The Terrible Fear of Paying the Poor Too Much

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s

I've said it before but it bears repeating: I am training in my third career (at 45) thanks to outsourcing. I support a family of 4, including 2 teenagers and my wife - who is disabled, but not receiving benefits - on $13 an hour. To get by I work 55-62 hours a week, and I still fall behind, thanks to the rising cost of everything. I routinely make the choice between a $30 copay to see a doctor and food or gas.

When I retired from the military I was 48 and I had to completely start over too. So do you think you will stay at a starting wage of 13 bucks an hour, or do you plan to move up? I'm 54 now and I have had a number of advances so I can't say I'm stuck at my starting wage.

Must be time to drag out a couple of my favourite images regarding 'trickle down' economics.





Our 'Liberal' party are talking of raising the retirement age to 70 here, as we need to 'tighten our belts', but also have billions to spend on jets that seem to have a lot of problems.

www.gizmodo.com.au...

a reply to: 200Plus

That isn't rude at all. It's a very valid question because the initial minimum wage was based on one person working (the male) and one person living at home making due with what was brought home, ideally two adults and two children. Of all the observations which challenges the traditional notion of the minimum this is the most apt because of changing circumstances in the traditional American household.

However, with both adults working today, there has been a steady rise of public assistance since the late 70's when it became standard that mother and father both work. This does not compute to the original standard, and simply put, points to a rise in greed on the end of employers ( the big business variety) to reap more and sow less.

And yet you still cannot fathom what i said. It really isnt that hard? I never quoted the OP did I? Did I? Im going off stories im reading in the news, of a $15 min wage, just google it they arent hard to find.

a reply to: V22tech

I am guessing again that you're replying to me.

I do "fathom" what you said. You said nothing relating to the posts in this thread and are attempting to deflect the observations and arguments with an opinion which only vaguely relates to the facts stated in this thread.

What is "hard"? It isn't hard for a reasoning individual to understand that you are parroting sentiments fed to you by talk radio and/or opinion based news networks. Vapid statements are easy to pick out if you're used to it.

Or, perhaps, you're trolling.

Nicely done.

I largely agree with your point, but your ignorant repetition of, 'republican bad, conservative bad' is extremely misinformed. Slate almost comes across as a website full of ideological hate speech. So here is another such website from the other side complaining about the same thing.

Silicon Valley’s Giants Are Just Gilded Age Tycoons in Techno-Utopian Clothes
www.thedailybeast.com...

Silicon Valley’s biggest names—Google, Apple, Intel and Adobe—reached a settlement today in a contentious $3 billion anti-trust suit brought by workers who accused the tech giants of secretly colluding to not recruit each other’s employees. The workers won, but not much, receiving only a rumored $300 million, a small fraction of the billions the companies might have been forced to pay had they been found guilty in a trial verdict.

The criminality that the case exposed in the boardrooms the tech giants, including from revered figures like Steve Jobs who comes off as especially ruthless, should not be jarring to anyone familiar with Silicon Valley. It may shock much of the media, who have generally genuflected towards these companies, and much of the public, that has been hoodwinked into thinking the Valley oligarchs represent a better kind of plutocrat—but the truth is they are a lot like the old robber barons.

You are talking about the largest backers of the democrat and liberal platform engaging in the exact same behavior. They may be calling for laws that raise the minimum wage, but behind closed doors they are literally conspiring to suppress wages and stifle competition.

One of the major problems with enacting this sort of legislation is that everyone wants a one size fits all solution . . . well, they do not exist. I managed a department for a small business (~70-100 employees total) where such an increase in wages could be handled, but business would have to be perfect. If there was a down year the company would actually risk going under and everyone would loose their incomes.

It sucks, but it is the truth.

If you want to raise minimum wage there must be metrics which account for such things. Everyone always goes on and on about companies who employ like 0.4% of the US population while completely ignoring the 99%.

If people tossed off their slave mentality something might get done, but everyone that is riled up is usually too afraid of loosing their material possessions to risk it. This sort of behavior will continue until the masses who are so upset realize they cannot have their cake and eat it to . . . something has got to give.

-FBB

a reply to: V22tech

I can only guess you are replying to me because you either didn't feel like using the reply button or do not know how to.

Anyway you at least cleared that up. You are using figures you heard on tv(must have been after a Mencia spot) or read "somewhere" so you are having a conversation that is not supported by anything here(in this thread).

So actually it is kind of hard to follow your train of thought since you don't quote or source where you are pulling your figures from and as you said it isn't based off the OP. Essentially you think we should all just know where you are pulling your figures from. So we are full circle back to my original comment.

To think you called me stupid.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I might have been conceited to think V22 was replying to me. Maybe it's a new tactic on forums with a reply feature. Simply throw out ambiguous arguments and let those who are active in the conversation take it as they will and let them be drawn into a wild goose chase. The "false-flag" of a forum, if you will.

a reply to: BurbGirl378

I love you! That graphic says it all!

a reply to: crazyewok
Exactly.
Workers should make a % of what the company makes yearly. That way, the BS that's going on right now will stop. Poverty, people on welfare, --it would end. Right now, after a lot of people pay bills, gas takes the rest of it. But CEO's and investors sit in their mansions with no worries. All throughout history, this has never ended pretty. GREED.

a reply to: V22tech

I said a burger flipper doesnt deserve any more money than trained technicians.

A burger flipper has the same minimum survival requirements as a trained technician and the same right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The U.S. Government should not have to subsidize the workers of any billion dollar corporation with food and housing so that executives and shareholders can enjoy unjustified profits. Hoarding money while others starve is 'corrupt' and immoral. Paying people a living wage for a 40 hour work week is respectable and just good business. There is a cost to doing business that the executives and shareholders must accept. There seems to be a "keep it all" mentality in the business community today that does not include accounting for legitimate expenses and employee wages. Not all costs have to be recovered from the consumer. Payroll is a distribution of a portion of the profit earned by doing business.

originally posted by: crazyewok

Unless you want a society were people starve to death and live in 3rd world poverty.

the most massive epidemic in America is
morbid endogenous obesity, not starving people.

you are using emotionalism and fear mongering.

give me a link that shows a picture of a child or adult starving to death in America.

a reply to: V22tech

I think you replied to the wrong post.

The link you provide is to a glorified blog post by a contributor of forbes.com who uses franchises as an example to the horrid notion of raising the minimum wage. If you would like to understand a bit more about how a franchise works, read this: Franchise Pros and Cons.

It's clear that a franchise is far from your typical kind of business, and it is, in fact, a somewhat more legitimate pyramid scheme (let's play your game, google "franchise and pyramid scheme and take a look at the arguments in various blogs) that places all the risk (albeit a greatly reduced risk) on the entrepreneur (this an opinion, but not just my own). It forces those who wish to take on this kind of corporate yoke to exploit workers with low wages and no benefits in order to succeed in a structure that only aims to enrich the main corporate entity.

I find it laughable that he includes the argument that minimum wage earners also earn tips in a blog post about fast food workers who by and large do not earn tips.

Try again.

a reply to: BurbGirl378

greed and gluttony and lust
are the big three sins in
America today

You know, the same people who abhor state owned industry and whine about government subsidising uncompetitive models where a large workforce earns a decent wage and pays lots in taxes, supports the local economy and actually participates in society are the same ones who are happy to see the same government subsidise via welfare etc any number of private sector companies that fail to pay a living wage either through an unsustainable business model or just pure greed.

a reply to: groingrinder

Awwww... Thanks.

originally posted by: Fylgje
It makes no sense.
A company makes a product.
They sell it for many times what they should.
The CEO and investors get filthy rich.
The people who do all the hard work get hardly nothing.


I think a product's price should be governed. Governed right. That way, we won't be paying ridiculous prices for stuff and these parasites won't be making tens of millions of profit on the backs of people who struggle. Companies should have to give their workers a % of the product if the product becomes popular.

You mean governed by a government that is willing to pay $500 for a hammer? Yeah, that will work out splendid.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Mostly just pure greed.