "valuable" than other. I am just wondering why the people providing my food or teaching my kids earn way less than the guys designing the next I-Phone app or peddling the newest financial instrument. Our meaning of "value" needs some serious readjustment.


 

I got no issues with teachers making solid wages. but they invest more in their training than the guy who picks up your garbage too. though using the "benefit to society" argument is a bit too open ended don't ya think?


----------



## stoveguy2esw

Grisu said:


> http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/personally-liable-business-bebts-business-bankruptcy.html


 

still doesn't answer the question in my mind, should others have to "pick up the tab" when a business fails?

say I open a business in your town, I spend every thing I have just to get the doors open, and it fails, should you be obligated to help pay for the loss?


----------



## stoveguy2esw

TradEddie said:


> Some of the greatest entrepreneurs ever have left a trail of bankrupt companies and unpaid creditors behind before they hit the big one.


 

somebody ends up paying for those bankruptcies. other companies lose in that individual creditors lose as well, financing companies lose money and recoup it by higher interest on loans to new startups. money doesn't just get "written off" sooner or later either the owner of the failed business or those who follow him or backed him end up out money as a result. by the time it happens in big business (queue the "too big to fail" argument) the government is involved (who have no money vested) ask Lehman brothers how well hey came out of the recession, better yet ask those who had money in the company.


----------



## Grisu

stoveguy2esw said:


> never said It didn't "benefit society" there is a demand , the demand is met and those who do so are paid to do so.
> the guy who picks up your garbage benefits society right? , but do you think we should pay him doctors wages?
> the doctor who you see whan you are sick "benefits society as well, but do you think he should earn the same payment as the guy who tosses yoru trash in the back of a garbage truck?



Whose absence would you feel first? The farmworker's, your kid's/grandkid's teacher's, your garbage hauler's, your doctor's? You can make a case that the doctor decides upon life and death but so does the farmworker. In the end they all meet a demand and we would not like to live without any one of the professions. Why then pay one $25,000/ year and the other $100,000+/year? 



stoveguy2esw said:


> I got no issues with teachers making solid wages. but they invest more in their training than the guy who picks up your garbage too. though using the "benefit to society" argument is a bit too open ended don't ya think?



So a salary should be determined by someone's training and not by the product they are making? Should we all just get a college education then? Would a "Ms trash hauler" be worth a higher salary?


----------



## Grisu

stoveguy2esw said:


> still doesn't answer the question in my mind, should others have to "pick up the tab" when a business fails?
> 
> say I open a business in your town, I spend every thing I have just to get the doors open, and it fails, should you be obligated to help pay for the loss?



Ah, now I understand your question. As you may know I don't look at the money-side of the equation. So let me rephrase: Someone puts the labor in to produce a product that hopefully will better our lives. If he fails should we punish him? Or should we actually encourage people to take that risk to move our society forward especially when we have spare resources (like unemployed labor)? 

Let the market decide if the product has value; not the people with the money beforehand whether it will give a high enough return on the investment. Our society can provide all the capital that is needed to as many businesses that we have ideas for (up to full employment). And if one fails the only things we will really have lost are the hours worked and the material resources put into that failed business. Money is just a way of counting those. The problem is by keeping people unemployed we are wasting those resources anyway every day.


----------



## TradEddie

stoveguy2esw said:


> still doesn't answer the question in my mind, should others have to "pick up the tab" when a business fails?
> say I open a business in your town, I spend every thing I have just to get the doors open, and it fails, should you be obligated to help pay for the loss?



I never suggested this is a good thing for anyone except the owners, it can be catastrophic for creditors, and the domino effect of bankruptcy led to our last financial crisis. For risky small businesses, the bank probably won't give a loan without security, so they won't lose out. If you're an investor in a company of any size and don't realize you can lose everything, you deserve to lose everything, but you still don't incur the company's debts.

TE


----------



## woodgeek

Grisu said:


> Like the first part of the post but don't really agree with this. A lot of doctors actually want to help people (and detest the rest that comes with the job). I venture that the guys who go into a profession just because of the money are more often than not the worst in their jobs. Or they study finance right away and go straight to Wall Street.  Does our society really benefit from having people choose certain jobs just because of the money, not because they like what they are doing? How many great teachers or nurses end up in an office instead of a school/hospital? How many responsible farmers are sitting behind a desk?
> 
> The idea that you need to pay a high salary to make certain jobs attractive is a very flawed one. Or is picking lettuce/hauling trash really that more attractive than treating the sick or putting numbers in a spreadsheet even assuming the same pay? Low wages are NOT paid because so many people like to do those jobs. They are paid because many people have no other choice.



I'm a little behind on the conversation....I get to talk to a lot of bright college students in my job, and I can say that many of them are picking high paid professions because of the money incentive, period. Most certainly including MDs.  Sorry Grisu.  Its not their own greed, of course, it is usually their parents pushing them into a college major that they think is 'useful' or 'lucrative'...not a lot of parents are happy to pay 6 figures on tuition for little Johnny or Jane to read 19th century poetry.

If you are good at math...your parents tell you to become an engineer.
If you have a good memory and spatial skills.....your parents tell you to be pre-med.
If daddy made a lot of money doing something with a degree....they tell you to study that.


----------



## Doug MacIVER

not only happening in the usa, the real income distribution. the new world order http://finance.yahoo.com/news/washing-machine-factory-tests-italys-082928516.html


----------



## Seasoned Oak

stoveguy2esw said:


> "unskilled labor" is an oxymoron. even loading hay bales is "skilled" in a way as if you do not know the proper technique for doing it you wont make it through a single day (I've seen this personally)  I personally abhor the term "unskilled labor" even though I understand its implied meaning I do not accept its definition. tying ones shoes is a skill, we learn it in kindergarten if not sooner at home, I have never nor would I ever describe a person who worked in my plant in such a manner I don't care if he/she swept the floor or scrubbed the john. I detest the descriptive.
> ?


My we have thin skin here. You can call me unskilled if you like, as i never went to college or had formal training in anything after high school and i assure you i wont be devastated. Were discussing minimum wage here and if or why employers should be forced to pay more.Call it minimum skilled or whatever you like. If you can get paid for tying your shoes ,that would be relevant to the discussion. Skill sets as it applies to wages IMO is all about how long one has to train to do whatever. If you can learn to operate a cash register in a day or two or even a week of course its not going to demand a high wage. In my area CNA makes $10-12 an hour,just above minimum wage. Reason being the training is only a week or 2. My point is if you want higher wages, develop a skill that takes more than a day to learn.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Ehouse said:


> I agree and I think a better way of looking at employment is to say there's a skill component, a risk component, and a time component to any job. I think we tend to overvalue the skill component, severely undervalue the risk component, and don't acknowledge the sacrifice inherent in the time component.  It's the time component the minimum wage attempts to address.


Risk is important,i pay my employees more if the risk is high. Also if the job requires heavy physical labor. I usually only hire part time and day help, but the pay goes by skill level,risk level and whether or not the person spends 40% of their time answering and sending texts on their mobil phone.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Grisu said:


> Low wages are NOT paid because so many people like to do those jobs. They are paid because many people have no other choice.


But they do have a choice. THe choices started while they were in school. If their choice is NOT to
develop any marketable skills other than manual labor or what ever they picked up in high school,then thats their choice and thats their pay grade. The "minimum skills" field(dont want to offend anyone) is already crowded and growing.
How can they then complain their chosen profession does not pay enough. They knew what it paid beforehand. (Or should have known)


----------



## Adios Pantalones

John Boener voted himself a raise recently, but against a raise in minimum wage. Raise was like $25/hr. Makes over $350k. I suppose that anyone that gets as much done for the American... Oh wait... That's right


----------



## begreen

stoveguy2esw said:


> why do they not have that choice?


There's lots of reasons. The jobs available in Seattle are not the same in quantity or quality as they are in Shelby, TN. Competition, job pool size, skill, distance (especially if they don't own a car), are all factors. Walmart is the largest employer in the country and they pay poorly. They can afford to pay more but they don't. It's hard to get by when you make poverty level wages.
http://makingchangeatwalmart.org/factsheet/walmart-watch-fact-sheets/fact-sheet-wages/


----------



## Seasoned Oak

We could advance wages far far better if our Govt would stop forcing us to compete with slave wage countries. Then we would only be competing with other american workers rather than the whole world and its impoverished masses. IMHO. 
Then even walmart would pay better as the workforce would have more choices.


----------



## Ehouse

Seasoned Oak said:


> We could advance wages far far better if our Govt would stop forcing us to compete with slave wage countries. Then we would only be competing with other american workers rather than the whole world and its impoverished masses. IMHO.
> Then even walmart would pay better as the workforce would have more choices.




Add to that the low pollution control and worker safety costs.


----------



## Doug MacIVER

begreen said:


> There's lots of reasons. The jobs available in Seattle are not the same in quantity or quality as they are in Shelby, TN. Competition, job pool size, skill, distance (especially if they don't own a car), are all factors. Walmart is the largest employer in the country and they pay poorly. They can afford to pay more but they don't. It's hard to get by when you make poverty level wages.
> http://makingchangeatwalmart.org/factsheet/walmart-watch-fact-sheets/fact-sheet-wages/


their business model is different than yours, what a shock. shop at your local ace like I do, lowes and HD are no different than a walmart.. always negative around here with business no matter what they sell or make. got any problems with phil knight being paid what he gets? a lot of people could run a major factory with what he "EARNS"  I know web  doesn't like the usa made shoes from NB, not enough choice. just take those that are left to produce from raw mat'l to retail and make them pay a living wage, so the rest will pay more and have less, that is what I'm hearing from a lot of you folks.an economy is the production of goods and services. imho all we have left is sevices , to to create wealth for all sides trading hamburgers.. buy only American and that's it. then you can preach. there is not a company in America that cannot pay employees more, they just would like to be able to in  x years forward.


----------



## stoveguy2esw

Grisu said:


> In the end they all meet a demand and we would not like to live without any one of the professions. Why then pay one $25,000/ year and the other $100,000+/year?


 

so do we pay the garbage guy 100K or the doctor 25K? all things being equal, should we pay a fry cook the same as a school teacher or a cop? the guy at jiffy lube should make the same wages as a guy that develops vaccines for a pharmaceutical company?

look, im not saying that folks who do not have a higher education should not have access to jobs which pay a "living wage". im saying that the people who put in the time and effort to get the training required for the more highly technical fields should be fairly compensated for doing so. the free market places a higher "value" on these jobs because its a lot of time and expense to get the needed education and experience needed to do these tasks. to say that we should pay a guy who got a job riding on the back of a trash truck should be paid the same as a guy who spent 12 years in college and residency and all the other stuff a doc has to go through to be able to practice medicine is silly.


----------



## BrotherBart

stoveguy2esw said:


> a fry cook the same as a school teacher or a cop



Depends on the fry cook.


----------



## stoveguy2esw

Grisu said:


> So a salary should be determined by someone's training and not by the product they are making? Should we all just get a college education then? Would a "Ms trash hauler" be worth a higher salary?


 

would you go to school for 4 years to get a BS in trash hauling? yeah, if it paid the same as another profession requiring the same level of education, but it doesn't does it?  better still would you be willing to have a $100 a week bill to collect your trash so that the sanitation company he works for could afford to pay him on that level?


----------



## BrotherBart

Wages and how you look at them is interesting. When I managed a branch of a national truck leasing company I paid the service manager more than I made. I knew who was responsible for my bacon.


----------



## Butcher

Are you guys still at this? Don't you realize this is a purely political / regional problem? The federal gubbermint wants to paint the whole country with a broad paint brush and say you have to pay this amount of hourly wage. The average median income in the county I live and work in is around $45000 per family. According to begreens Wally world web link a single employee working 34 hours a week makes more than a single male in my county who works a full 40 plus. Makes me want to quit my business and get 2 part time jobs at 2 different Wal-Marts and make more money and work less hours with out all the head aches. O.K. I read this forum and see folks that live in an area that complain about the cost of a wood stove or the installation of liners and all that but then I look at the average wage in the area they are saying they are from and that wage is much, much higher than what it is in my neck of the woods.
And completely off topic, but about wally world being the slave master of the world. My youngest daughter who is 36 put her self thru collage working there. Wal-Mart was more than happy to accommodate her hours as to scheduling around classes and such. She started as a checker for minimum wage and over her employment there went on to be offered a mid management job. She wanted to be a teacher though and that is what she is doing now and making good money doing it at a charter school in Huston Texas. She makes more money than my wife and myself put together and it wouldn't have been possible with out her being able to work at wally world. Those jobs are NOT meant to support a family of 4. Just like social security was never meant to be a retirement plan. Just supplemental.


----------



## BrotherBart

I have a soft spot in my heart for the minimum wage. When it was implemented in 1966 I got my first raise. From seventy-five cents and hour to a buck an hour.


----------



## stoveguy2esw

Adios Pantalones said:


> John Boener voted himself a raise recently, but against a raise in minimum wage. Raise was like $25/hr. Makes over $350k. I suppose that anyone that gets as much done for the American... Oh wait... That's right


 

was he the only guy who voted for that? or are we just singling him out? guess he's betting on being re-elected , as the only way he could get that raise is to do so. 27th amendment.

as for the raising the minimum wage I haven't looked at the actual bill, dunno what's in it. if its a straight raise the min wage , i'd say they should pass it.
as for the pay raise, no im not defending it , but here's an article about it
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/08/15/congress-pay-salaries/2660545/


----------



## Adios Pantalones

stoveguy2esw said:


> was he the only guy who voted for that? or are we just singling him out? guess he's betting on being re-elected , as the only way he could get that raise is to do so. 27th amendment.
> 
> as for the raising the minimum wage I haven't looked at the actual bill, dunno what's in it. if its a straight raise the min wage , i'd say they should pass it.
> as for the pay raise, no im not defending it , but here's an article about it
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/08/15/congress-pay-salaries/2660545/


I single him out because he's the obstructionist in chief. He controls what comes to the floor


----------



## stoveguy2esw

Adios Pantalones said:


> I single him out because he's the obstructionist in chief. He controls what comes to the floor


 

ohh ok, like Harry Reid aka the senate version. AFAIAC neither are worth a bucket of warm spit


----------



## stoveguy2esw

Seasoned Oak said:


> My we have thin skin here. You can call me unskilled if you like, as i never went to college or had formal training in anything after high school and i assure you i wont be devastated. Were discussing minimum wage here and if or why employers should be forced to pay more.Call it minimum skilled or whatever you like. If you can get paid for tying your shoes ,that would be relevant to the discussion. Skill sets as it applies to wages IMO is all about how long one has to train to do whatever. If you can learn to operate a cash register in a day or two or even a week of course its not going to demand a high wage. In my area CNA makes $10-12 an hour,just above minimum wage. Reason being the training is only a week or 2.* My point is if you want higher wages, develop a skill that takes more than a day to learn*.


 

actually I agree with your post, wasn't intentionally being thin skinned per se but I do dislike that term. what I bolded n your post is what ive been saying as well.

as butcher said above "Those jobs are NOT meant to support a family of 4. Just like social security was never meant to be a retirement plan. Just supplemental".

problem as I see it is that the higher paying jobs which we should have in manufacturing have been whittled away leaving a higher percentage of "service" type jobs ,cashiers and such which are the only game in town. raising the min wage  though laudable as a short term "band aid" solution is not the answer. bringing manufacturing back to the US is the only long term solution. comparing exports to imports may look good on paper , but when you look at what we actually export versus what we import one should be able to see easily why we are losing so many manufacturing jobs. part of it is our own fault. we demand cheap goods. what we demand we get like the petulant child. we use it and throw it away then get the next "big thing" that the rest of the world ships to us.

look at TV's a generation or to ago they were a major investment , now most homes have more than one many have several (I have 4 so im as guilty as anyone) used to be when your TV broke you took it to a shop where a guy fixed it, now we just toss it and go get a new one. what did that change do? it took away a small business opportunity that used to employ thousands with decent waged jobs. the replacement for those jobs would be the cashier at wally world. which since the technical skill needed to fix a tv set is replaced by a person who runs a cash register. (not demeaning the cashier, but a tv repairman used to take classes in the trade and thus demanded a higher salary due to the skill set and demand for it) heck TV's aren't even considered "durable goods' by many trackers of the economy any more. hey used to supply a pretty large "mom and pop" type industry.


----------



## Adios Pantalones

stoveguy2esw said:


> ohh ok, like Harry Reid aka the senate version. AFAIAC neither are worth a bucket of warm spit



Oh,  Did Reid vote against a minimum increase too? Not sure why the comparison


----------



## Ehouse

stoveguy2esw said:


> so do we pay the garbage guy 100K or the doctor 25K? all things being equal, should we pay a fry cook the same as a school teacher or a cop? the guy at jiffy lube should make the same wages as a guy that develops vaccines for a pharmaceutical company?
> 
> look, im not saying that folks who do not have a higher education should not have access to jobs which pay a "living wage". im saying that the people who put in the time and effort to get the training required for the more highly technical fields should be fairly compensated for doing so. the free market places a higher "value" on these jobs because its a lot of time and expense to get the needed education and experience needed to do these tasks. to say that we should pay a guy who got a job riding on the back of a trash truck should be paid the same as a guy who spent 12 years in college and residency and all the other stuff a doc has to go through to be able to practice medicine is silly.




Those who put in the time and training aren't going to be fairly compensated for doing so if those who put in 40+hrs. a week at lower skilled jobs aren't being fairly compensated for doing so.  The free market doesn't place a fixed, value on any job.  If people stop coming through the door because they can't afford the product or service, the default solution is a lower price, recent attempts at forced consumerism not withstanding.


----------



## stoveguy2esw

Adios Pantalones said:


> Oh,  Did Reid vote against a minimum increase too? Not sure why the comparison


 
look at how many bills sent from the house that haven't been brought to the floor in the senate. calling one "obstructionist in chief" just isn't fair unless they are both called out together. FWIW I do not think either should be in a leadership position, but this is the problem when you have 2 sides both demanding acquiescence from the other rather than debate and compromise which virtually never happens in government any more. most of the blame for this lies at the feet of Boehner AND Reid.

wasn't commenting about the min wage thing , I have no idea if Reid voted for it, has it even been to through the senate yet?


----------



## stoveguy2esw

Ehouse said:


> Those who put in the time and training aren't going to be fairly compensated for doing so if those who put in 40+hrs. a week at lower skilled jobs aren't being fairly compensated for doing so.  The free market doesn't place a fixed, value on any job.  If people stop coming through the door because they can't afford the product or service, the default solution is a lower price, recent attempts at forced consumerism not withstanding.


 

were that the case prices on everything would already be dropping based on the scale of top and bottom wage differential. it hasn't, so the logic of the lower wage earners not partaking of the services of the higher wage earners isn't exactly accurate. the difference is subsidies. the government subsidizes the poor so they can afford the prices of the rich. this is the flaw in the safety net ideal (not saying it isn't needed but it becomes part of the problem) if food prices are too high then the poor cannot afford them , however we cannot let them starve so we have food stamps to help, this allows the prices to stay higher as demand is not diminished (obviously folks gotta eat)  this is also the flaw in "supply side" economics, supply side economics cannot work in a welfare society as price controls which would normally be there are artificially held at higher rates due to the subsidies. this is the inherent problem of combining a free market with a welfare state, you have to subsidize as costs are where they are , but at the same time you need pricing to settle to a proper rate based on the wage scales of the population. its a hard thing to make happen as both are equally important.

BTW im not implying we are a full blown "welfare state" it was just a term which is descriptive of a large portion of the population receiving some sort of subsidies, was just for expedience in the narrative


----------



## dmmoss51

This whole thread got me thinking of the term "redistribution of wealth"  I think it should be great from the 1% point of view.  They are doing the "right" things to gain that wealth any redistribution that occurs and it's only a matter of time until the 1% has it again - only compounded a few times.  Yet the 1% fight it like the plague or maybe that's just reverse psychology making the poor think they won?

A fool and their money are soon parted will always be true no matter how much money we give them. Don't think the 1% owners of Best Buy and Amazon aren't hoping the gov't starts handing out $600 checks again or maybe even $1200 this time? Where's that money going to go???  A new TV, a $200 pair of sneakers...


----------



## stoveguy2esw

dmmoss51 said:


> This whole thread got me thinking of the term "redistribution of wealth"  I think it should be great from the 1% point of view.  They are doing the "right" things to gain that wealth any redistribution that occurs and it's only a matter of time until the 1% has it again - only compounded a few times.  Yet the 1% fight it like the plague or maybe that's just reverse psychology making the poor think they won?
> 
> A fool and their money are soon parted will always be true no matter how much money we give them. Don't think the 1% owners of Best Buy and Amazon aren't hoping the gov't starts handing out $600 checks again or maybe even $1200 this time? Where's that money going to go???  A new TV, a $200 pair of sneakers...


 
the term of "redistribution of wealth" makes sense , the idea is that the movement of money brings a stronger economy as the money is able to "work"  its job is quite simply to be spent. by "taking it from the rich and putting it back into circulation" it keeps the money from being just squirrelled away like gold in a lockbox.

it gets its "bad rep' from the pundits who make it sound as though the folks who have money are all evil cause they wont share it. that said the theory of it is sensible. its the mechanics of making it happen that brings about the biggest arguments between the right and the left.


----------



## BrotherBart

Get rid of those mortgage interest rate subsidies. And subsidized education. But bring back that danged government cheese. Love me some cheese.


----------



## BrotherBart

Warm_in_NH said:


> When did it suddenly become okay to pick out the person who isn't like most of the others and treat them differently?



Monday November 3, 3BC


----------



## BrotherBart

webbie said:


> It was found that workers in the USA were willing to work for less than most any country in the world (granted, this was probably english writing).....I forget the actual figure, but it was something ridiculous where the writer would make about 75 cents an hour.



A seventy five cent an hour raise for hearth.com moderators. Your point is?


----------



## Grisu

Collective answer to the points raised here:
*

1. The idea that someone on a minimum wage can just acquire a marketable skill to improve his income is highly questionable.* How should someone earning $7.50 the hour sustain himself (rent, food etc.) and be able to attend any school/college? Without help from parents etc. essentially impossible. It also neglects the fact that someone born into poverty went to a crappy school in a crappy neighborhood and will rarely have the grades (SAT scores) to apply for financial aid.

*2. Most low wage jobs ARE needed.* We need farmworkers, janitors, cashiers, trash haulers… Just saying they are paid low because no one needs them is neglecting reality. And if we even need only half of those jobs we should still pay those people liveable wages. Because otherwise we condone the establishment of an underclass where an individual may advance but collectively that class still needs to exist to provide us with the goods and services we desire.

*3. When there is money to pay a better educated workforce then there is money to pay a higher minimum wage.* We have about 140 million employed in the US. Total labor income is ~60% of GDP so that puts it at ~$9 trillion. Let’s say 10 million are low wage workers earning about $20,000 per year for a total of $200 billion. Increase their wages by 25% we would need to pay $250 billion. But stop: “There is no money for that”. Ok, they all take the advice here and get an education. Now those 10 million will want a real salary, let’s say $40,000/year for a total of $400 billion. Now, where is that money suddenly coming from?
*

4. Low wages/unemployment have not much to do with “skills” but are a monetary phenomenon. *
Take a simple model economy only consisting of households (HH) and businesses (B). Assume full employment at the outset. Businesses pay wages (W) of 100 that are household income. Households spend their total income on businesses’ products. Thus:

a) B expense = wages = HH income = 100 = HH spending = B income

Now households get unsure about the future and decide to save some (10%) of their income. Thus:

b) B expense = wages = HH income = 100  but HH spending = 90 = B income and H saving = 10.

With only 90 as income the businesses can only pay wages of 90 which leaves them with two options:

Option 1: General paycut; everyone receives 10% less. (lowering of wages)

Option 2: 10% of the workforce gets cut. (involuntary unemployment)

Could the low-wage/unemployed workers change anything about that by acquiring a better education? Had this outcome anything to do with bad job skills? No, in both cases. This outcome was simply a result of the household’s desire to save part of their income.

Let’s spin this model further:

If the businesses feel that future HH spending may be higher they will want to borrow those savings back to keep producing as before. Thus:

c) HH spending = 90; HH saving = 10; B income = 90; B debt = 10; wages = 100 (90 +10)

Now the HHs can maintain an income of 100 while still saving 10. Keep those ratios constant and in the next year we have:

d) HH spending = 90; HH saving = 10+10; B income = 90; B debt = 10+10; wages = 100 (90 +10)

Every year, household spending, business income, and wages stay the same but HH saving and business debt increase by 10. If that sounds too good to be true let’s introduce interest. If that would be an (outrageous) 10% every year the businesses would need to pay an increasing amount to the HHs. First 1, then 2, then 3 and so on. To pay that interest, the businesses have to reduce wages by the same amount. After e. g. 5 years we get the following:

e) Bs: debt: 50; new borrowing: 10; income: 90; wages: 95; interest expense: 5 (10% of 50)
    HHs: income 100; wage income: 95; interest income: 5; savings: 50

And with every passing year we get exactly what the paper I linked to earlier (http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/commentary/2012/2012-13.cfm ) describes: A decrease in labor income as % of GDP and an increase in capital income. With other words: A redistribution of income from workers to savers/capital holders leading exactly to the changes in wealth distribution we have seen over the last decades. This causes a steady downward trajectory on wages and/or increases in unemployment. A raise of the minimum wage will not stop that trajectory but it is pretty sad that even this little “band-aid” faces such an opposition.


----------



## begreen

www.*cbpp*.org/files/6-25-10inc.pdf‎


----------



## Adios Pantalones

stoveguy2esw said:


> ohh ok, like Harry Reid aka the senate version. AFAIAC neither are worth a bucket of warm spit


I don't like either, but comparing Boener and his Volcker rule to Reid is a bit silly on this score.


----------



## razerface

Adios Pantalones said:


> I single him out because he's the obstructionist in chief. He controls what comes to the floor





Adios Pantalones said:


> I don't like either, but comparing Boener and his Volcker rule to Reid is a bit silly on this score.



not really, you brought him up as the "obstructionist in chief" which was a political opinion on your part,,having nothing to do specifically with this thread.
Stoveguy just remarked that harry does the same thing in the senate, which is true.

I think both of them should be ran out of the govt jobs that they now have.  I also think they should not have the power to vote themselves a raise. That should be included in the general elections,,,decided by the voters every 4 years.

*



			3. When there is money to pay a better educated workforce then there is money to pay a higher minimum wage.
		
Click to expand...

*


> We have about 140 million employed in the US. Total labor income is ~60% of GDP so that puts it at ~$9 trillion. Let’s say 10 million are low wage workers earning about $20,000 per year for a total of $200 billion. Increase their wages by 25% we would need to pay $250 billion. But stop: “There is no money for that”. Ok, they all take the advice here and get an education. Now those 10 million will want a real salary, let’s say $40,000/year for a total of $400 billion. Now, where is that money suddenly coming from?



that money would come from having a job in a profitable company that uses their education to make money,,,not force fed from the gov't as min wage.


----------



## Adios Pantalones

razerface said:


> not really, you brought him up as the "obstructionist in chief" which was a political opinion on your part,,having nothing to do specifically with this thread.
> Stoveguy just remarked that harry does the same thing in the senate, which is true.
> 
> I think both of them should be ran out of the govt jobs that they now have.  I also think they should not have the power to vote themselves a raise. That should be included in the general elections,,,decided by the voters every 4 years.
> 
> 
> 
> that money would come from having a job in a profitable company that uses their education to make money,,,not force fed from the gov't as min wage.


That's right. Use of the Volcker rule does nothing. It obstruct an honest up or down vote, so yes really


----------



## razerface

Adios Pantalones said:


> That's right. Use of the Volcker rule does nothing. It obstruct an honest up or down vote, so yes really



and harry won't even let things come up for vote when he does not agree with them,,,so what is the difference?  Both/all of them need to go! 

I believe the senate and the house are responsible for us needing to talk about the min wage being raised. Everything going on is due to policies made by them. Everything is working good in their world.


----------



## Ehouse

razerface said:


> and harry won't even let things come up for vote when he does not agree with them,,,so what is the difference?  Both/all of them need to go!
> 
> I believe the senate and the house are responsible for us needing to talk about the min wage being raised. Everything going on is due to policies made by them. Everything is working good in their world.




Thank goodness you tied it all in!  I was afraid the mods were gonna have to earn their new, self appointed, 75 cent raise and do the Can Can!


----------



## Adios Pantalones

Maybe I am just bitter about the 40 something useless votes to overturn the ACA, or the votes to shut down the government. Just inexcusable stuff


----------



## razerface

Adios Pantalones said:


> Maybe I am just bitter about the 40 something useless votes to overturn the ACA, or the votes to shut down the government. Just inexcusable stuff


I agree, ACA  should have been overturned long before 40 votes! I am surprised you feel that way though,,,,,,,

I did not see any vote to shut down the gov't.  What was that bill called again?  Voting is inexcusable? Hmmmm I like to vote. 

We should practice voting on this thread to see what the general feeling is here on raising the min wage. BeGreen,, it is your thread,,would you like a poll?  I don't know if it can be added after the fact,,or if you want one. It might be interesting depending on the choices you come up with.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Grisu said:


> Collective answer to the points raised here:
> *1. The idea that someone on a minimum wage can just acquire a marketable skill to improve his income is highly questionable.* How should someone earning $7.50 the hour sustain himself (rent, food etc.) and be able to attend any school/college? Without help from parents etc. essentially impossible.ncial aid.
> *.*


*
Your assuming college is the only way to improve income. Iv started several businesses and never went to college or had any formal training of any kind after high school.  In rural areas like mine  there are few jobs to be had that require any college degree.
Most of the jobs are some type of trade or construction.  Many income producing skills are self taught and business startups.*


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Grisu said:


> Collective answer to the points raised here:
> *
> 4. Low wages/unemployment have not much to do with “skills” but are a monetary phenomenon. *


They have more to do with bad trade policies than any monetary phenomenon. When Mfg was booming here in the  northeast we didnt have a lot of unemployment and wages were under constant upward pressure as workers had many more choices. North and south dakota has the lowest unemployment in the nation,why ?
SImple: a huge influx of oil and gas jobs, solid middle class incomes lifting all boats. Same monetary policies for my area which is dead job wise, with a high unemployment rate.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

razerface said:


> I agree, ACA  should have been overturned long before 40 votes! I am surprised you feel that way though,,,,,,,
> .


 I finally got to purchase some decent healthcare coverage Because of ACA.  Whats more important than americans getting HC ,is it billions for Ukraine, and Egypt .


----------



## razerface

Seasoned Oak said:


> I finally got to purchase some decent healthcare coverage Because of ACA.  Whats more important than americans getting HC ,is it billions for Ukraine, and Egypt .


you could have had decent health care any time you wanted it. You just did not want to pay for it. 

The majority will pay more now. I will never get pregnant, but I will own (required by gov't)  insurance for it anyway. Waaaayy too many things to list in the min wage thread.


----------



## Adios Pantalones

razerface said:


> you could have had decent health care any time you wanted it. You just did not want to pay for it.
> 
> The majority will pay more now. I will never get pregnant, but I will own (required by gov't)  insurance for it anyway. Waaaayy too many things to list in the min wage thread.


As someone that will never have kids, but pays for other people's kids school, social services, higher accident rates in insurance, etc, etc- I can only say- so what? Now everyone subsidizes other people's kids via insurance. It's small potatoes compared to other subsidies that people want to ignore, and hopefully it helps someone out.


----------



## Adios Pantalones

(I will add, that since each dollar spent on the contraception that people complain about saves several in later medical and social welfare dollars, I'm fine with everyone making that wise investment as well. Here's a case where the complainers cannot be social conservatives AND fiscal conservatives on the same issue)


----------



## razerface

Adios Pantalones said:


> As someone that will never have kids, but pays for other people's kids school, social services, higher accident rates in insurance, etc, etc- I can only say- so what? Now everyone subsidizes other people's kids via insurance. It's small potatoes compared to other subsidies that people want to ignore, and hopefully it helps someone out.


shrug,,,great, you want to pay for everybody else's kids and add on to the pile.
Get out your wallet!  Pay for them! Give all your money away until you are all equal.

I bet your money stays in your bank account. Mostly it is "everybody elses" money you want to use, or you would have already volunteered all of yours,,,,,,.

I think if people have kids they should pay for those expenses themselves,,,,or let me decide how many kids they can have,,since I have to pay for them.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

razerface said:


> you could have had decent health care any time you wanted it. You just did not want to pay for it.
> .


You better re -read my post i did say Purchase, not free. Matter of fact there are a multitude of co-pays,deductibles and minimum yearly thresholds on top of the monthly premiums. Im fine with that. Or would i have been better off just saying the hell with all that an use the ER revolving door care like most uninsured do?   No mention of Billions for Ukraine,Egypt. I guess your OK subsidizing  with that.


----------



## Grisu

razerface said:


> I think if people have kids they should pay for those expenses themselves,,,,or let me decide how many kids they can have,,since I have to pay for them.



Sure you can do that but with one provision: Keep all your money but when you retire you are only allowed to buy what your kids produce and not what other people's kids make. No one needs money but only the goods and services it can buy.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Most of those against the ACA are enjoying highly subsidized HC from their employer or are Govt employees. THis is one of those issues where,where you sit depends on where you stand on the issue.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

When i signed up i didnt see any "free" insurance anywhere on the site. No matter the income level . Only people who get free Govt HC is thru your states medicaid. In fact there is a low income threshhold where if your income is too low you dont even qualify to use the site.


----------



## razerface

Seasoned Oak said:


> You better re -read my post i did say Purchase, not free. Matter of fact there are a multitude of co-pays,deductibles and minimum yearly thresholds on top of the monthly premiums. Im fine with that. Or would i have been better off just saying the hell with all that an use the ER revolving door care like most uninsured do?   No mention of Billions for Ukraine,Egypt. I guess your OK subsidizing  with that.


I didn't say free either. You could have "purchased" it any time. From your posts, you make a good living,,thus my comment on you didn't want to pay (the price) for it.
I don't know where you would get the idea i want to subsidize ANYTHING.


----------



## razerface

Grisu said:


> Sure you can do that but with one provision: Keep all your money but when you retire you are only allowed to buy what your kids produce and not what other people's kids make. No one needs money but only the goods and services it can buy.


what? The purpose of having money is to buy whatever you want too,,,,NOT what other people say you have to buy. Now you will tell me _*WHO*_ I have to buy it from?

What if I end up with all the money? I bet you would want me to buy stuff from you and your kids then....

No one needs money? Isn't this a thread about wages?


----------



## Seasoned Oak

razerface said:


> I didn't say free either. You could have "purchased" it any time. From your posts, you make a good living,,thus my comment on you didn't want to pay (the price) for it.
> I don't know where you would get the idea i want to subsidize ANYTHING.


IF you have any pre-existing condition no matter how small you can be denied insurance (before) for any price. WHat i was doing was self pay. pay as you go. Only problem with that some catastrophic illness and its right to bankruptcy court. It is NOT always possible to buy insurance just cuz you make decent living.


----------



## Adios Pantalones

razerface said:


> shrug,,,great, you want to pay for everybody else's kids and add on to the pile.
> Get out your wallet!  Pay for them! Give all your money away until you are all equal.
> 
> I bet your money stays in your bank account. Mostly it is "everybody elses" money you want to use, or you would have already volunteered all of yours,,,,,,.
> 
> I think if people have kids they should pay for those expenses themselves,,,,or let me decide how many kids they can have,,since I have to pay for them.


I already am paying, before the ACA. Everyone gets a subsidy somewhere- they only complain when someone else gets one that they don't.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

WIth ACA im paying more for health care than i paid while doing self-pay. That means im contributing into the system more than im taking out. At some point as i age that may change ,but isnt that the definition of insurance and i dont see where im asking anyone else to subsidize my HC. If i use more HC down the road than my premiums,co-pays,deductibles cover its just my money i paid in excess beforehand.


----------



## razerface

Seasoned Oak said:


> IF you have any pre-existing condition no matter how small you can be denied insurance (before) for any price. WHat i was doing was self pay. pay as you go. Only problem with that some catastrophic illness and its right to bankruptcy court. It is NOT always possible to buy insurance just cuz you make decent living.


I agree that needs fixed.

If you have a bad driving record, you pay higher insurance,,and I think (don't know) that there is a price increase in ACA for pre-existing ( i heard)

I do not have a solution for that problem to offer.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

razerface said:


> I agree that needs fixed.


It has been fixed.................... ACA fixed it.


----------



## Grisu

razerface said:


> that money would come from having a job in a profitable company that uses their education to make money,,,not force fed from the gov't as min wage.



The majority of minimum wage earners ARE working for profitable companies: http://nelp.3cdn.net/24befb45b36b626a7a_v2m6iirxb.pdf

And where is that additional money coming from that those better skilled workers are earning? When you have one pie and someone wants a larger piece who gets the smaller one?


----------



## Grisu

Seasoned Oak said:


> They have more to do with bad trade policies than any monetary phenomenon. When Mfg was booming here in the  northeast we didnt have a lot of unemployment and wages were under constant upward pressure as workers had many more choices. North and south dakota has the lowest unemployment in the nation,why ?
> SImple: a huge influx of oil and gas jobs, solid middle class incomes lifting all boats. Same monetary policies for my area which is dead job wise, with a high unemployment rate.



I totally agree that the trade deficit is a problem but that can also be captured as a monetary problem. Add a foreign sector in my HH and B model and then assume they are the ones who save 10 per period not the domestic households. You get the same trajectory as I outlined earlier, only that the interest income does not flow into the domestic sector but into the foreign country from which it has to be re-borrowed to not lead to a decline in overall income. The problem is that the foreigners are saving too much as they consume less of our goods as we do from theirs. 

I venture the guess that the Dakotas are doing so well because they run a trade surplus towards the rest of the US due to that gas and oil boom. The questions is: Could not just everyone run a trade surplus?


----------



## razerface

Grisu said:


> The majority of minimum wage earners ARE working for profitable companies: http://nelp.3cdn.net/24befb45b36b626a7a_v2m6iirxb.pdf
> 
> And where is that additional money coming from that those better skilled workers are earning? When you have one pie and someone wants a larger piece who gets the smaller one?


If you must add baking too it,,,,,,the newly trained  "better skilled workers" workers can bake more pies! 

Don't you think "better skilled workers" can earn more money?


----------



## razerface

Seasoned Oak said:


> It has been fixed.................... ACA fixed it.


well,,, i don't know if i should show my paranoid side here,,sshhhh,,,,but I think it is a set-up for later, when the gov't decides who lives and dies,,who gets treatment, ect.  They will refuse treatment to those with the worst or longest health history.  This will happen as soon as it is a single payer system.


----------



## Adios Pantalones

Ok- now that Death Panels are out there, I will take my leave and go invest in aluminum hats


----------



## razerface

Adios Pantalones said:


> Ok- now that Death Panels are out there, I will take my leave and go invest in aluminum hats


what wages will you pay employees  for making them?

I think it must be alum *foil*,,,or there is no protection.


----------



## Grisu

razerface said:


> what? The purpose of having money is to buy whatever you want too,,,,NOT what other people say you have to buy. Now you will tell me _*WHO*_ I have to buy it from?
> 
> What if I end up with all the money? I bet you would want me to buy stuff from you and your kids then....
> 
> No one needs money? Isn't this a thread about wages?



Money only has value because you can exchange it for something else. Minimum wage earners don't need "money". They need housing, clothes, food, healthcare etc. Give them those and you don't need to raise the minimum wage. Money is only a convenient tool to allocate the output of goods and services among the population. But that requires someone who actually produces that output like our children's generation. Since you seem to value your money more than the goods and services you want to buy with it, I gave you that suggestion. If you really care about what you can buy with it when you retire then think about how it can be spend to ensure future productivity will be high. Saving money alone will not ensure that. Btw. My kids will not need your money, there will still be enough around. In fact, yours will just add to inflation.



razerface said:


> If you must add baking too it,,,,,,the newly trained "better skilled workers" workers can bake more pies!
> Don't you think "better skilled workers" can earn more money?



Sure they cold bake more pies but where is that additional money coming from those pies are supposedly sold for? Or do some of those new skills include money-printing?


----------



## bmblank

razerface said:


> I think it must be alum *foil*,,,or there is no protection.


No, they'll just be god awful heavy.


----------



## Frozen Canuck

razerface said:


> This will happen as soon as it is a single payer system.



Yep just like it has with every country that has single payer.        Soylent Green anyone?   Seriously?


----------



## razerface

Grisu said:


> Money only has value because you can exchange it for something else. Minimum wage earners don't need "money". They need housing, clothes, food, healthcare etc. Give them those and you don't need to raise the minimum wage


you are arguing for welfare over raising the min wage now?





Grisu said:


> Sure they cold bake more pies but where is that additional money coming from those pies are supposedly sold for? Or do some of those new skills include money-printing?



ahhh,,, I think I see now. You are of the opinion that all wealth is already created and there will be no more added,,,,so there is none for anyone to get without taking it from someone else. I have heard some of this theory from younger kids who are bitter because there is no wealth left for them to accumulate. It is an odd theory, but not true.
Example:
10 people are born unknown to anyone else on the earth. Those people could raise food and make things, weapons, huts, cloths, ect, trading among themselves,, not getting anything from the other people on the earth. They will gain wealth without tapping into the "pie" that the rest of the world owns.   They will invent something to use as money, or just trade goods. Sooner or later,,,some of them will have more wealth then the others. This wealth was created from thin air.  Skill? Work ethics? Smarter barter?


----------



## razerface

Frozen Canuck said:


> Yep just like it has with every country that has single payer.        Soylent Green anyone?   Seriously?




i was wondering where you were,,,do you live in canada?  Do you use canada's health system? We listen to news reports of huge delays in getting care thru the health system there. What have you experienced? 


We are pretty far off track of this thread.....


----------



## Frozen Canuck

razerface said:


> We listen to news reports of huge delays in getting care thru the health system there.



We don't watch Fox news for more than 6 seconds, about the time it takes for my wife to threaten to throw something through the flat screen if the channel does not change. 

Our experience, likely the exact opposite of what Fox tells you.

Keep the four horsemen of the apocalypse stuff coming. I just love the comedy.


----------



## razerface

Frozen Canuck said:


> We don't watch Fox news for more than 6 seconds, about the time it takes for my wife to threaten to throw something through the flat screen if the channel does not change.
> 
> Our experience, likely the exact opposite of what Fox tells you.
> 
> Keep the four horsemen of the apocalypse stuff coming. I just love the comedy.




I don't know what fox news has to do with it,,, I should have known better then to ask you for facts,,,sorry for wasting bandwidth!


----------



## Grisu

razerface said:


> you are arguing for welfare over raising the min wage now?



No, I am arguing for paying a liveable wage which is not welfare in my book. If Walmart wants to pay their employees in merchandise and free housing and they agree to it that's fine with me. The combined value should just be more than $7.50 the hour.



> ahhh,,, I think I see now. You are of the opinion that all wealth is already created and there will be no more added,,,,so there is none for anyone to get without taking it from someone else. I have heard some of this theory from younger kids who are bitter because there is no wealth left for them to accumulate. It is an odd theory, but not true.
> Example:
> 10 people are born unknown to anyone else on the earth. Those people could raise food and make things, weapons, huts, cloths, ect, trading among themselves,, not getting anything from the other people on the earth. They will gain wealth without tapping into the "pie" that the rest of the world owns.   They will invent something to use as money, or just trade goods. Sooner or later,,,some of them will have more wealth then the others. This wealth was created from thin air.  Skill? Work ethics? Smarter barter?



You mix up money and real goods and services. You can actually grow both but you need to know how in order to understand our economy and why paying higher wages is not bad for it. I already did a long thread about that but it is an "ash can heaven" by now and I am too tired to rehash everything here. Your picture of everyone just trying to accumulate monetary wealth and with that making us all better off does not work. In fact, it makes us all worse off. To make it really easy:

Assume in 30 years the total economic output will be 100 apples. The total money savings will be $100. Hence, on average: 1 apple = $1.
Now let's assume we were all great savers and put aside $200. But now there are still only 100 apples. What will happen? 1 apple = $2.
Do we have more apples to eat? Nope.

Now let's go to the present. People start to save more money to "prepare for the future". That means instead of 100 apples we now consume only 80 apples. What will the apple growers do? Plant less new apple trees. What will happen 30 years from now? We will have $200 saved but there will be only 80 apples. We saved money but we have actually less to eat than without saving!

Insert for apples all the economic output we produce (houses, cars, food, clothes etc.) and you still get to the essentially same conclusion: *What determines our standard of living now and in the future is the amount of goods and services we can produce, not how much money we saved. *Money savings simply determine the price level but not how many products our society as a whole can consume.


----------



## razerface

Grisu said:


> No, I am arguing for paying a liveable wage which is not welfare in my book. If Walmart wants to pay their employees in merchandise and free housing and they agree to it that's fine with me. The combined value should just be more than $7.50 the hour.



ask some old coal miners how that worked out. Owned by the company. I have family who came out of Harlen county.





Grisu said:


> *What determines our standard of living now and in the future is the amount of goods and services we can produce, not how much money we saved.  *.



nope,,,not true. I can make all the stuff I want,,,but as I retire,,,,i better have saved some money, which will determine my standard of living. There is no doubt about that statement as i watch people who did not save money try to live.



Grisu said:


> Assume in 30 years the total economic output will be 100 apples. The total money savings will be $100. Hence, on average: 1 apple = $1.
> Now let's assume we were all great savers and put aside $200. But now there are still only 100 apples. What will happen? 1 apple = $2.
> Do we have more apples to eat? Nope..




Most of what we "produce" is consumable, and will not last into the future as something we need for a standard of living.  That's why they call us "consumers".   Consumables,,,,are here and gone. That word "consumables" is what kills your above theory.


----------



## Ashful

Grisu said:


> You can make a case that the doctor decides upon life and death but so does the farmworker... Why then pay one $25,000/ year and the other $100,000+/year?


C'mon guys, this ain't rocket science.  Supply and demand.  If you have a skill for which there's demand, and supply is limited, then you pay.  Farm workers aren't all without skill, but there's an infinite supply of guys who will take the job of the current lot, should they protest for higher wages.  Likewise for landscapers, trash haulers, and just about any job that can be worked at some minimum level right off the street.  I suspect most people want it that way... or are you the rare person hoping your emergency neurosurgeon is making farm laborer wages?



Seasoned Oak said:


> In my area CNA makes $10-12 an hour,just above minimum wage. Reason being the training is only a week or 2. My point is *if you want higher wages, develop a skill that takes more than a day to learn*.


There you have it.  Folks seem to be unhappy with the bed they've made.



Adios Pantalones said:


> John Boener voted himself a raise recently...


Gimme a break, Adios.  Bringing politicians into this mess of a thread?  You're smarter than that.


----------



## Jags

Joful said:


> Gimme a break, Adios.  Bringing politicians into this mess of a thread?  You're smarter than that.



I think you might have missed the point that Boener (a rich white guy by all accounts) voted himself a raise, while denying the entire working poor the same.


----------



## Ashful

Jags said:


> I think you might have missed the point that Boener (a rich white guy by all accounts) voted himself a raise, while denying the entire working poor the same.


I didn't miss it, but didn't see the point of bringing that into an already wildly tangential debate.

Good for Boener.  I wish I could put myself in his position.  I'm not one to disparage the winning team...


----------



## Jags

Joful said:


> Good for Boener.  I wish I could put myself in his position.  I'm not one to disparage the winning team...



He is not supposed to be a team.  He is supposed to represent the peoples interests. The numbers are hard to nail down, but it appears that 70+ % of Americans want the min. wage to be increased.


----------



## razerface

Jags said:


> He is not supposed to be a team.  He is supposed to represent the peoples interests. The numbers are hard to nail down, but it appears that 70+ % of Americans want the min. wage to be increased.


where did you find that?


----------



## Ashful

Jags said:


> ... it appears that 70+ % of Americans want the min. wage to be increased.


That's a surprising stat.  I don't even think 70% of the people on this forum want the minimum wage increased.

There's a reason we have representatives, rather than public voting on law.  We'd be in a real mess if the majority ruled.  Thankfully, very few of the majority consistently vote.


----------



## ironpony

Wow, still going in circles. This is what it must be like to be a politician.


----------



## Ashful

ironpony said:


> Wow, still going in circles. This is what it must be like to be a politician.


Yeah... I just stick my head in to stir the pot every few days, when I'm waiting on my computers to crunch some numbers.


----------



## Jags

Joful said:


> There's a reason we have representatives, rather than public voting on law.



This isn't a case of majority wins.  These numbers exceed the requirement for a super majority to change the constitution.  It is not trivial.


----------



## Jags

razerface said:


> where did you find that?


Where can I quote from that you will believe?  Reviewing many polls from all sorts of places state on average between 70-73%.


----------



## Ashful

Jags said:


> Where can I quote from that you will believe?







(ducking and running...)


----------



## Jags

Exactly my point.


----------



## razerface

I am going to watch this fox news and see what the fuss is all about. What channel is it on? Do you need cable?


----------



## Grisu

Joful said:


> C'mon guys, this ain't rocket science.  Supply and demand.  If you have a skill for which there's demand, and supply is limited, then you pay.  Farm workers aren't all without skill, but there's an infinite supply of guys who will take the job of the current lot, should they protest for higher wages.  Likewise for landscapers, trash haulers, and just about any job that can be worked at some minimum level right off the street.  I suspect most people want it that way... or are you the rare person hoping your emergency neurosurgeon is making farm laborer wages?



The supply is there and won't change (At least I hope - death panels anyone?  ) so why is demand missing? (And please don't claim that there are enough skill jobs out there to get most unemployed/low-wage earners a job. Not to mention that this would still not explain how overall wages would increase then. Please see my previous post, points 3 and 4.) 
Btw. Yes, I am the rare person that hopes the neurosurgeon would make farm laborer wages but my farmworker would earn $100,000. Do I assume all MDs will drop their scalpels and go pick lettuce in the field or mop floors? No. Most people dislike hard, manual labor and would not even do it if it was compensated fairly. (Would be an interesting poll question: "What kind of job would you like to do when all jobs pay exactly the same per hour?" Would we really have a sudden shortage in MDs? Maybe we would finally get rid off most lawyers and finance guys.) 



> There you have it.  Folks seem to be unhappy with the bed they've made.



As if your environment has nothing to do with it.  And if skills is everything how come we don't pay monkeys or cats the big bucks? http://partners4prosperity.com/three-monkeys-and-a-cat-picking-stocks


----------



## stoveguy2esw

wonder what a loaf of bread would cost if everyone made 100K a year?


----------



## Cynnergy

razerface said:


> i was wondering where you were,,,do you live in canada?  Do you use canada's health system? We listen to news reports of huge delays in getting care thru the health system there. What have you experienced?
> 
> 
> We are pretty far off track of this thread.....



At the expense of being further off track, I do live in Canada.  I haven't had to use the health care system all that much, although I will say that having to pay for birth control is expensive (it's free in the UK, which is the only other system I have real experience with and I like that better!).  We don't actually have a universal system (dental and optometry isn't covered, and you can buy insurance for things like private beds if you have to stay in hospital, chiropracters,etc).  

Basically if you have a life-threatening emergency, you move to the front of the line and get treated ASAP.  E.g. my uncle had a quadruple bypass within a day of an unusual heart monitor readout during a routine health check for his trucker job.  I think it cost him a total of $25 for the ambulance ride.  He's still alive and kicking 15 years later.

If it's not an emergency, you move to the back of the line.  E.g. my sister had to wait 6 months for an appointment with a specialist to deal with her heartburn that wouldn't respond to any of the usual meds.  

The difference between the UK and the Cdn system is that if my sister were in the UK, she could opt to go private and pay to be seen by a private specialist sooner.  In Canada that's illegal because of the universality of access.  

There are pros and cons to both systems but they both beat the $400/month  my brother-in-law was paying in the US before my other sister got a job where both of their healthcare was covered.  IMHO.


----------



## Grisu

razerface said:


> ask some old coal miners how that worked out. Owned by the company. I have family who came out of Harlen county.



As if the current minimum wage workers are doing any better. My point is that money only has value because you can buy stuff with it. Don't believe me? Take the money out of your monopoly game and try to go shopping with it. Real money, zero value. 



> nope,,,not true.* I *can make all the stuff* I *want,,,but as *I* retire,,,*,i* better have saved some money, which will determine *my* standard of living. There is no doubt about that statement as i watch people who did not save money try to live.



Me, me, me; 5 times in one sentence. It is really sad that there are people who cannot look beyond their own self-interest. I was talking of "we" as in "our country" or "our society". You are just trying to get the biggest piece of the cake, I try to bake a larger cake so that everyone gets to eat more. 
And what are those people are trying to buy? Current productive output which is (among others) determined by the money spent by our parent's generation on infrastructure and education. Maybe we should just take you and your family and all your material possessions (including money) and drop you off on a remote island. Let's see how much good your money does you there. 



> Most of what we "produce" is consumable, and will not last into the future as something we need for a standard of living.  That's why they call us "consumers".   Consumables,,,,are here and gone. That word "consumables" is what kills your above theory.



And what determines the production of those consumables? Or are they just falling from the sky?


----------



## Grisu

stoveguy2esw said:


> wonder what a loaf of bread would cost if everyone made 100K a year?



Maybe the equivalent of the real amount of labor time that is required to make one? But you are right, what would happen is that prices would rise aka inflation. Thus, unemployment and low wages are used by the guys with money to keep inflation low so their wealth does not lose value (purchasing power).


----------



## stoveguy2esw

Grisu said:


> Take the money out of your monopoly game and try to go shopping with it. *Real money*, zero value.


 

real money? from a board game? youre kidding right?


----------



## Grisu

stoveguy2esw said:


> real money? from a board game? youre kidding right?



Hyman Minsky:"Everyone can _create money_; the problem is to get it _accepted."_

So what distinguishes monopoly money from US-$?


----------



## stoveguy2esw

Grisu said:


> Hyman Minsky:"Everyone can _create money_; the problem is to get it _accepted."_
> 
> So what distinguishes monopoly money from US-$?


 
well, possibly the fact that its government backed currency, do you think Hasbro is going to redeem your monopoly money for actual cash? if this was the case people would sit home on their computers and just print off whatever they want to call money and expect to spend it.  just aint going to happen.


----------



## Jags

Bitcoins


----------



## Ashful

Grisu said:


> unemployment and low wages are used by the guys with money to keep inflation low so their wealth does not lose value (purchasing power).


Only if they're holding cash dollars.  If you're holding real assets, then inflation is your friend.


----------



## razerface

Grisu said:


> As if the current minimum wage workers are doing any better. My point is that money only has value because you can buy stuff with it. Don't believe me? Take the money out of your monopoly game and try to go shopping with it. Real money, zero value.
> 
> 
> 
> Me, me, me; 5 times in one sentence. It is really sad that there are people who cannot look beyond their own self-interest.


well,,,are you,,,you,,,,you,,, going to save for my retirement? There I go again, worrying about myself.(taking responsibility)

Just as a point,,,"me" was in the sentence zero times.

_*The easiest way to hide something from the general public, is to say it in correct english, and put it in paragraph form.*_


----------



## razerface

Grisu said:


> So what distinguishes monopoly money from US-$?


Beware of someone offering to pay you in monoploy money or you will learn quickly!


----------



## Ashful

Grisu said:


> The supply is there and won't change... so why is demand missing?


It's not missing.  The supply is simply greater than the demand.  We only eat so much produce.


----------



## Jags

In all fairness - Just read one from The Wall Street Journal at 63% that want the min wage hike.  The lowest I have seen so far.


----------



## razerface

Jags said:


> In all fairness - Just read one from The Wall Street Journal at 63% that want the min wage hike.  The lowest I have seen so far.


Here is one showing 57%
http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2014/03/10/minimum-wage-increase/
I saw a couple at 71, and the low 60's

The famous Fox News is at 66%


----------



## BrotherBart

razerface said:


> Here is one showing 57%
> http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2014/03/10/minimum-wage-increase/



Comparing apples and turnips. Jags' number was of all Americans and the one you link is 57% of small business owners.

And you conveniently didn't quote this little tidbit from the article.

""Small businesses see firsthand how low wages at corporate chains like McDonald's (MCD) or Wal-Mart (WMT) drain local communities of the spending power needed to sustain consumer demand," said Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project, on a conference call announcing the poll results."


----------



## Ktm300

Jags said:


> In all fairness - Just read one from The Wall Street Journal at 63% that want the min wage hike.  The lowest I have seen so far.


Minimum wage jobs are where we start. Work hard learn something then advance in your career. Nobody is going to give you anything ,you have to reach out and take it. Ever wonder why there is a limited number of professional athletes? Because they put in the work practice and sweat. Go to work . Flip burgers if you want but make the goal the manager. DO WORK


----------



## begreen

Minimum wage is also where you stay when there is no need for another manager and the next joint is 30 miles away and you have no car. Minimum wage is also where you end up after being laid off because your job has been outsourced and still have to feed a family.


----------



## razerface

Thanks cynnergy. Nice to hear from the mouth of a real person.
I think Americans will have a rough time with waiting,,,we aren't good at that. Right now I can remember waiting 3 weeks for appointments, and thought it was too long.

6months seems excessive ,,especially if it turns out to be serious,,in that time you could die. Lack of doctors? Do docs make big money up there like here?

Illegal to go private! Wow! I've never heard that before. Are they afraid the docs will only see private patients?

Other sister may be back to paying shortly.

If you do not have any income, do you still have insurance in CDN ?


----------



## Cynnergy

I'm surprised that no one has picked up on the basic income link.  In the 1970's a small town in Manitoba just gave everyone money, rather than a mish-mash of different social assistance programs.  http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4100.

From Wikipedia Basic Income: "In studies of the Mincome experiment in rural Manitoba, the only two groups who worked less in a significant way were new mothers, and teenagers working to support their families. New mothers spent this time with their infant children, and working teenagers put significant additional time into their schooling.[9] Under Mincome, "the reduction of work effort was modest: about one per cent for men, three per cent for wives, and five per cent for unmarried women."[10]

From Wikipedia Mincome: "A final report was never issued, but Dr. Evelyn Forget (/fɔrˈʒeɪ/) conducted an analysis of the program in 2009 which was published in 2011.[4][5] She found that only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less. Mothers with newborns stopped working because they wanted to stay at home longer with their babies, and teenagers worked less because they weren't under as much pressure to support their families, which resulted in more teenagers graduating. In addition, those who continued to work were given more opportunities to choose what type of work they did. Forget found that in the period that Mincome was administered, hospital visits dropped 8.5 percent, with fewer incidences of work-related injuries, and fewer emergency room visits from car accidents and domestic abuse.[6] Additionally, the period saw a reduction in rates of psychiatric hospitalization, and in the number of mental illness-related consultations with health professionals.[7][8]"

It makes sense to me.  There is a lot of money spent on administering social assistance programs.  Why not have a Mincome instead?  It is all wrong that social assistance often pays more than minimum wage, therefore gov'ts have to subsidize people working minimum wage jobs so that they're not better off on welfare.  Have a Mincome and any work you do is on top of the basic amount that everyone gets.

Oh, and before you ask, the 1% can pay for it.  They can afford it after all .


----------



## begreen

stoveguy2esw said:


> wonder what a loaf of bread would cost if everyone made 100K a year?


Keep wondering, right along with people living below poverty level. A minimum wage of $10 is only a fifth of 100K per year.


----------



## Cynnergy

razerface said:


> 6months seems excessive ,,especially if it turns out to be serious,,in that time you could die. Lack of doctors? Do docs make big money up there like here?
> Illegal to go private! Wow! I've never heard that before. Are they afraid the docs will only see private patients?



Doctors make good money here, but they probably make more in the US.  Heartburn isn't going to kill you although it is annoying - my sister had loads of tests done to see if there was anything else wrong but her family doctor couldn't find anything so the referral to the specialist is what took so long.    

We are set up as a universal access system, so yes, the idea is that no one should be able to buy their way to better health care because health care is a universal right.  Practically, the fear is that all of the doctors would want to see the private patients, which would take time away from the public patients, so it would be a detriment to the public system.  The UK seems to manage it just fine though.  The trick is to keep the politicians from saying 'oh well we've got lots of people paying privately now so we can take money out of the public system'.  Which is probably what they would try to do.

I'm not sure about social assistance for things like glasses and dentists.  I sure hope that's in place.  Poor people will definitely be in the group hospital rooms though and not be going to any chiropracters or masseuses.  I even think those without insurance have to pay for things like crutches and wheelchairs - that can add up.  I just checked my insurance (through my husband's work) and it covers things like diabetic supplies too - so if you're poor and have diabetes you have to pay for your own blood glucose monitor.


----------



## Ktm300

begreen said:


> Minimum wage is also where you stay when there is no need for another manager and the next joint is 30 miles away and you have no car. Minimum wage is also where you end up after being laid off because your job has been outsourced and still have to feed a family.


Cut grass,rake leaves,shovel snow, throw hay,split wood,wash neighbors car,clean the stalls. I started when I was 10. Don't fear the hateful jobs there's lots of them around. Hand outs are not what made this country great. Hard work did. I was lucky my parents instilled hard work in me.


----------



## razerface

BrotherBart said:


> And you conveniently didn't quote this little tidbit from the article.



I did not quote anything from the article. You act like I was hiding something? I gave the link to the whole article. There are some things I agree with and some I don't in that article

Edit: I think it was good to get a poll from small business, as they know what will happen to their business if forced to raise wages


----------



## Butcher

My 2 cents. If there are so many people happy with a government that dictates to them how much they have to pay an entry level employee, what kind of health insurance they have to buy, or even as a business owner how much they can make for the time ,effort and risk involved in being a business owner then maybe those folks should move to a country like China or Russia or better yet N. Korea. Think of how simplistic your lives would be. You wouldn't have to worry about making the big decisions about the life you lived. They would all be made for you by some one higher up that you didn't even have to bother to vote for. How convenient would that be? I mean really. A camel with it's head in the sand would be in a total Valhalla in a land like that. Now if you will excuse me I have to go kick the stereo, this record is skipping.


----------



## Ktm300

Butcher said:


> My 2 cents. If there are so many people happy with a government that dictates to them how much they have to pay an entry level employee, what kind of health insurance they have to buy, or even as a business owner how much they can make for the time ,effort and risk involved in being a business owner then maybe those folks should move to a country like China or Russia or better yet N. Korea. Think of how simplistic your lives would be. You wouldn't have to worry about making the big decisions about the life you lived. They would all be made for you by some one higher up that you didn't even have to bother to vote for. How convenient would that be? I mean really. A camel with it's head in the sand would be in a total Valhalla in a land like that. Now if you will excuse me I have to go kick the stereo, this record is skipping.


DO WORK


----------



## BrotherBart

Weather is warming up. This cabin fever landfill is not much longer for this virtual world.


----------



## ironpony

all my friends are going away


----------



## Grisu

stoveguy2esw said:


> well, possibly the fact that its government backed currency, do you think Hasbro is going to redeem your monopoly money for actual cash? if this was the case people would sit home on their computers and just print off whatever they want to call money and expect to spend it.  just aint going to happen.



Bitcoins are a great example that government backing is not required. There are also plenty of local currencies around without government backing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_currency The problem with monopoly money is its redeem-ability. No one is going to accept that money and change it for something you really want. Let's create some "money":

Take a new hunter in some kind of native tribe. He goes to the master bow builder and asks for a new bow. In return he will give him his first deer. They write that down on a piece of paper creating an IOU. With that we are already half-way to money. The hunter brings the deer and they tear apart the IOU. Win-win for both. Imagine now the bow builder does not want any game but moccasins instead. What does the hunter do now? He goes to their tribal elder who gives him a number of tokens for the signed IOU. The hunter uses those tokens to buy the bow and goes hunting. The bow builder buys his moccasins with them while the hunter sells his deer to get the tokens back. He brings them to the elder who tosses the signed IOU with the tokens in the fire. 

You may have guessed it: The tokens are the money. A freely transferable (liquid) IOU with general acceptance in one society (country). Whenever someone goes to a bank we do exactly that: We exchange a non-transferable IOU (our mortgage, business loan etc.) for a transferable IOU ($). That way we can build a house or start businesses without writing individual IOUs to all suppliers which they can only redeem with us. That a $-bill stands for an IOU is even printed on their face:_"this note is legal tender for all *debts*, public and private"._ We loan money to pay for someone's labor by pledging to use our labor to return that money over time. Thus, money is also a store of labor. We have the mutual agreement that we can trade it at any time for products of labor that we find useful. If people break that agreement or the products are not there, that money has lost its value. Hence monopoly money is no money only because there is no agreement to use it as such. Let's say a large enough group of people is getting stranded on a remote island with some supplies and only one monopoly game, it would be no surprise when they would use those bills as money. As long as someone credible is keeping the books or the supply is limited in another way, people are going to accept it.


----------



## Grisu

Joful said:


> Only if they're holding cash dollars.  If you're holding real assets, then inflation is your friend.



Nominal values of real assets will rise but their real (inflation-adjusted) rate of return will stay the same (assuming away market imperfections). A house is a house; it is not the house gaining value but the $ losing it. Same for gas, food, tools etc. Inflation is a friend for debtors and a foe of creditors as bond assets will fall in real value when inflation picks up. And the poor are certainly not the creditors.


----------



## BrotherBart

Ktm300 said:


> DO WORK



No way. I enjoy my food stamps, subsidized housing, welfare checks and ER care. And Thursday down at the shelter the meatloaf is to die for.


----------



## Grisu

Joful said:


> It's not missing.  The supply is simply greater than the demand.  We only eat so much produce.



So you mean that we have everything we need; there is nothing more people would like to have? Those dozens applicants with a Bs or Ms that I get on my desk are not needed anymore because we don't need to do any research since we already have all the drugs and vaccines we'll need? Our roads are in pristine conditions, our cities are nice and clean, no one goes hungry? Great, then let's just all work less hours so we can all share the the fruits of our enormous productivity. Apparently we have everything, why work so hard anymore?!

P.S. And when we apparently have such an abundance of produce why are 50 million Americans living in "food insecure" households meaning they don't know if they can afford their next meal? Ever seen children coming hungry to childcare while their parents could not give them anything to eat in the morning?


----------



## Grisu

begreen said:


> Keep wondering, right along with people living below poverty level. A minimum wage of $10 is only a fifth of 100K per year.



Yep, I am really wondering about that remark. Is it not the same as saying:" It is ok that people live in poverty as long as I can enjoy a cheap loaf of bread."?

I am sure that is not what stoveguy meant. It shows how difficult to understand that whole stuff is.


----------



## Ktm300

BrotherBart said:


> No way. I enjoy my food stamps, subsidized housing, welfare checks and ER care. And Thursday down at the shelter the meatloaf is to die for.


As soon as I get these estimates sent out I will meet you at the shelter for Monday night pasta. Worked for a builder from northern Virginia . NV Homes. Wow they pay like Walmart.


----------



## BrotherBart

Ktm300 said:


> As soon as I get these estimates sent out I will meet you at the shelter for Monday night pasta. Worked for a builder from northern Virginia . NV Homes. Wow they pay like Walmart.



Apparently the guy that built my house did too.


----------



## Grisu

Cynnergy said:


> I'm surprised that no one has picked up on the basic income link.  In the 1970's a small town in Manitoba just gave everyone money, rather than a mish-mash of different social assistance programs.  http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4100.
> 
> From Wikipedia Basic Income: "In studies of the Mincome experiment in rural Manitoba, the only two groups who worked less in a significant way were new mothers, and teenagers working to support their families. New mothers spent this time with their infant children, and working teenagers put significant additional time into their schooling.[9] Under Mincome, "the reduction of work effort was modest: about one per cent for men, three per cent for wives, and five per cent for unmarried women."[10]
> 
> From Wikipedia Mincome: "A final report was never issued, but Dr. Evelyn Forget (/fɔrˈʒeɪ/) conducted an analysis of the program in 2009 which was published in 2011.[4][5] She found that only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less. Mothers with newborns stopped working because they wanted to stay at home longer with their babies, and teenagers worked less because they weren't under as much pressure to support their families, which resulted in more teenagers graduating. In addition, those who continued to work were given more opportunities to choose what type of work they did. Forget found that in the period that Mincome was administered, hospital visits dropped 8.5 percent, with fewer incidences of work-related injuries, and fewer emergency room visits from car accidents and domestic abuse.[6] Additionally, the period saw a reduction in rates of psychiatric hospitalization, and in the number of mental illness-related consultations with health professionals.[7][8]"
> 
> It makes sense to me.  There is a lot of money spent on administering social assistance programs.  Why not have a Mincome instead?  It is all wrong that social assistance often pays more than minimum wage, therefore gov'ts have to subsidize people working minimum wage jobs so that they're not better off on welfare.  Have a Mincome and any work you do is on top of the basic amount that everyone gets.
> 
> Oh, and before you ask, the 1% can pay for it.  They can afford it after all .



Thanks for the link. I favor that proposal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_guarantee It gives people an incentive to work while setting a wage-floor. And society gets the benefit of the labor. 

But after reading a bit more about the basic income it may actually work as well.


----------



## Ktm300

BrotherBart said:


> Apparently the guy that built my house did too.


Oh you got the Ryan lifestyle ??


----------



## Ktm300

BrotherBart said:


> Apparently the guy that built my house did too.





Ktm300 said:


> Oh you got the Ryan lifestyle ??


Let me quess .....Thermoply sheathing?


----------



## BrotherBart

Ktm300 said:


> Oh you got the Ryan lifestyle ??



Nah. Local builder. Lost his license to build in the county a long time ago. But I did get a kick out of him punching out a building inspector in the front yard of a house he was building. The realtor told us about that and my wife replied "My husband and him will get along just fine.".


----------



## begreen

Ktm300 said:


> Cut grass,rake leaves,shovel snow, throw hay,split wood,wash neighbors car,clean the stalls. I started when I was 10. Don't fear the hateful jobs there's lots of them around. Hand outs are not what made this country great. Hard work did. I was lucky my parents instilled hard work in me.


I have been lucky and worked my way up too, but I would never presume that everyone has the same luck or fate. And most of those "hateful" jobs pay - minimum wage. If you are 50+ and tossed in this pool your options for advancement just went down a whole lot.


----------



## BrotherBart

begreen said:


> If you are 50+ and tossed in this pool your options for advancement just went down a whole lot.



"Hello. Welcome to Walmart."


----------



## begreen

Xactly, or Home Sleepo, etc.


----------



## Ktm300

BrotherBart said:


> Nah. Local builder. Lost his license to build in the county a long time ago. But I did get a kick out of him punching out a building inspector in the front yard of a house he was building. The realtor told us about that and my wife replied "My husband and him will get along just fine.".


We will probably eat meatloaf with him on Thursday night.....


----------



## BrotherBart

Couple of years ago I was opening the door to go into Walmart and held the door for a guy behind me. He said "You don't look old enough to be a Walmart greeter." I said "I am still young enough to kick your ass through that doorway.".

He moved out smartly.


----------



## Ktm300

begreen said:


> I have been lucky and worked my way up too, but I would never presume that everyone has the same luck or fate. And most of those "hateful" jobs pay - minimum wage. If you are 50+ and tossed in this pool your options for advancement just went down a whole lot.


You are right. I think if we all could solve these unfortunate problems we would be among the 1 percent club. Now if I could just have 10 bucks for each of your messages.....


----------



## Frozen Canuck

Whoda thunk that a little 6 min vid about a few of the reasons why wages going up are a good thing for the economy, woulda generated so much, ya know who I can't stand, its them dirty rotten stinkin lazy poor people. Wonderful world aint it. Gotta hate a "them" or there is just no reason to get up in the morning. Think I will sleep in.


----------



## Ktm300

Frozen Canuck said:


> Whoda thunk that a little 6 min vid about a few of the reasons why wages going up are a good thing for the economy, woulda generated so much, ya know who I can't stand, its them dirty rotten stinkin lazy poor people. Wonderful world aint it. Gotta hate a "them" or there is just no reason to get up in the morning. Think I will sleep in.


Obama is going to take my wood stove away


----------



## Grisu

Butcher said:


> My 2 cents. If there are so many people happy with a government that dictates to them how much they have to pay an entry level employee, what kind of health insurance they have to buy, or even as a business owner how much they can make for the time ,effort and risk involved in being a business owner then maybe those folks should move to a country like China or Russia ...



You missed about the last 20 years of global politics or do you really think in those countries the government still sets the wages? There are plenty of other examples for livable minimum wages e. g. in Europe ( http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/31/europe-minimum-wage-lifestyle-wages.html ). Or take the Scandinavian countries that don't even have a minimum wage due to strong labor unions.


----------



## Ktm300

Grisu said:


> You missed about the last 20 years of global politics or do you really think in those countries the government still sets the wages? There are plenty of other examples for livable minimum wages e. g. in Europe ( http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/31/europe-minimum-wage-lifestyle-wages.html ). Or take the Scandinavian countries that don't even have a minimum wage due to strong labor unions.


Many Scandinavian countries require mandatory enrollment in the military. Imagine how that would go over here!


----------



## Ashful

Meh... someone make me a mod, so I can close this bizzatch down.


----------



## Ktm300

Joful said:


> Meh... someone make me a mod, so I can close this bizzatch down.


Do it. Are you going out for meatloaf on Thursday night too???


----------



## Ashful

I'll bring the beer.


----------



## Grisu

Ktm300 said:


> Many Scandinavian countries require mandatory enrollment in the military. Imagine how that would go over here!



I survived that; there are worse things in life - like working for a minimum wage without end.


----------



## Ktm300

Joful said:


> I'll bring the beer.


I'm finishing up a roof at the blue route and rt 1 . Come on over I will pay you to roof with me. Then you can buy good whiskey


----------



## Ktm300

Grisu said:


> I survived that; there are worse things in life - like working for a minimum wage without end.


What do you think would happen if everyone that had a minimum wage job did not show up for work tomorrow ? That would probably solve this problem


----------



## Grisu

Ktm300 said:


> What do you think would happen if everyone that had a minimum wage job did not show up for work tomorrow ? That would probably solve this problem



Assuming an all-out strike and closed borders: Since most of our food production from farming to retail and restaurants relies heavily on low-wage workers we would feel that very quickly. I would give us two weeks tops and in retrospect the proposed $10.10 would have looked like a bargain.


----------



## razerface

I don't need no stinking farmers! I get my food at the grocery store!


----------



## woodgeek

And the best part....the horse has already left the barn.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...fails-to-beat-inflation-chart-of-the-day.html

The minimum wage has already been increased by roughly 30% over the past 4 years, taking it from an inflation adjusted record low at the beginning of the O administration, to a level that is higher than at at any time since the early 80s.  Meep Meep.

And yep, according to Pew, 71% support a further increase....

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/04/5-facts-about-the-minimum-wage/

It seems that when there are a lot of under 30 voters, like in the 60s and today, there is a sudden push to increase it.


----------



## razerface

woodgeek said:


> It seems that when there are a lot of under 30 voters, like in the 60s and today, there is a sudden push to increase it.


combined with baby boomers retiring,,,,having failed to save enough for retirement, and wanting the min wage job to supplement their income


----------



## Doug MacIVER

woodgeek said:


> And the best part....the horse has already left the barn.
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...fails-to-beat-inflation-chart-of-the-day.html
> 
> The minimum wage has already been increased by roughly 30% over the past 4 years, taking it from an inflation adjusted record low at the beginning of the O administration, to a level that is higher than at at any time since the early 80s.  Meep Meep.
> 
> And yep, according to Pew, 71% support a further increase....
> 
> http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/04/5-facts-about-the-minimum-wage/
> 
> It seems that when there are a lot of under 30 voters, like in the 60s and today, there is a sudden push to increase it.


the key sentence"The loss of better-paying manufacturing jobs in the last three decades and the growth of service industries may be another reason why wages have failed to keep up with inflation, Zentner said." MAY BE? hell, the gov't knows there is nowhere to work these days. why else would unemployment run 99 weeks when 40 years ago it was 13? those earning minwage deservedly get assistance which wasn't mentioned. what is the indexed rate when those gov't programs are factored in? the gov't helped create this mess and they are doing their best to maintain it. one wonders how those that have dropped out of the job market can survive, perhaps because of a benevolent, sympathetic gov't. remember, since the beginning of the Presidents first term, you don't have to work to get assistance.


----------



## stoveguy2esw

Grisu said:


> Bitcoins are a great example that government backing is not required


 


yeah, just read about those things a couple weeks ago, seems almost a billion dollars in "bitcoin" just up and disappeared. company went bankrupt, no FDIC insurance the people who had their money in it can sue, but bankruptcy has been declared so they will be luck  to get "2 Bitcoins to the dollar"  back. at least with "monopoly money" you have a piece of paper with a number on it.

bet the folks who lost all that money wished the currency had been government backed when they lost it


----------



## Ehouse

Grisu said:


> I survived that; there are worse things in life - like working for a minimum wage without end.




I think a civilian core based on the military template is a great idea.


----------



## Jags

stoveguy2esw said:


> but bankruptcy has been declared so they will be luck to get "2 Bitcoins to the dollar" back. at least with "monopoly money" you have a piece of paper with a number on it.



That was a single "dealer".  Bitcoins are not gone.  Its kinda like waiting out the market at this point.  Don't get me wrong - I think they are a joke.  No monetary/asset backing just doesn't make sense to me.  But the coins are still being used.


----------



## razerface

can you buy bitcoins with monopoly money?


----------



## Jags

Everything you ever wanted to know:
http://www.arimaa.com/bitcoin_get/

Now - lets get back to...errr...whatever the heck this thread is about.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Companies determine wages based on many criteria. Probably the needs and wants of the employees are not at the top of the list.
I live in a town with very few good paying jobs. Mostly Min. wage.  But there is still a lot of opportunity to start your own business.
Example: Your drain is clogged? Prepare to pay someone $100-$200 an hour to unclog it. Almost anyone can start their own business.
Iv started several business in the last 25 years with very little cash outlay. It was either that or go chase one of those Min. wage positions.


----------



## Ashful

Ktm300 said:


> I'm finishing up a roof at the blue route and rt 1 . Come on over I will pay you to roof with me.


Do you pay minimum wage?



Grisu said:


> I survived that; there are worse things in life - like working for a minimum wage without end.


  Then get off your ass and do something better for yourself.  This is the land of opportunity.  There is no reason any legal citizen should be stuck making minimum wage for life, except by choice.  You might never be a millionaire, but there's a lot of room between that extreme and minimum wage.

(I feel like we're back where we started...)


----------



## razerface

Joful said:


> Then get off your ass and do something better for yourself.  This is the land of opportunity.  There is no reason any legal citizen should be stuck making minimum wage for life, except by choice.




exactly!


----------



## Grisu

Joful said:


> Then get off your ass and do something better for yourself.



Not sure how literal I should take that statement but for the record: Where I grew up military service was mandatory and I certainly did something better afterwards. But I also realize that all that would have been hard without all the support my parents gave me throughout those years. Many children grow up without those chances; today even more so than when I was young. Is it really coincidence that countries with high welfare have a much higher intergenerational mobility than the US? And that this correlates with income inequality? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Great_Gatsby_Curve.png



> This is the land of opportunity.  There is no reason any legal citizen should be stuck making minimum wage for life, except by choice.



It's a great attitude but what applies to one individual does not necessarily apply to the group as a whole. As long as people aim to amass monetary wealth there will always be a shortage of demand. (See my previous point 4; discuss it if you want to add substance instead of just going in circles) Without demand there will be a lack of wages which will equal unemployment. Jobs don't just grow on trees; you need someone to pay you. And *you need to be paid first before you can add to demand!* 20 million low-wage earners suddenly starting businesses is not giving them any better income without customers who would need an income to pay for that labor. It's a cycle; just saying "improve your skills" is not breaking that. We will still be short the money to pay for all that. Microeconomics will not help with a macro problem. 

Not to mention that many low-wage earners provide a useful service we just don't want to pay for it. They should just go all on strike; we would quickly feel it and gladly pay more than what we are doing right now. Too bad that the poor are too busy fighting for their survival than for the social change they really need.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Grisu said:


> . But I also realize that all that would have been hard without all the support my parents gave me throughout those years. Many children grow up without those chances; today even more so than when I was young.
> .


I got zero help from my parents. Yes it was hard,but thats no reason not to try.
Friend of mine put himself thru medical school without help from his parents.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Every person can be a job creator. Look around you ,there are needs everywhere. Find a need and fill it. Minimum wage jobs are certainly not the only need that has to be filled. They serve a purpose. Mostly to give a lot of HS dropouts a paycheck. I often hear "no one will give me a job"  Dont wait for anyone to "give" you anything.


----------



## Frozen Canuck

Joful said:


> Then get off your ass and do something better for yourself.



This does assume that there are at a minimum the same # of unfilled jobs as there are unemployed people. Is that assumption correct?



Joful said:


> This is the land of opportunity.



This was quite likely true in the 50"s. Most global competition was busy rebuilding after WWII. Times & many other things have changed.



Joful said:


> There is no reason any legal citizen should be stuck making minimum wage for life, except by choice.



Well if the # of unfilled jobs equals or exceeds the # of unemployed, that is somewhat true. Is this the case today in America?



Grisu said:


> Too bad that the poor are too busy fighting for their survival than for the social change they really need.



Well someone "gets it" these dirty, rotten, stinkin, evil, lazy, poor people are busy with hand to mouth issues & just don't have the time/ability to suggest the solutions to these macro problems, or they are just tired of being beaten down by someone in a better economic position. Weird how constantly wondering where your next meal will come from, or whether you will even have a next meal changes ones priorities. Makes one think immediately micro rather than macro.

BTW this all gets worse moving forward, new/better/more tech will create new waves of unemployed. Time for some macro thinking on these issues as opposed to well…..the status quo.

I will likely have checked out, but those of you left need to give up the "bogey man" & get to work on real solutions that work for the majority. Or get ready for WWIII, up to you.


----------



## razerface

Grisu said:


> They should just go all on strike; we would quickly feel it and gladly pay more than what we are doing right now. Too bad that the poor are too busy fighting for their survival than for the social change they really need.




yes, i agree,,this has been a plan of mine for a long time. If EVERYONE would go on strike,,, we could eliminate the gov't, since they do not make anything, and have no income except us taxpayers.  How long will it take? A week? A month? I can last for a long time since all taxes will be suspended. 

I can not believe it,,,we agree on something Grisu! Everyone,,,ON STRIKE!

(Scratching head),,,,that takes care of the gov't,,,but I sure don't see how it will help min wage. Oh! I see!  With no gov't,,there will be no income tax,,,so min wage will get a 15% boost! 

I like it.  Brilliant!


----------



## Seasoned Oak

WHen the govt shuts down ,no one seems to notice or care.


----------



## razerface

Frozen Canuck said:


> This does assume that there are at a minimum the same # of unfilled jobs as there are unemployed people. Is that assumption correct?
> 
> Well if the # of unfilled jobs equals or exceeds the # of unemployed, that is somewhat true. Is this the case today in America?



This is something I do not joke about,,,in fact it pisses me off to no end. My company pays over min wage,,but you are required to work. We don't allow cell phones and bull like that,,, we work. I spent over $2000 on want ads to hire last year. We cancelled 1 shift due to lack of employees.

I got people who know nothing of CNC skills that wanted $20 hr to start,,while I trained them.

I got kids out of school who could not pull their pants up,,, who wanted the same thing.

I got TONS of people who just wanted to get us to sign the paper saying they applied for a job,,,so they could get more of the 99 weeks of unemployment that the gov't was giving away.

Sometimes we would go for 2-3 weeks with NO ONE applying,,,in a state where unemployment is high!

  I hear the same thing from other business owners in this area.

I say all this with a smile,,,cause the guys we have now, are making killer overtime money, and do not want us to hire right now.

I hear on the radio that there are not enough workers in some states N Dak, Texas.

I did not check with Fox News though,,, so I guess it might not be true.


----------



## Frozen Canuck

Razer: Lots of micro instances, care to have a go at the macro issues? There will always be an exception to….well anything. Citing small micro exceptions to macro issues is fun but suggests a solution to nothing. Big picture is more important moving forward.


----------



## Grisu

razerface said:


> This is something I do not joke about,,,in fact it pisses me off to no end. My company pays over min wage,,but you are required to work. We don't allow cell phones and bull like that,,, we work. I spent over $2000 on want ads to hire last year. We cancelled 1 shift due to lack of employees.
> 
> I got people who know nothing of CNC skills that wanted $20 hr to start,,while I trained them.
> 
> I got kids out of school who could not pull their pants up,,, who wanted the same thing.
> 
> I got TONS of people who just wanted to get us to sign the paper saying they applied for a job,,,so they could get more of the 99 weeks of unemployment that the gov't was giving away.
> 
> Sometimes we would go for 2-3 weeks with NO ONE applying,,,in a state where unemployment is high!
> 
> I hear the same thing from other business owners in this area.
> 
> I say all this with a smile,,,cause the guys we have now, are making killer overtime money, and do not want us to hire right now.
> 
> I hear on the radio that there are not enough workers in some states N Dak, Texas.
> 
> I did not check with Fox News though,,, so I guess it might not be true.



If, as suggested, wages are set by supply and demand and you have open positions than apparently your offered wages are too low. You have to raise them to fill all open positions. Either you believe in the market or you don't.


----------



## ironpony

razerface said:


> I got people who know nothing of CNC skills that wanted $20 hr to start,,while I trained them.
> 
> .


 


why would they work for less?? the govt gives them that much to sit at home.


----------



## ironpony

Frozen Canuck said:


> Razer: Lots of micro instances, care to have a go at the macro issues? There will always be an exception to….well anything. Citing small micro exceptions to macro issues is fun but suggests a solution to nothing. Big picture is more important moving forward.


 



D$%# Canadians always making sense................


----------



## Grisu

ironpony said:


> why would they work for less?? the govt gives them that much to sit at home.



That is one reason we need a Job Guarantee! People will be paid for working, not for not working!! http://www.thenation.com/article/161249/job-guarantee-government-plan-full-employment#
Those jobs will improve our communities, set a wage floor, and keep people from just sitting at home and feeling sorry for themselves.


----------



## Ashful

Grisu said:


> Not sure how literal I should take that statement, but for the record: Where I grew up military service was mandatory and I certainly did something better afterwards.


That was a statement for the populace, not directed at you.



Grisu said:


> It's a great attitude but what applies to one individual does not necessarily apply to the group as a whole.... It's a cycle; just saying "improve your skills" is not breaking that. We will still be short the money to pay for all that. Microeconomics will not help with a macro problem.


I actually do not disagree with you guys on this.  In fact, I don't think anyone on "my side" of this argument does.  It's really more a difference in attitude, so let me spell it out more clearly:  I have ZERO interest in helping able-bodied and able-minded citizens who will not help themselves.  As you pointed out, my solution is microeconomic, but are those making minimum wage worried about anything more than their own microeconomics?  Barring some unique unfortunate circumstances, which are not the topic of this discussion on minimum wage, any one person can fix their own situation.

_edit:  I have a little trouble believing anyone who's done well in life didn't have some help from their parents.  At a minimum, you learned the skills and values that lead you to where you are.  I didn't have an exceedingly privileged childhood, just a typical suburban kid who's mother struggled to make ends meet after father passed away young, but I definitely had it much better than some others.  I might not be where I am today without some good fortune, but I surely wouldn't be making *minimum wage, *either!_


----------



## razerface

I give up on you people,,,,too many excuses why people won't/shouldn't  work.  You are part of the problem.


----------



## Grisu

Joful said:


> I actually do not disagree with you guys on this.  In fact, I don't think anyone on "my side" of this argument does.  It's really more a difference in attitude, so let me spell it out more clearly:  I have ZERO interest in helping able-bodied and able-minded citizens who will not help themselves.  As you pointed out, my solution is microeconomic, but are those making minimum wage worried about anything more than their own microeconomics?  Barring some unique unfortunate circumstances, which are not the topic of this discussion on minimum wage, any one person can fix their own situation.



That is what I showed in my previous post: Our monetary system if not adjusted correctly has a tendency to force unemployment/low wages. Regardless what the skills of the people are. For the simple reason that we use money as a medium to exchange labor and people like to save it. If you provide one hour of labor and we would live in a barter economy you would immediately get one hour back. You are both better off. But we live in a money economy which means someone sells its labor but does not want to get any back right now. They save money! Now the other person cannot sell its labor anymore to acquire the things it needs. You have involuntary unemployment. Unless that unemployed person can force you to spend your money (mugging school anyone?) that is not going to change. Those links I posted that capital income increases while labor share decreases? People save too much money. How are the poor going to change that? 

What all those "solutions" of hard work, better skills etc. would do is produce more output. They would not increase income (unless the new skill is to print money). Thus, you get deflation. And how well that works for the unemployed we saw 80 years and 5 years ago.


----------



## bmblank

Grisu said:


> If, as suggested, wages are set by supply and demand and you have open positions than apparently your offered wages are too low. You have to raise them to fill all open positions.


Precisely. The problem is, they have a better offer (in their eyes). They can live off of  government subsidies  and still get everything they need. Take away the subsidies and, her, $8.00/hr looks pretty good. Allow the market to regulate itself and good and services get cheaper due to competition. When the cost of God and services are lower $8.00/hr is worth more than previous.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

razerface said:


> I got TONS of people who just wanted to get us to sign the paper saying they applied for a job,,,so they could get more of the 99 weeks of unemployment that the gov't was giving away.
> 
> Sometimes we would go for 2-3 weeks with NO ONE applying,,,in a state where unemployment is high!
> .


These people may be poor, but they are not stupid. As long as the gravy train rolls you will always have riders.


razerface said:


> I say all this with a smile,,,cause the guys we have now, are making killer overtime money, and do not want us to hire right now.
> .



Keep working the OT, your govt needs all that tax money to pay the 99 Wks of UC


----------



## Seasoned Oak

razerface said:


> I give up on you people,,,,too many excuses why people won't/shouldn't  work.  You are part of the problem.


Not me RZR  I dont make excuses for anyone. THere is a % of the population  everywhere who will do only just enough to get by,sometimes nothing at all and get by just fine. Who are the dumbs ones, them, or you for working OT and paying for it all?


----------



## razerface

Grisu said:


> People save too much money


LOL wow!


Seasoned Oak said:


> Who are the dumbs ones, them, or you for working OT and paying for it all?


I know,, some days I almost looking forward to it all ending. On those days I think we need to go bankrupt as a country and get it over with. Then it is work or starve. I have no plans to donate any food.


----------



## BrotherBart

razerface said:


> I give up on you people,,,,too many excuses why people won't/shouldn't  work.  You are part of the problem.



Hey, we aren't the guy nobody wants to work for.


----------



## Jags

Good thing I wasn't drinking anything when I read that.


----------



## Ktm300

Joful said:


> Do you pay minimum wage?
> 
> 
> Then get off your ass and do something better for yourself.  This is the land of opportunity.  There is no reason any legal citizen should be stuck making minimum wage for life, except by choice.  You might never be a millionaire, but there's a lot of room between that extreme and minimum wage.
> 
> (I feel like we're back where we started...)


No I do not pay minimum wage. You get paid for how you work. I have a hard time getting American workers that work and don't do heroin on the job. I have a Costa Rican crew that does not mess around. Been doing business with them for 15 years. And yes they are legal or have current work visas. Sometimes they make more than I do


----------



## Ktm300

razerface said:


> I give up on you people,,,,too many excuses why people won't/shouldn't  work.  You are part of the problem.


DO WORK


----------



## Grisu

BrotherBart said:


> Hey, we aren't the guy nobody wants to work for.



Given the wages paid here, hearth.com must win any "best place to work"-contest by a landslide.


----------



## ironpony

things can not be to bad, over on the DIY thread they are spending 1800 dollars     on BBQ grills..................


----------



## ironpony

Ktm300 said:


> No I do not pay minimum wage. You get paid for how you work. I have a hard time getting American workers that work and don't do heroin on the job. I have a Costa Rican crew that does not mess around. Been doing business with them for 15 years. And yes they are legal or have current work visas. Sometimes they make more than I do


 



I have to agree with you, my crews are mostly Latino, work hard and no drugs


----------



## Ktm300

Seasoned Oak said:


> I got zero help from my parents. Yes it was hard,but thats no reason not to try.
> Friend of mine put himself thru medical school without help from his parents.


The no help from parents thing must be in the water in Pa. I help my kids but will let them fall too. After detailed instruction I watched my son adjust the chain on his dirt bike 4 times till he got it right. He won't have that problem again.


----------



## Ktm300

ironpony said:


> I have to agree with you, my crews are mostly Latino, work hard and no drugs


Have you dealt with Korean dudes yet? I have a crew of siders from Korea . I speak Spanish but Korean is tough. Hard working loyal guys.


----------



## Ktm300

ironpony said:


> things can not be to bad, over on the DIY thread they are spending 1800 dollars     on BBQ grills..................


$1800.00 on a grill? Hope it butchers the cow and mows my grass...


----------



## razerface

BrotherBart said:


> Hey, we aren't the guy nobody wants to work for.


 what can i say,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


----------



## Owen1508

If I was to start a manufacturing company why would I want to start it on US soil??  I could set up south of the boarder pay lower wages, with little labor oversight, no EPA regs, no healthcare concerns.  Make my widgets then transport it on Mexican trucks (less regs) with Mexician drivers (lower wages) over the boarder and sell it to All the US, for higher profit.  Why hasn't NAFTA come up yet, or the Pacific Trade Agreement??  Yet taxing the 1%ers or raise the min. wage are the only two options for job growth in US?  Why not shoot down NAFTA reject PTA and raise tariffs on imported products so it's more feesable to make things with in our boarders?  yes it will increase price some (some raise in min. wage), but will benifit us all in the end.


----------



## Frozen Canuck

Owen1508 said:


> Why hasn't NAFTA come up yet, or the Pacific Trade Agreement??





Owen1508 said:


> Why not shoot down NAFTA reject PTA and raise tariffs on imported products so it's more feesable to make things with in our boarders?





Owen1508 said:


> yes it will increase price some (some raise in min. wage), but will benifit us all in the end.



Now there are some macro issues that I would agree are worthy of discussion as well as being far more likely to be part of a workable solution.

Edit: jharkin & grisu brought up some macro issues as well but those were talked around faster than you can say…..nah better not.


----------



## Ashful

Owen1508 said:


> Why hasn't NAFTA come up yet, or the Pacific Trade Agreement??


Well you see, we're trying to not get off on a tangent...


----------



## Butcher

Grisu said:


> You missed about the last 20 years of global politics or do you really think in those countries the government still sets the wages? There are plenty of other examples for livable minimum wages e. g. in Europe ( http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/31/europe-minimum-wage-lifestyle-wages.html ). Or take the Scandinavian countries that don't even have a minimum wage due to strong labor unions.


 Where in my post did I say anything about Europe? You lost me there man. But go ahead and get you yah yahs out about strong labor unions. Freaking typical.


----------



## Butcher

This debate has been fun. It seems as though it is going no where as expected. No one involved will be able to get any thing done on the issue one way or the other by sitting at a computer and pasting internet charts and graphs and references to cyber space news articles. But then, if it's on the internet it must be fact, RIGHT?
I think a much more productive debate would be one about some thing like, huh, lets say, the existence of bigfoot. Yeah, there ya go. Lets pound our chests over the possible existence of Bigfoot. Now there's something a cave man like me can really get into! When I first saw the original post way back how many pages ago it read
1%er. Dopy me. I thought it was something about some one I may have rode with back in the 70's and 80's when I was flying colors on my vest. I should have known better. Even us 1%ers on 2 wheels had a better understanding of the world around us than some I've been witness to lately. And Bart, when you pick up your cheese look out. I might come take it and tell you it's notchyocheese.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Ktm300 said:


> No I do not pay minimum wage. You get paid for how you work. I have a hard time getting American workers that work and don't do heroin on the job.


Or check their cell phones all day. Once had a 2 guys doing drywall and painting and decided to pay them by the job not hourly.
One guy 55yrs OLD took 3days to do a room the other guy 25Yrs old took 6 weeks. Worst part was the slow guy was my nephew. both got paid the same.


----------



## BrotherBart

Reading about these people that don't want to work and these benevolent businessmen has brought back a memory from my first job. Working in a one man mom and pop grocery store after school, weekends and summer. Twenty-five cents an hour working for a crotchety old fart. Everything from cleaning to working produce to stocking and deliveries in a '53 Plymouth. That and women customer's asking me to stay with them as he followed them around the store and pawed them.  One day his wife's cat died and all of a sudden it was my job to bury it. Dug as far in the hard sun burned Texas dirt as I could. She was the one that went out and put it in the hole and covered it up. Of course that night something dug it up. Old man is waiting for my 14 year old self when I arrived the next day and said "You are only interested in quitting time and payday. You didn't dig deep enough." to which I replied that I looked to them more than pulling rotted potatoes out of bags and washing the rest and putting them back and burying cats. He said he should slap the chit out of me. I put my hands behind my back and told him to take his best shot. That my Dad had always wanted to own a grocery store. And left.

Spoiled kid I guess.


----------



## Frozen Canuck

Sounds a lot like my first job pumping gas, didn't have to bury the cat though . Good thing as I would have likely been burning coal to thaw the ground first. Did have to clean the grease sump (yes we had those way back then), the oil sump (yep had those too) & the mechanics pit, then go out & serve customers - but "don't you dare get any of that grease, oil or dirt on anyones car". So glad that Dad insisted I get out & work somewhere other than the family business, gave me an appreciation for rational people. Looking back on it, I am glad the auto detailing business was basically a no go at that time. I am sure he would have had me doing that after I had cleaned the pits & sumps with a but "don't you dare get any of that on anyones car".

Yep me too, spoiled rotten.


----------



## BrotherBart

Next job was a small Texaco station. All day and closing at night and taking the receipts over to the owner's house and dropping the bag inside his front door around 11 pm. One day he came in the station and dropped off a .30 carbine in case I got robbed. Told him to get that thing out of there. If they came in unarmed they would get the money. If they weren't they would get the money and the gun and then shoot my young ass. That one was forty cents an hour. Decided on a career change when a couple of cars started parking across the street about closing time for a few nights.

Damned job creators wanted to slap the chit our of me or get me robbed and killed. Went and got the next job on a ranch punching cows all by myself. They don't punch back. And saw the owner once a month or so.

BTW: A new world's post record for a Hearth.com thread. And not a word about stoves or wood. Bloody place is turning into Twitter.

Taking it down over coffee in the morning folks.


----------



## Ktm300

BrotherBart said:


> Next job was a small Texaco station. All day and closing at night and taking the receipts over to the owner's house and dropping the bag inside his front door around 11 pm. One day he came in the station and dropped off a .30 carbine in case I got robbed. Told him to get that thing out of there. If they came in unarmed they would get the money. If they weren't they would get the money and the gun and then shoot my young ass. That one was forty cents an hour. Decided on a career change when a couple of cars started parking across the street about closing time for a few nights.
> 
> Damned job creators wanted to slap the chit our of me or get me robbed and killed. Went and got the next job on a ranch punching cows all by myself. They don't punch back. And saw the owner once a month or so.
> 
> BTW: A new world's post record for a Hearth.com thread. And not a word about stoves or wood. Bloody place is turning into Twitter.
> 
> Taking it down over coffee in the morning folks.


Good thing. This topic causes my A D D to get stirred up. DO WORK!


----------



## Cynnergy

Hahahahaha better get my bad boss story in quick then!

It was working for a charity.  He was a psychopath.  A real one.  Would send me emails at 4am requesting a task that should take 3 days be done by 9am.  Would blame me for following his directions (which he had 'forgotten' he had given when it suited him).  Complained about my salary even though he was the one that had negotiated it.  Undermined me in meetings and blamed me for not being able to read his mind/predict the future/work miracles.

Had to stay with it because hubby was in immigration limbo and we needed the money.  I am still incredibly proud to this day that I lasted 10 months and managed to get some good resume fodder.


----------



## Frozen Canuck

Ktm300 said:


> my A D D to get stirred up.



Hey I know a doctor that can get you some pills for that. Cheap Canadian pills too not those pricey south of 49 pills.


----------



## begreen

Time to stick a fork in this one. It's way off topic. I do appreciate folks keeping it civil.


----------



## begreen

My son just sent me this. Had to share it.


----------

