Minimum wage jobs should only a stepping stone to something better. If you are willing to settle and remain stuck at that level you have issues. It’s not a good idea to punish others for someone else lack of ambition or motivation.
Raising minimum wage doesn’t help create new opportunities for people to grow into. It does the opposite. For someone trying to start a new business a raise in minimum wage may make it impossible for them to survive and get their venture off the ground. Or for marginal businesses that are just hanging on it may be the final nail in the coffin.
What we will end up with is a few very large businesses like Walmart that can better absorb the the extra cost surviving, while their competition is driven out of business by the raised costs. With less competition in the labor market they will have less incentive to offer jobs that pay more than minimum wage. So people are going to get trapped at that level.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Minimum wage jobs should only a stepping stone to something better. If you are willing to settle and remain stuck at that level you have issues. It’s not a good idea to punish others for someone else lack of ambition or motivation.
Raising minimum wage doesn’t help create new opportunities for people to grow into. It does the opposite. For someone trying to start a new business a raise in minimum wage may make it impossible for them to survive and get their venture off the ground. Or for marginal businesses that are just hanging on it may be the final nail in the coffin.
What we will end up with is a few very large businesses like Walmart that can better absorb the the extra cost surviving, while their competition is driven out of business by the raised costs. With less competition in the labor market they will have less incentive to offer jobs that pay more than minimum wage. So people are going to get trapped at that level. [/quote]
Sifu, are you sure that’s the way it happens? If so, maybe we should just set the minimum wage at around $100,000 so that getting trapped at that level won’t be so bad. Regardless, I think we need policies that hurt Wal-Mart. If this doesn’t do so, I think we need something else. Last time I walked into Wal-Mart I was stunned by the number of employees I saw who could easily be working in much higher paying jobs. When I saw the greeter, I thought to myself, “How nice of that man to give himself to Wal-Mart for the wage he’s getting when he could easily be working as an engineer for Jacobs Engineering Group or as a broker for Merrill Lynch.” Walk into your local Wal-Mart, take a look at the employees, and join me in saying that if those people can’t find ultra-highpaying jobs, then maybe it’s time for the government to take control and straighten the economy out for us!
A word on Walmart. The Waltons pay their employees so little that often times those employees need to get food stamps just to survive. So the taxpayer is subsidizing the Walmart employee so the Waltons can have more money. Isn’t having multi-billions enough? In addition when Walmart wanted to open in Germany their government made certain stipulations. They had to pay the workers a certain starting salary, they had to give them a certain amount of vacation time and they had to pay for their health insurance.
Otherwise Germany told them they couldn’t open up in their country. So guess what happened? Walmart meet the demands of the German government and still makes a healthy profit. It’s sad when they can trample on the American labor force and this government stands by and does nothing. I suppose that happens when your government is bought and paid for by the corporations.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
A word on Walmart. The Waltons pay their employees so little that often times those employees need to get food stamps just to survive. So the taxpayer is subsidizing the Walmart employee so the Waltons can have more money. Isn’t having multi-billions enough? In addition when Walmart wanted to open in Germany their government made certain stipulations. They had to pay the workers a certain starting salary, they had to give them a certain amount of vacation time and they had to pay for their health insurance.
Otherwise Germany told them they couldn’t open up in their country. So guess what happened? Walmart meet the demands of the German government and still makes a healthy profit. It’s sad when they can trample on the American labor force and this government stands by and does nothing. I suppose that happens when your government is bought and paid for by the corporations. [/quote]
It sounds like those employees should be having to look for a second job or rely on charity. I certainly don’t support government provided subsidies. However, I can’t see how you see the government money given to people as helping Wal-Mart? I don’t pretend to know everything about Wal-Mart or government interference in the economy, but the government seems to really dislike Wal-Mart so I believe they are probably succeeding based on their own virtue moreso than most businesses. The government subsidies are the problem, NOT Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart’s employees are working there willingly, not being forced to. If you don’t agree with the government giving people money, then the blame should be placed on the government, not Wal-Mart.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Minimum wage jobs should only a stepping stone to something better. If you are willing to settle and remain stuck at that level you have issues. It’s not a good idea to punish others for someone else lack of ambition or motivation.
Raising minimum wage doesn’t help create new opportunities for people to grow into. It does the opposite. For someone trying to start a new business a raise in minimum wage may make it impossible for them to survive and get their venture off the ground. Or for marginal businesses that are just hanging on it may be the final nail in the coffin.
What we will end up with is a few very large businesses like Walmart that can better absorb the the extra cost surviving, while their competition is driven out of business by the raised costs. With less competition in the labor market they will have less incentive to offer jobs that pay more than minimum wage. So people are going to get trapped at that level. [/quote]
Sifu, are you sure that’s the way it happens? If so, maybe we should just set the minimum wage at around $100,000 so that getting trapped at that level won’t be so bad. Regardless, I think we need policies that hurt Wal-Mart. If this doesn’t do so, I think we need something else. Last time I walked into Wal-Mart I was stunned by the number of employees I saw who could easily be working in much higher paying jobs. When I saw the greeter, I thought to myself, “How nice of that man to give himself to Wal-Mart for the wage he’s getting when he could easily be working as an engineer for Jacobs Engineering Group or as a broker for Merrill Lynch.” Walk into your local Wal-Mart, take a look at the employees, and join me in saying that if those people can’t find ultra-highpaying jobs, then maybe it’s time for the government to take control and straighten the economy out for us![/quote]
I’m not a huge fan of Wal Mart but it isn’t a proper role for government to interfere in society to hurt people on purpose. If stocking shelves paid doctor level wages why would anyone be motivated to be anything more in life than a stock boy? How would they pay for such high wage employees without substantially raising prices.
At that level of wage and price inflation it becomes logical to close their brick and mortar stores, outsource all of the human service side of the operation to a call center in India and deliver everything through fed ex. The net result is it won’t help anyone in this country.
When the American people had the opportunity to vote for a future of high paying jobs they voted against it and elected Bill Clinton. We are now living in the post “giant sucking sound era”.
What is needed is for the people to take control of the government and start making rational decisions for the first time in many decades.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
A word on Walmart. The Waltons pay their employees so little that often times those employees need to get food stamps just to survive. So the taxpayer is subsidizing the Walmart employee so the Waltons can have more money. Isn’t having multi-billions enough? In addition when Walmart wanted to open in Germany their government made certain stipulations. They had to pay the workers a certain starting salary, they had to give them a certain amount of vacation time and they had to pay for their health insurance.
Otherwise Germany told them they couldn’t open up in their country. So guess what happened? Walmart meet the demands of the German government and still makes a healthy profit. It’s sad when they can trample on the American labor force and this government stands by and does nothing. I suppose that happens when your government is bought and paid for by the corporations. [/quote]
It sounds like those employees should be having to look for a second job or rely on charity. I certainly don’t support government provided subsidies. However, I can’t see how you see the government money given to people as helping Wal-Mart? I don’t pretend to know everything about Wal-Mart or government interference in the economy, but the government seems to really dislike Wal-Mart so I believe they are probably succeeding based on their own virtue moreso than most businesses. The government subsidies are the problem, NOT Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart’s employees are working there willingly, not being forced to. If you don’t agree with the government giving people money, then the blame should be placed on the government, not Wal-Mart.[/quote]
We presently have a welfare system that pays more to people to stay home rather than work. Our present minimum wage is below what our standard for a livable wage is .
WE are presently coming out of a recession we would have had soup lines and people starving to death if we did not have a welfare system.
As far as people getting another job , there are presently not enough jobs for all the people that want one . So for one person to get 2 would take away some one else’s opportunity .
I see it as dis information to pretend every one can get a job if you have 7 jobs and 10 people wanting to work all you will get is a lever for the employer to bring down wages
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Minimum wage jobs should only a stepping stone to something better. If you are willing to settle and remain stuck at that level you have issues. It’s not a good idea to punish others for someone else lack of ambition or motivation.
Raising minimum wage doesn’t help create new opportunities for people to grow into. It does the opposite. For someone trying to start a new business a raise in minimum wage may make it impossible for them to survive and get their venture off the ground. Or for marginal businesses that are just hanging on it may be the final nail in the coffin.
What we will end up with is a few very large businesses like Walmart that can better absorb the the extra cost surviving, while their competition is driven out of business by the raised costs. With less competition in the labor market they will have less incentive to offer jobs that pay more than minimum wage. So people are going to get trapped at that level. [/quote]
Sifu, are you sure that’s the way it happens? If so, maybe we should just set the minimum wage at around $100,000 so that getting trapped at that level won’t be so bad. Regardless, I think we need policies that hurt Wal-Mart. If this doesn’t do so, I think we need something else. Last time I walked into Wal-Mart I was stunned by the number of employees I saw who could easily be working in much higher paying jobs. When I saw the greeter, I thought to myself, “How nice of that man to give himself to Wal-Mart for the wage he’s getting when he could easily be working as an engineer for Jacobs Engineering Group or as a broker for Merrill Lynch.” Walk into your local Wal-Mart, take a look at the employees, and join me in saying that if those people can’t find ultra-highpaying jobs, then maybe it’s time for the government to take control and straighten the economy out for us![/quote]
I’m not a huge fan of Wal Mart but it isn’t a proper role for government to interfere in society to hurt people on purpose. If stocking shelves paid doctor level wages why would anyone be motivated to be anything more in life than a stock boy? How would they pay for such high wage employees without substantially raising prices.
At that level of wage and price inflation it becomes logical to close their brick and mortar stores, outsource all of the human service side of the operation to a call center in India and deliver everything through fed ex. The net result is it won’t help anyone in this country.
When the American people had the opportunity to vote for a future of high paying jobs they voted against it and elected Bill Clinton. We are now living in the post “giant sucking sound era”.
What is needed is for the people to take control of the government and start making rational decisions for the first time in many decades. [/quote]
[quote]666Rich wrote:
Ross Perot addressed a fundamental economic issue better than any candidate in recent memory.[/quote]
Yes he did address the globalization issue. That’s because he actually gave a damn about the USA. What is most interesting about that video is watching Clinton chuckle in the background when Perot says the trade deal with Mexico is going to create a giant sucking sound. I have a distinct impression Clinton was thinking to himself “if you think that’s bad wait till you see the trade deal I have cooked up with China”.
It was the Clinton administration that made the decision that the US would uncouple China’s trade status from it’s performance on human rights. Which then allowed Clinton to award China permanent most favored nation trading status .
It should also be remembered that one of the scandals that plagued the Clinton presidency was his taking campaign contributions from the Chinese government. While we are digressing on Wal-Mart it should also be remembered that Hillary Clinton was on their board of directors.
It amazes me how democrats who will cry us a river over Bush the second will give Clinton a pass or even praise him, despite his doing serious damage to the working people of this country.
[quote]666Rich wrote:
Ross Perot addressed a fundamental economic issue better than any candidate in recent memory.[/quote]
Clinton was thinking to himself “if you think that’s bad wait till you see the trade deal I have cooked up with China”.
It was the Clinton administration that made the decision that the US would uncouple China’s trade status from it’s performance on human rights. Which then allowed Clinton to award China permanent most favored nation trading status .
While we are digressing on Wal-Mart it should also be remembered that Hillary Clinton was on their board of directors.
It amazes me how democrats who will cry us a river over Bush the second will give Clinton a pass or even praise him, despite his doing serious damage to the working people of this country. [/quote]
Question Pitt…since a ton of Union busting goods come from China, is it possible that Clinton did more damage to the Unions than your favorite fall guy Reagan?
Yes, it is more plausible that Clinton did more to hurt union jobs then Reagan. The difference between the two, Clinton did it all back door while smiling at you from the front door. Minimum wage sucks, but by definition shouldn’t it? If one doesn’t have the skills to be paid that of an experienced worker. Please see, the tiered pay system of the trade unions. Minimum wage isn’t designed so you can live off of it. Get your, experience, your education and demand more for your services. Don’t underestimate your worth.
[quote]666Rich wrote:
Ross Perot addressed a fundamental economic issue better than any candidate in recent memory.[/quote]
Yes he did address the globalization issue. That’s because he actually gave a damn about the USA. What is most interesting about that video is watching Clinton chuckle in the background when Perot says the trade deal with Mexico is going to create a giant sucking sound. I have a distinct impression Clinton was thinking to himself “if you think that’s bad wait till you see the trade deal I have cooked up with China”.
It was the Clinton administration that made the decision that the US would uncouple China’s trade status from it’s performance on human rights. Which then allowed Clinton to award China permanent most favored nation trading status .
It should also be remembered that one of the scandals that plagued the Clinton presidency was his taking campaign contributions from the Chinese government. While we are digressing on Wal-Mart it should also be remembered that Hillary Clinton was on their board of directors.
It amazes me how democrats who will cry us a river over Bush the second will give Clinton a pass or even praise him, despite his doing serious damage to the working people of this country. [/quote]
Love it. Its all about the PR machine, Sifu. Most political figures or ideas are founded on the rhetoric that surrounds them, casting something as favorable or unfavorable.
[quote]666Rich wrote:
Ross Perot addressed a fundamental economic issue better than any candidate in recent memory.[/quote]
Clinton was thinking to himself “if you think that’s bad wait till you see the trade deal I have cooked up with China”.
It was the Clinton administration that made the decision that the US would uncouple China’s trade status from it’s performance on human rights. Which then allowed Clinton to award China permanent most favored nation trading status .
While we are digressing on Wal-Mart it should also be remembered that Hillary Clinton was on their board of directors.
It amazes me how democrats who will cry us a river over Bush the second will give Clinton a pass or even praise him, despite his doing serious damage to the working people of this country. [/quote]
Question Pitt…since a ton of Union busting goods come from China, is it possible that Clinton did more damage to the Unions than your favorite fall guy Reagan?[/quote]
Prior to Reagan there were tariffs in place to protect Steel. Reagan opened the door wide open . Cheap Foreign unsold steel was dumped on American Shores unsold . There was a FIRE SALE that lasted years
[quote]58buggs wrote:
Yes, it is more plausible that Clinton did more to hurt union jobs then Reagan. The difference between the two, Clinton did it all back door while smiling at you from the front door. Minimum wage sucks, but by definition shouldn’t it? If one doesn’t have the skills to be paid that of an experienced worker. Please see, the tiered pay system of the trade unions. Minimum wage isn’t designed so you can live off of it. Get your, experience, your education and demand more for your services. Don’t underestimate your worth. [/quote]
I know this board has a hard time with personal history , but Ronald Reagan was President . I was a Steel Worker in Warren Ohio. The Union communicated that Reagan was about to sign a bill that would be our demise . He signed it I was unemployed the next week . I never went back . The mill floundered a few years . People tried to start it up a few times . Now I am told they are rolling tube there for fracking . I am guessing the year was 1983
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
San Francisco has the highest minimum wage, while the state enjoys the highest poverty rate and worst business climate in the nation. [/quote]
It illustrates Pitt’s point perfectly…all your businesses leave the place with the higher cost and come to places like Utah who have a friendly business environment.
But jee guys, what if the U.S. stops being a friendly business environment…where will the business go?
I wonder.[/quote]
click on economy , wiki has a differing opinion
[/quote]
Pitt, we have businesses and wealthy folks moving here from Cali every year…your liberal utopia is driving them out in droves. The state economy is in the shitter.
Business will go where the grass is greener, and soon with the policies we are enacting the U.S. is gonna be one big brown field.
[/quote]
so do we and I bet they have business moving from UT and AZ to Cali all the time also
[/quote]
Not really, and by the way about your wiki link, my wiki link says your use of a wiki link is dumb.
I think you are looking at it backwards , it seems to me the states listed with the highest poverty rate are ate the bottom of the page , not the top . Funny you bring this up the more conservative states seem to be at the bottom AZ 42 TX 46 with cali at 35
[/quote]
California has 4.7m people under poverty level, California has the highest number of “impoverished” people.
And about those conservative states, if you look at the breakdown of the counties…poverty ends up being in border towns and on indian reservations…indian reservations are supposed to be sovereign, that’s like counting the Republic of Congo in the poverty rate of South Africa.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
San Francisco has the highest minimum wage, while the state enjoys the highest poverty rate and worst business climate in the nation. [/quote]
It illustrates Pitt’s point perfectly…all your businesses leave the place with the higher cost and come to places like Utah who have a friendly business environment.
But jee guys, what if the U.S. stops being a friendly business environment…where will the business go?
I wonder.[/quote]
click on economy , wiki has a differing opinion
[/quote]
Pitt, we have businesses and wealthy folks moving here from Cali every year…your liberal utopia is driving them out in droves. The state economy is in the shitter.
Business will go where the grass is greener, and soon with the policies we are enacting the U.S. is gonna be one big brown field.
[/quote]
so do we and I bet they have business moving from UT and AZ to Cali all the time also
[/quote]
Not really, and by the way about your wiki link, my wiki link says your use of a wiki link is dumb.
I think you are looking at it backwards , it seems to me the states listed with the highest poverty rate are ate the bottom of the page , not the top . Funny you bring this up the more conservative states seem to be at the bottom AZ 42 TX 46 with cali at 35
[/quote]
California has 4.7m people under poverty level, California has the highest number of “impoverished” people.
And about those conservative states, if you look at the breakdown of the counties…poverty ends up being in border towns and on indian reservations…indian reservations are supposed to be sovereign, that’s like counting the Republic of Congo in the poverty rate of South America.[/quote]
California has approximately 70 times the amount of people than the least populated state . Some of these states are seriously out numbered by cities
Los Angeles is almost 4 million (THAT IS THE CITY) not county
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
San Francisco has the highest minimum wage, while the state enjoys the highest poverty rate and worst business climate in the nation. [/quote]
It illustrates Pitt’s point perfectly…all your businesses leave the place with the higher cost and come to places like Utah who have a friendly business environment.
But jee guys, what if the U.S. stops being a friendly business environment…where will the business go?
I wonder.[/quote]
click on economy , wiki has a differing opinion
[/quote]
Pitt, we have businesses and wealthy folks moving here from Cali every year…your liberal utopia is driving them out in droves. The state economy is in the shitter.
Business will go where the grass is greener, and soon with the policies we are enacting the U.S. is gonna be one big brown field.
[/quote]
so do we and I bet they have business moving from UT and AZ to Cali all the time also
[/quote]
Not really, and by the way about your wiki link, my wiki link says your use of a wiki link is dumb.
I think you are looking at it backwards , it seems to me the states listed with the highest poverty rate are ate the bottom of the page , not the top . Funny you bring this up the more conservative states seem to be at the bottom AZ 42 TX 46 with cali at 35
[/quote]
California has 4.7m people under poverty level, California has the highest number of “impoverished” people.
And about those conservative states, if you look at the breakdown of the counties…poverty ends up being in border towns and on indian reservations…indian reservations are supposed to be sovereign, that’s like counting the Republic of Congo in the poverty rate of South America.[/quote]
California has approximately 70 times the amount of people than the least populated state . Some of these states are seriously out numbered by cities
Los Angeles is almost 4 million (THAT IS THE CITY) not county
[/quote]
They still have the most people and as the Italian pointed out, also the highest rate.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
San Francisco has the highest minimum wage, while the state enjoys the highest poverty rate and worst business climate in the nation. [/quote]
No Texas and Arizona have a higher rate than Cali. And Texas and Arizona are so called conservative
There were several postings starting with poverty rate going to most business friendly state . And the states that have the so called conservative and neither the most friendly to business or have a lower poverty rate
It illustrates Pitt’s point perfectly…all your businesses leave the place with the higher cost and come to places like Utah who have a friendly business environment.
But jee guys, what if the U.S. stops being a friendly business environment…where will the business go?
I wonder.[/quote]
click on economy , wiki has a differing opinion
[/quote]
Pitt, we have businesses and wealthy folks moving here from Cali every year…your liberal utopia is driving them out in droves. The state economy is in the shitter.
Business will go where the grass is greener, and soon with the policies we are enacting the U.S. is gonna be one big brown field.
[/quote]
so do we and I bet they have business moving from UT and AZ to Cali all the time also
[/quote]
Not really, and by the way about your wiki link, my wiki link says your use of a wiki link is dumb.
I think you are looking at it backwards , it seems to me the states listed with the highest poverty rate are ate the bottom of the page , not the top . Funny you bring this up the more conservative states seem to be at the bottom AZ 42 TX 46 with cali at 35
[/quote]
California has 4.7m people under poverty level, California has the highest number of “impoverished” people.
And about those conservative states, if you look at the breakdown of the counties…poverty ends up being in border towns and on indian reservations…indian reservations are supposed to be sovereign, that’s like counting the Republic of Congo in the poverty rate of South America.[/quote]
They still have the most people and as the Italian pointed out, also the highest rate.
[/quote]
California has approximately 70 times the amount of people than the least populated state . Some of these states are seriously out numbered by cities
Los Angeles is almost 4 million (THAT IS THE CITY) not county
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Do you hear that business owners? You are not responsible for your success! Your employees are.
Why do the workers responsible for this increase in productivity continue to work for others instead of themselves? Another question is why do the workers continue to work for less than they are worth? Are there no businesses that appreciate their talents?
As awesome as the government is at telling people how to run businesses, I sure wish it would just cut out the middle man and run the businesses itself![/quote]
As stated earlier, the minimum wage pump is directed mainly at crappy, bottom of the barrel corp jobs at the storefront level or behind the scenes, like Walmart…
You guys want to talk about productivity, it tends to increase with better wages… Just do a little research, Walmart vs. Costco. Remember when I was bitching about parasitic business models? Well there is the comparison and example…
Another way to think about it, if they aren’t getting paid by the employer, you are paying for them somehow via some sort of program that goes to low wage workers, whether it be housing assistance, food stamps, etc…
So, do you want Walmart to pay something of a living wage, or do you want to foot the rest of the bill as a taxpayer? Just think about it for a second.
Okay, if you haven’t figured it out… Walmart isn’t the great business model the country has been selling it as… It’s parasitic on many levels and increases levels of poverty in locations where stores open… But, it brings stock owners tons of money, or at least it did for a very long time until employee theft/ unhappiness began causing the corp to bleed unprecedented profits.
If your paying somebody 8 bucks an hour, in the green and having bi monthly vacations, you may as well be Benedict Arnold in my eyes. Unpatriotic, and parasitic. [/quote]
cough** Bump** You guys have gone through the same ideas… Same solution, those of you defending Walmart, please, make your case.
