If minimum wage were raised ...

[beagle9]

Uh oh, now those two posting are the same as I read them back, so maybe you didn't jump it before I edited it.. LOL

 

[OnePercenter]

i guess it is supposed by the government, that all jobs or companies are created equal, and this is regardless of the types of businesses or the various business models that are out there. I think the main thing is to make sure that companies are satisfying a grading system of some sort, that should be set up or created by the government if it wants to be involved like they are wanting always to be, where as this grading system would show that they (the companies being graded or looked at) would have a suitable pay scale system set up that would show that they have an entrance pay, also an annual or performance based raise system intact which is based upon the merit system as it should be, along with a benefit package if can be afforded to the employee's, as well as an exiting strategy, otherwise known as a retirement plan if can be afforded also to it's employee's.

Once these minimum standard requirements are met by those employing more than 25 workers, and no less than 25 workers, then a grade is given for the best pay system set up that is put forward by these individual companies in documentation therefore given to the government grading system, and this in regards to their employee's and how they are being treated in each company that voluntarily participates in the program. Then the grades would determine the awards or subsidies that are to be given by the feds, and this whether it be in perks for being a great company, having a great owner(s) for whom will promote such things as these that are mentioned above. The only reason for the government getting involved in a blanket minimum wage campaign, is to possibly redistribute wealth in which it feels has been held back by the greedy, and therefore causing some serious ripples in the overall economy because of, and especially on the consumerism side of the equation. Now once the government makes it's move if it thinks that this is what happened, then it should follow up with the grading system as so not to have to continue to become involved in such moves again or in the near future.

I say let's give them a raise this time on the blanket scale, and then begin the grading system from here on out. The feds might never have to be involved it such things again, as the embarrassment of a company not doing right by it's employee's, would be known, as well as the company cutting itself out of the awards and perks in which it could get by doing the right thing to the best of it's ability. Now for the companies that opt out of the awards program, well who would want to work for them ? So it would probably be best to stay clear of them if at all possible. Just ideas yall, so hash over them and then think about other answers to these things if you have some good answers or ideas also

all businesses and jobs are fundamentally the same.

huh ?

Again, all businesses and jobs are fundamentally the same.

Name two of each and I'll show you.

 

[SwimExpert]

all businesses and jobs are fundamentally the same.

huh ?

Again, all businesses and jobs are fundamentally the same.

Name two of each and I'll show you.

Church pastor and adult film actress.

 

[OnePercenter]

huh ?

Again, all businesses and jobs are fundamentally the same.

Name two of each and I'll show you.

Church pastor and adult film actress.

I thought you were going to make it hard!

Both are 10-99 employees.

 

[SwimExpert]

That's it?!? Based on that, they are "fundamentally the same"? Oh, for crying out loud, what a pathetic joke.

 

[OnePercenter]

That's it?!? Based on that, they are "fundamentally the same"? Oh, for crying out loud, what a pathetic joke.

The comment was

i guess it is supposed by the government, that all jobs or companies are created equal

The answer is; they are.

 

[beagle9]

That's it?!? Based on that, they are "fundamentally the same"? Oh, for crying out loud, what a pathetic joke.

The comment was

i guess it is supposed by the government, that all jobs or companies are created equal

The answer is; they are.

The answer is they aren't, so we will agree to disagree then..

 

[FA_Q2]

That's it?!? Based on that, they are "fundamentally the same"? Oh, for crying out loud, what a pathetic joke.

The comment was

i guess it is supposed by the government, that all jobs or companies are created equal

The answer is; they are.

Waitress, construction worker and store clerk at a gas station.

One can be paid under minimum wage, another does not get a lunch break but one gets both.

No they aren’t. Pay scales, minimum wage laws and work/rest cycles are different in different industries. The government does not treat all jobs or companies the same – it would be silly to.

 

[beagle9]

That's it?!? Based on that, they are "fundamentally the same"? Oh, for crying out loud, what a pathetic joke.

The comment was

i guess it is supposed by the government, that all jobs or companies are created equal

The answer is; they are.

Waitress, construction worker and store clerk at a gas station.

One can be paid under minimum wage, another does not get a lunch break but one gets both.

No they aren’t. Pay scales, minimum wage laws and work/rest cycles are different in different industries. The government does not treat all jobs or companies the same – it would be silly to.

It also should be that way in concerns of retirement to be (treated differently) also, but the government treats retirement eligibility as the same or in a socialistic manor. Now why do they do this you suppose ? I think it is because they hope that people die before they get to draw it in most cases, therefore they can steal some of that money back from them or never have to pay it out if at all possible in most cases.

There is no way that an AX man (see the show) should be forced to retire at the same age as someone who barely lifts a pen in their life, and wasn't exposed to the elements & the hardships like the Ax man was, but they both retire from the system at the same age ? The Ax man should be able to retire at 55, where as the office clerk needs to stay on till at least 62. Both jobs or skills are needed in the land, and Americans are those who do this work, but why the socialistic manor in which they are both treated, especially when they are in no way the same, and shouldn't be looked at or treated the same at all when it comes to retirement from the system, so it is a mystery to me. Now why is that or did I already answer it earlier in the post ?

 

[History]

Presumably that means less jobs, less hours, higher prices for products and services, and/or less entry level positions for 16-18 year olds to get out in the world and gain experience, that's what it means.. May be a combination of 2 of them, may be a combination of all 4 depending on the type of company.
Actually add that minimum wage increase with the Obamacare bill, and you have superior business destructiveness. But that is what liberals want right??

 

[OnePercenter]

That's it?!? Based on that, they are "fundamentally the same"? Oh, for crying out loud, what a pathetic joke.

The comment was

i guess it is supposed by the government, that all jobs or companies are created equal

The answer is; they are.

Waitress, construction worker and store clerk at a gas station.

One can be paid under minimum wage, another does not get a lunch break but one gets both.

No they aren’t. Pay scales, minimum wage laws and work/rest cycles are different in different industries. The government does not treat all jobs or companies the same – it would be silly to.

They are all hourly employees.

 

[FA_Q2]

The comment was



The answer is; they are.

Waitress, construction worker and store clerk at a gas station.

One can be paid under minimum wage, another does not get a lunch break but one gets both.

No they aren’t. Pay scales, minimum wage laws and work/rest cycles are different in different industries. The government does not treat all jobs or companies the same – it would be silly to.

They are all hourly employees.

And that pointless remark was supposed to????

Your original (incorrect) supposition was that the government treated all jobs the same. I show you that is blatantly false and you state that they are all hourly jobs as if that has anything to do with the point at all.

Further, even that statement is false as construction workers are not always hourly. Many such positions pay piecework.

 

[BillyZane]

Actually, that's EXACTLY the purpose of government, to protect the weak from the strong.

That may be what a sixth grade civics text says, but anyone who looks at any political system would recognize that the primary purpose of any political system and government is to protect and advance the interests of those who control it. If a system is controlled by a bureaucracy, the system will defend that bureaucracy above all else, regardless of whether it is a set of government departments, or a corporate structure. The model of the American government which predicts the behavior of Congress the best, for example, is to regard Congress as the coordinating committee of the wealthiest and the power elite in government and business. Both the Tea Party and Progressives rail against it from opposite sides of the spectrum, but the outcome is constrained by what very large campaign contributors, the ideological think tanks, industrial special interests (like coal, petroleum, big pharma, private prison corporations, etc) and similar very narrow constituencies which comprise perhaps 00.001% of the population find in their narrow interests.

This situation does not apply equally to both Left and Right (each side sees the other as a nefarious conspiracy controlling the outcome) but the critique of the center is symmetrical. Both sides want to "throw the rascals out", but disagree on what should replace them. So both of these groups get screwed. They are the Left Opposition and Right Opposition playing the game that Stalin won.

Why have laws against murder? I mean if you can't prevent your own murder too bad.

The government does not prevent murder, it sanctions who is allowed to commit it with impunity. Look at the recent Florida murder trials. The state's interest is not in reducing the number of killings, but in making sure killings are either done for the benefit of the state, by persons favored by the state, or are severely punished. Neither concepts of justice nor the welfare of society has anything to do with it.

And your "we survived before the law" is pretty silly. Employees were treated like shit, and sometimes even killed by their employers before the government started passing regulations.

And for the benefit of whom?

Your argument would be better suited to one of saying that the government has forgotten its primary purpose, and I'd agree with you in that. This federal government certainly has forgotten its primary goal and we could spend an entire week listing programs and laws which support that argument; however that does not mean that the primary goal of government no longer exists, it simply means THIS government has forgotten its place - an by this government let's be clear that Obama is merely the latest , and perhaps most egregious , leader to do so.

 

[oldfart]

Your argument would be better suited to one of saying that the government has forgotten its primary purpose, and I'd agree with you in that. This federal government certainly has forgotten its primary goal and we could spend an entire week listing programs and laws which support that argument; however that does not mean that the primary goal of government no longer exists, it simply means THIS government has forgotten its place - an by this government let's be clear that Obama is merely the latest , and perhaps most egregious , leader to do so.

Let me try to clarify my argument. All governments have a tendency to abuse of individual rights, just as all economic systems have a tendency to concentration of power. These situations are not abnormalities, they are the essence of how humans behave in such institutions. This is why the Founders passed a Bill of Rights and established a Constitution with checks and balances. They also wrote passionately that even these safeguards were not enough without a citizenry that cared deeply about these values and was vigilant to cut short any abuses.

My argument is that a parallel argument applies to concentrations of economic power and corporate governance, and especially to the interaction of political/regulatory power and economic power. The natural tendencies of these systems must have a counterweight of perpetual vigilance against abuse. Absent that counterweight, we will have neither security, freedom, nor prosperity as a nation.

 

[Spoonman]

Tea Party 2 - Obama 0

Does Obama have a CBO problem? - The Week

 

[beagle9]

Your argument would be better suited to one of saying that the government has forgotten its primary purpose, and I'd agree with you in that. This federal government certainly has forgotten its primary goal and we could spend an entire week listing programs and laws which support that argument; however that does not mean that the primary goal of government no longer exists, it simply means THIS government has forgotten its place - an by this government let's be clear that Obama is merely the latest , and perhaps most egregious , leader to do so.

Let me try to clarify my argument. All governments have a tendency to abuse of individual rights, just as all economic systems have a tendency to concentration of power. These situations are not abnormalities, they are the essence of how humans behave in such institutions. This is why the Founders passed a Bill of Rights and established a Constitution with checks and balances. They also wrote passionately that even these safeguards were not enough without a citizenry that cared deeply about these values and was vigilant to cut short any abuses.
My argument is that a parallel argument applies to concentrations of economic power and corporate governance, and especially to the interaction of political/regulatory power and economic power. The natural tendencies of these systems must have a counterweight of perpetual vigilance against abuse. Absent that counterweight, we will have neither security, freedom, nor prosperity as a nation.

Man you take that which is spoken above, and apply it to some other threads here, and it would drive certain people crazy...LOL

 

[oldfart]

Your argument would be better suited to one of saying that the government has forgotten its primary purpose, and I'd agree with you in that. This federal government certainly has forgotten its primary goal and we could spend an entire week listing programs and laws which support that argument; however that does not mean that the primary goal of government no longer exists, it simply means THIS government has forgotten its place - an by this government let's be clear that Obama is merely the latest , and perhaps most egregious , leader to do so.

Let me try to clarify my argument. All governments have a tendency to abuse of individual rights, just as all economic systems have a tendency to concentration of power. These situations are not abnormalities, they are the essence of how humans behave in such institutions. This is why the Founders passed a Bill of Rights and established a Constitution with checks and balances. They also wrote passionately that even these safeguards were not enough without a citizenry that cared deeply about these values and was vigilant to cut short any abuses.
My argument is that a parallel argument applies to concentrations of economic power and corporate governance, and especially to the interaction of political/regulatory power and economic power. The natural tendencies of these systems must have a counterweight of perpetual vigilance against abuse. Absent that counterweight, we will have neither security, freedom, nor prosperity as a nation.

Man you take that which is spoken above, and apply it to some other threads here, and it would drive certain people crazy...LOL

I learned long ago that there is no way to draft a legal document such as a trust agreement that protects the trustor when that person has no one whose judgment he or she trusts to act in his/her stead. Similarly no law or constitution can avoid bad results if the people administering it exercise bad judgment. We waste a lot of time drying to draft solutions to stupidity in both law and legislation. It can help, but it's not a real solution.

 

[Foxfyre]

Your argument would be better suited to one of saying that the government has forgotten its primary purpose, and I'd agree with you in that. This federal government certainly has forgotten its primary goal and we could spend an entire week listing programs and laws which support that argument; however that does not mean that the primary goal of government no longer exists, it simply means THIS government has forgotten its place - an by this government let's be clear that Obama is merely the latest , and perhaps most egregious , leader to do so.

Let me try to clarify my argument. All governments have a tendency to abuse of individual rights, just as all economic systems have a tendency to concentration of power. These situations are not abnormalities, they are the essence of how humans behave in such institutions. This is why the Founders passed a Bill of Rights and established a Constitution with checks and balances. They also wrote passionately that even these safeguards were not enough without a citizenry that cared deeply about these values and was vigilant to cut short any abuses.

My argument is that a parallel argument applies to concentrations of economic power and corporate governance, and especially to the interaction of political/regulatory power and economic power. The natural tendencies of these systems must have a counterweight of perpetual vigilance against abuse. Absent that counterweight, we will have neither security, freedom, nor prosperity as a nation.

The only counterweight that will ever be of maximum effectiveness is the character and values of the culture. We once considered a hand shake on a deal as a sacred trust. Those days are long gone and the USA now has more lawyers per capita than anywhere else in the world. Now the motive is mostly to get as much as everybody else gets which is what drives this whole minimum wage nonsense. The culture no longer holds the value that to earn what we have is a virtue. Too many want somebody to bypass the earning part and go straight to the reward as some sort of unalienable right for just being born.

 

[protectionist]

If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little. Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.

So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?

And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?

Business owners CANNOT just let people go from their staffs to lower their costs. The reason a company has the number of workers they do is because that is the number at which they make the most money. If they lay off workers, their sales get reduced, and they LOSE money.

 

[Foxfyre]

If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little. Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.

So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?

And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?

Business owners CANNOT just let people go from their staffs to lower their costs. The reason a company has the number of workers they do is because that is the number at which they make the most money. If they lay off workers, their sales get reduced, and they LOSE money.

They also lose money if those workers are paid more than their labor earns for the business. The reason wages are what they are is because that is what the employer is willing to pay to get the labor he/she needs. Artificially increase those wages, and many employers will just shift the work to others or do it themselves or do without.

The best medicine to get wages up is full employment. That makes the workers wages a sellers market and employers will invariably pay more to get the best of the much more limited work force available to hire. But, you have everybody working who wants to work and that puts a lot more money into the economy so some increases in prices are not painful and don't cost the employer customers as they do when money is tight.

A raise in the minimum wage is far more likely to discourage full employment and, most especially in recession, it will discourage a lot of hiring while it is likely to raise the standard of living for only a very few.