Zone1 Minimum wage and Social security benefits.

[Picaro]

A "high" MW wage is a path out of poverty for NOBODY. T

Nobody ever claims it;s supposed to be; it's meant to provide a basic living with a floor on wages employers can pay, and keep people off off complete dependence on charity and govt. subsidies. It isn't just some big number pulled out of nowhere.

 

[beagle9]

Minimum wage worked just fine for right up to the 1960's. Those who don't like it are either just labor racketeers or as I said, have never run a business and are just parroting some ideological rubbish put out by Chamber Of Commerce shills. They also advocate flooding the country with the rest of the world's poor and desperate, i.e. libertoons.

Yes there is a nasty theme afoot, and it's been trending so long that it has built up an army of protectors that kick in fast when they see the parameters set being tested.

 

[beagle9]

That has nothing to do with the federal minimum wage.

It's all tied together Todd.

Remember, I'm not advocating for an exorbitant or ridiculous minimum wage hike, but instead I just think that a raise is needed in order to keep up just enough to make it worth while for our young folk's to get their aces out and back into the workforce. Not only that, but the federal government of all thing's should uphold itself to the people as being balanced and righteous in order to represent the people as they most certainly expect representation from in such a way.

Not advocating the young folks being bribed to get out here either, but rather I'm just not into insulting their Intelligence by giving them the equivalent of what your grandaddy paid you for cutting his grass when you were 10 years old, and especially if the job is worth more and they've paid their dues in school in order to deserve better when go out on their first experience in the workforce with a great attitude in life.

 

[braalian]

Why is it that the federal government amazingly found the money tree when it came to supporting Ukraine, and the talk about supporting it for as long it takes, but Americans have undoubtedly been lied to for year's when it came to a federal minimum wage stagnation, and the stagnation of social security benefits for seniors over 65 year's old in this country ?

The citizens should be totally outraged at our federal government for not keeping our social security solvent and in an updated state of review that helps the senior's deal better with inflation and cost of living changes.

As far as minimum wage goes, I ask why in the hell are we still at 7.25 an hour nation wide per the federal government since 2009 ? By now that number should have at least increased to $10.00 dollars an hour in 2024.

Think about it folks, let's say you make 40 hours at 7.25 an hour, and that's before taxes. That's only $290.00 dollars before taxes. The only hope a person has to survive after a 40 hour week is to work two jobs if paid $7.25 an hour.
Now with these things said, I am for a meritocracy, but I'm not for exploitation of worker's or seniors because the numbers are being set to low.

Let’s be honest is there anyone out there making only $7.25 an hour?

I’ve never heard of anyone making so little

 

[Picaro]

Let’s be honest is there anyone out there making only $7.25 an hour?

I’ve never heard of anyone making so little

Over a million do, and that is just the ones on the books; many make less, being called 'sub-contractors n stuff' and aren't paid by the hour, or they're working off the books in sweatshops and warehouses.

Everybody making less than $30 an hour is working for less than minimum wage adjusted for real inflation.

Loading…

www.cnn.com

 

[beagle9]

Nobody ever claims it;s supposed to be; it's meant to provide a basic living with a floor on wages employers can pay, and keep people off off complete dependence on charity and govt. subsidies. It isn't just some big number pulled out of nowhere.

I think you just hit on it... The lower the minimum or the stagnation of it, ummm forces government to subsidize the American worker at the bottom where most labor is performed, and when this happens the CEOs bottom line ends up being subsidized in part by you and me through higher taxes required. Talk about a ponzi scheme wow.

In fact I remember McDonald's allegedly being caught back in the day showing it's employee's how to sign up and qualify for government programs in order to subsidize their pay. I think it was in a state where the franchise operates in which uses the base government standard of minimum pay, and this instead of it using a rate based upon a myriad of other gauges looked at within the overall profits being made.

Not all companies are equal, and they shouldn't be, but when you see major player's acting like they are just struggling to hard when dealing with employee pay packages (when the opposite is the case), then that's when you can see first hand the bull shite game's being played.

 

[beagle9]

Let’s be honest is there anyone out there making only $7.25 an hour?

I’ve never heard of anyone making so little

Not sure, but would it be so hard for the government to at least keep up if it's going to be involved at all ?

 

[Picaro]

I think you just hit on it... The lower the minimum or the stagnation of it forces government to subsidize the American worker at the bottom where most labor is performed, and when this happens the CEOs bottom line ends up being subsidized in part by you and me through higher taxes required. Talk about a ponzi scheme wow.

In fact I remember McDonald's allegedly being caught back in the day showing it's employee's how to sign up and qualify for government programs in order to subsidize their pay. I think it was in a state where the franchise operates in which uses the base government standard of minimum pay, and this instead of it using a rate based upon a myriad of other gauges looked at within the overall profits being made.

Not all companies are equal, and they shouldn't be, but when you see major player's acting like they are just struggling to hard when dealing with employee pay packages (when the opposite is the case), then that's when you can see first hand the bull shite game's being played.

Add Walmart to those who used govt. services as their 'employee benefits program'. Of course, they also receive the bulk of WIC spending.

 

[beagle9]

Add Walmart to those who used govt. services as their 'employee benefits program'. Of course, they also receive the bulk of WIC spending.

Yes, and supposedly this is why the American people (including me), just voted in the Trump administration, so lets see how it goes I guess.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Over a million do, and that is just the ones on the books; many make less, being called 'sub-contractors n stuff' and aren't paid by the hour, or they're working off the books in sweatshops and warehouses.

Everybody making less than $30 an hour is working for less than minimum wage adjusted for real inflation.

Loading…

www.cnn.com

Over a million do

Out of over 160 million workers. Wow!

Everybody making less than $30 an hour is working for less than minimum wage adjusted for real inflation.

Well, if a left-wing think tank says so.......

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think you just hit on it... The lower the minimum or the stagnation of it, ummm forces government to subsidize the American worker at the bottom where most labor is performed, and when this happens the CEOs bottom line ends up being subsidized in part by you and me through higher taxes required. Talk about a ponzi scheme wow.

In fact I remember McDonald's allegedly being caught back in the day showing it's employee's how to sign up and qualify for government programs in order to subsidize their pay. I think it was in a state where the franchise operates in which uses the base government standard of minimum pay, and this instead of it using a rate based upon a myriad of other gauges looked at within the overall profits being made.

Not all companies are equal, and they shouldn't be, but when you see major player's acting like they are just struggling to hard when dealing with employee pay packages (when the opposite is the case), then that's when you can see first hand the bull shite game's being played.

I think you just hit on it... The lower the minimum or the stagnation of it, ummm forces government to subsidize the American worker at the bottom where most labor is performed,

How much is unskilled labor worth today?

In fact I remember McDonald's allegedly being caught back in the day showing it's employee's how to sign up and qualify for government programs in order to subsidize their pay.

Helping unskilled poor people get government benefits designed for poor people?

What could be worse?

 

[beagle9]

I think you just hit on it... The lower the minimum or the stagnation of it, ummm forces government to subsidize the American worker at the bottom where most labor is performed,

How much is unskilled labor worth today?

In fact I remember McDonald's allegedly being caught back in the day showing it's employee's how to sign up and qualify for government programs in order to subsidize their pay.

Helping unskilled poor people get government benefits designed for poor people?

What could be worse?

You are failing at comprehending these post in the full context of which they are being written in, and therefore your response are incorrect. Try harder.
Removing snippets of post, and then responding to the snippet after taking it out of it's context is a form of doing such in a purposeful attempt to deflect the message somehow.

 

[beagle9]

I think you just hit on it... The lower the minimum or the stagnation of it, ummm forces government to subsidize the American worker at the bottom where most labor is performed,

How much is unskilled labor worth today?

In fact I remember McDonald's allegedly being caught back in the day showing it's employee's how to sign up and qualify for government programs in order to subsidize their pay.

Helping unskilled poor people get government benefits designed for poor people?

What could be worse?

Helping unskilled poor people get government benefits designed for poor people?
What could be worse you say ????

My response to this is what I have previously said on the matter, otherwise if a company (especially McDonald's), can afford to pay the employee a better start up pay than the state baseline that is set, then no government subsidizing through government programs would be needed.

Now if McDonald's looks at it and says to itself "pay the baseline start up", and if it's too low to keep the employee interested, then show the employee how they can get government assistance in order to subsidize their wages, then this is where it gets shady IMOH.

In some cases the employee then makes (with the assistance given), better than they would if started at another job paying higher start up pay that is well above the minimum base line pay.

Now who actually is paying all of it when government kicks in ? We the taxpayer/hardworking citizen's are, and it's because the government produces nothing and has no money unless we give it to them.

So my hard-earned money is actually going to subsidize a multi-billion dollar U.S. corporation and it's employee's, and this is exactly why the IRS needs heavy reforms or just to be removed altogether.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are failing at comprehending these post in the full context of which they are being written in, and therefore your response are incorrect. Try harder.
Removing snippets of post, and then responding to the snippet after taking it out of it's context is a form of doing such in a purposeful attempt to deflect the message somehow.

I understand the full context. That's why I'm showing the errors I respond to.
Nothing I do makes your errors any less serious.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Helping unskilled poor people get government benefits designed for poor people?
What could be worse you say ????

My response to this is what I have previously said on the matter, otherwise if a company (especially McDonald's), can afford to pay the employee a better start up pay than the state baseline that is set, then no government subsidizing through government programs would be needed.

Now if McDonald's looks at it and says to itself "pay the baseline start up", and if it's too low to keep the employee interested, then show the employee how they can get government assistance in order to subsidize their wages, then this is where it gets shady IMOH.

In some cases the employee then makes (with the assistance given), better than they would if started at another job paying higher start up pay that is well above the minimum base line pay.

Now who actually is paying all of it when government kicks in ? We the taxpayer/hardworking citizen's are, and it's because the government produces nothing and has no money unless we give it to them.

So my hard-earned money is actually going to subsidize a multi-billion dollar U.S. corporation and it's employee's, and this is exactly why the IRS needs heavy reforms or just to be removed altogether.

My response to this is what I have previously said on the matter, otherwise if a company (especially McDonald's), can afford to pay the employee a better start up pay than the state baseline that is set, then no government subsidizing through government programs would be needed.

You're looking through the wrong end of the telescope.
Poor people get government benefits, right?
Poor people who earn minimum wage (or more) at McDonald's, receive fewer government benefits.

Now who actually is paying all of it when government kicks in ? We the taxpayer/hardworking citizen's are, and it's because the government produces nothing and has no money unless we give it to them.

It's true, McDonald's saves taxpayer money by hiring and paying these workers.
McDonald's, a multi-billion-dollar corporation, is subsidizing the government.

 

[BackAgain]

Either that or they step on your toes maybe ?

Nope. Not at all.

 

[jwoodie]

Social Security is NOT PART OF THE FEDERAL BUDGET!

Lyndon Johnson added it to the federal budget in 1968 in order mask the huge deficit he had run up from his Great Society programs and the Viet Nam War. Social Security was running a multi-billion dollar surplus back then. President Reagan took it back off budget in 1983.

 

[beagle9]

Another way for government to actually save money in the disability and social security programs is this - I know a person that has a bad back, and he had to have multiple operations on it. He was messed up purdy bad, so he got his disability started.

OK, then amazingly he started feeling way better, and thought to himself that he might be able to go back to work. So he drops his disability and goes back to work doing what he loves to do (paint and body work on vehicles). About 6 months later he strained his back, and ended up down and out again. He tried to get back on disability because he absolutely couldn't work again, and it was because of his bad disk in his neck and lower back that had come back to haunt him once more. OK, so he caught pure hell trying to get his disability started again, but why ? Why does the government make it so damned hard to get benefits going again if a person tries to get off of them even if it wasn't but for 6 months ? It was so bad trying to get back on that he swore he would never try that again.

So who loses ? We the taxpayers and government lose that's who.

There should be a way for people to turn their disability off, otherwise in order to try and go back into the workforce if they want too, and if a company wants to give them a shot again, but then have a way too turn them right back on if it doesn't work out.

The internet could harbor an app issued by the government to give disability patient's and recipients the ability to turn off benefits if they go back into the workforce, but turn them back on if they find out that they are truly messed up in life.

This will give the incentive for millions of potential worker's that are on disability to feel safe about rejoining the workforce without having their benefits denide them if they find that they weren't able to do it.

If the government saves 6 month's worth of payouts because the disabled wanted to try out the workforce again, then why attempt to punish them for it ?? It makes absolutely no sense. The internet with its apps designed to make these types of things better, otherwise for the disabled persons ease of operation if set up in that way, could actually save government millions.

So maybe just maybe millions would get off the program if they knew that they wouldn't be penalized for it when trying to get back on.

A savings of 6 months × who knows how many would be willing to try it again, could actually be worth untold millions in government savings in these programs if made them user friendly in such a way. Some might get off and never return until they are actually at retirement age if it works out for them.

 

[para bellum]

Lyndon Johnson added it to the federal budget in 1968 in order mask the huge deficit he had run up from his Great Society programs and the Viet Nam War. Social Security was running a multi-billion dollar surplus back then. President Reagan took it back off budget in 1983.

"On budget" only in the sense of topline numbers. That is, there were never any appropriations bills for social security benefits. They were always programmed payments that did not need money from the Treasury to be first appropriated by the Congress.

E.g. the trust funds were unaffected- receipts and expenditures were done the same way as always and the program accounting didn't change. The only change was that the trust funds were included in the topline numbers for the year.

"Trust Fund Accounting" in the parlance, not what most people think of as budgeting...

 

[jwoodie]

"On budget" only in the sense of topline numbers.

Those are the only ones the public is aware of.