Hello:

Right wingers WRONGLY assert that if you raise the cost of employment, there'll be LESS of it. It's a NICE idea. It's just WRONG.

Let's take your local McDonald's.. Right wingers say that if they HAD to pay their employees $15/hr, they'd hire FEWER employees. But, that ASSUMES your local Micky Dee's has EXTRA help just hanging around, and that they can KEEP the same level of quality and service with FEWER employees...

As a businessman, that of course, is STUPID. Let's assume that the price of beef goes up, as it does. Would that mean they'll buy LESS of it?? No, OF COURSE it doesn't mean that. It means that they'll have to raise prices or make less. Personally, when my COSTS go up, as they do EVERY DAY, my PRICES do too.

I NOW pay more than ANY employer I know who does what I do. Given right wing wrong headed policies, I SHOULD be going broke. Interestingly, I'm NOT.

How come right wingers DON'T understand the free market?

excon

I see you've gotten the memo (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303985504579208112676742956). I gotta admit, you lefties are good soldiers.

only the libs think flipping burgers at Micky Ds is a career. What a scam . The real reason for all this fuss is that many union contracts are negotiated at a base line of the min. wage . If the min wage doubles that means that union wages goes up too. This has nothing to do with so called living wage. The only thing that will happen is the price of the burgers will go up..... lower skilled workers and young workers will now be competing for their jobs with a larger pool of people willing to do the job..... and when possible ,Micky Ds will automate their process.

Hello again, tom:

and when possible ,Micky Ds will automate their process.THIS is an EXCELLENT example of right wingers NOT understanding the market place..

First off, Micky D's IS as automated as it can be. What possibly makes you think they aren't? Your WRONGHEADED assumption, is that WHEN they come up with a NEW way to automate, they'll put it on the shelf because they'll have to fire a few employees...

??????

excon

They're just trying to change the subject from Obamacare, it has nothing to do with anything else.

Hello Steve:

I see you've gotten the memo. I gotta admit, you lefties are good soldiers.Do you wanna criticize my SOURCES or do you wanna address my post???

Look. If I was as BEREFT as your side is, with ANY ideas how to move this country forward, I'd talk about the weather too..

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

At least you admit it's because you got the memo. I'm not opposed to raising the minimum wage but I do think $15 is a bit much and I agree with tom's assessment. And as long as you guys control the WH and Senate you'll be able to keep making your mythical claims to us having no ideas because you know they are all DOA in Reid's Senate.

nah they aren't as automated as they can be yet .... and the workers that are left are low skilled . When I started out as a teen and a young man ,I did not begin at a top wage . I was doing dishes ,mopping floors ,slinging hash in a greasy spoon. I was paid what I was worth .It had nothing to do with 'living wage' .It was more about my value to my employer. I left many of those jobs on the way up the ladder . I never felt cheated .

The unemployment rate among teenagers is the highest of all age groups .In some areas like DC ,it's over 50% . DC recently allowed Walmart to open up shop . 23,000 people applied for 600 jobs. Evidently there are still some people willing to work for what the lib politicans deem less than 'living 'wages'.

A higher min wage will force these same applicants to compete with a larger pool of workers .

Hello again, Steve:

At least you admit it's because you got the memo.If it makes you feel better to think I'm a bot, think it.

excon

Where I live, in the northeast, no one anywhere pays the federal minimum, and of course many states have higher minimums. I agree that it's high time to raise the federal minimum,but I think $15 is a whopping and senseless amount. I haven't seen a single protester who is making the federal minimum.
I take issue with the vagueness of 'living wage.' I see too many people who think they should not have to learn a skill, should have their own apartment without doubling up with family or roommates, who think they can have the luxury of children, AND be paid for all that. They call that a living wage - how can I support my family? You shouldn't have a family until you have worked, learned, and saved.
There's nothing wrong with people getting rich. There's something wrong with loopholes to get rich.
That makes me in the dreaded middle of the road. So run me over.

Hello again, Steve:
If it makes you feel better to think I'm a bot, think it.

excon

It's certainly "coincidental" that you, Tal and Obama have all made this today's issue. I don't blame you, you aren't winning the Obamacare battle and I don't foresee a jump to $15 any time soon either.

Hello again, Steve:

I watch the news. I don't get memos. Maybe tal watches the news too.

excon

I agree that it's high time to raise the federal minimum,but I think $15 is a whopping and senseless amount. I haven't seen a single protester who is making the federal minimum.
I take issue with the vagueness of 'living wage.' I see too many people who think they should not have to learn a skill, should have their own apartment without doubling up with family or roommates, who think they can have the luxury of children, AND be paid for all that. They call that a living wage - how can I support my family? You shouldn't have a family until you have worked, learned, and saved.

Joy - I love you...

Hello again, Steve:

I watch the news. I don't get memos. Maybe tal watches the news too.

excon

You must watch MSNBC, they get the memo. FOX and CNN cut Obama's sixth pivot to the economy this year way short.

Hello again, Steve:

Still talking about ME, huh?? That's all you got?

excon

I believe I already gave my opinion on the subject more than once today. People are going to need a raise since Obamacare (http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/oh_summit/Obamacare-insurance-website-up-and-running-gives-sticker-shock-to-Akron-shopper) though, so you may be onto something.

I almost said something about this possibility but here it is, Dems want the emperor to bypass Congress (again) and raise the minimum wage unilaterally (http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/can-obama-unilaterally-raise-the-minimum-wage-20131205) for workers employed through government contracts. I mean why not, he is the emperor - the law is whatever he deems it to be.

Let's introduce some reality here, you know reality its what happens in daily life.

Where I live we have had a living minimum wage for years, has our economy collapsed,? no. In fact we have one of the strongest economies in the world with low unemployment. the minimum wage has little impact on employment and giving those in the economy who can't afford anything but the most basic boosts demand in the economy because they spend what they get, it is actually job creating, not job destroying. The minimum wage doesn't affect rates paid to skilled workers

and unskilled youth unemployment in Aussie is 17% ;and 63% of all jobs lost were jobs for young, unskilled Aussies. That min. wage is certainly working out for them.

What gets me is the notion that anyone who doesn't like $15/hr is a right winger.
I'm far from right wing. I'm for some increase in the minimum, like to 10.
I'm still waiting to hear this mythical 'living wage' definition.
Everyone here (I think) is old enough to have scraped by when young and thought nothing of it.
Now we have the Entitlement Generation.
Oh - and studies from other countries show that high school drop outs increase a lot when the minimum wage is high.
I can think of countless jobs such as bank teller and starting salary teacher in some states who make less than 15. What will they do? And so on up the skill and training and education ladder?

I'm still waiting to hear this mythical 'living wage' definition.

No need for food stamps. Be different with 4/5% real unemployment, and those 50,000 closed and moved factories operating. But if retail and service jobs being created one out of four? And NO jobs bill with all the work that NEEDS to be done?

Cry me a river about not have a living wage and not doing the work that needs doing. You can't have it both ways and holler lazy, entitled, or any other winger excuses, and not be called a winger. But at least you can see some raise for the working poor. You ain't loony. Split the difference at $13.50. Let the CEO's and paper pushers figure out how to take care of the sweating workers. Or the owners of those billion dollar sweat shops.

and unskilled youth unemployment in Aussie is 17% ;and 63% of all jobs lost were jobs for young, unskilled Aussies. That min. wage is certainly working out for them.

matter of perspective and definition Tom. Youth wages are set as a percentage of the minimum adult wage so it can only add to unemployment after they reach their majority. the reason for youth unemployment is that those job creators aren't creating jobs here either. I see where GM is withdrawing from Australia, 'just as they are from Europe, it's cheap to manufacture in South Korea

They should remember we have long memories and are loyal to manufacturers who give us local content. their reasons are a high Aussie dollar and manufacturing costs, Wages are not a high component of that, it is electricity, transport and we know that your QE has driven up the value of our currency

In any case you try to get some of these youths to work, it's a lost cause, if it hasn't got a screen and a game they don't want to know. Reality sets in around 25. In our economy those who want to work will find employment but there are many who opt out and become a statistic. If they get a job they can rely on being paid at least the minimum and are thus not slave labour the alternative is called New Start and gives them enough money to catch the bus

A whopping 4.7 percent of hourly workers make minimum wage, half under the age of 25. Once again a crisis that really isn't a crisis.But again, they're going to need a raise to pay for Obamacare and make it in their new part time jobs.

Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2012 (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm)

It's a crisis for the 4.7%. Give them a raise.

Betting many of them work in restaurants where addition revenue from tips are standard . Betting some work retail where commissions add to their pay.

Betting most work at McDonald/Wendy's/Burger King or Walmart, where there are no tips or commissions.

nobody works for min wage here in NY for any job. If $15 is a reasonable "living wage " why not make it $25 ;$35,$50 ? .

COL varies considerably around the US. That is why so many states have higher minimum wages. Around the entire northeast and NY corridor, you won't find a single minimum wage being paid. And I don't think that exempt jobs (waiters) are even included in the stats.

Supply and demand usually determine what wages are paid unskilled jobs. But now that we are in a recession, employers cut wages as much as they can get away with. It is time to raise the minimum, but 15 would just push up all the low paying skilled jobs, AND raise the COL. It isn't the SOLUTION to much of anything!

The PROBLEM is the change in the global economy means we no longer have much manufacturing to give jobs to under trained people to learn on the job. We have known for decades that service jobs were going to be all that was left for them. Did we expand our trade schools? Nope. Welding jobs are still going begging! Especially underwater welding! There are tons of fracking jobs. The people working at fast food and big box stores don't have the wherewithal to get out of the rut they are in.

Is raising it enough to match what they get in food stamps unreasonable? Haven't figured out what that is yet, but its where I would start. But as I remember one of Obamas proposals was for a training program for the unemployed where companies would get subsidies for the salaries they paid. That sounded reasonable but went nowhere.

Its a crisis for the 4.7%. Give them a raise.

Most of them probably live their parent(s).

Food stamps are paid out on a sliding scale according to a formula based on income.
I got so tired of people on Facebook saying 'it's $4.50/day' that I went to the SNAP website and filled out an application without submitting it. Even the CEO of Panera lived on 4.50/day for a month, without bothering to even get the facts.

People who get only 4.50/day HAVE INCOME, and not a small income either.
People on welfare get considerably more.

FEEL FREE TO GO LOOK.

I bet many have kids. Or rent, or get up early to catch a bus to work.

Did we expand our trade schools? Nope. Welding jobs are still going begging! Especially underwater welding! There are tons of fracking jobs. The people working at fast food and big box stores don't have the wherewithal to get out of the rut they are in.

We became seduced with liberal arts colleges . I advise every kid I know relocate to where the job market is hot (even though it's very cold these days in North Dakota these days ).
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2011-08-27/Unemployed-Go-to-North-Dakota/50136572/1
Workers Missing in Job Boom - KWES NewsWest 9 / Midland, Odessa, Big Spring, TX: newswest9.com | (http://www.newswest9.com/story/14575864/workers-missing-in-job-boom)
Pennsylvania job scene booms with Marcellus shale | Oil Patch Asia (http://oilpatchasia.com/2013/12/pennsylvania-job-boom-with-marcellus-shale/)

of course on the other side of the border is upstate NY where liberal's policies have kept the region in a continuos state of depression (except perhaps in the college towns like Ithica ).

Food stamps are paid out on a sliding scale according to a formula based on income.
I got so tired of people on Facebook saying 'it's $4.50/day' that I went to the SNAP website and filled out an application without submitting it.
People who get only 4.50/day HAVE INCOME, and not a small income either.
People on welfare get considerably more.

But they are the working poor, many single females with kids. KIDS need attending, and food is but a start.

The amount is increased for each child.
I'm not going to spell out how it's done when it's easy and very enlightening to go look.
Just make up a scenario for a single working mother, etc, and don't finish it.

I advise every kid I know relocate to where the job market is hot (even though it's very cold these days in North Dakota these days ).

It's a good solution but extremely challenging without a lot of help and support. Any move requires a well thought out plan. Some companies though do provide for help if they know you are interested and serious about relocating and that's a good thing if you have no other contacts or relatives where your going.

Lateral mobility is often harder than upward mobility. Doing nothing is not an acceptable option when you have nothing.

But they are the working poor, many single females with kids. KIDS need attending, and food is but a start.

Trust me, it's the single females without children who get the short end of the welfare stick. You try living on less than $600 a month with $70 worth of food stamps.

Why is a single female without children on welfare?
And you know one who gets 600/mo + 70? 600 is high for welfare singles and 70 is low.
AGAIN - the food stamps are on a sliding scale.

Any move requires a well thought out plan
Nah just get up and go. You think the Okies had a plan except to get to California where the jobs were ?

She's my daughter and she's disabled. I believe her SSI is $550.

If her SSI is 550 and her food stamps only 70, then she must be in a living situation that covers other major expenses?
In fact, 70 is off the charts. A housing situation where most meals are provided?

She has assistance but trust me, it wasn't much different living on her own

Why SSI and not SSD?

Where do people get this idea that an entry level job should pay enough to raise a family? This is a classic case of people wanting more for doing less. Get an education, get some experience and move up in the world. Entry level jobs are for people who are starting, not people who have to support a family. To pay someone $15 to work at McDonalds is ridiculous, unless they have managerial training and work full-time and are there in a full-time capacity.

These jobs provide more than pay - they provide an entry to the working world, job experience, references if you do a good job and are responsible. It becomes problematic when people who don't pursue better employment - they drop out of school, decide they don't want to do the work of attending college, don't pursue a skilled trade, don't take advantage of training programs offered by their employers to earn promotions - but want to earn at a level as if they had done all of this.

If you are not supplementing another family member who has a well-paying full-time job, and you aren't a teenager living home with your folks, an entry level job is not adequate for you and you need to earn your way up just like all the people who came before you.

I have an education today and a professional job with a decent income - I had to pay my own way through college and bust my butt to get it.

A million greenies to dontknownuthin. At 35 after being home for nearly 12 years raising kids, I went back to work as a part-time library book shelver for $3 an hour and also worked part time at a school across the street. Over the next 30 years, I clawed my way (by attending grad school and by taking training courses and by being a little bright light) into more and more responsible jobs at various libraries and eventually reached a pinnacle as a library cataloging department head and other fun stuff. (I didn't want to be a library director -- would have to be available 24/7 and also have to plunge toilets, if necessary.)

Entry-level jobs are meant to be that -- an entry into a career or industry, not a lifelong job for supporting a family. In entry-level jobs, you learn the basics, prove your worth, and move up into more responsible and better-paying positions.

They are obviously no longer JUST entry level jobs to some people. They may be the only jobs available, and the workforce has many older people who are forced into this market.

What would you do if your job folded and went to India even with all your education and hard work, and had a few kids in school, and were divorced?

They are obviously no longer JUST entry level jobs to some people. They may be the only jobs available, and the workforce has many older people who are forced into this market.
Granted, jobs were much easier to get back in the '70s and '80s -- fewer people and more jobs.

What would you do if your job folded and went to India even with all your education and hard work, and had a few kids in school, and were divorced?
I'd work at whatever part-time jobs I could get -- cleaning motel rooms, waitressing, teacher aide with a foot in the door for teaching (had a state certificate), etc. and would work out with friends and neighbors to help me with daycare and child transportation, as needed (because they would know I would help them out if they were in the same spot). And I'd find ways to pay them back, even if it weren't in cash.

Hello again,

If there were no high school, you couldn't call middle school, middle school.. If there were NO secondary jobs, you couldn't call the only job people can get, an entry level job..

excon

My jaw drops when people talk on the media about how they are still making 8.25/hr after 10 years. That's their own doing! They took no courses, learned no skills. They had babies instead or just sat around after work. Their own doing!
I worked for a small company where I learned a bit of bookkeeping, and was the person who set up the computers, learning as I went (long ago). I then went out on my own, doing office management with computer set up. I got all relevant IRS publications and read them. I spent hours of my own time learning state and federal payroll and income taxes, and how to use Excel to do job costing and so on.

What are any of the protesters doing? Nothing. They could be learning construction or any of the related trades. I lived next to a plumber who told me he couldn't get apprentices anymore. And yes, women can do those jobs too.

Half the marriages and most relationships fail, and I doubt anyone having kids figures the guy will leave, add bubbles that burst, and high impact recessions, and so called business downturns, there are MANY challenges, and some take years to recover from. Others have less resources, help, support, and guidance, than others, or personal issues and private challenges.

We are fortunate if we made it through that but some did not even if they worked hard. I would think anyone that goes through these forums would know that and have some empathy for the less than perfect fellow human. Some are nasty nog heads but I think/hope many are trying hard even though they are not very successful... yet!

I am a bleeding heart 'empathist' in most ways. The issue here is $15/hr.
AGAIN, plenty of trained, skilled people make less than that! That's $31,200/yr!
I don't like it. And it isn't just because I spent so many years doing minimum wage jobs, easy, part time jobs, by choice.

nobody works for min wage here in NY for any job. If $15 is a reasonable "living wage " why not make it $25 ;$25 ,$50 ? .


Now that is a rediculous statement Tom such a policy would cost jobs if applied in other places. You don't seem to be able to grasp the concept. It is because people in your economy have compensated by tipping. They recognise that some low end jobs offer inadequate compensation.

When I tell you that we have a minimum wage of $17, I'm speaking about an economy where tipping is rare and the prerogative of the wealthy. Neither is the minimum wage expected to support a family although in many cases it does because there are also government benefits for low income families. The idea is to have the minimum wage high enough that there is incentive to find employment but many employers also use it as a benchmark

I get $28,800 a year before taxes and that's if they work 5 days a week. That's cool with me just because they can pay taxes, and fend for themselves with, or without kids until something better comes along, or they can do better.

This ain't the 70's where we lived off love, mj, beer, and a boom box. This is a recession, and the jobless recovery is stressing everybody and our institutions to the seams. Maybe it cuts profits but for sure it relieves that expensive safety net burden and also makes better consumers for us to grow. That's how you cut the deficit and add to the wellbeing of us overburdened taxpayers.

yes you increase the spending power of the poor, the people who do spend and not horde. They won't spend their new found wealth in fancy restaurants and upmarket boutiques. Tom's "let em eat cake" attitude appauls me but then I don't expect he has ever done it tough.

I ask Tom to consider this, if a minimum wage is such a problem to industry, how come my country survived the GFC with low unemployment and a high minimum wage and your country with a low minimum wage has high unemployment. It tells me there is a limited correlation between the minimum wage and the availability of employment. Now for the howls of protest, you want to improve your economy, put a cap on profits and executive salaries and link executive salaries as a multiplier of the lowest paid worker. I bet you will see wage levels improve rapidly

I have advocated for tying corporate taxes to the unemployment rate, and can also get onboard with raises for the boss being a raise for the workers. Interesting. But cutting the safety net and not raising wages is a no go for me. I think I have heard congress is good with $10 bucks, but the locals can push for more.

For that to work Tal the higher the unemployment rate the higher the taxes, making them bring back some of those offshore assets, but there are limits. If you do this there must also be a benchmark earnings rate so the higher rates kick in only at higher levels of earnings.

The problem here we we don't want to see any nation export unemployment. It is said the US sneezes and the rest of us catch the flu. We don't want to see a return of protectionism, but I can say, unemployment levels were low in developed countries in the days of protectionism, so let's abandon these inefficient free trade agreements, put back the tarriff barriers and make sure the jobs stay at home. there will still be ample opportunity for imports but some limits will be placed on rabid exploitation

I agree that for some people, the problem is not a lack of skills or education but chronic underemployment. I would suggest that the solution is not to find ways to pay people more than market value for that underemployment, but rather to get the economy working again so that there are opportunities for better jobs. Individuals have to take the reins on this by finding the pockets of opportunity and molding themselves to fit into them. Sorry but the government can't fix this one for you - you have to do it yourself. If there is no job, you create one by starting a business.

My cousin has a disability and two small kids and needs to make a living wage because her immigrant husband does not earn enough to support four people. She started turning discarded, outgrown, worn out and stained clothing into accessories for children - hats, whimsical stuffed animals, hairbands and bows, bowties for little boys. She works when she's able, rests when she's not. Her little cottage internet business is now paying a third of her family's bills, with her husband paying the rest. It is still growing. She has now added weekend craft fairs where she's making huge gains in her earnings. She couldn't find a job that worked for her as a mother and as a disabled person, so she invented one. That's what it might take for some of us.

There are many who overcome the difficult economy and it often does come down to work ethic. My career disappeared seven years ago. I was laid off and nobody else did what my employer did, and my knowledge was so specialized the skills did not transfer well into any jobs I could consider even though I had a degree. In short, I sold blood to hospitals. I could have moved into pharmaceutical sales with that background, but as a single mother with a minor child, the required travel was not an option. I returned to school and became a paralegal. I did take a huge pay cut and worked several years in crappy jobs. I went through a lot of savings and retirement, not ideal but it was what was required of the market and economy. I continued on to earn an advanced degree as well to give myself an advantage in the market to get into better paying firms in a more responsible role. It sucked. I gave up a lot, including my own home, meals out, vacations and more. But nobody owes me a damned thing. It was the reality of my situation and I sucked it up and dealt with it. I'm still paying off the student loans but I bailed myself out - yes, as an in-debt, unemployed single mom.

Now I see my government wanting to take what I've earned, which is just starting to be adequate to allow me to save a bit for retirement and pay off debt, and give it to people who aren't willing to make close to the sacrifices I have and it royally pisses me off. I have known unemployed people who have busted butt and made their job search a full-time occupation, doing what they had to in order to improve skills, bolster their resume, gain more education and do whatever they needed to do - temp work, minimum wage work, contract jobs, career changes and cutting, cutting, cutting expenses to get through the hard times.

Our country cannot afford to support us all as a charitable enterprise. Working people cannot afford to support all the people who don't work or don't take enough initiative as a lasting solution. If you're underemployed, you have to find the up button on the elevator, that's it. You might have to move. You might have to put off having another kid. You might have to rent instead of owning a home. You might have to have a dumb phone instead of a smart phone, or take classes that bore you, or work more hours than you feel you should have to. But I, as a consumer and tax payer who have already done all of this, and continue to sacrifice to get through these hard times, do not owe you $15 an hour to make me a hamburger, or to supplement your upkeep for the rest of your life, or to supplement your personal choices. People, we have to take these responsibilities on ourselves.

Social safety nets should be long term only if the person receiving them cannot improve their circumstances. That would be a case where someone is elderly, or is severely disabled such that they cannot work and will not be able to work in the future. Even disabled people can sometimes work if they change occupations, and most do. Why should a person who hurts their foot tripping on a loading dock who can no longer work as a truck driver get disability for life? How about they get a job in a call-center, or start selling cars? If you have severe down's syndrome and can only work bussing tables, I have no problem supplementing your income as part of the tax base for the rest of your life. That's appropriate. But you know, if you can bus tables, then you should do that.

I do feel that full-time people should have insurance, paid vacation and other reasonable benefits and earn an adequate wage to support themselves in low-skill jobs. However, do not expect to be a full-time Wallmart Cashier and support a family - again, that's a job to have if you are only supporting yourself while you go to school or trade school and get your act together to move forward to a higher pay occupation. While you're in that stage, expect to live somewhere crappy and have too many roomates and each cheap food and buy your clothes second hand - just like every college student, trade school student and intern did to get to the high-pay jobs they have now.

My problem is supplementing the incomes of workers of multi billion dollar companies. That's my whole beef considering local governments already give them millions in tax breaks just to come do business. Do they build there products here, no they don't they go to where 2 bucks a month and long hours are appreciated and when the building falls on the workers, to bad.

Now many think that's an okay business model but replacing good middle class jobs with minimum wage ones that working people have to supplement is not a good way to solve OUR economic problems and needs. Average income is going down, not up, prices and cost or going up not down, so something is way out of balance here.

While it's a very emotional topic the value of a person shouldn't be the job or paycheck they bring home. I reject the whole notion of entry level jobs in the first place as a job is much more than just an experience, it's a necessity. And its honest work, and that has value.

You shouldn't have to help a rich man make his profits by helping him pay his workers.That's pretty crazy to me.

Tom's "let em eat cake" attitude appauls me but then I don't expect he has ever done it tough
you know nothing about me . while tal was spending the 70s living off love, mj, beer, and a boom box, I was busting my butt working full time while also being a full time student .

you know nothing about me . while tal was spending the 70s living off love, mj, beer, and a boom box, I was busting my butt working full time while also being a full time student

Me too. Been working and doing my thing since I was 16.

Yes Tom been there done that and had to raise a family with 18% interest rates, etc, etc. none of which is an excuse for not understanding that when you are employed there are minimums associated with the value of work that need to be applied.

However I see among the remarks in this thread a lack of understanding of the present economic circumstances. There was a time when we passed through a golden age, low energy prices, low unemployment and plenty of opportunity. Those days are behind us and we must change our thinking.
We destroyed manufacturing two ways, we sent the industries offshore and we automated and those two things ensured that we would not have the same level of employment for the masses. Not in the mines, not in the factories, not in agriculture but maybe in the service industries. However education also played its part. We have got to stop thinking in terms of working lives of fifty years or even longer, because that is not reality for most of the population. We are about to enter an era of unprecidented levels of disease, of vastly different climate and we need to start thinking about dealing with unemployment by not expanding the number of people in the workforce but contracting it. Lack of education has to become unacceptable, every person will have to undergo training before being allowed to participate in the workforce and society will have to care for those who arn't in the workforce and find something meaningful for them to do.

Is raising it enough to match what they get in food stamps unreasonable? Haven't figured out what that is yet, but its where I would start. But as I remember one of Obamas proposals was for a training program for the unemployed where companies would get subsidies for the salaries they paid. That sounded reasonable but went nowhere.

Why not pay them as much as the government does? Welfare queens have an ecinomic advantage at making 60K in benefits through the welfare system. Thats about $30 an hour. Is that living enough for you? Keep in mind that eating out is a luxury. So when it gets to expensive there are plenty of alternitives to eat besides going out to a food establishment.

What percentage of people (and who are they?) getting food stamps AREN'T scamming the system and really need the help?

Now many think that's an okay business model but replacing good middle class jobs with minimum wage ones that working people have to supplement is not a good way to solve OUR economic problems and needs. Average income is going down, not up, prices and cost or going up not down, so something is way out of balance here.

While it's a very emotional topic the value of a person shouldn't be the job or paycheck they bring home. I reject the whole notion of entry level jobs in the first place as a job is much more than just an experience, it's a necessity. And its honest work, and that has value.

A few things your missing here. It is Obama that is causing everything to be out of alaignment. He is the one that removed Gasoline and Food from the inflationary calculation in his hopes of making himself look good by holding back inflation. If you want jobs to return and oney to come back to this country and make this economy grow at a rocketing pace then start screaming at your representatives to pass "The Fair Tax". They will flood this country with money if it is passed.

On the second part of your comment Im trying to figure out how you think any skilled labor can survive without having a labor ladder to climb. All skilled labor is based on a ladder system and that is how that job is judged. Being an apprentise and moving through to journeyman then master has always existed. How can you just equate one persons skill with another when you have knowlage and experience gained in the chosen field ? It makes absolutely no sense.

I know of no such widespread scamming that's been perpetuated unless they are criminals but most who have nothing. Work, to keep the nothing they have and are surprisingly happy to do so. They have dreams and often sacrifice so there kids can have better than they do.

Not saying there are no welfare queens, but not as many as you seem to purport. So your broad disparaging is simply inaccurate. Welfare recipients spend less than two years on the rolls and the expenditure is barely 1% of the budget. Your turn to look up the facts.

Here you go. Welfare benefits at thier minimums.


The Work versus Welfare Trade-Off: 2013 | Cato Institute (http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/work-versus-welfare-trade)


Another report also:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/02/on-labor-day-2013-welfare-pays-more-than-minimum-wage-work-in-35-states/

How can you just equate one persons skill with another when you have knowlage and experience gained in the chosen field ? It makes absolutely no sense.

I am talking about raising the federal minimum wage DAD, not reconfiguring the work ladder. Localities and states are already doing it. Workers are organizing too, and that usually means higher wages. I don't know why you think billion dollar companies that pay low wages and are given tax breaks to do business need even more tax breaks. That makes no sense. Sound more like robbery, extortion, or blackmail to me.

Extracting profits at the expense of people is more criminal than what a welfare queen does to scam system. You are advocating more corporate welfare.

Thanks for the links, I have actually read them but lets cut to the chase, instead of cutting benefits, raise the wage and we wouldn't need welfare nor would there be an incentive to stay on it would there?

Then the net wouldn't be a hammock as so many conservative make it to be then we can address corporate welfare that the so called job creators are hooked on. The obvious bias of both your links is perpetrating high profits, and cheap labor. There is no reasonable balance between people and profits.

Pass the fair tax. You close ALL loopholes. As far as raising the minimum wage what you do is raise the base wage that other wages are tweaked from. If you just raise minimum wage and try to freeze all other wage platforms then you create a world where no one can live. You want to give them a raise? Pass the fair tax.

When you get enough republican votes together have at it as this bill has been stalled in committee for a year by your own leaders. Jacking up the price of goods and huge tax breaks for high earners is a recipe for disaster but let me know when the vote on this old idea.

I don't know why you think billion dollar companies that pay low wages and are given tax breaks to do business need even more tax breaks. That makes no sense. Sound more like robbery, extortion, or blackmail to me.
You must think every business in the country is a mega-corporation . I wonder if you've considered the impact of a higher min wage on the small business and how it will affect their hiring practice ,and even if it will impact their ability to stay in business.

Pass the fair tax.
right on!!

Even you have admitted many times the capitalistic business model is broken. But you rather continue it than fix it. And stop comparing mega companies with low wages to small businesses that are both diverse and local. Apples and oranges Tom, and you know it.

Hello again, tom:

I wonder if you've considered the impact of a higher min wage on the small business and how it will affect their hiring practice ,and even if it will impact their ability to stay in business.I'm a small businessman.. The prices I pay for goods and labor have been going up for a LONG, LONG time. If THAT was gonna put me out of business, it would have happened a LONG time ago.

But, you bring up an interesting issue...

MOST of the fast food workers are ALSO on Medicaid and food stamps.. That means that you and I are subsidizing fast food workers.. As a right winger, you know that kind of governmental interference artificially keeps the prices of labor low, thereby allowing these companies to stay in business...

IF these companies CANNOT survive WITHOUT a government subsidy, they DESERVE to go broke.. Doncha think?

Now, I'm NOT an economist, and I'm not privy to McDonald's books.. But, I'm willing to bet that an increase of $.25 CENTS per burger would BE born by the burger consuming public WITHOUT a word, and it would be MORE than enough to raise their minimum wage to $15/hr.

Let's just take a BILLION burgers a year... How much is $.25 CENTS times a BILLION??

excon

You're going to have to give some stats on the claim that most fast food workers are on food stamps and Medicaid. I don't believe that for a minute. I already gave BLS statistics that show half of the 4.7% of minimum wage earners are under 25 and that includes every segment of the workforce such as retail, not just fast food.

P.S. All those outraged fast food workers? Seems most of them went to work while paid union protesters hollered and threw rocks.

What We Saw at NYC's Fast Food Strike - Reason.com (http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/12/06/what-we-saw-at-new-yorks-fast-food-strik)

That's what unions do. Raise the standard of living for workers. What would YOUR boss pay you without the prevailing wages that UNIONS fought for?

You can be sure that when just about everyone is carrying a fancy printed sign, all alike, that unions are behind it.

I heard the other night (on news about Detroit's bankruptcy) that the AFL CIO is sitting on over 4 billion in trust assets and 100 million in cash. Gee. Ugh.

Corporate Layoffs - Are Taxpayers Subsidizing Corporate Profits? - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com (http://voices.yahoo.com/corporate-layoffs-taxpayers-subsidizing-corporate-10226027.html?cat=3)

Are We Subsidizing Corporate Profits with Tax Dollars by Allowing Them to Pay a Non-Livable Minimum Wage? - CafeMom (http://www.cafemom.com/group/99198/forums/read/19199870/Are_We_Subsidizing_Corporate_Profits_with_Tax_Doll ars_by_Allowing_Them_to_Pay_a_Non_Livable_Minimum_ )

Taxpayers Are Subsidizing The Profits Of Walmart, McDonald's (http://leftcall.com/19901/taxpayer-subsidize-walmart-mcdonalds-profits-low-wage/)

as I already stated ,the unions stand to gain the most as contracts are typically tied to the min wage rate . That is the real reason for this manufactured issue .....well that and the horrible story of the Obamacare launch and all the lies by the adm over it.

And about the price of those burgers ? If it wasn't for the dollar menu that they've recently adopted I'd never frequent their franchises.

No one likes a multi-faceted problem.
1. Education worries about math and science competition with the world and not about trades.
2. Too many young adults don't care about learning skills. They feel entitled.
2.a. Too many single parent households.
3. Huge corporations do get richer and richer, with their vast departments of accountants, lawyers, and lobbyists.
4. Social programs meant to 'help' end up creating more and more welfare mentality among too many.

Demanding 15/hr serves to perpetuate all all the other wrongs.
Having tax dollars subsidize low wage workers does the same thing.

One starter solution: raise the minimum to 9 (Robert Reich's calculated suggestion) or 10.10 as seems to be one favorite, and tell all workers with public benefits that they have 4 years to complete at least 1 year of a training program through the Education Connection.

no one likes a multi-faceted problem.

Bingo >tried to make all caps<

Its a lot of work and many moving parts. But doing nothing is unacceptable.

Who cares about another astroturf demonstration meant to line the pockets of the ever shrinking unions and their bosses.

The ever shrinking unions, the ever shrinking middle class. Coincidence? You better care because your future earnings are tied to union success. Its simple, costs are rising and your paycheck ain't.

But you can get a part time job at Walmart. No union dues there either. How come you aren't moving up the ladder in your job like Tom is? You must not be busting your butt like those lazy burger flippers.

Who said anything about us not moving up? Not I. What I said was thanks to your idea of fairness YOU are making us poorer.

so speech should the poor starve or be without medical care? just because your idea of fairness is to accumulate

You obviously haven't read my comments either as that could not be further from the truth.

let's look at this multi-faceted problem

To deal with a multi-faceted problem you break it into each of it's facets and tackle each one individually

So problem number one; entry level jobs have a rate too low to be attractive and offer real income
problem number two; increase in rates might mean layoffs problem. number three; higher minimum means higher youth wage. problem number four; we don't want to pay anyone more money, no way

Hello again, tom:
THIS is an EXCELLENT example of right wingers NOT understanding the market place..

First off, Micky D's IS as automated as it can be. What possibly makes you think they aren't? Your WRONGHEADED assumption, is that WHEN they come up with a NEW way to automate, they'll put it on the shelf because they'll have to fire a few employees...

??????

excon


In 2011, Annie Lowrey wrote about the burgeoning tablet-as-waiter business. She focused on a startup firm called E La Carte, which makes a table tablet called Presto. “Each console goes for $100 per month. If a restaurant serves meals eight hours a day, seven days a week, it works out to 42 cents per hour per table — making the Presto cheaper than even the very cheapest waiter. Moreover, no manager needs to train it, replace it if it quits, or offer it sick days. And it doesn’t forget to take off the cheese, walk off for 20 minutes, or accidentally offend with small talk, either.”

Applebee’s is using the Presto. Are we really supposed to believe that the chain will keep thousands of redundant human staffers on the payroll forever?

People don’t go into business to create jobs; they go into business to make money. Labor is a cost. The more expensive labor is, the more attractive nonhuman replacements for labor become. The minimum wage makes labor more expensive. Obama knows this, which is why he so often demonizes ATM machine as job-killers
Get set for the rise of the machines | New York Post (http://nypost.com/2013/12/06/get-set-for-the-rise-of-the-machines/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPTwitter&utm_medium=SocialFlow)

you don't get it automation means no jobs, these low level jobs are important but it is always the low level jobs that get automated first, it is because they are a process that can be reduced to a few steps, if they are not taken by some idiot in India who doesn't know his a$$ from his apex they are automated.

This may be progress but it is wrong because people need meaningful work and if it is not there they become a statistic. No computer can yet do what I do because I am a reasoning being, my thought processes cannot be reduced to simple computer logic or a set of steps

When this rise of the machines gets here, I will be gone and so will my unique talents

People need work; meaningful work is something they have to work for on their own time, by acquiring skills or starting their own business.

We in the US knew for decades that manufacturing was leaving in droves, and we did NOTHING at any but in band-aid ways.

China said OOPS, we are doing all the manufacturing and none of the design, and started investing in some serious education. We think we are doing that, but we are lumping all kids together, trying to turn all of them into the best of the best, instead of guiding each one on a path right for his abilities. This doesn't have to be a railroad job, starting too young as people used to claim. It can start in high school. Learn for what jobs are out there on the large scale, not the elite ones. Nurture the elite ones too.

Applebee's is using the Presto. Are we really supposed to believe that the chain will keep thousands of redundant human staffers on the payroll forever?

Having been through upgrading through automation you still need humans to fix the glitches and maybe they get away with reducing the number of humans, somebody has to bring the food to the table and clear the dishes. The job changes but sending a steak back still needs a human.

And you need a tech team.

@joy,

Did nothing as jobs left is an understatement, as it left a lot of people behind trying to catch up, but that's the free market, and it's a broken business model too expensive for the average worker. We are finding the needs of the young to have an entry level experience are overlapping with the needs of the older displaced worker with obligations and dependents.

Those entry level jobs have become jobs to compete for and not just young kids living with parents, and there are few choices since banks are tight on loaning money to new entrepreneurs.

And someone still has to chop the onions and saute them. And roast the lamb. And slice the beef. And add the sprig of parsley to the plate before the (human) waitress takes it to the customer.

I'm waiting for high schools (and even earlier) to wake up and start thinking seriously about vocational guidance of their students (not just college prep).

And someone still has to chop the onions and saute them. And roast the lamb. And slice the beef. And add the sprig of parsley to the plate before the (human) waitress takes it to the customer.

I'm waiting for high schools (and even earlier) to wake up and start thinking seriously about vocational guidance of their students (not just college prep).

A White Castle VP came right out and said a doubling of the min wage will result in layoffs because the company would be forced to close down more than 200 franchises.
I agree with you about vocational ed. People trained in skilled trades command higher starting salaries ,and are more likely to open their own private business .
I love the outrage here . Obamacare forced many small businesses to reduce many of their staff to part timers and there doesn't seem to be a peep of outrage about the hardship those workers are facing .

Pushing for a higher minimum standard is not outrage, but sticking to a broken business model instead of fixing it is outrageous. Go ahead McDonald's and Walmart, start laying off half your workers because you lose a government subsidy.

I thought sucking at the government teat was against conservative principles? If corporations can't stay in business without government assistance haven't you said they should fail? Sure you have.

Bailouts anyone?

Your the one that favors a tax code loaded with all types of deductions and built in subsidies . I don't favor that ,you do.

Mine are for the people who get up early and do the less glamorous low paying jobs who don't have lobbyist, lawyers and accountants and off shore accounts and stick silver spoons in their kids mouth. Average people.

You know, the ones who got the trickle cut off.

you don't get it still, If having to pay a "minimum wage" is going to put someone out of business you have to ask how well were they doing anyway, perhaps they just have too many minimum wage employees and not enough peoplewho can think and organise to get more productivity so there can be less people paid more and the business make more through efficiency. I wonder why is it I have to keep correcting your thinking? Have you been brainwashed?

White Castle is a major privately held franchise that's been around since 1921 . Tell your tale to their VP Jamie Richard.

ah a 90 year old company is like a 90 year old man, ready for the grave. In a company like that fresh thinking comes slow and adaptation comes slow too. The business model may have worked way back when, but this is a different age. Seems you might need to employ a more up to date business model.

We had a company with an old adagea as a motto "while I live I grow" after a 130 years it stopped growing and it no longer exists

Hello again:

I've been in business for 40 years.. My costs have ALWAYS gone up and NEVER stopped going up.. Any businessman who says he can't stay in business because his costs are gonna go up, is either LYING or is a Republican.. Sometimes, BOTH.

excon

Yes it is hard to make money so you have to work smarter, that might mean doing with less staff or it might mean expanding sales with existing staff. Whatever you do you have to remove the slave mentality of expecting people to work for nothing so you can be rich. That is all the minimum wage is saying, work has a certain value and if you can't use the worker efficiently that is not the workers fault

In a company like that fresh thinking comes slow and adaptation comes slow too.
And yet they've thrived in an environment with increased competition. White Castle also has their products in grocery stores using that innovation that you claim they are incapable of. The reason their products also thrive in grocery stores is that they've nurtured and developed multi-generational customer loyalty for their product . They must be doing something right .
So when their VP says that increasing their labor costs to the extent that a doubling of the min. wage might cause the closing of 200 of their franchises ,I tend to believe him . I know their business model . I don't know Ex's .

Yawn, its those hard workers that have made WC rich. McDonalds' too. Lets not pretend that serving customers is not the whole base of the wealth and reputation that's brought in the billions every year.

And yet they've thrived in an environment with increased competition. White Castle also has their products in grocery stores using that innovation that you claim they are incapable of. The reason their products also thrive in grocery stores is that they've nurtured and developed multi-generational customer loyalty for their product . They must be doing something right .
So when their VP says that increasing their labor costs to the extent that a doubling of the min. wage might cause the closing of 200 of their franchises ,I tend to believe him . I know their business model . I don't know Ex's .


They have 400 stores and none of them are franchises they don't use that business model. Ok they expanded their product into supermarkets makes sense but the McDonalds business model has expanded to 32000 stores through franchising, the size of the two business is not comparable. Tom prices increase, it is the way things are. I don't know what an increase in wage would ad to the price of the product but it wouldn't be much, wages is not a large part of product cost. I have seen the multinational fast food outfits jack prices at least 25% and the queue of cars is still out the gate. I expect they have targeted different customers and the baby boomers are educated to eat at fast food joints so the market is ever expanding along with their waste lines. In short Tom stop the bleating. Those kids who work at the fast food joints buy the product too, increase their wages and they will buy more, but this isn't what it is about, it is about lifting the base for everybody

Hello again,

Not only is the minimum wage too HIGH, Rand Paul tells millions (http://www.politicususa.com/2013/12/08/sen-rand-paul-unemployment-benefits.html)he’s doing them a FAVOR by cutting off unemployment benefits.

I dunno WHAT to say about that.

excon

Hello again, tom:

So when their VP says that increasing their labor costs to the extent that a doubling of the min. wage might cause the closing of 200 of their franchises ,I tend to believe him . I know their business model . I don't know Ex's . As I said above, ANY businessman who says he CAN'T compete because his costs are going up, is LYING or is a REPUBLICAN.

The fast food industry pays around 10% of the cost of a burger in labor. That means for every $1 that comes in, they pay $.10 CENTS in labor. If his labor costs DOUBLED, he'd have to charge another $.10 CENTS for a $1 burger to break EVEN. In rough terms, that means the the cost of a $5 burger would go up $.50 CENTS, if he wanted to break EVEN.

SOME business's out there DON'T have enough faith their product to believe that the public will pay 10% more. Maybe White Castle did a study about it...

But, they DIDN'T. I LOVE White Castle, and I'd pay a LOT of money to eat them.. I WON'T buy the frozen ones, though, because they're CRAP. I OFFERED to BUY a franchise.. I offered them a LOT of money. They said NO.

In addition, I wonder WHY nobody has responded to my argument that prices go UP all the time, and IF companies CAN'T sustain that, they go OUT of business.. But, White Castle has been around for a LONG LONG time.. Clearly, they've ABSORBED increases in their costs MANY, MANY times in the past, and they're STILL there.

Over to you, wingers..

excon

PS> My plan??? To produce the BEST product available. People will pay ANYTHING to get it. I charge MORE than ANYBODY, and have NEVER received resistance to my prices.

If you're WORRIED that the market WON'T buy your product if you raise prices, you need a BETTER product.

They are over 1 year without work, thus not counted in the unemployment stats. They get dropped from the workforce so the adm can lie to us about the unemployment rate .
Extend their benefits and put them back on the unemployed list so we can know the true extent of unemployment in the Obama-recovery .
Question ...
Will all these unemployed Americans' do the jobs Americans won't do' ?

Hello again, tom:

Will all these unemployed Americans' do the jobs Americans won't do' ?Apparently not. Is that cause they're not HUNGRY enough??

Question.. The crops wither on the vine because we've deported the workers. At the same time the poor are poorer than ever. Why won't they take those jobs? Have we not made them POOR enough? Do you think they would if we made our poor as poor as, say the Brazilian poor?

excon

apparently that is the only part of my comment you read . You missed this part :

They are over 1 year without work, thus not counted in the unemployment stats. They get dropped from the workforce so the adm can lie to us about the unemployment rate .
Extend their benefits and put them back on the unemployed list so we can know the true extent of unemployment in the Obama-recovery .

The fast food industry pays around 10% of the cost of a burger in labor. That means for every $1 that comes in, they pay $.10 CENTS in labor. If his labor costs DOUBLED, he'd have to charge another $.10 CENTS for a $1 burger to break EVEN. In rough terms, that means the the cost of a $5 burger would go up $.50 CENTS, if he wanted to break EVEN.

You keep throwing out numbers without any supporting data.


What Are the Ranges? (http://smallbusiness.chron.com/common-food-labor-cost-percentages-14700.html)

Certain fast food restaurants can achieve labor cost as low as 25 percent, while table service restaurants are more likely to see labor in the 30 percent to 35 percent range. Food costs (including beverages) for the restaurant industry run typically from the 25 percent to 38 percent range, depending upon the style of restaurant and the mix of sales.



According to the 2010 Restaurant Industry Operations Report compiled by the National Restaurant Association, restaurants whose average ticket runs $15 and under or $25 and over typically spend 33.7 percent of their gross sales revenue on labor (http://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/food-service-industry-labor-cost-standards-2325.html). Restaurants whose average ticket totals between $15 and $25 typically spend 33.2 percent of gross sales on labor expenses. These numbers are close enough to indicate that labor costs are relatively consistent throughout the restaurant industry, regardless of the level of service that a establishment provides.

Care to recalculate?

Hello again, Steve:

Care to recalculate?Nahhh... I was IN the restaurant business for years.. The numbers I quoted were MY numbers. I can't help it if other guys weren't as good as me.

excon

All you have to do Tom to embarrass the prez, is vote yes for a change. Now tell that to the congress, your side of it. Or are you holding it hostage to repeal Obamacare?

Even supply side economics demands you trickle down something.

Hello again, Steve:
Nahhh... I was IN the restaurant business for years.. The numbers I quoted were MY numbers. I can't help it if other guys weren't as good as me.

excon

In other words you have no data to back up your claim, you're just blowing smoke.

Even your numbers Speech even with overhead shows a tidy double digit profit, reinvested I hope, in equipment and the people who actually do the work to make those profits. I know the job they do you can train a monkey to do, and pay him peanuts. Go ahead, let me know how that works for you.

Um, that was JUST labor costs. The food, building, furniture, insurance, etc. aren't free.

Hello again, Steve:

you're just blowing smoke.Nahhh... This (http://steamboatsprings.net/DocumentCenter/View/889) is the Cameo. It was my joint in Steamboat Springs. It was a LONG time ago, and I didn't keep my books to show you. Take my word for it, I made a LOT of money. And my labor costs were 10%. That COULD be because I was the only high priced help in the kitchen.

And, I only blow a certain kind of smoke.

excon

So you paid your people nothing. Meanwhile, I need facts, I need data, I'm a science kinda guy.

Hello again, Steve:

Nahh.. I made the money on the OTHER end. So MY labor wasn't included in the labor costs. Since I had NO high priced chef or restaurant manager, the entire 10% went to my employees. As I've said before, I paid my help MORE than anybody else did.

I don't think you know how PROFITABLE a successful restaurant IS. How many restaurants do you know where they LINE up before you open and STAY lined up till you close. It's a LICENSE to print money. I think you got a B-B-Que joint down there that does that.

excon

No BBQ joint here that popular but there's a tourist trap called the Big Texan Steak Ranch (http://bigtexan.com/). Otherwise, I'm just reporting the SUPPORTED facts. I don't make policy decisions on hearsay.

Shame how when someone whines about income inequality they never mention stuff like this. It seems Democrats pay minority campaign staff three fifths of a white guy's salary.


http://www.jammiewf.com/2013/racism-straight-up-democrat-campaign-staffers-paid-significantly-less-than-whites/

If you posted a comparison of what both parties paid staff then you would have a good argument, and not a bash the dems statement. So where is the link to what repubs pay their minority staffers?

The source was linked and quoted so read for yourself, I hid nothing.


The study finds that although Republican campaign staffs hire a disproportionately high number of white men, the income disparities between racial groups are not nearly as pronounced as on Democratic campaigns

I took that to mean while their was less pay disparity, a disparity nonetheless, and minorities are hired a lot less, by repubs.

Conclusion- Both parties could do better.

If you recall the regime also got called out for paying female White House staffers less than their male counterparts. So here's my thing, if you're going to not only make such things a centerpiece of your agenda but hammer the other side over it you should lead by example. Kind of hypocritical not to mention embarrassing when they prove to be better at it.

Hello again, Steve:

Nahh.. I made the money on the OTHER end. So MY labor wasn't included in the labor costs.
excon

What do you do now? What business?

Hello A:

What do you do now? What business?These days, I'm in the pot business.

excon

so making decorative pots eh? do you grow large green plants in them?

Great news, not only might half a million or so people not have to worry about "job lock" if they raise the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour, but a whopping 19 percent of that increase will benefit poor families, according to the CBO!


Once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent, CBO projects (see the table below). As with any such estimates, however, the actual losses could be smaller or larger; in CBO’s assessment, there is about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the range between a very slight reduction in employment and a reduction in employment of 1.0 million workers…


The increased earnings for low-wage workers resulting from the higher minimum wage would total $31 billion, by CBO’s estimate. However, those earnings would not go only to low-income families, because many low-wage workers are not members of low-income families. Just 19 percent of the $31 billion would accrue to families with earnings below the poverty threshold, whereas 29 percent would accrue to families earning more than three times the poverty threshold, CBO estimates.


Moreover, the increased earnings for some workers would be accompanied by reductions in real (inflation-adjusted) income for the people who became jobless because of the minimum-wage increase, for business owners, and for consumers facing higher prices.

how generous they have to wait to 2016 for a wage increase

Before heading out to billionaire donor Tom Steyer's house for a fundraiser, Dingy Harry Reid had this to say:


The Koch bros made over $18 billion last year, but middle-class families have watched their incomes stagnate for decades. #RaiseTheWage (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23RaiseTheWage&src=hash)

Dingy Harry Attacks Koch Brothers Before Heading to Fundraiser With Democrat Billionaire Sugar Daddy | Jammie Wearing Fools (http://www.jammiewf.com/2014/dingy-harry-attacks-koch-brothers-before-heading-to-fundraiser-with-democrat-billionaire-sugar-daddy/)

Steyer plans on spending $100 million this year on behalf of Democrats and the cause, I'm sure with no IRS scrutiny.

We have already acknowledged its done on both sides. One side does nothing for poor people and people who have lost jobs, houses and their lives through no fault of their own.

Wonder which side that is?

One side does nothing for poor people and people who have lost jobs, houses and their lives through no fault of their own.

Yes, we hate blacks, women, the poor, illegal aliens, the hungry, gays, lesbians, transgendered, jobless and we kick puppies every chance we get.

We have already acknowledged its done on both sides. One side does nothing for poor people and people who have lost jobs, houses and their lives through no fault of their own.

Wonder which side that is?
That would be the side that plays lip service to their problems and craft polices that do nothing to solve it . But if good intentions without results makes you feel good then surely that's enough.

And what about doing nothing at all for anyone but a rich guy makes your side happy? I believe what you said about hate, Speech, except the puppy part. But Tom I am realizing that if the policy doesn't comport with your own model of success your side always says it doesn't work. Even though it does for some but obviously not for the ones YOU want them too.

I suspect it's a cover up for the failed economic policies republicans have espoused that HAVE failed, and led to global economic collapse, as part of an enrichment program for the few. I know, you will never admit to enrich the few and NOT the many, but that's where your broken economical capitalistic policy ideas lead.

So of course you further propagated the lie that rich people are "job creators" in a consumer driven economy that has exported good paying job to countries where slave labor and no rules is welcome. My greatest knock on this administration are the trade agreements that further that end though the need for uniform global rule and standards is what's needed.

However lowering American standards to bring up international standards is not my idea of a solution in my view, and certainly not at the huge profits extracted at the expense of both American and foreign labor.

The CBO just said that increasing the min wage will result in job losses . So if anyone is lowering standards it's your side.
But that doesn't suprise me from the side that says being unemployed is a good thing because you can persue your hobbies on someone elses dime.

Not only result in job loss but only 19% of the increase will benefit poor families, but like you said "if good intentions without results makes you feel good then surely that's enough' for them.

That's 19% better than your plan. So I guess your intention is 0,nada, zip. Your mission was accomplished.

Yes, we hate blacks, women, the poor, illegal aliens, the hungry, gays, lesbians, transgendered, jobless and we kick puppies every chance we get.


Well there you have it but you know speech sarcasm is considered the lowest form of wit. You keep arguing that you should do nothing becuase doing nothing will maintain the status quo as if the status quo is the desirable position for at least 50% of your population. A change in the minimum wage has a flow on effect in various ways. If there are industries that are unable to pass this cost though then how viable are they. Instead of looking at the worst case scenario you should be looking at the positive outcome, those who benefit will be less dependent on welfare

Well there you have it but you know speech sarcasm is considered the lowest form of wit. You keep arguing that you should do nothing becuase doing nothing will maintain the status quo as if the status quo is the desirable position for at least 50% of your population. A change in the minimum wage has a flow on effect in various ways. If there are industries that are unable to pass this cost though then how viable are they. Instead of looking at the worst case scenario you should be looking at the positive outcome, those who benefit will be less dependent on welfare

I have never argued for doing nothing, you've been listening to Tal too long. Why should we be satisfied with extremely inefficient, wasteful government solutions to everything?

Noone suggested you sould be satisfied with inefficient solutions be they government or otherwise, but government has a role to ensure the welfare of the population and part of that is ensuring that wages are fair to minimise government welfare, in otherwords industry also has a responsibility. In some places even the remote places like the Dominican republic that responsibility is taken seriously without government pressure. Government pressure only becomes necessary when industry is recalicrant

but government has a role to ensure the welfare of the population

Really? Thanks, I did not know that.

Yes the words
promote the general Welfare, seem to imply that

Sigh...

"The CBO just said that increasing minimum wage will result in job losses."

The CBO probably doesn't know. Raising the minimum wage could do any number of things.

I would imagine it would depend on who you talk to on the committee and their ideological commitment.

yes Tutt we have seen many times the argument that increased wages decreases employment, but rarely have we observed this a direct consequence excepting in isolated instances, the fact is that in most industries there is scope to both increase prices and absorb at leats a part of wages increases. the problem we have is that investors have been educated to expect higher returns even in low risk industries and it is they who don't want to share the wealth created by the success of their enterprises, it seems that the ethos that only senior executives should share in the benefits is well entrenched as if they were capable of producing the result without the benefit of staff

Raising minimum wage would ease poverty but cost some jobs - Feb. 18, 2014 (http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/18/news/economy/minimum-wage-cbo/index.html)

Once the CBO report came out, there was a partisan rapid-fire response (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/18/one-cbo-report-two-fast-political-reactions/?iid=EL) at the ready. Republicans who oppose the $10.10 proposal immediately seized on CBO's job loss estimates, while Democrats touted the agency's assessment that a higher minimum would lift 900,000 workers out of poverty. http://i.cdn.turner.com/money/images/bug.gif (http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/18/news/economy/minimum-wage-cbo/index.html?iid=EL#TOP)

Its still a net gain out of poverty.

the CBO is nonpartisan .... ask the libs ,they tell us that all the time. CBO report: Minimum wage hike could cost 500,000 jobs (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/02/18/cbo-minimum-wage-jobs/5582779/) CBO Director Doug Elmendorf said the report was consistent with the consensus thinking of the leading economists .

interesting equation; 500,000 less lowly paid jobs V lifting 900,000 workers out of poverty and all for the princely sum of $10.10 per hour. so the coefficient of improvement would seem to be 1.8:1. On this basis we could eliminate poverty for say the loss of 50,000,000 jobs, no wait, there seems to be something wrong, that would be 500,000,000 jobs, no that's not enough, heck let's just get rid of all jobs and be rich

yup lib logic ... what it really is is a wealth transfer from the poor people to other poor people .
What they really won't tell you is that the only reason they want the increase is because it becomes the new baseline for union negotiations of contracts.

do you honestly think a minimum wage is a baseline for union negotiations, as if a union is going to negotiate to get a government mandated minimum wage, get real! If this is so then unions are no longer required. No a minimum wage is a base line for all employees and the next step is a living minimum wage based on economic data, that's a pill your 85 billionaires having half the wealth don't want to swallow and Tom, you want to toady for them? do your little G'd Mornin Gov'nor act?

Union Support Of Minimum Wage Hike Is Self-Interested - Investors.com (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/082613-668781-unions-seek-minimum-wage-hike-because-it-would-also-boost-union-pay.htm?ven=rss)

btw the Dem party is a wholy owned subsidiary of the unions ...and if you are looking for toadies for big business ,look no further than the emperor ,who just announced CAFE standards for big trucks guaranteed to drive the smaller trucking firms out of business in favor of the large crony corporations who will be able to easily absord the transition.

LOL Tom, now you knock a union for negotiating in their own self interest? Whose interest should they negotiate in? Everybody wants more money. Face it the part you don't like is an organized labor force acting in its own interest. Bad for profits. Less bonus for the front office. You have said many times that business is in it for profits.

Workers are too.

I think all the leading lefties that run various cities and states take the lead and increase min wage in their jursidiction.
Sandanista Mayor DeBlasio is always so concerned about wage disparty . Why doesn't he raise NYC min wage to $15 -20 hr ? What's stopping him ? He has a rubber stamp city council . Why doesn't Guv's Cuomo ,Brown in Kalifornia ,or Deval Patrick in Taxxachusetts just raise their state's min wage to a so called 'living wage ' ? Because they know that it would HARM their state's economy and would have a negative impact on low income workers prospects.

Gap To Raise Minimum Wage For U.S. Workers - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304914204579393471323975470)

Gap is raising what it pays, and Walmarts, and Target, are considering it. Wonder why?

Perhaps they're trying to attract workers who can do math, say something besides "no problem" and who'll show up for work?

"you get what you pay for."

So where does that leave teens?

if a business like GAP increases their base pay, it's their business. Most companies pay more than min wage anyway so all the GAP announcement amts to is cheap advertisement .

"The CBO is nonpartisan"

I suspected they were. I also suspect leading economists are as well.

This doesn't make any of them correct.

So where does that leave teens?

In Australia a 17 to 18 year old at McD for example, would get about $10 to $ 11 per hour.

I was told by a local once that McD pays adults over $20 per hour. I don't know about the teens where you are.

for clarity the minumum adult wage in Australia is $16.37 an hour, it applies to everyone where a specific industry award doesn't apply, casual rates are higher as in the case of McD cited above, wages for juniors would be less according to age, children below 14 years cannot be hired. The unions apply to industrial courts for variation of the awards and negotiate independently with employers.

It has to be noted that we don't supplement the wages of low paid workers by tipping so comparison between the two countries is difficult but the point is a minimum wage exists to stop exploitation. This becomes more and more necessary when full time work gives way to part time and casual work, particularly in seasonal and agricultural industries or industries employing migrants

You have a lower minimum wage for kids?

this is the difference, junior wages are a percentage of the adult wage, when we talk about minimum wages we are talking about different concepts. When we talk about the minimum wage we are talking about adults

for clarity the minimum adult wage in Australia is $16.37 an hour, it applies to everyone where a specific industry award doesn't apply, casual rates are higher as in the case of McD cited above, wages for juniors would be less according to age, children below 14 years cannot be hired. The unions apply to industrial courts for variation of the awards and negotiate independently with employers.




They might have been quoting me casual rates.

You have a lower minimum wage for kids?


Yes.

They did when my kids worked at Big W. Going back a while now.
P.S.
I just read Clete's comment. I also looked it up. Yes, teens get a percentage of the adult wage.

Yes Tutt difficult to make comparison between the two countries excepting that the americans have this idea we are paid too much

Yes Tutt difficult to make comparison between the two countries excepting that the americans have this idea we are paid too much

I wasn't going there at all. It's that Democrats seem to refuse to admit there are tradeoffs to policy, they can't acknowledge the tradeoffs and negative consequences of their actions.

Raise the minimum wage by around 40% as they want there will be winners and losers, as the CBO report acknowledged. One of those losers will likely be teens trying to get a foot in the door and get some experience. Ask the state of Washington.


Teenagers hoping to cash in on Washington’s highest-in-the-nation minimum wage may soon be out of luck.
(http://www.theolympian.com/2014/01/29/2956166/teens-could-see-a-lower-minimum.html)

For most teens, a first job is an integral step in entering the workforce—honing skills like professionalism and timeliness can help teens better prepare for the future. But landing that first job is becoming more of a problem for some teenagers.


“A whole generation of teens are not being able to develop a work ethic,” said Republican Sen. Michael Baumgartner of Spokane.


More middle-aged workers are filling jobs traditionally given to teenagers, and as such, preventing teens from getting that important first job. Two proposals in the Senate hope to allow more teens to enter the workforce.


Senate Bill 6471, introduced by Baumgartner, would create a summer training wage for teens. The bill would allow employers to pay 14- to 19-year-olds hired on a seasonal basis from June 31 through August 31 the federal wage of $7.25. Minimum wage in Washington is currently $9.32.


“It’s a limited bill…[that] gets at an issue that we all need to be concerned about: getting our teens in the workforce,” Baumgartner said.


Senate Bill 6495 would establish a training wage for 14- to 19-year-olds. Sponsored by Moses Lake Republican Sen. Janea Holmquist Newbry, the legislation would allow employers to pay new teenage employees 85 percent of the minimum wage ($7.92) or the federal minimum wage ($7.25), whichever is greater.


“We need to make sure 16- to 19-year-olds have an opportunity,” Holmquist Newbry said.


ad more here: Teens could see a lower minimum wage rate | The Politics Blog | The Olympian (http://www.theolympian.com/2014/01/29/2956166/teens-could-see-a-lower-minimum.html#storylink=cpy)



So, the question is will Dems acknowledge this tradeoff and do something about it or will they demand everyone get paid the same?

seems logical to me, surprised the issue hasn't come up previously

Saying everyone should be paid the same would be another exaggeration and a distraction of the main point. Establishing a MINIMUM wage. Its not the peoples fault the factories were closed and moved over seas, gutting the middle class, which was the backbone of America.

Yeah do something for teens, but do something for their parents first.

Saying everyone should be paid the same would be another exaggeration and a distraction of the main point. Establishing a MINIMUM wage. Its not the peoples fault the factories were closed and moved over seas, gutting the middle class, which was the backbone of America.

Yeah do something for teens, but do something for their parents first.

Let me clarify since you didn't take the hint on a post entirely about "minimum wage." "Paid the same" as in the same minimum wage for all.

The question is will you guys ever acknowledge the tradeoffs and consequences of your policies? What are those teens who can't get a job at $10.10 an hour going to do with their time? Where are they going to get experience if older people are taking the jobs that used to go to them? Australia pays teens less, is that something you'd go for or not?

thing is there are industries that employ teens and there are industries that want adults, wage structures we have here are based on a Productivity Commission examination of the value of work

"Productivity Commission examination of the value of work" ugggghh do you need a gvt agency to decide when the wipe your arse ?

"Productivity Commission examination of the value of work" ugggghh do you need a gvt agency to decide when the wipe your arse ?


Everything is bottoms with you Americans.

"Productivity Commission examination of the value of work" ugggghh do you need a gvt agency to decide when the wipe your arse ?

demonstrating your vast knowledge of shlt again Tom? For the uninformed on the other side of the puddle, our industrial courts and governments long ago decided to take the heat out of these things by having an independent arbriteur advise on the true value of the contribution of various occupations and they help government to determine the value of various subsidies such as child care and they look into whether an industry should be supported or given the flic. You see, when the negotiations break down as inevietably they do, considering the rabid attitude of the unions and the recalcicrant attitudes of the employers, we have a court whose jurisdiction it is to decide these matters and avoid strikes, lockouts, etc. We find it more civilised, but then we have been at it longer than you.

We had binding arbitration at one time Clete, worked rather well until the union shops left the shores with the factories, and unions and the middle class disappeared. So did the wages. There is only the court system left and poor people can't afford lawyers, nor keep up with rising prices.

This country was built on a solid middle class made poor by the business pursuit of profits for the few.

Unions also destroyed one of the finest cities in the country and left us holding the bag.

Hello again,

Most minimum wage workers ALSO receive handouts from the government like food stamps and welfare. Why should we subsidize WalMart?

excon

Hello again,

Most minimum wage workers ALSO receive handouts from the government like food stamps and welfare. Why should we subsidize WalMart?

excon

Show me the stats.

How McDonald's and Wal-Mart Became Welfare Queens - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-13/how-mcdonald-s-and-wal-mart-became-welfare-queens.html)

How McDonald's and Wal-Mart Became Welfare Queens - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-13/how-mcdonald-s-and-wal-mart-became-welfare-queens.html)

Those aren't stats, that's a hit piece. How do you take seriously a guy that begins talking about dog whistles and quotes Alan Grayson as a source? And this little misleading statement:


Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private sector employer, is also the biggest consumer of taxpayer supported aid. According to Florida Congressman Alan Grayson, in many states, Wal-Mart employees are the largest group (http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/corporate-subsidy-watch/hidden-taxpayer-costs)of Medicaid recipients. They are also the single biggest group of food stamp recipients. Wal-mart’s "associates" are paid so little (http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2013/11/12/wal-mart-pay-raise/), according to Grayson, that they receive $1,000 on average in public assistance. These amount to massive taxpayer subsidies for private companies.

I didn't realize Walmart received food stamps.

re post later

In Connecticut, a mother with two children participating in seven major welfare programs (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid, food stamps, WIC, housing assistance, utility assistance and free commodities) could receive a package of benefits worth $38,761 .In Hawaii ;$49,175 . Is it your position that companies should pay low skilled workers comparable compensation ? Seems like you got it backward . You expect companies to subsidize a safety net that has grown out of control.

In Connecticut, a mother with two children participating in seven major welfare programs (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid, food stamps, WIC, housing assistance, utility assistance and free commodities) could receive a package of benefits worth $38,761 .In Hawaii ;$49,175 . Is it your position that companies should pay low skilled workers comparable compensation ? Seems like you got it backward . You expect companies to subsidize a safety net that has grown out of control.

One would expect employees to be paid a decent wage so as they don't have to work two jobs or need extra assistance.

Why not make low skilled min wage $20 hr ? Then even in Hawaii they would get no public assistance. My advice to someone making min wage is to go find another job, or learn a skill that will pay more.

One would expect employees to be paid a decent wage so as they don't have to work two jobs or need extra assistance.

Raising the minimum wage will just give more workers an opportunity to escape "job lock."

Raising the minimum wage will just give more workers an opportunity to escape "job lock."

or they can go on unemployment and other gvt doles and persue their hobbies.

Exactly.

Rich guys pursue their hobbies while on the dole of corporate welfare too! That's no good for the social safety net either. Creating jobs is but a byproduct SOMETIMES of the main goal of creating wealth for themselves. You have already acknowledged that that's what they do.

Why not make low skilled min wage $20 hr ? Then even in Hawaii they would get no public assistance. My advice to someone making min wage is to go find another job, or learn a skill that will pay more.

Yes, why not.

My advice would be to get a co-ordinated wages system.

Exactly.

One could just as easily exact an argument for the opposite. There would be a myriad of factors relevant to issue of increasing the min wage.

We had a coordinated wage system and worked until they cut the middle out of it and then collapsed the economy. But as more states and localities are raising their minimums even businesses are exploring the possibility of raising wages, for the same reasons as always, the need to attract and keep better help.

Raise the minimum wage? An alternative approach. - CSMonitor.com (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2014/0220/Raise-the-minimum-wage-An-alternative-approach)


Gap's reasons for its voluntary action came out of its founding purpose of operating from a strong set of values that “do more than sell clothes.” But it also now embraces a strategy that has become more popular with businesses. Gap hopes to enjoy growth by retaining more employees, better motivating them to improve customer service, and avoiding costly staff turnover and training costs.
“To us, this is not a political issue,” said Gap chief executive Glenn Murphy. “Our decision to invest in frontline employees will directly support our business, and is one that we expect to deliver a return many times over.”

We had a coordinated wage system and worked until they cut the middle out of it and then collapsed the economy. But as more states and localities are raising their minimums even businesses are exploring the possibility of raising wages, for the same reasons as always, the need to attract and keep better help.


business always had the option of paying more than the minimum, they don't need government help to pay fair wages and unions exist to promote that goal

Now if McDonalds and Walmart can follow the same example, we can rebuild a middle class. But we still need legislation on the federal level just in case they don't get it.

surely minimum wages have nothing to do with a middle class, and walmart is surely not an option of middle class employment. I think the term middle class must have a different connotation over there

Turns Out Anti-Union Volkswagen Workers May Have Screwed Themselves And The South (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/20/vw-union-workers_n_4820585.html)

Turns out Dems aren't too keen on Obama's distraction from Obamacare. For some reason they may not be too keen on facing their constituents with the prospect of half a million jobs lost and businesses just being told to suck it up and reduce your profits. Reid could only get just over half of his caucus on board.

Reid stalling action on minimum wage | TheHill (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/199203-reid-delays-minimum-wage-vote)

Every day it's becoming more and more clear that morons are running the show.

>yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnn!<