CDZ Welfare vs Charity

[oldsoul]

So, you would be willing to spend 2-3 times as much for your Big Mac then right? And for your groceries, car, gas, home, utilities, entertainment, etc., etc.
Raising the minimum wage only kicks the can down the road. How about a real solution for a change?

You would actually have more money in your pocket to buy that Big Mac. Increasing the minimum wage will reduce the tax burden as we will not be subsidising low wage employers.

Then why didn't it work in Venezuela, Greece, or even in the US in 2007 to 2009? We drastically increased the minimum wage in 2007. Why are people even talking about increasing the minimum wage, after a massive increase?

It doesn't work. Never has. Never will.

We've got several nobel laureates, you've got your own rote assertions backed up by nothing. But you do you, buddy!

I find it quite amusing when people put up the Nobel Prize (for anything) as some proof that the person has accomplished something. It has become no more than a political back scratcher.

Right, Nobel laureates are all morons because you're mad that Barack Obama got one.

Not all Nobel Prizes are created equally. Some are not even awarded in the same country.

Never said they are morons, I simply said the prize has become meaningless. And not just because the "Messiah" got one for doing, literally, nothing.

 

[oldsoul]

That is an easily disproven lie. Managers do not start at the bottom of the employed pool of man power.

Flat out lie. I was once in management, left 'cause I couldn't stand it, and I started out at the bottom. I know, or knew, literally hundreds more like me. Any more lies I can dispel for you?

"Anecdotes" is plural for bullshit.

Really? That's the best you can come up with?

 

[GaryDog]

You would actually have more money in your pocket to buy that Big Mac. Increasing the minimum wage will reduce the tax burden as we will not be subsidising low wage employers.

Then why didn't it work in Venezuela, Greece, or even in the US in 2007 to 2009? We drastically increased the minimum wage in 2007. Why are people even talking about increasing the minimum wage, after a massive increase?

It doesn't work. Never has. Never will.

We've got several nobel laureates, you've got your own rote assertions backed up by nothing. But you do you, buddy!

I find it quite amusing when people put up the Nobel Prize (for anything) as some proof that the person has accomplished something. It has become no more than a political back scratcher.

Right, Nobel laureates are all morons because you're mad that Barack Obama got one.

Not all Nobel Prizes are created equally. Some are not even awarded in the same country.

Never said they are morons, I simply said the prize has become meaningless. And not just because the "Messiah" got one for doing, literally, nothing.

Yeah, I figured it was the Obama thing that stuck in your craw. I'm pretty sure if Obama suddenly became interested in guns, you right-wing loons would disavow the 2nd Amendment.

I guess the Afghan girl who was shot in the face and continues to seek educational opportunities for women in the middle east would love to hear that her award is meaningless.

 

[GaryDog]

That is an easily disproven lie. Managers do not start at the bottom of the employed pool of man power.

Flat out lie. I was once in management, left 'cause I couldn't stand it, and I started out at the bottom. I know, or knew, literally hundreds more like me. Any more lies I can dispel for you?

"Anecdotes" is plural for bullshit.

Really? That's the best you can come up with?

It should be self-explanatory. Just because you or people you know do certain things or have certain traits doesn't mean that those traits or actions are common. Empirical data is better. And empirical data states that managers more frequently do not start at the bottom.

 

[oldsoul]

That is an easily disproven lie. Managers do not start at the bottom of the employed pool of man power.

Flat out lie. I was once in management, left 'cause I couldn't stand it, and I started out at the bottom. I know, or knew, literally hundreds more like me. Any more lies I can dispel for you?

"Anecdotes" is plural for bullshit.

Really? That's the best you can come up with?

It should be self-explanatory. Just because you or people you know do certain things or have certain traits doesn't mean that those traits or actions are common. Empirical data is better. And empirical data states that managers more frequently do not start at the bottom.

 

[Andylusion]

Then why didn't it work in Venezuela, Greece, or even in the US in 2007 to 2009? We drastically increased the minimum wage in 2007. Why are people even talking about increasing the minimum wage, after a massive increase?

It doesn't work. Never has. Never will.

We've got several nobel laureates, you've got your own rote assertions backed up by nothing. But you do you, buddy!

Venezuela had economists too. So did Greece. So did those that supported the minimum wage hike in 2007. In fact, so did the Obama Stimulus package.

Want to know the common thread for all of them? They were all wrong.

But you do you.... and screw over everyone in the process. Facts are less important, than having Nobel medal... right?

Are you saying a minimum wage hike caused the financial meltdown of 08, and subsequent Recession?

Or are you just being thoroughly intellectually dishonest about the events surrounding that time period?

First, it always amazes me, how we have said for decades that the minimum wage causes job losses, and then when it happen, just as we say it will happen, every single time you claim that "but it was due to something else".

Did we say that the entire financial melt down was due exclusively to one economic policy? No. I don't know anyone anywhere that has suggest this.

But was it a contributing factor? Yes. Can you prove it wasn't?

Second, even if we put that argument aside, the fact is your side claims routinely, and even in this thread, that with a hike in the minimum wage the economy will boom. That people will have prosperity and higher wages, and economic growth, and so on.

Your side has made this claim hundreds on hundreds of times. Not ONE TIME......... NOT EVEN ONCE..... has that actually happened.

People were screaming that $5.25 was too law in the 1990s. In the 2000s, you said if only we can bump it up to $7.25. Now it's $7.25, and you are claiming it needs to be $10 or $15. Every single time the minimum wage goes up, the only result is that you claim it's not enough, and it needs to be higher, and people are on starvation wages.

So most rational people, look at the two sides, and what they claim the result of hiking the minimum wage will be.... and notice that your claims of Utopia have never come true, and our claims of job loss have always come true.... And quite frankly, for a person to assume that obviously the people who have been wrong every single time, are still right because "well it was something else that caused the problem".... is insane.

Did you not notices that the majority of job losses throughout the great recession, were at the lowest income level, which would be affected by minimum wage laws, rather than the high income level that would be affected by a financial melt down?

Please explain the mechanics of how a international bank losing money a Mortgage Backed Security, would magically cause high school students at McDonalds to lose their jobs? I'd love to hear your theory on how that worked.

So what you are really saying is that Macs/Wal mart/whoever have a business model that cant work without all of us subsidising it with public handouts ?

Perhaps we would be better off without them. Other companies would come in and fill the void.

Or perhaps they would settle for a little less profit.

First, their business model would work, with or without, handouts.

Second, the myth that we are subsidize walmart is just that. It's a myth. Not true.

Third, if you removed Walmart, the other companies would in fact fill the void.... with the exact same wages, and business model.

The fundamental laws of economics, don't magically change because you eliminate a company. Under the same economic system, you will have the same economic results. This doesn't magically change because you banned Walmart or something.

Fourth and finally, no, they are not going to settle for a little less profit.

Not going to happen. Never has in the history of the world, and it's not going to happen today.

There is a couple of things, that I think people like you either don't know, or don't consider.

When you say that Walmart earned $10 Billion, that is Walmart Corporate. Not individual stores. Each store, is run as a separate business. Same with McDonald and Wendy's and so on. Each store has it's own revenue, it's own expenses, and it's own profit margin. Each one pays it's own employees, with it's own revenue from sales.

What's my point? Corporate might have some money, but that doesn't mean the store has money. Corporations do not subsidize stores. If you have to pay the store money, to keep that store open, then the corporation would have more profits closing the store.

So the rule is, the store has to make or break, on it's own. Therefore, if your store doesn't have the money to pay works $15/hr..... then it can't.

And while you think that somehow Walmart has endless cash to pay employees, I think fail to notice that Walmart has one of the slimest profit margins in the industry.

Walmarts profit margin was just 2.6%, with an average of only 3.3%.

That means that for every $100 of goods sold, Walmart makes a profit of just $3.00. Three dollars. And you think they can afford to just give everyone a massive raise? Not a chance.

 

[oldsoul]

Then why didn't it work in Venezuela, Greece, or even in the US in 2007 to 2009? We drastically increased the minimum wage in 2007. Why are people even talking about increasing the minimum wage, after a massive increase?

It doesn't work. Never has. Never will.

We've got several nobel laureates, you've got your own rote assertions backed up by nothing. But you do you, buddy!

I find it quite amusing when people put up the Nobel Prize (for anything) as some proof that the person has accomplished something. It has become no more than a political back scratcher.

Right, Nobel laureates are all morons because you're mad that Barack Obama got one.

Not all Nobel Prizes are created equally. Some are not even awarded in the same country.

Never said they are morons, I simply said the prize has become meaningless. And not just because the "Messiah" got one for doing, literally, nothing.

Yeah, I figured it was the Obama thing that stuck in your craw. I'm pretty sure if Obama suddenly became interested in guns, you right-wing loons would disavow the 2nd Amendment.

I guess the Afghan girl who was shot in the face and continues to seek educational opportunities for women in the middle east would love to hear that her award is meaningless.

First of all, The Obama thing was just an example. No, I would continue to support the 2nd, if Obama somehow saw the error in his thinking, But of course that will never happen.

I, in no way, have EVER discounted the accomplishments of ANY winner. I am simply saying the prize has become nothing more than a political backscratcher. That in no way takes away from the fortitude of Malala Yousafzai. I think we can ALL learn something from her.

Just a curiosity, Did you know her name? Or is she just "the Afghan girl"?

 

[Andylusion]

That is an easily disproven lie. Managers do not start at the bottom of the employed pool of man power.

Flat out lie. I was once in management, left 'cause I couldn't stand it, and I started out at the bottom. I know, or knew, literally hundreds more like me. Any more lies I can dispel for you?

"Anecdotes" is plural for bullshit.

Really? That's the best you can come up with?

It should be self-explanatory. Just because you or people you know do certain things or have certain traits doesn't mean that those traits or actions are common. Empirical data is better. And empirical data states that managers more frequently do not start at the bottom.

Yes they do! Good grief. The empirical data does not show managers start at the top. Never has. McDonald own statistics show that 3/4th of all Store Managers, started off as hourly crew. I just listed a dozen example of people who started off at the bottom.

When I was working fast food *ALL* the managers started off as hourly crew. ALL OF THEM. No exceptions! That's 30 people or more. Not one was hired on in upper management to start.

Even my boss at advanced auto parts. He was ex-military, with several years in management. He was applying to be district manager. They wouldn't do it. They required that he work as hourly crew, and then store manager, at a retail store for 2 years, before they allowed him to move up to district manager.

In fact 75% of all Walmart managers, including store managers, started off as hourly employees.

You people just make up crap.

 

[GaryDog]

We've got several nobel laureates, you've got your own rote assertions backed up by nothing. But you do you, buddy!

I find it quite amusing when people put up the Nobel Prize (for anything) as some proof that the person has accomplished something. It has become no more than a political back scratcher.

Right, Nobel laureates are all morons because you're mad that Barack Obama got one.

Not all Nobel Prizes are created equally. Some are not even awarded in the same country.

Never said they are morons, I simply said the prize has become meaningless. And not just because the "Messiah" got one for doing, literally, nothing.

Yeah, I figured it was the Obama thing that stuck in your craw. I'm pretty sure if Obama suddenly became interested in guns, you right-wing loons would disavow the 2nd Amendment.

I guess the Afghan girl who was shot in the face and continues to seek educational opportunities for women in the middle east would love to hear that her award is meaningless.

First of all, The Obama thing was just an example. No, I would continue to support the 2nd, if Obama somehow saw the error in his thinking, But of course that will never happen.

I, in no way, have EVER discounted the accomplishments of ANY winner. I am simply saying the prize has become nothing more than a political backscratcher. That in no way takes away from the fortitude of Malala Yousafzai. I think we can ALL learn something from her.

Just a curiosity, Did you know her name? Or is she just "the Afghan girl"?

Didn't know her name, sorry. But hey, she's a nobel winner, so she can't be that memorable, right?

 

[GaryDog]

That is an easily disproven lie. Managers do not start at the bottom of the employed pool of man power.

Flat out lie. I was once in management, left 'cause I couldn't stand it, and I started out at the bottom. I know, or knew, literally hundreds more like me. Any more lies I can dispel for you?

"Anecdotes" is plural for bullshit.

Really? That's the best you can come up with?

It should be self-explanatory. Just because you or people you know do certain things or have certain traits doesn't mean that those traits or actions are common. Empirical data is better. And empirical data states that managers more frequently do not start at the bottom.

Yes they do! Good grief. The empirical data does not show managers start at the top. Never has. McDonald own statistics show that 3/4th of all Store Managers, started off as hourly crew. I just listed a dozen example of people who started off at the bottom.

When I was working fast food *ALL* the managers started off as hourly crew. ALL OF THEM. No exceptions! That's 30 people or more. Not one was hired on in upper management to start.

Even my boss at advanced auto parts. He was ex-military, with several years in management. He was applying to be district manager. They wouldn't do it. They required that he work as hourly crew, and then store manager, at a retail store for 2 years, before they allowed him to move up to district manager.

In fact 75% of all Walmart managers, including store managers, started off as hourly employees.

You people just make up crap.

lmao and you pick three companies out of the thousands of businesses in the country and expect that to stand for them all. PUH-LEASE stop posting awhile.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

We've got several nobel laureates, you've got your own rote assertions backed up by nothing. But you do you, buddy!

Venezuela had economists too. So did Greece. So did those that supported the minimum wage hike in 2007. In fact, so did the Obama Stimulus package.

Want to know the common thread for all of them? They were all wrong.

But you do you.... and screw over everyone in the process. Facts are less important, than having Nobel medal... right?

Are you saying a minimum wage hike caused the financial meltdown of 08, and subsequent Recession?

Or are you just being thoroughly intellectually dishonest about the events surrounding that time period?

First, it always amazes me, how we have said for decades that the minimum wage causes job losses, and then when it happen, just as we say it will happen, every single time you claim that "but it was due to something else".

Did we say that the entire financial melt down was due exclusively to one economic policy? No. I don't know anyone anywhere that has suggest this.

But was it a contributing factor? Yes. Can you prove it wasn't?

Second, even if we put that argument aside, the fact is your side claims routinely, and even in this thread, that with a hike in the minimum wage the economy will boom. That people will have prosperity and higher wages, and economic growth, and so on.

Your side has made this claim hundreds on hundreds of times. Not ONE TIME......... NOT EVEN ONCE..... has that actually happened.

People were screaming that $5.25 was too law in the 1990s. In the 2000s, you said if only we can bump it up to $7.25. Now it's $7.25, and you are claiming it needs to be $10 or $15. Every single time the minimum wage goes up, the only result is that you claim it's not enough, and it needs to be higher, and people are on starvation wages.

So most rational people, look at the two sides, and what they claim the result of hiking the minimum wage will be.... and notice that your claims of Utopia have never come true, and our claims of job loss have always come true.... And quite frankly, for a person to assume that obviously the people who have been wrong every single time, are still right because "well it was something else that caused the problem".... is insane.

Did you not notices that the majority of job losses throughout the great recession, were at the lowest income level, which would be affected by minimum wage laws, rather than the high income level that would be affected by a financial melt down?

Please explain the mechanics of how a international bank losing money a Mortgage Backed Security, would magically cause high school students at McDonalds to lose their jobs? I'd love to hear your theory on how that worked.

So what you are really saying is that Macs/Wal mart/whoever have a business model that cant work without all of us subsidising it with public handouts ?

Perhaps we would be better off without them. Other companies would come in and fill the void.

Or perhaps they would settle for a little less profit.

First, their business model would work, with or without, handouts.

Second, the myth that we are subsidize walmart is just that. It's a myth. Not true.

Third, if you removed Walmart, the other companies would in fact fill the void.... with the exact same wages, and business model.

The fundamental laws of economics, don't magically change because you eliminate a company. Under the same economic system, you will have the same economic results. This doesn't magically change because you banned Walmart or something.

Fourth and finally, no, they are not going to settle for a little less profit.

Not going to happen. Never has in the history of the world, and it's not going to happen today.

There is a couple of things, that I think people like you either don't know, or don't consider.

When you say that Walmart earned $10 Billion, that is Walmart Corporate. Not individual stores. Each store, is run as a separate business. Same with McDonald and Wendy's and so on. Each store has it's own revenue, it's own expenses, and it's own profit margin. Each one pays it's own employees, with it's own revenue from sales.

What's my point? Corporate might have some money, but that doesn't mean the store has money. Corporations do not subsidize stores. If you have to pay the store money, to keep that store open, then the corporation would have more profits closing the store.

So the rule is, the store has to make or break, on it's own. Therefore, if your store doesn't have the money to pay works $15/hr..... then it can't.

And while you think that somehow Walmart has endless cash to pay employees, I think fail to notice that Walmart has one of the slimest profit margins in the industry.

Walmarts profit margin was just 2.6%, with an average of only 3.3%.

That means that for every $100 of goods sold, Walmart makes a profit of just $3.00. Three dollars. And you think they can afford to just give everyone a massive raise? Not a chance.

People like me ?

Really ?

Corporations always bitch about everything that affects their bottom line. But faced with a problem they just adapt. That would be a mix of raising prices and cutting other expenditure.

The benefits to the economy would be considerable.Poor people spend all their income, they dont stash it away in Panama.

Lower welfare means reduced taxation means greater consumer spending. Its a virtuous circle that would ultimately benefit the likes of WalMart.

 

[Andylusion]

Flat out lie. I was once in management, left 'cause I couldn't stand it, and I started out at the bottom. I know, or knew, literally hundreds more like me. Any more lies I can dispel for you?

"Anecdotes" is plural for bullshit.

Really? That's the best you can come up with?

It should be self-explanatory. Just because you or people you know do certain things or have certain traits doesn't mean that those traits or actions are common. Empirical data is better. And empirical data states that managers more frequently do not start at the bottom.

Yes they do! Good grief. The empirical data does not show managers start at the top. Never has. McDonald own statistics show that 3/4th of all Store Managers, started off as hourly crew. I just listed a dozen example of people who started off at the bottom.

When I was working fast food *ALL* the managers started off as hourly crew. ALL OF THEM. No exceptions! That's 30 people or more. Not one was hired on in upper management to start.

Even my boss at advanced auto parts. He was ex-military, with several years in management. He was applying to be district manager. They wouldn't do it. They required that he work as hourly crew, and then store manager, at a retail store for 2 years, before they allowed him to move up to district manager.

In fact 75% of all Walmart managers, including store managers, started off as hourly employees.

You people just make up crap.

lmao and you pick three companies out of the thousands of businesses in the country and expect that to stand for them all. PUH-LEASE stop posting awhile.

I can go on. I can list dozens of companies. Here's the difference between you and me. I have posted several facts that support my position, and you have posted nothing but hearsay and a weak attempt at sarcasm.

 

[oldsoul]

A few points of data:
Walmart's profit margin 2.66%
Nordstrom Gross Profit Margin (Quarterly) (JWN)
3M's profit margin 17.21%
3M Profit Margin (Quarterly) (MMM)
GM's profit margin 5.24%
Nordstrom's profit margin 35.36%
Nordstrom Gross Profit Margin (Quarterly) (JWN)
McDonald's profit margin 18.61% (corporate, not stores)
McDonald's Profit Margin (Quarterly) (MCD)
Renewable Energy Group's profit margin 0.54%
Renewable Energy Group Profit Margin (Quarterly) (REGI)
And yet no one wants to talk about how Nordstrom's or 3M should pay their people more. And no call for wage cuts on Green Energy Group to make them more profitable. Why is Mcdonald's and Walmart the enemy here?

 

[Andylusion]

Venezuela had economists too. So did Greece. So did those that supported the minimum wage hike in 2007. In fact, so did the Obama Stimulus package.

Want to know the common thread for all of them? They were all wrong.

But you do you.... and screw over everyone in the process. Facts are less important, than having Nobel medal... right?

Are you saying a minimum wage hike caused the financial meltdown of 08, and subsequent Recession?

Or are you just being thoroughly intellectually dishonest about the events surrounding that time period?

First, it always amazes me, how we have said for decades that the minimum wage causes job losses, and then when it happen, just as we say it will happen, every single time you claim that "but it was due to something else".

Did we say that the entire financial melt down was due exclusively to one economic policy? No. I don't know anyone anywhere that has suggest this.

But was it a contributing factor? Yes. Can you prove it wasn't?

Second, even if we put that argument aside, the fact is your side claims routinely, and even in this thread, that with a hike in the minimum wage the economy will boom. That people will have prosperity and higher wages, and economic growth, and so on.

Your side has made this claim hundreds on hundreds of times. Not ONE TIME......... NOT EVEN ONCE..... has that actually happened.

People were screaming that $5.25 was too law in the 1990s. In the 2000s, you said if only we can bump it up to $7.25. Now it's $7.25, and you are claiming it needs to be $10 or $15. Every single time the minimum wage goes up, the only result is that you claim it's not enough, and it needs to be higher, and people are on starvation wages.

So most rational people, look at the two sides, and what they claim the result of hiking the minimum wage will be.... and notice that your claims of Utopia have never come true, and our claims of job loss have always come true.... And quite frankly, for a person to assume that obviously the people who have been wrong every single time, are still right because "well it was something else that caused the problem".... is insane.

Did you not notices that the majority of job losses throughout the great recession, were at the lowest income level, which would be affected by minimum wage laws, rather than the high income level that would be affected by a financial melt down?

Please explain the mechanics of how a international bank losing money a Mortgage Backed Security, would magically cause high school students at McDonalds to lose their jobs? I'd love to hear your theory on how that worked.

So what you are really saying is that Macs/Wal mart/whoever have a business model that cant work without all of us subsidising it with public handouts ?

Perhaps we would be better off without them. Other companies would come in and fill the void.

Or perhaps they would settle for a little less profit.

First, their business model would work, with or without, handouts.

Second, the myth that we are subsidize walmart is just that. It's a myth. Not true.

Third, if you removed Walmart, the other companies would in fact fill the void.... with the exact same wages, and business model.

The fundamental laws of economics, don't magically change because you eliminate a company. Under the same economic system, you will have the same economic results. This doesn't magically change because you banned Walmart or something.

Fourth and finally, no, they are not going to settle for a little less profit.

Not going to happen. Never has in the history of the world, and it's not going to happen today.

There is a couple of things, that I think people like you either don't know, or don't consider.

When you say that Walmart earned $10 Billion, that is Walmart Corporate. Not individual stores. Each store, is run as a separate business. Same with McDonald and Wendy's and so on. Each store has it's own revenue, it's own expenses, and it's own profit margin. Each one pays it's own employees, with it's own revenue from sales.

What's my point? Corporate might have some money, but that doesn't mean the store has money. Corporations do not subsidize stores. If you have to pay the store money, to keep that store open, then the corporation would have more profits closing the store.

So the rule is, the store has to make or break, on it's own. Therefore, if your store doesn't have the money to pay works $15/hr..... then it can't.

And while you think that somehow Walmart has endless cash to pay employees, I think fail to notice that Walmart has one of the slimest profit margins in the industry.

Walmarts profit margin was just 2.6%, with an average of only 3.3%.

That means that for every $100 of goods sold, Walmart makes a profit of just $3.00. Three dollars. And you think they can afford to just give everyone a massive raise? Not a chance.

People like me ?

Really ?

Corporations always bitch about everything that affects their bottom line. But faced with a problem they just adapt. That would be a mix of raising prices and cutting other expenditure.

The benefits to the economy would be considerable.Poor people spend all their income, they dont stash it away in Panama.

Lower welfare means reduced taxation means greater consumer spending. Its a virtuous circle that would ultimately benefit the likes of WalMart.

Yeah, and they will adapt. I haven't seen one yet adapt by cutting profit. They usually cut people.

I was working McDonald's in the 1990s, when they increased the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.25.

First thing they did was lay off 3 part time employees, and hire one full time employee. Why? Full time employees are automatically paid more than part time. When the minimum wage went up, both were paid the same, so they fired the part time people and replaced them with one full time person.

Now you might ask how one person can do the work of three. The answer is they didn't. We, the rest of the crew, had to work harder and take up more duties, to make up for fewer workers.

The second thing McDonald's did, was cut portion sizes. Customer tend to freak out if you jack up prices really fast. So instead, they cut down portion sizes. The large coke, wasn't as large. The large fry, wasn't as large. The beef patties got thinner. Not smaller around, but not as thick.

So did McDonald's make do with smaller profit? Of course not. No company does.

Instead they made the employees do with more work, and the customers do with smaller portion sizes (which is a price increase).

This is how it works Tommy. You can't magically force companies to "make do" with lower profits. All you can do, is force employees to work more, or customers to pay more.

 

[320 Years of History]

I'm always confused and skeptical of this idea:

They weren't unmotivated, they were just poor and had nobody to show them what to do and how to do it in order to transform their situations from that of needing to be given food and shelter to that of having the opportunity to provide plenty of those things for not only themselves, but others, as well as pursuing their own "higher level" goals.​

Well, if one has no experience observing it, I suppose I can understand that being so. What can I say? The Bible tells us the story of Doubting Thomas. There's a secular lesson to be learned from that story....I'm not asking you to accept remarks such as mine on blind faith, but I am asking you to explore around a bit for evidence that supports ideas that contradict your own anecdotally obtained/supported views and the extent to which your experiences and observations may be exceptional rather than normative.

I don't take exception with your being skeptical. I take exception with your perceiving that your experiences are emblematic of the predominating extancy lived by most folks, in this case, most welfare recipients/dependents.

What exactly does that mean? Because I don't know anyone that was "shown". My parents never "showed" me nothing. They told me I had to work for what I want, and it was up to me...... to work for what I want.

It means all sorts of things, and I'm not going to sit here and list out (or even try to) every darn thing it can mean. I will offer one example from my mentoring experiences, one that has applied to every single kid I've mentored.

Every one of the kids that I came to mentor was upon first meeting me a poor student in middle school. For everyone of them, the first thing I did was teach them how to study. They'd come home with their homework assignments and I'd ask them to show me how they do their homework. Everyone of them went straight to the homework problem/questions and tried to answer them based on what they could remember from class.

I have had to show each of them that they must read the chapter, the whole doggone thing, and then try to answer the homework questions. That's what I "showed" them that their mothers did not show them and their teachers didn't tell them to do. That one thing boosted every kid's homework grades from mediocre or worse to 98% -100%. That's not the only technique I showed them how to apply; I built upon that foundation as the homework assignments grew fewer in number and more important to just do, eventually getting them to the point where they came to see homework not as the thing the teacher tells them to do but as the thing they must do on their own, no matter what the teacher instructs and assigns, to master the material being taught in the course. I showed them that the main difference between homework and classwork is where you do it and who's participating in the doing of it.

Why did I have to show them that? Because nobody else did and they didn't discern to do it on their own. It's nothing more than what my parents showed me to do, but apparently not all parents tell their kids to approach studying that way, presumably because that's now how they approached it, so they don't know to tell their kids to do.

That's just a guess....I'm not too concerned about why "my kids'" mothers or fathers, or neighbors even -- it doesn't really matter who -- didn't tell their kids that and didn't make sure they do it so they can see the benefits of having done it. What I'm concerned with is obtaining results, namely turning them into top performers in school, once they become my mentorees.

Another thing I make a point of showing "my kids" is what sorts of opportunities there are in the world, what sorts of things they can do with their lives if they do what it takes to achieve them, and showing them what it'll take for them to actually achieve them. You'd be amazed perhaps, but again, without exception, "my kids" (unlike my kids who are my blood kin) have no idea how to set goals, how to identify for themselves what goals are worth setting and which are not, and so on. Also, surprise, their parents don't know how to do that either. They know how to "wish on stars," but have no idea of what it takes to get to one or what they need to do to commence getting there. So that's something else I show them how to do.

As a last example, not one of "my kids" understood how to be neither respectfully assertive nor effective communicators. They thought assertive communication meant yelling and swearing and that's what convinces people of one's sincerity; moreover, the words they'd utter didn't often enough reflect the actual thoughts in their heads. There again, that's how their parents dealt with things/people/situations, so that's what their kids learned too. They needed to be shown there are other ways of approaching matters. They needed to learn that resorting to physical action isn't necessarily the best, the first call recourse to pursue, or only way to punish or dissuade misbehavior or to inspire desired behavior by others. But those are the methods they observed their parents/mothers and neighbors using, so it's how they perceived is how it is with everyone.

And therein lies one of the key things about people: one can understand how a child will infer that its own reality is the same as that experienced by "everyone" else. It takes maturity to realize that may or may not be so. Accordingly, it's critical to get kids, ASAP, into a thinking modality whereby they ask, "Is there a different way, and if so, how is it better and worse than the ways I'm very familiar with? Lemme go find out." One must show people how to do that; telling them will never get them them because of the way gleaned omniscience, presumed omnipresence, and believed infallibility work.

All you have to do, to succeed in life, is work. Honestly. That's it. I know people who started off working for McDonalds, that now have their own store. How do you do that? Well, you apply to work at McDonalds. You work. Consistently. You get up in the morning, go to your job, and do your job.

Is there anyone who doesn't grasp that? Anyone that needs to be shown how to "wake up", and shown how to "go to work", and shown how to "do your job"?

Well, for jobs that require little but a warm body, yes, that's generally enough. For other jobs, that's just the "tip of the iceberg." Indeed, if that's all the client service personnel in my firm do, they'll more often than not be "out counseled" within three years or less.

I never was shown any of that. It was pretty obvious from the start. In fact, I haven't done an interview with a company yet that didn't start off with "This is the job you are expected to do, and this is the shift you are expected to do it. This is the pay you will get if you do the job".

It's been quite a while since I went on a job interview, but I've been the interviewer literally hundreds of times. The question I start with is what would you like to do as a consultant? Truly, I have no desire to hire someone who wants to do things my firm doesn't do or who wants to do something my firm doesn't do and that they can't present a solid case for our doing it and letting them lead the effort of our commencing to offer services in that discipline. I only want to hire folks who have an innate entrepreneurial drive to some useful extent and that the firm can nurture to their satisfaction and the firm's.

As go the specific statement and question you mentioned above:

• The job itself: For certain project-specific hirings, we describe the role in very clear terms. For general hiring, we don't have such precise descriptions because part of the job is "find gaps and fill them with innovative and implementable solutions" and the other part is "do what you're asked to do with regard to your project assignment and with regard to internal firm initiatives." For consultants who are technical, like programmers, sure the description is pretty easy to lay out -- "you'll be programming in C++, Pro-C, PL/SQL, ABAP, etc." For business analysts, not so much.
  
• The shift: There is no shift. The work is task oriented. One does what one must to get the job done very well on time.
• The pay and benefits: This is nearly always negotiable within a reasonable range. Sure, we make an initial offer. Some folks counteroffer, others don't.

You and I both know the types of jobs you described and the professional jobs I described are very different. But how is that relevant for the welfare receiving folks who were the context of our conversation? The relevance is that we were talking about the zeal of folks, specifically welfare recipients, who have their basic needs met ceasing to exist once those needs are met. That's hardly what I have observed in my one-time welfare receiving "kids," those of whom have finished college or grad school and gone on to lead highly productive and remunerative lives. And let's be real; they had food, clothing and shelter when I first met them.

And that is literally all that is required. You show up, work, and do a good job. Eventually you'll get promoted. You move up the ladder, and when you get to managment, they'll ask you if you want to join the McDonald management classes. You become a store manager, and work hard, and eventually they give you your own store.

I'm certain in some businesses one will get promoted eventually. In my firm, get promoted is not assured, but not getting promoted is often an indicator that one won't be in the firm much longer, be it by one's own choice or by the firm's.

How do you explain how an uneducated Egyptian can come to the US, start working as a janitor at a hospital, and end up Director of Build Services making six-figures?

How do you explain a poor Jamacian coming here, opens up a food store, and ends a multi-millionaire CEO?

How do you explain Farrah Gray, at 6 years old, with is single mother who had a heart attack, living in object poverty, starts selling things door to door, and eventually ends up multi-millionaire CEO to Farrah Gray Publishing?

How do these people all magically make it with no one to "show" them how?

Explain? How do these poor, uneducated people, come here and become filthy rich... while born and bred Americans somehow are incompetent with a public education and subsidized college, and need to be "shown" how to work and succeed? Is there some super secret government "show immigrants how to succeed" program that we are denying natural citizens?

I suspect you may find some insights here:

• The Most Entrepreneurial Group in America Wasn't Born in America
  
• Think We're the Most Entrepreneurial Country In the World? Not So Fast
  
• Vox Popoli: The decline of entrepreneurship in America
  
• The Economic Case for Welcoming Immigrant Entrepreneurs | Kauffman.org
  
• The Shocking Stats About Who's Really Starting Companies In America

I'm no sociologist or cultural anthropologist. I don't know why Americans would sooner go to work for someone than go into business for themselves. I can only offer that all the Asian foreign students whom I knew in college and high school spoke of either running their fathers' companies or starting their own company in a complementary field. The Brits and Americans spoke of taking jobs working in large corporations. Some of us, like myself, had a sense of what we wanted to do, but weren't sure whether we'd do it for ourselves or join a company that was already doing it.

I don't know what else to say other than that foreigners seem to know innately that "the thing to do" in America is work for oneself, not for someone else, that is unless perhaps one is on a path to the executive offices of a large company. I can say that teaching "my kids" to have and take an entrepreneurial approach to determining what to do with their lives is yet another thing I found myself needing to show them how to do.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Are you saying a minimum wage hike caused the financial meltdown of 08, and subsequent Recession?

Or are you just being thoroughly intellectually dishonest about the events surrounding that time period?

First, it always amazes me, how we have said for decades that the minimum wage causes job losses, and then when it happen, just as we say it will happen, every single time you claim that "but it was due to something else".

Did we say that the entire financial melt down was due exclusively to one economic policy? No. I don't know anyone anywhere that has suggest this.

But was it a contributing factor? Yes. Can you prove it wasn't?

Second, even if we put that argument aside, the fact is your side claims routinely, and even in this thread, that with a hike in the minimum wage the economy will boom. That people will have prosperity and higher wages, and economic growth, and so on.

Your side has made this claim hundreds on hundreds of times. Not ONE TIME......... NOT EVEN ONCE..... has that actually happened.

People were screaming that $5.25 was too law in the 1990s. In the 2000s, you said if only we can bump it up to $7.25. Now it's $7.25, and you are claiming it needs to be $10 or $15. Every single time the minimum wage goes up, the only result is that you claim it's not enough, and it needs to be higher, and people are on starvation wages.

So most rational people, look at the two sides, and what they claim the result of hiking the minimum wage will be.... and notice that your claims of Utopia have never come true, and our claims of job loss have always come true.... And quite frankly, for a person to assume that obviously the people who have been wrong every single time, are still right because "well it was something else that caused the problem".... is insane.

Did you not notices that the majority of job losses throughout the great recession, were at the lowest income level, which would be affected by minimum wage laws, rather than the high income level that would be affected by a financial melt down?

Please explain the mechanics of how a international bank losing money a Mortgage Backed Security, would magically cause high school students at McDonalds to lose their jobs? I'd love to hear your theory on how that worked.

So what you are really saying is that Macs/Wal mart/whoever have a business model that cant work without all of us subsidising it with public handouts ?

Perhaps we would be better off without them. Other companies would come in and fill the void.

Or perhaps they would settle for a little less profit.

First, their business model would work, with or without, handouts.

Second, the myth that we are subsidize walmart is just that. It's a myth. Not true.

Third, if you removed Walmart, the other companies would in fact fill the void.... with the exact same wages, and business model.

The fundamental laws of economics, don't magically change because you eliminate a company. Under the same economic system, you will have the same economic results. This doesn't magically change because you banned Walmart or something.

Fourth and finally, no, they are not going to settle for a little less profit.

Not going to happen. Never has in the history of the world, and it's not going to happen today.

There is a couple of things, that I think people like you either don't know, or don't consider.

When you say that Walmart earned $10 Billion, that is Walmart Corporate. Not individual stores. Each store, is run as a separate business. Same with McDonald and Wendy's and so on. Each store has it's own revenue, it's own expenses, and it's own profit margin. Each one pays it's own employees, with it's own revenue from sales.

What's my point? Corporate might have some money, but that doesn't mean the store has money. Corporations do not subsidize stores. If you have to pay the store money, to keep that store open, then the corporation would have more profits closing the store.

So the rule is, the store has to make or break, on it's own. Therefore, if your store doesn't have the money to pay works $15/hr..... then it can't.

And while you think that somehow Walmart has endless cash to pay employees, I think fail to notice that Walmart has one of the slimest profit margins in the industry.

Walmarts profit margin was just 2.6%, with an average of only 3.3%.

That means that for every $100 of goods sold, Walmart makes a profit of just $3.00. Three dollars. And you think they can afford to just give everyone a massive raise? Not a chance.

People like me ?

Really ?

Corporations always bitch about everything that affects their bottom line. But faced with a problem they just adapt. That would be a mix of raising prices and cutting other expenditure.

The benefits to the economy would be considerable.Poor people spend all their income, they dont stash it away in Panama.

Lower welfare means reduced taxation means greater consumer spending. Its a virtuous circle that would ultimately benefit the likes of WalMart.

Yeah, and they will adapt. I haven't seen one yet adapt by cutting profit. They usually cut people.

I was working McDonald's in the 1990s, when they increased the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.25.

First thing they did was lay off 3 part time employees, and hire one full time employee. Why? Full time employees are automatically paid more than part time. When the minimum wage went up, both were paid the same, so they fired the part time people and replaced them with one full time person.

Now you might ask how one person can do the work of three. The answer is they didn't. We, the rest of the crew, had to work harder and take up more duties, to make up for fewer workers.

The second thing McDonald's did, was cut portion sizes. Customer tend to freak out if you jack up prices really fast. So instead, they cut down portion sizes. The large coke, wasn't as large. The large fry, wasn't as large. The beef patties got thinner. Not smaller around, but not as thick.

So did McDonald's make do with smaller profit? Of course not. No company does.

Instead they made the employees do with more work, and the customers do with smaller portion sizes (which is a price increase).

This is how it works Tommy. You can't magically force companies to "make do" with lower profits. All you can do, is force employees to work more, or customers to pay more.

A supine work force will put up with anything. Portion sizes are too big anyway. Obesity will reduce so that is good. Essentially profits will come under pressure. They always do when something like this happens. I have managed several businesses through this type of thin and at the end of the day the owners accept a lower profit. They still aint starving.

 

[Wyatt earp]

That is an easily disproven lie. Managers do not start at the bottom of the employed pool of man power.

Flat out lie. I was once in management, left 'cause I couldn't stand it, and I started out at the bottom. I know, or knew, literally hundreds more like me. Any more lies I can dispel for you?

"Anecdotes" is plural for bullshit.

Really? That's the best you can come up with?

It should be self-explanatory. Just because you or people you know do certain things or have certain traits doesn't mean that those traits or actions are common. Empirical data is better. And empirical data states that managers more frequently do not start at the bottom.

Walmart owns 100% of it's stores..

McDonald's only own around 10% the rest are owned by mom and pops

 

[320 Years of History]

He had some money saved up, but his budget burned through all of it in a year. But I guess he should have saved more, but how many of us save a years worth of income and keep it available? Some do, but very few.

Sorry about your brother's circumstances. Hopefully they improve.

I don't want to discuss your brother specifically. I want only to say, that I suspect, but don't know, that a lot of folks who earn enough not to have to do so, yet prioritize getting that new car, or that vacation, or that nicer home, or "whatever" over saving up a year's salary. I see it all the time. Countless are newly hired consultants starting their professional lives with $80K/year jobs who shortly after starting hustle out and buy a pricey car and move into a trendy/swanky part of town.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Venezuela had economists too. So did Greece. So did those that supported the minimum wage hike in 2007. In fact, so did the Obama Stimulus package.

Want to know the common thread for all of them? They were all wrong.

But you do you.... and screw over everyone in the process. Facts are less important, than having Nobel medal... right?

Are you saying a minimum wage hike caused the financial meltdown of 08, and subsequent Recession?

Or are you just being thoroughly intellectually dishonest about the events surrounding that time period?

First, it always amazes me, how we have said for decades that the minimum wage causes job losses, and then when it happen, just as we say it will happen, every single time you claim that "but it was due to something else".

Did we say that the entire financial melt down was due exclusively to one economic policy? No. I don't know anyone anywhere that has suggest this.

But was it a contributing factor? Yes. Can you prove it wasn't?

Second, even if we put that argument aside, the fact is your side claims routinely, and even in this thread, that with a hike in the minimum wage the economy will boom. That people will have prosperity and higher wages, and economic growth, and so on.

Your side has made this claim hundreds on hundreds of times. Not ONE TIME......... NOT EVEN ONCE..... has that actually happened.

People were screaming that $5.25 was too law in the 1990s. In the 2000s, you said if only we can bump it up to $7.25. Now it's $7.25, and you are claiming it needs to be $10 or $15. Every single time the minimum wage goes up, the only result is that you claim it's not enough, and it needs to be higher, and people are on starvation wages.

So most rational people, look at the two sides, and what they claim the result of hiking the minimum wage will be.... and notice that your claims of Utopia have never come true, and our claims of job loss have always come true.... And quite frankly, for a person to assume that obviously the people who have been wrong every single time, are still right because "well it was something else that caused the problem".... is insane.

Did you not notices that the majority of job losses throughout the great recession, were at the lowest income level, which would be affected by minimum wage laws, rather than the high income level that would be affected by a financial melt down?

Please explain the mechanics of how a international bank losing money a Mortgage Backed Security, would magically cause high school students at McDonalds to lose their jobs? I'd love to hear your theory on how that worked.

So what you are really saying is that Macs/Wal mart/whoever have a business model that cant work without all of us subsidising it with public handouts ?

Perhaps we would be better off without them. Other companies would come in and fill the void.

Or perhaps they would settle for a little less profit.

First, their business model would work, with or without, handouts.

Second, the myth that we are subsidize walmart is just that. It's a myth. Not true.

Third, if you removed Walmart, the other companies would in fact fill the void.... with the exact same wages, and business model.

The fundamental laws of economics, don't magically change because you eliminate a company. Under the same economic system, you will have the same economic results. This doesn't magically change because you banned Walmart or something.

Fourth and finally, no, they are not going to settle for a little less profit.

Not going to happen. Never has in the history of the world, and it's not going to happen today.

There is a couple of things, that I think people like you either don't know, or don't consider.

When you say that Walmart earned $10 Billion, that is Walmart Corporate. Not individual stores. Each store, is run as a separate business. Same with McDonald and Wendy's and so on. Each store has it's own revenue, it's own expenses, and it's own profit margin. Each one pays it's own employees, with it's own revenue from sales.

What's my point? Corporate might have some money, but that doesn't mean the store has money. Corporations do not subsidize stores. If you have to pay the store money, to keep that store open, then the corporation would have more profits closing the store.

So the rule is, the store has to make or break, on it's own. Therefore, if your store doesn't have the money to pay works $15/hr..... then it can't.

And while you think that somehow Walmart has endless cash to pay employees, I think fail to notice that Walmart has one of the slimest profit margins in the industry.

Walmarts profit margin was just 2.6%, with an average of only 3.3%.

That means that for every $100 of goods sold, Walmart makes a profit of just $3.00. Three dollars. And you think they can afford to just give everyone a massive raise? Not a chance.

People like me ?

Really ?

Corporations always bitch about everything that affects their bottom line. But faced with a problem they just adapt. That would be a mix of raising prices and cutting other expenditure.

The benefits to the economy would be considerable.Poor people spend all their income, they dont stash it away in Panama.

Lower welfare means reduced taxation means greater consumer spending. Its a virtuous circle that would ultimately benefit the likes of WalMart.

Poor people spend all their income, they dont stash it away in Panama.

And you wonder why they are still poor??

 

[GaryDog]

You would actually have more money in your pocket to buy that Big Mac. Increasing the minimum wage will reduce the tax burden as we will not be subsidising low wage employers.

Then why didn't it work in Venezuela, Greece, or even in the US in 2007 to 2009? We drastically increased the minimum wage in 2007. Why are people even talking about increasing the minimum wage, after a massive increase?

It doesn't work. Never has. Never will.

We've got several nobel laureates, you've got your own rote assertions backed up by nothing. But you do you, buddy!

Venezuela had economists too. So did Greece. So did those that supported the minimum wage hike in 2007. In fact, so did the Obama Stimulus package.

Want to know the common thread for all of them? They were all wrong.

But you do you.... and screw over everyone in the process. Facts are less important, than having Nobel medal... right?

Are you saying a minimum wage hike caused the financial meltdown of 08, and subsequent Recession?

Or are you just being thoroughly intellectually dishonest about the events surrounding that time period?

First, it always amazes me, how we have said for decades that the minimum wage causes job losses, and then when it happen, just as we say it will happen, every single time you claim that "but it was due to something else".

Did we say that the entire financial melt down was due exclusively to one economic policy? No. I don't know anyone anywhere that has suggest this.

But was it a contributing factor? Yes. Can you prove it wasn't?

Second, even if we put that argument aside, the fact is your side claims routinely, and even in this thread, that with a hike in the minimum wage the economy will boom. That people will have prosperity and higher wages, and economic growth, and so on.

Your side has made this claim hundreds on hundreds of times. Not ONE TIME......... NOT EVEN ONCE..... has that actually happened.

People were screaming that $5.25 was too law in the 1990s. In the 2000s, you said if only we can bump it up to $7.25. Now it's $7.25, and you are claiming it needs to be $10 or $15. Every single time the minimum wage goes up, the only result is that you claim it's not enough, and it needs to be higher, and people are on starvation wages.

So most rational people, look at the two sides, and what they claim the result of hiking the minimum wage will be.... and notice that your claims of Utopia have never come true, and our claims of job loss have always come true.... And quite frankly, for a person to assume that obviously the people who have been wrong every single time, are still right because "well it was something else that caused the problem".... is insane.

Did you not notices that the majority of job losses throughout the great recession, were at the lowest income level, which would be affected by minimum wage laws, rather than the high income level that would be affected by a financial melt down?

Please explain the mechanics of how a international bank losing money a Mortgage Backed Security, would magically cause high school students at McDonalds to lose their jobs? I'd love to hear your theory on how that worked.

I don't think you understand how burden of proof works. It's a pretty easy assumption to connect the worst financial crisis since 1929 & the Recession to the subsequent unemployment. When you hear hooves pounding the dirt, you typically don't assume "zebra", especially if you're in Wyoming.

Anyway, to answer your question, yes, I CAN prove that raising the minimum wage didn't cause the unemployment. The Recession and job losses didn't really kick in til 2009. The minimum wage was raised in 2007. Moreover, 13 states were unaffected because they already had the higher wage, and each of those states didn't see unemployment numbers drop off prior to the recession.