welfare vs wages

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

I don't recall where anyone intimated that they "can't afford to pay their workers more", rather they "don't now, and shouldn't have to."

But this constant drum beat that corporations need to cut their profits in order to give that money away is insanity and verging on the edge of Communism, frankly.

If someone doesn't like working for 7.25 an hour, then they need to go & do something that pays better. If your life's calling is running the deep fat fryer at McD's, then move to where Dell ate lunch the other day - apparently there is a demand for you there as they are advertising 11-13.00 an hour.

That simple, really.


Secondly, your personal experience exactly proves the point. These are stepping stones to greater goals, not life-long careers. You gain a great deal of knowledge, interpersonal relationships, business management exposure, etc. which are all relatable skills further down the line. These are not a careers and one should not be encouraged to feel as though they are.

edited for brevity.


so, you just want to keep the status quo, low pay and taxpayers fill in the gaps?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

edited for brevity.


so, you just want to keep the status quo, low pay and taxpayers fill in the gaps?

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/low...omy-2013-12-06

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/low...omy-2013-12-06

yep, i know.

i just want people to give ideas, saying 'that won't work' isn't the end of the discussion.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by jms62

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/low...omy-2013-12-06

2 different issues entirely. Lower wages vs. raising the minimum wage. Welcome to the global economy where engineers in Bangalore, India are happy to do your job for 40% of what you are being paid. I don't have a clue what the answer to this is, short of absolute Protectionism.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

2 different issues entirely. Lower wages vs. raising the minimum wage. Welcome to the global economy where engineers in Bangalore, India are happy to do your job for 40% of what you are being paid. I don't have a clue what the answer to this is, short of absolute Protectionism.

You come across as highly intelligent to me. Do you see that if we continue on this path Deflation is the only logical outcome?

[GPK]

Originally Posted by jms62

You come across as highly intelligent to me. Do you see that if we continue on this path Deflation is the only logical outcome?

You don't know him very well.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by GPK

You don't know him very well.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

edited for brevity.


so, you just want to keep the status quo, low pay and taxpayers fill in the gaps?

Don't forget who the taxpayers 'really' are.

The bottom 50% account for under 3% of all personal income tax collected while the top quarter pays over 87%.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Danzig

edited for brevity.


so, you just want to keep the status quo, low pay and taxpayers fill in the gaps?

No, I want to pay 11.50 for a Big Mac so that the burger flipper can meet with his accountant to manage his 401K.

Funny how you are going to pay others irresponsibility either way, it just incenses some that they are paying for it on the back end (taxes). Of course that is until they get their 15.00 an hour raise and you pay for it daily in groceries, clothing, restaurants, etc.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

No, I want to pay 11.50 for a Big Mac so that the burger flipper can meet with his accountant to manage his 401K.

Funny how you are going to pay others irresponsibility either way, it just incenses some that they are paying for it on the back end (taxes). Of course that is until they get their 15.00 an hour raise and you pay for it daily in groceries, clothing, restaurants, etc.

i was asking for a genuine answer. not hyperbole regarding the price of a big mac and sarcasm about 401k's. and again, the conversation I was involved in had to do with minimum wage being around $10 an hour, which is where it should be according to economists who track those things. had it increased as it did in the past (and during past economic crises at that) it would be around 10. not 15.

so, how do we put an end to subsidizing millions of workers thru taxes?

[Rudeboyelvis]

By giving them govt jobs I guess. Of course they are paid for with.... taxes....so...

41% of the Net New Jobs in November were in Government:

>>> Federal, state and local governments hired a net additional 338,000 workers in November, equaling 41 percent of the total of 818,000 net additional jobs created in the United States during the month.

At the same time, the unemployment rate for government workers fell from 4.4 percent in October to 3.2 percent in November. (The overall national unemployment rate fell from 7.3 percent to 7.0 percent.)<<<

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...ere-government

[Danzig]

great idea, rudeboy. so glad we had this conversation, it's been very enlightening.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Danzig

great idea, rudeboy. so glad we had this conversation, it's been very enlightening.

Stewart covered the min wage issue last nite 'The amazing raise'..
Tues nite he covered Fox and their 'war on Christmas' campaign..

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Stewart covered the min wage issue last nite 'The amazing raise'..
Tues nite he covered Fox and their 'war on Christmas' campaign..

Unbelievable. Tuesday, some kid won the grand prize on Bozo's Circus.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Danzig

great idea, rudeboy. so glad we had this conversation, it's been very enlightening.

Yup, back at ya.

I just don't feel as though the conversation is going anywhere. You apparently feel the answer is federally regulated profit margins, federally regulated wage scales, federally regulated price controls, etc. to address this. & I'm not buying it. No worries. I hope we can agree to disagree.

Common sense is a wonderful thing.

Ross Perot & his Nostradamus-like predictions of where we would be if we accepted NAFTA and by extension had to compete globally for goods and labor along with what our Federal budget would look like if we didn't address SS and entitlement issues 20 years ago, are haunting. He was big into common sense, if you recall.

Yet there were Economists, climbing all over each other, waiting for the opportunity to "explain" (because we are all too dumb to get it) how NAFTA was "good" for us.

20 years later, the "Giant Sucking Sound" of good paying jobs fleeing our country continues to whir loudly by today.

60% of our Federal budget going to SSI and Medicare because it was not politically expedient to address this 20 years ago when he foresaw exactly this.

He was a "nut", a "kook", a "fill in the derogatory slur". Yet he was 100% correct. It was common sense. But you couldn't swing a cat by it's tail without hitting an Economist's that would dispute him. Loudly and with charts!!


So forgive me for calling bullsh1t upon hearing how forcing companies to absorb a 20% increase in minimum wage labor costs is somehow "good" for the consumers and the economy.

Common sense.


And as for the anecdotal argument that executive compensation needs to be curbed and that profit reinvested into minimum wage labor costs (enforced by who, again? the Govt.?) - again, this is a pimple on an elephant's asz. and the math doesn't come close to making your case. You are simply looking for a bogey man to blame, and facts be damned. So I'm done with the conversation. Have a great day.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Yup, back at ya.

I just don't feel as though the conversation is going anywhere. You apparently feel the answer is federally regulated profit margins, federally regulated wage scales, federally regulated price controls, etc. to address this. & I'm not buying it. No worries. I hope we can agree to disagree.

Common sense is a wonderful thing.

Ross Perot & his Nostradamus-like predictions of where we would be if we accepted NAFTA and by extension had to compete globally for goods and labor along with what our Federal budget would look like if we didn't address SS and entitlement issues 20 years ago, are haunting. He was big into common sense, if you recall.

Yet there were Economists, climbing all over each other, waiting for the opportunity to "explain" (because we are all too dumb to get it) how NAFTA was "good" for us.

20 years later, the "Giant Sucking Sound" of good paying jobs fleeing our country continues to whir loudly by today.

60% of our Federal budget going to SSI and Medicare because it was not politically expedient to address this 20 years ago when he foresaw exactly this.

He was a "nut", a "kook", a "fill in the derogatory slur". Yet he was 100% correct. It was common sense. But you couldn't swing a cat by it's tail without hitting an Economist's that would dispute him. Loudly and with charts!!


So forgive me for calling bullsh1t upon hearing how forcing companies to absorb a 20% increase in minimum wage labor costs is somehow "good" for the consumers and the economy.

Common sense.


And as for the anecdotal argument that executive compensation needs to be curbed and that profit reinvested into minimum wage labor costs (enforced by who, again? the Govt.?) - again, this is a pimple on an elephant's asz. and the math doesn't come close to making your case. You are simply looking for a bogey man to blame, and facts be damned. So I'm done with the conversation. Have a great day.

nope, it's not going anywhere. suggestions get booed down, but no alternatives are presented.

you have a great day, too. and weekend as well. hope everyone stays warm and dry enough, it's miserable in these parts.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

By giving them govt jobs I guess. Of course they are paid for with.... taxes....so...

41% of the Net New Jobs in November were in Government:

>>> Federal, state and local governments hired a net additional 338,000 workers in November, equaling 41 percent of the total of 818,000 net additional jobs created in the United States during the month.

At the same time, the unemployment rate for government workers fell from 4.4 percent in October to 3.2 percent in November. (The overall national unemployment rate fell from 7.3 percent to 7.0 percent.)<<<

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...ere-government

Why don't we lower the retirement age to 50. That will free up a ton of jobs.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

so, how do we put an end to subsidizing millions of workers thru taxes?

Getting them thru High School would be a start. Last year Chicago Public High Schools celebrated a record graduation rate at 65.4%. That means 34.6% failed and will now go thru life as a high school dropout and likely needy, whether they be working or not. Sadly the graduation rate for African American males is 44%. More than half don't graduate.

Ultimately I think setting up McD's CEO Donald Thompson as a role model would be much more serving to the community rather than say Chief Kieff, an 18-year old rapper-gangbanger currently in rehab avoiding more jail time. Yet you'll never hear that from the imposters posing as community saviors, Jesse Jackson Sr. being one of the most obvious.