Under Bush US's 400 richest doubled their wealth

[RodISHI]

There you go again twisting what I said to meet your own thoughts and push your precepts bern.

In "RodISHI's world" she held her children accountable and she taught them how to make a living because she operated several businesses that gave her that time to do so. My children did not have to pay for college or take out massive amounts in loans and they do not live on credit cards to make ends meet. Many others do not have that same opportunity because they have no time left for their children at the end of the day when both parents have to work for slave wages. You are clearly and obviously mistating what I said or what I believe.

In "RodISHI's world" the legal and political system has not held the corporate giants to the same accountability as the average individual. So that statement of refusing to adapt holds a minute amount of truth. I refuse to adapt to the level of corruption that gives control to a few of the elite or those who abuse the current system that has financially devastated this country. I also refuse to sign employee contracts for some minimum wage position that claims any talents or knowledge that I already own as that corporations personal property.

 

[Avatar4321]

And creating more wealth is bad because....?

 

[Arthur]

10% of the people control 96% of the wealth in America.

This is the Republican Valhalla.

Good thing we're not waiting for it to 'trickle down'. Wealth creating is fine--as long as there's equal opportunity to share in the bounty.

 

[Old Rocks]

And creating more wealth is bad because....?

Creating wealth is good. Now show me where the people that have created the present situation have created more wealth? In fact, it seems that they have been paid billions to vastly reduce the wealth in this nation. They are, in fact, parasites. Sucking the life's blood out of the system and adding nothing good to it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Bern;

Will this never end? Yet again you decide to assume things about my life in order to bolster your argument. I have stated what my life looks like several times now. I make $10.80/hr (now due to our 10% pay cut.) My rent is $440 a month. My apartment is maybe 500 sq. ft. Sound gated to you? I am probably in reality not all that different than the 'victims' you complain the system is screwing over. Yet despite my life being what it is, knowing my employer and knowing my potential, knowing the opportunities out there. I simply can not bring myself to claim victim status and yet people like yourself and RodISHI are so quick to claim it FOR people.

OK, Bern. You are a rather young 28. I am more than double your age, and make about triple what you do per hr. And, untill November, recieved all the overtime that I could work. At your age, I was already a journey level millwright. But, I was not making those wages as I had a job that paid little, but allowed me to go to college. While the job ended before I could finish, the training I recieved in problem solving has aided me immensely in my trade.

Having said this, I suppose that you would find me stating that I did well, so can anyone else at present. The cost of the classes that I took to gain competance in my craft were far lower, compared to wages of the time, than they are today. The cost of a home, or rent, was far lower. In other words, the fninacial system of 45 years ago was far more favorable to an entry level worker than the one today.

One other thing, I have been extroidenerly lucky to still be in fine physical shape. There is a line that comes to mind from a song of my youth;
"Watch your mitts at the start of the stroke',
"It's a repeat killer, and we'll go for broke",
"If your hand should slip, the Boss don't shout",
"He just buys new fingers as he throws you out!"

While there are a few ethical businesses that do take care of their people, this has been the attitude in all to many places that I have worked. In many places, you start aging, or get hurt, and you are out the door.

 

[Avatar4321]

And creating more wealth is bad because....?

Creating wealth is good. Now show me where the people that have created the present situation have created more wealth? In fact, it seems that they have been paid billions to vastly reduce the wealth in this nation. They are, in fact, parasites. Sucking the life's blood out of the system and adding nothing good to it.

No one mentioned Democrats in Congress so what exactly do they have to do with anything?

 

[Bern80]

Bern;

Will this never end? Yet again you decide to assume things about my life in order to bolster your argument. I have stated what my life looks like several times now. I make $10.80/hr (now due to our 10% pay cut.) My rent is $440 a month. My apartment is maybe 500 sq. ft. Sound gated to you? I am probably in reality not all that different than the 'victims' you complain the system is screwing over. Yet despite my life being what it is, knowing my employer and knowing my potential, knowing the opportunities out there. I simply can not bring myself to claim victim status and yet people like yourself and RodISHI are so quick to claim it FOR people.

OK, Bern. You are a rather young 28. I am more than double your age, and make about triple what you do per hr. And, untill November, recieved all the overtime that I could work. At your age, I was already a journey level millwright. But, I was not making those wages as I had a job that paid little, but allowed me to go to college. While the job ended before I could finish, the training I recieved in problem solving has aided me immensely in my trade.

Having said this, I suppose that you would find me stating that I did well, so can anyone else at present. The cost of the classes that I took to gain competance in my craft were far lower, compared to wages of the time, than they are today. The cost of a home, or rent, was far lower. In other words, the fninacial system of 45 years ago was far more favorable to an entry level worker than the one today.

One other thing, I have been extroidenerly lucky to still be in fine physical shape. There is a line that comes to mind from a song of my youth;
"Watch your mitts at the start of the stroke',
"It's a repeat killer, and we'll go for broke",
"If your hand should slip, the Boss don't shout",
"He just buys new fingers as he throws you out!"

While there are a few ethical businesses that do take care of their people, this has been the attitude in all to many places that I have worked. In many places, you start aging, or get hurt, and you are out the door.

I would agree with that. As others have pointed out pay really ins't keeping up with inflation. The broad point I am getting at is that there is a fine line between assisting people in finding opportunities, helping them expand their skills, even provind public assitance during unemployment , all of which i have little problem with, and absolving people of the responsibility they have to improve themselves in the effort to provide for themselves.

RodISHI says I am twisting her words. I am not. She said quite clearly, ragardless of the skill level, ALL jobs should pay a living wage. Is that something you would agree with as well? I asked her point blank if she meant all jobs, she said yes. Now RodISHI before you tell me I'm twisting your words this is where you need to stop and think. How does mandating a living wage for all jobs change the level of effort and respsonsibility on the part of the individual for providing for their basic needs. It is compeletly undeniable that both of those things go down. Since that is the case to whom has the responsibility of providing for your basic needs shifted to? It has shifted to your employer. That is also undeniable. This is the point I believe you have a contradiction on your hands. You say as a society we all depend on each other. Yet the most we can reasnably depend on each other for in your system is that you get a job, ANY job, which we have established would require very littel effort on the part of the indivdual. YOU would have no right to expect any more of me than that as a fellow member of your society. I fail to see how that facilitates a strong, robust society.

 

[garyd]

If all jobs are paid a living wage the evidence is that their will be fewer Jobs dozens of studies have pretty much proven that beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Care4all]

If all jobs are paid a living wage the evidence is that their will be fewer Jobs dozens of studies have pretty much proven that beyond a reasonable doubt.

Why Gary? And what is the evidence? Have we ever done this before, or has another country done this before and failed? I don't really know....

Care

 

[garyd]

Both the Cato Institute and Heritage have studied this as Has Brookings.

The facts are really simple. If you sponsor and cause an over night increase in Mr. Business man's cost of doing business he only has four ways in which he can attempt to offset that increase in cost. !st he can take a cost of lifestyle hit but there is only so much he can cut there. He can't change his mortgage payment at whim, or his car payment or his insurance costs so he goes out to eat less, and of course the one who chiefly suffers from this are the waiters and waitresses and owners at the upscale restaurants he favors, or he can cut his own grass so his yard service company lays off workers.

2nd he can reduce his number of investments, this of course drives down stock market prices reduces start ups and causes more under capitalized businesses to fail all of which cost jobs or prevent the formation of new Jobs.

3rd He can raise his prices which he can likely get away with since all his competitors face the same increase in costs as he.

4th he can lay off some workers and work those remaining longer hours in hopes of producing the same quality and quantity of product as before. This obviously neans fewer Jobs.

Now the likelihood is that Mr. Businessman will almost certainly do in part almost all of these things. But the result will be fewer Jobs meaning a stagnation of wages in general less investment and over all a smaller economy.

 

[Shadow]

And creating more wealth is bad because....?

Creating wealth is good. Now show me where the people that have created the present situation have created more wealth? In fact, it seems that they have been paid billions to vastly reduce the wealth in this nation. They are, in fact, parasites. Sucking the life's blood out of the system and adding nothing good to it.

Much like the Dems in congress like Dodd,Frank,Kerry et al.. who kept getting rich at the tax payers expence with pay off's from the very people and corporations you now call "parasites", all the while keeping these Ceo's in power. And yet you dems elected them all again...curious indeed. Some of the enablers even now serve with the Obama administration (see the current tax doger in charge of the IRS). Please tell me again how much you reallycare about this corruption.....I think you are just full of faux outrage..

 

[Annie]

If all jobs are paid a living wage the evidence is that their will be fewer Jobs dozens of studies have pretty much proven that beyond a reasonable doubt.

Why Gary? And what is the evidence? Have we ever done this before, or has another country done this before and failed? I don't really know....

Care

Cities have, from a 1999 article:

The Living-wage Movement: Good Social Policy or Self-defeating? - Knowledge@Wharton

The Living-wage Movement: Good Social Policy or Self-defeating?
Published: November 10, 1999 in Knowledge@Wharton

...The living-wage movement is too new for any dependable studies, says Inman, but an excellent parallel is Philadelphia's wage tax, which he has analyzed extensively. [Residents of Philadelphia currently pay a 4.61% wage tax]. "Since workers have the option of living and working outside Philadelphia, firms within the city have to raise their wages to compensate for this higher tax. So in the end it's the same thing as mandating a 5% increase in wages. The consequence has been that more than half of Philadelphia's total job loss – 150,000 jobs - can be attributed to the wage tax.

"The minimum wage [and the living wage] are targeted to the low end of job distribution, the semi-skilled and unskilled laborers in industries like warehousing, security, food services and transportation," Inman adds. "You increase it and those jobs are gone. Companies will leave the city. Knowledge firms, ranging from pharmaceuticals to law offices to medical practices, have a reason to locate in an urban area. Low-skilled manufacturing firms don't."...

...The first living wage ordinance was passed in Baltimore in 1994. Firms holding service contracts with the city were required to pay a minimum of $6.10 an hour, rising to $7.70 as of July 1998. Since then living-wage laws have passed in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Milwaukee, Jersey City, Durham, Portland, Ore., and San Jose, to name a few. In almost all these municipalities, the laws are targeted to private firms that contract with the city. Proposals for a living wage that would have applied to all workers in a municipality, regardless of who their employer is, were defeated in Denver and Houston.

Proponents of the living-wage movement at the municipal level see their strategy as a effective tactic for fighting the trend toward "outsourcing-contracting out government services to private firms. Because private contractors pay lower wages and offer fewer benefits, outsourcing saves cities money by driving down the living standards of workers," Pollin notes in a November 23, 1998 article in the Nation magazine. "In Chicago, the outsourcing of public sector jobs from 1989 to 1995 meant income losses of between 25% and 49% for watchmen, elevator operators, cashiers, parking attendants, security guards and custodians whose jobs were privatized. Forcing private firms with city contracts to payl iving wages at least weakens the incentive for cities to achieve budget cuts on the backs of their workers."

Many of the arguments in favor of a living wage can be found in Pollin's book, in which he and colleague Stephanie Luce conduct an in-depth analysis of the cost of the Los Angeles living wage ordinance. That particular law affects employees of three types of private businesses: those holding city service contracts of more than $25,000; concessionaires on city property such as the Los Angeles Airport (LAX), and firms receiving city subsidies of more than $1 million.

"I don't support raising the minimum wage indefinitely," Pollin says. "But I am in favor of a higher minimum wage and a more equal distribution of income."

Chicago has been getting around the 'living wage' by outsourcing, as stated in the article, at an accelerating rate. Indeed, he's encouraging Obama to do the same runaround with the Fed assets:

Daley to Obama: 'Think outside the box' :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Politics

Daley to Obama: 'Think outside the box'

January 22, 2009
BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter
Mayor Daley has already unloaded four of Chicago’s most valuable assets for a $6 billion mountain of cash amid concern he is mortgaging the city’s future.

Now, he wants President Obama to follow Chicago’s lead.

After returning from what he called “emotional” inauguration festivities in Washington, Daley urged the new president to “think outside the box.”

“If they start leasing public assets — every city, every county, every state and the federal government — you would not have to raise any taxes whatsoever. You would have more infrastructure money that way than any other way in the nation,” Daley said.

“But, that is thinking outside the box and very few governments ever, ever think outside the box.”

Pressed to pinpoint federal assets that could be turned into money-makers, Daley demurred, apparently unwilling to put Obama in a political box.

But, he did flesh out a concept he claimed could reverse wave after wave of Wall Street layoffs.

“They’re not gonna raise the gasoline tax. So, how do you get more and more money for infrastructure? One way is to have an oversight board by the federal government dealing with leasing — both in the city, county and state and, of course, the federal government,” Daley said.

“Just our deal alone at Midway Airport, we had to hire Blair & Co. Every bidder had to hire financial people. You would put all the financial people back to work for the next 10 or 15 years” if you started leasing assets at all levels.

Privatizing federal assets wasn't the only public piece of advice the mayor had to offer to Obama....

 

[Care4all]

Annie,

on the wage tax, i truly do not think it does compare...only because they are being taxed and not getting anything in return for the tax in the way of increased production for the higher wages, which should also be taken in to consideration.

meaning, that this can't be taken as a true test for paying a person a living wage....there are things not calculated in just an added tax pretending to be what a living wage scenario would be like...

As example, with a person or a worker that the employer has to pay more for, he may require more productivity out of the one person, so to compensate for the wage, and the person making the living wage may be ever grateful, have less financial worries at home and naturally produce more while at work just on his own lower stress level...he'd be whistling while he worked....happy workers produce more type thing.

While an increased tax mocking an increased wage of a worker doesn't give the same opportunity, in my opinion...ya know?

 

[Annie]

Annie,

on the wage tax, i truly do not think it does compare...only because they are being taxed and not getting anything in return for the tax in the way of increased production for the higher wages, which should also be taken in to consideration.

meaning, that this can't be taken as a true test for paying a person a living wage....there are things not calculated in just an added tax pretending to be what a living wage scenario would be like...

As example, with a person or a worker that the employee has to pay more for, he may require more productivity out of the one person, so to compensate for the wage, and the person making the living wage may be ever grateful, have less financial worries at home and naturally produce more while at work just on his own lower stress level...he'd be whistling while he worked....happy workers produce more type thing.

While an increased tax mocking and increased wage of a worker doesn't give the same opportunity, in my opinion...ya know?

Care, I was only addressing the 'living wage' aspect. It costs jobs from what can be inferred from where honestly tried. Not only that, since it's cities that have required it of companies working for them, they get around it, (at least in Chicago), by outsourcing those firms who have skilled workers, to contract with said firms. Now Chicago is going further, selling off its assets. Not good for the long term, but I expect to see that money used to prettify the city/lakefront even more, in anticipation of 2016 Olympics.

 

[Againsheila]

If all jobs are paid a living wage the evidence is that their will be fewer Jobs dozens of studies have pretty much proven that beyond a reasonable doubt.

1) The last several times the minimum wage was increased, there was no net loss of jobs.

2) Send all the illegals home and decrease legal immigration to a manageable number....problem solved.

 

[KittenKoder]

If all jobs are paid a living wage the evidence is that their will be fewer Jobs dozens of studies have pretty much proven that beyond a reasonable doubt.

1) The last several times the minimum wage was increased, there was no net loss of jobs.

2) Send all the illegals home and decrease legal immigration to a manageable number....problem solved.

Um ... hourly jobs suffered. Hours were lost so yeah, no job loss but their wages WERE lost. Increasing minimum wage has only proven to harm the economy as a whole. The classes need to be closed but there has to be a better way.

Another effect of raising minimum wages that people often ignore, companies then have to increase their prices to pay for that increase if they don't cut the hours of the employees, so an unbalanced shift in cost of living does occur. If you were paying 10% of your income (say $300 just to make it easy) in food. They give you a 5% increase in your wages to $315. In reflection of this increase they raise the cost of the food by the same percentages to pay for that increase making it cost $31.50 ... which is STILL 10% of your income. You go nowhere, thus if you WERE struggling you, you are STILL struggling. Then because of the extra fees the company has to pay across the board they cut your hours to help make the difference so that you are now earning 10% less, bringing you back down to $300, but you are still paying the extra 10% in food so now you are paying 10.5% in food. Follow the trend over a few increases and you can see what happens.

 

[Chris]

The minimum wage should be raised.

It doesn't have to be a living wage, but it shouldn't be slave labor either.

 

[KittenKoder]

The minimum wage should be raised.

It doesn't have to be a living wage, but it shouldn't be slave labor either.

It was a living wage ... back when it was 2.50 and a soda pop cost a nickel ... now it's 8.50 (last I checked) and a soda pop will cost you 2.00.

 

[Annie]

The minimum wage should be raised.

It doesn't have to be a living wage, but it shouldn't be slave labor either.

If not raised to a 'living wage', what is the point? Oh, might be a 14-16 year old and that is more than enough? The reason it's called minimum? Pretty high already.

With that said, I paid baby sitters $8 per hour back in 1980's-90's. I had 3 kids and they weren't the easiest. Wanted to make sure if I called, they'd sit. It worked. Most babysitters were making less than $5 an hour back then.

 

[Bern80]

The minimum wage should be raised.

It doesn't have to be a living wage, but it shouldn't be slave labor either.

It isn't slave labor. If it was slave labor you wouldn't have the option of doing anything else. Of course people like yourself, will always jump at the chance to claim victim status first