Obama wants to raise the minimum wage when we're on the verge of a second recession?

[JoeNormal]

It used to be that someone that believes in a strong work ethic, not having children out of wedlock, paid their own bills and did not indulge in activities that would lead them into poverty was considered a good citizen.
Now they are looked down upon by the left and labeled "conservatives", greedy and judgmental.

By my actions, I'd make a good conservative. I think it's the stinginess/selfishness of modern conservatism that turns people off. The inability to see that 'but for the grace of god, there go I'. A lot of conservatives who've made it can't concede that luck and being in the right place at the right time had something to do with their success.

 

[Bern80]

I'd like to know where this common perception that conservatives have that everyone is looking for a free ride comes from. Do you actually live in some inner city hell-hole where you see crack ho's and ganstas roaming the streets? Welfare line stretched around the block? I'm guessing not. It's probably some fear based seed planted by Sean Hanity that you imagine to be true.

Why are you suggesting we supply a handout to group of people you claim doesn't exist then? YOU and your like minded counterparts in this thread are the people insisting on the handout. Obviously the perception is valid.

 

[JoeNormal]

I'd like to know where this common perception that conservatives have that everyone is looking for a free ride comes from. Do you actually live in some inner city hell-hole where you see crack ho's and ganstas roaming the streets? Welfare line stretched around the block? I'm guessing not. It's probably some fear based seed planted by Sean Hanity that you imagine to be true.

Why are you suggesting we supply a handout to group of people you claim doesn't exist then? YOU and your like minded counterparts in this thread are the people insisting on the handout. Obviously the perception is valid.

I don't claim they don't exist (gawd, save me from black-and-white thinking). I claim there are fewer scammers than FOX News headlines would suggest. I think the vast majority of people who receive assistance need it.

 

[Bern80]

By my actions, I'd make a good conservative. I think it's the stinginess/selfishness of modern conservatism that turns people off. The inability to see that 'but for the grace of god, there go I'.

Except that ins't even accurate about conservatives. I know this will come as a bitter truth pill to swallow, but statistically conservatives are LESS stingy than liberals when it comes to charitable giving. As I said before, the intentions of either side are the same the difference is how each side gives. I have no problem helping people who need help, but just throwing money at a problem doesn't always fix it. I believe in charity. I don't believe in indiscriminate charity. I'm not going to waste $5.00 on the bum on the corner. That person has bigger issues than what $5.00 can fix. And that's assuming it isn't going to be used just buy drugs or boos.

A lot of conservatives who've made it can't concede that luck and being in the right place at the right time had something to do with their success.

The truth is somewhere in the middle. Certain things out of an individuals control will grant them advantages or disadvantages. The reality remains that most wealth is accumulated by people who put in the effort. Very little wealth is created when you do nothing more than complain about not having wealth or spending your time lobbying to the government to get for you what you are able to acquire for yourself. That ought to be evidence enough to convince a rational person to stop insisting on this living wage idea. If your goal is to get at least enough to live on and advocating to government or complaining on message boards isn't working perhaps it's time to try something else.

 

[Bern80]

I don't claim they don't exist (gawd, save me from black-and-white thinking). I claim there are fewer scammers than FOX News headlines would suggest. I think the vast majority of people who receive assistance need it.

I don't really care if their scammers or not. And I'm sure, in the moment, they do need it. That doesn't mean John Q. Taxpayer or your employer is obligated to provide it. Again, just throwing money at problem doesn't solve it. It doesn't address what got people in that situation in the first place. Things like how is it you're in your 30s and don't have the skills that warrant any thing more than minimum wage? I'm sorry, but unless you're handicapped in some way, that requires a series of bad choices or extreme lack of motivation. It isn't moral to hold someone else responsible for providing the necessities to that kind of person.

 

[JoeNormal]

The truth is somewhere in the middle. Certain things out of an individuals control will grant them advantages or disadvantages. The reality remains that most wealth is accumulated by people who put in the effort. Very little wealth is created when you do nothing more than complain about not having wealth or spending your time lobbying to the government to get for you what you are able to acquire for yourself. That ought to be evidence enough to convince a rational person to stop insisting on this living wage idea. If your goal is to get at least enough to live on and advocating to government or complaining on message boards isn't working perhaps it's time to try something else.

Obviously, if you don't play, you can't win. But very often I see people who've reached a high level of success who appear to think that there was never any doubt that they'd make it big because they worked hard. News flash: a lot of people work hard. Really hard.

Maybe you missed it but the reason I complain about the stark disparity in wealth in this country is not because I don't have it good. I'm probably in the top 5%. The reason I complain is that for decades, the top tier has siphoned off the gains in productivity that everyone has contributed to and has left many hard working people nearly destitute. It's unsustainable - even with all that conservative charity that you claim exists.

 

[Bern80]

The truth is somewhere in the middle. Certain things out of an individuals control will grant them advantages or disadvantages. The reality remains that most wealth is accumulated by people who put in the effort. Very little wealth is created when you do nothing more than complain about not having wealth or spending your time lobbying to the government to get for you what you are able to acquire for yourself. That ought to be evidence enough to convince a rational person to stop insisting on this living wage idea. If your goal is to get at least enough to live on and advocating to government or complaining on message boards isn't working perhaps it's time to try something else.

Obviously, if you don't play, you can't win. But very often I see people who've reached a high level of success who appear to think that there was never any doubt that they'd make it big because they worked hard. News flash: a lot of people work hard. Really hard.

Maybe you missed it but the reason I complain about the stark disparity in wealth in this country is not because I don't have it good. I'm probably in the top 5%. The reason I complain is that for decades, the top tier has siphoned off the gains in productivity that everyone has contributed to and has left many hard working people nearly destitute. It's unsustainable - even with all that conservative charity that you claim exists.

True. Such a disparity is unsustainable. But the way talk you talk is as if individuals have no control over these things. Put yourself in the scenarios you're so worried about. What would you really do? I don't know whether your self employed or have a good job (you'd have to be over 6 figures to be in the top 5%), but pretend it all went away. A boss fires you for his/her own selfish reasons or your business fails for whatever reason. What would you really do if that happened? To earn what you say you're earning you had to have done something right. But you seem to be telling me your first reaction would be to petition government to make whatever job you get next provide you enough to live on.

 

[JoeNormal]

The truth is somewhere in the middle. Certain things out of an individuals control will grant them advantages or disadvantages. The reality remains that most wealth is accumulated by people who put in the effort. Very little wealth is created when you do nothing more than complain about not having wealth or spending your time lobbying to the government to get for you what you are able to acquire for yourself. That ought to be evidence enough to convince a rational person to stop insisting on this living wage idea. If your goal is to get at least enough to live on and advocating to government or complaining on message boards isn't working perhaps it's time to try something else.

Obviously, if you don't play, you can't win. But very often I see people who've reached a high level of success who appear to think that there was never any doubt that they'd make it big because they worked hard. News flash: a lot of people work hard. Really hard.

Maybe you missed it but the reason I complain about the stark disparity in wealth in this country is not because I don't have it good. I'm probably in the top 5%. The reason I complain is that for decades, the top tier has siphoned off the gains in productivity that everyone has contributed to and has left many hard working people nearly destitute. It's unsustainable - even with all that conservative charity that you claim exists.

True. Such a disparity is unsustainable. But the way talk you talk is as if individuals have no control over these things. Put yourself in the scenarios you're so worried about. What would you really do? I don't know whether your self employed or have a good job (you'd have to be over 6 figures to be in the top 5%), but pretend it all went away. A boss fires you for his/her own selfish reasons or your business fails for whatever reason. What would you really do if that happened? To earn what you say you're earning you had to have done something right. But you seem to be telling me your first reaction would be to petition government to make whatever job you get next provide you enough to live on.

There are a variety of ways of dealing with runaway wealth disparity. Higher progressive taxation, stronger worker representation, even a link between the top and average wages (something like top pay is no more than 20 x average pay). They've been successful in other countries but our political process is so influenced by money and politicians so beholden to the movers and shakers that we probably won't see any of that here without a revolution.

 

[Dubya]

I'm not implying anything. It's a fact that the job is needed if we are all PhDs.

That makes no sense. What job is needed if we all have PhDs?

It's also a fact that working class wages have declined in purchasing power and that hurts both the person and business.

I don't dispute that fact. But some of the ownership in correcting that has to be on individuals. Part of the reason that is happening is people aren't adapting to the changing economy. It isn't reasonable to expect that they same skills that were valuable yesterday are going to remain so today.

Our economy would be better if minimum wage was around $10 per hour or a little higher. It's also a fact that having minimum wage too low causes subsidies with social programs and it's better for the person needing the labor to pay for it directly.

Umm you can't just state something as fact with nothing to back it up. Based on what evidence would the economy be better if the min wage was at least $10/hr? Based on what evidence is it better for employers to just give people what they need?

If you go shopping to spend the money you've earned and you need someone to work a cash register, then you should pay for it. Let's say I'm buying groceries at WalMarts. Often I've bought over $300 worth of just grocery items and it takes me around 10 minutes to be checked out. That means it would cost me around $0.50 more to give that cashier a $3.00 per hour raise. The items bought for grocieries are mass produced and some businesses wouldn't benefit from increased volume by paying their workers more, so they would have to raise their prices. Many businesses would profit by having increased volume and they wouldn't have to raise prices, because their additional profit from sales would offset the increase in labor costs. The increase in prices is not the same percentage as the increase in labor costs, because a business has many more expenses than just labor.

That isn't really accurate, especially for a place like Wal-Mart. Just because people have more disposable income doesn't mean they buy more. Take your grocery example. Are you going to be 4 gallons of milk instead of 2 just because you have more money? Of course not. It isn't true of my business either. One person isn't going to buy more than one of our product at a time because you can't use more than one of our products at the same time. You aren't going to get more volume from the people that can already afford these items. You're only going to get more from the people who can't except even that won't happen because those people are all on government assistance already to afford those things. So no. It does not in fact do Wal-Mart any good to pay people more under the assumption that they're going to end up buying more.

And you still haven't addressed the moral dilemmas of the living wage idea. Again living wages aren't going to be the same for everyone. Not even among people working for the same employer. Is it moral to pay two people different wages for the same job if they have different needs? Because it would seem paying a living wage would require that.

Let's examine your WalMart example first! WalMart just doesn't sell groceries, but let's consider only groceries. A person working full time or 2,000 hours per year is making $14,500 per year at our current federal minimum wage. 17.3% of minimum wage workers work a 40 hour week and the reason is the businesses don't want to pay overtime and will work their people less than 40 hours. Some may work more than one job and some less than 40 hours per week, so it's a ballpark figure. I would say the average person making only $14,500 per year would be buying more milk, if they had more money to spend. They might buy a steak instead of ground beef to give themselves a treat. I think your problem is you can't even put yourself in the shoes of someone making $14,500 per year and getting a $6,000 per year raise, if their hourly rate increased to $10.25 per hour. Money doesn't affect my eating habits and I've made more than $20,500 in a day, but that doesn't mean I can't understand the misery poor people have to go through.

Now you mentioned your business in the typical "what's in it for me" Republican conservative fashion. First off, is your business paying people the mininum wage? If your product is only good for people who can afford it and is used one at a time, I would doubt it and it sounds like a car or boat. Minimum wage does set a base wage and I would expect other wages near minimum wage to increase. It's possible your business would get more people to afford your product as general wages increase, but let's say you don't. The worst that could happen is your business would need to pay more for labor and have to increase it's price to maintain it's profit. Maybe less people would be able to afford your product and you would lose out on such a change. That sounds like a personal problem to me and when it comes to what's best for the country or you, I say **** you! Two poor people are twice as important as your sorry "one-way street" ass will ever be, even if you can grow a heart.

 

[Bern80]

Obviously, if you don't play, you can't win. But very often I see people who've reached a high level of success who appear to think that there was never any doubt that they'd make it big because they worked hard. News flash: a lot of people work hard. Really hard.

Maybe you missed it but the reason I complain about the stark disparity in wealth in this country is not because I don't have it good. I'm probably in the top 5%. The reason I complain is that for decades, the top tier has siphoned off the gains in productivity that everyone has contributed to and has left many hard working people nearly destitute. It's unsustainable - even with all that conservative charity that you claim exists.

True. Such a disparity is unsustainable. But the way talk you talk is as if individuals have no control over these things. Put yourself in the scenarios you're so worried about. What would you really do? I don't know whether your self employed or have a good job (you'd have to be over 6 figures to be in the top 5%), but pretend it all went away. A boss fires you for his/her own selfish reasons or your business fails for whatever reason. What would you really do if that happened? To earn what you say you're earning you had to have done something right. But you seem to be telling me your first reaction would be to petition government to make whatever job you get next provide you enough to live on.

There are a variety of ways of dealing with runaway wealth disparity. Higher progressive taxation, stronger worker representation, even a link between the top and average wages (something like top pay is no more than 20 x average pay). They've been successful in other countries but our political process is so influenced by money and politicians so beholden to the movers and shakers that we probably won't see any of that here without a revolution.

You're avoiding the question. The question was what would you really do if what you are so worried about happened to you? I suspect the reason you won't answer that is because what you would do is come up with some new idea, learn a new skill, or work your way back the ladder in some other field.

 

[Bern80]

Let's examine your WalMart example first! WalMart just doesn't sell groceries, but let's consider only groceries. A person working full time or 2,000 hours per year is making $14,500 per year at our current federal minimum wage. 17.3% of minimum wage workers work a 40 hour week and the reason is the businesses don't want to pay overtime and will work their people less than 40 hours. Some may work more than one job and some less than 40 hours per week, so it's a ballpark figure. I would say the average person making only $14,500 per year would be buying more milk, if they had more money to spend. They might buy a steak instead of ground beef to give themselves a treat. I think your problem is you can't even put yourself in the shoes of someone making $14,500 per year and getting a $6,000 per year raise, if their hourly rate increased to $10.25 per hour. Money doesn't affect my eating habits and I've made more than $20,500 in a day, but that doesn't mean I can't understand the misery poor people have to go through.

You're presumptions remain unfounded an inaccurate. On what basis is someone going to buy more milk? And I can't put myself in the shoes of someone making minimum wage? So what you're essentially saying is if I could then I would insist then I would finally insist it's someone else's job to take care of me? I would hope I never become that pathetic.

Now you mentioned your business in the typical "what's in it for me" Republican conservative fashion. First off, is your business paying people the mininum wage? If your product is only good for people who can afford it and is used one at a time, I would doubt it and it sounds like a car or boat. Minimum wage does set a base wage and I would expect other wages near minimum wage to increase. It's possible your business would get more people to afford your product as general wages increase, but let's say you don't. The worst that could happen is your business would need to pay more for labor and have to increase it's price to maintain it's profit. Maybe less people would be able to afford your product and you would lose out on such a change. That sounds like a personal problem to me and when it comes to what's best for the country or you, I say **** you! Two poor people are twice as important as your sorry "one-way street" ass will ever be, even if you can grow a heart.

Again every single thing that comes out of your idiot mouth is wrong. Every job in our company pays more than min. wage. Secondly paying our employees more doesn't change the demand of our consumer, because....wait for it....THEY AREN'T THE SAME ******* PEOPLE YOU ******* IDIOT. If we have to raise our prices to cover the increased cost of labor then we can no longer be competitive with our competitors that have no problem using overseas labor to make the same type of product. Demand for our product falls because there is an equal substitute that costs less. If demand falls then we have to produce less. Producing less requires fewer works, so the very people you tried to save have no income at all now because there is no point in building something that you can't sell and make money from.

 

[Dubya]

Let's examine your WalMart example first! WalMart just doesn't sell groceries, but let's consider only groceries. A person working full time or 2,000 hours per year is making $14,500 per year at our current federal minimum wage. 17.3% of minimum wage workers work a 40 hour week and the reason is the businesses don't want to pay overtime and will work their people less than 40 hours. Some may work more than one job and some less than 40 hours per week, so it's a ballpark figure. I would say the average person making only $14,500 per year would be buying more milk, if they had more money to spend. They might buy a steak instead of ground beef to give themselves a treat. I think your problem is you can't even put yourself in the shoes of someone making $14,500 per year and getting a $6,000 per year raise, if their hourly rate increased to $10.25 per hour. Money doesn't affect my eating habits and I've made more than $20,500 in a day, but that doesn't mean I can't understand the misery poor people have to go through.

You're presumptions remain unfounded an inaccurate. On what basis is someone going to buy more milk? And I can't put myself in the shoes of someone making minimum wage? So what you're essentially saying is if I could then I would insist then I would finally insist it's someone else's job to take care of me? I would hope I never become that pathetic.

Now you mentioned your business in the typical "what's in it for me" Republican conservative fashion. First off, is your business paying people the mininum wage? If your product is only good for people who can afford it and is used one at a time, I would doubt it and it sounds like a car or boat. Minimum wage does set a base wage and I would expect other wages near minimum wage to increase. It's possible your business would get more people to afford your product as general wages increase, but let's say you don't. The worst that could happen is your business would need to pay more for labor and have to increase it's price to maintain it's profit. Maybe less people would be able to afford your product and you would lose out on such a change. That sounds like a personal problem to me and when it comes to what's best for the country or you, I say **** you! Two poor people are twice as important as your sorry "one-way street" ass will ever be, even if you can grow a heart.

Again every single thing that comes out of your idiot mouth is wrong. Every job in our company pays more than min. wage. Secondly paying our employees more doesn't change the demand of our consumer, because....wait for it....THEY AREN'T THE SAME ******* PEOPLE YOU ******* IDIOT. If we have to raise our prices to cover the increased cost of labor then we can no longer be competitive with our competitors that have no problem using overseas labor to make the same type of product. Demand for our product falls because there is an equal substitute that costs less. If demand falls then we have to produce less. Producing less requires fewer works, so the very people you tried to save have no income at all now because there is no point in building something that you can't sell and make money from.

Your competitors are in the same boat as you are, fool, so if your wages increase, why hasn't their wages increased? You can't even mention your product and you want someone to follow your bullshit logic! You must think of yourself as a great businessman, who keeps his product a secret. YOU ARE THE ******* IDIOT! Now, you claim your wages have went up, but more people can't afford your product. How is that possible, if wages determine who can afford your product? You have to be a measly salesman to think the way you think. Businessman, my ass!

Again every single thing that comes out of your idiot mouth is wrong. Every job in our company pays more than min. wage.

Go back to school and learn how to read! I said:

First off, is your business paying people the mininum wage? If your product is only good for people who can afford it and is used one at a time, I would doubt it and it sounds like a car or boat.

If an increase in minimum wage triggers a general increase in wages, explain why more people won't be able to afford your mystery product and why your competition won't have the same increases in their labor costs!

You are a bunch of ******* bullshit, who sounds like a salesman believing his life's history of lies and only thinks he is a businessman.

 

[Gadawg73]

Let's examine your WalMart example first! WalMart just doesn't sell groceries, but let's consider only groceries. A person working full time or 2,000 hours per year is making $14,500 per year at our current federal minimum wage. 17.3% of minimum wage workers work a 40 hour week and the reason is the businesses don't want to pay overtime and will work their people less than 40 hours. Some may work more than one job and some less than 40 hours per week, so it's a ballpark figure. I would say the average person making only $14,500 per year would be buying more milk, if they had more money to spend. They might buy a steak instead of ground beef to give themselves a treat. I think your problem is you can't even put yourself in the shoes of someone making $14,500 per year and getting a $6,000 per year raise, if their hourly rate increased to $10.25 per hour. Money doesn't affect my eating habits and I've made more than $20,500 in a day, but that doesn't mean I can't understand the misery poor people have to go through.

You're presumptions remain unfounded an inaccurate. On what basis is someone going to buy more milk? And I can't put myself in the shoes of someone making minimum wage? So what you're essentially saying is if I could then I would insist then I would finally insist it's someone else's job to take care of me? I would hope I never become that pathetic.



Again every single thing that comes out of your idiot mouth is wrong. Every job in our company pays more than min. wage. Secondly paying our employees more doesn't change the demand of our consumer, because....wait for it....THEY AREN'T THE SAME ******* PEOPLE YOU ******* IDIOT. If we have to raise our prices to cover the increased cost of labor then we can no longer be competitive with our competitors that have no problem using overseas labor to make the same type of product. Demand for our product falls because there is an equal substitute that costs less. If demand falls then we have to produce less. Producing less requires fewer works, so the very people you tried to save have no income at all now because there is no point in building something that you can't sell and make money from.

Your competitors are in the same boat as you are, fool, so if your wages increase, why hasn't their wages increased? You can't even mention your product and you want someone to follow your bullshit logic! You must think of yourself as a great businessman, who keeps his product a secret. YOU ARE THE ******* IDIOT! Now, you claim your wages have went up, but more people can't afford your product. How is that possible, if wages determine who can afford your product? You have to be a measly salesman to think the way you think. Businessman, my ass!

Again every single thing that comes out of your idiot mouth is wrong. Every job in our company pays more than min. wage.

Go back to school and learn how to read! I said:

First off, is your business paying people the mininum wage? If your product is only good for people who can afford it and is used one at a time, I would doubt it and it sounds like a car or boat.

If an increase in minimum wage triggers a general increase in wages, explain why more people won't be able to afford your mystery product and why your competition won't have the same increases in their labor costs!

You are a bunch of ******* bullshit, who sounds like a salesman believing his life's history of lies and only thinks he is a businessman.

Because the competition in manufacturing is in another country where someone with a 5th grade education can make the same product for 2/3 the money.
Amazing you want to reward our low skilled, undereducated workers with more $$$ which encourages more of the same:
A country that is more interested in what people make than what people can learn.

 

[Bern80]

Your competitors are in the same boat as you are, fool, so if your wages increase, why hasn't their wages increased? You can't even mention your product and you want someone to follow your bullshit logic! You must think of yourself as a great businessman, who keeps his product a secret. YOU ARE THE ******* IDIOT! Now, you claim your wages have went up, but more people can't afford your product. How is that possible, if wages determine who can afford your product? You have to be a measly salesman to think the way you think. Businessman, my ass!

Umm no they're not in the same boat. Our competitors use overseas labor while we manufacture here in the U.S. and we are trying like hell to keep it that way. And what difference does it make if I won't mention what our company makes? It has nothing to do with this. We manufacture and sell a product used on boats. I am technical service rep for the company. I'm not being specific about it because I really would rather people not know where I live and work.

How is it possible that if we raised the wages of our employees demand for our product would not go up? How ******* dense are you? The same people that make and sell a product are not always going to be the same people that are demanding that product. Is that a difficult concept for your pea brain to grasp or what?

If an increase in minimum wage triggers a general increase in wages, explain why more people won't be able to afford your mystery product and why your competition won't have the same increases in their labor costs!

Take your own advice. I said because our production labor is here in the states. Their production labor for a similar product is overseas. So no, they are not hit with the same labor increases.

 

[theliq]

Enough said to a fool like you! You want a system that requires labor but doesn't believe life is a requirement. If someone is doing a needed job and is working 2,000 hours per year, they should get paid enough to live. If all businesses did that instead of thinking they can get away with low wages, then their business would be more profitable. They are cutting off their nose to spite their face. Low wages only benefits a business if they are the only ones doing it. When it's throughout the economic system, it hurts business.

You say too many stupid things to even bother with. Raising the wages in America would help business and allowing them to continue to drift lower is going to hurt business. I gave you the example of cutting wages in half, but use a couple brain cells and realize over time those wages can be cut in half in terms of real dollars. Of course a conservative Republican will never see that simple logic, because their concept of economics is in reverse. They are great for depressions, but can't run a successful economy. Only demand drives an economy and lower wages decreases demand.



You can't even read and comprehend what was said. I said the everybody below the upper 5% had their wages cut in half. It would be mass bankrupcy, fool!

You don't understand economics, so who do you think you are kidding. You can't even read.

I'm tired of wasting my time talking to a fool. You're too dumb to even know you are dumb.

It would probably cost $10 bucks more to make the Nike's here and the consumer would pay it.

Dubya,living and having a very successful business in Australia.....I look at the really Cronic Wages most folk earn in the USA and think how on earth did a country so powerful allow their citizens live in such pauperdom and poverty.....it's not as if you have a welfare system or safety net.....for those who become unemployed or for your senior citizens to have a reasonable standard of living in their latter years.

In Australia for example American made drugs are much,much cheaper here than in the US,Americans are being exploited completely.

An American friends daughter was hospitalized in Perth for over 3 months,two operations and much intensive care.....thankfully she came good but when Randy asked for the treatment and hospital account he was told...."There is no CHARGE,everyone is covered"

Such is our health system.

Women(and men for that matter) can take Maternity Leave from their jobs (3-6 months)fully paid....plus a $5,000 to $10,000 Baby BONUS for essentials for their and our latest (Australian) child.......plus pre-and-post natal treatment for the mom and bub.

I could go on and on but I will close by saying every time I go to the States the way many folk live is so shocking....Why do you all treat and allow fellow Americans to live like this.

Your Wages are SHIT,Your Resulting Poverty is SHIT.............God continue to Bless Australia "The Lucky Country" where all are Welcome and cared for if requested and required.........The Unemployed or Under Employed have NO STIGMA,because there but for the Grace of God,could go all of US........something some of you Ghastly,Selfish,Greedy and Uncaring Americans should think about......there are Plenty of YOU

Keep Well Dubya,always great to talk to a kindred spirit steve

The drug issue has something to do with U.S. patent law and is more an exception than the rule. My observation has been most luxury items cost more in Australia than they do in the U.S. I know the products we make do.

Bern,many excellent American manufacturers have moved to China and elsewhere but their product becomes very low quality.....here in Aus we make most of our own product but still "Buy in" from the US because those companies that remained MAKE A BRILLIANT PRODUCT,MADE BY A BRILLIANT EDUCATED WORKFORCE

The main problem in the US and has been for about 20 years now,is that you out sourced so much Manufacturing to countries like Mexico,China and more.

Call you got in return is poor quality, this applies from a cotton T shirt to Farm Equiptment and everything in between.

Viva the American workers(who have been treated,quite frankly like shit) Educated,Efficient and Excellent Employees........say NO to Cheap and Shoddy Imports......Your Country and All Americans Need You TO.....steve

 

[francoHFW]

I guess charitable giving must include the Mormon church and other bloated religious institutions, with huge overheads for BS, that dry up when needed....

The problem in the USA under Voodoo is no demand since the nonrich have been slowly screwed for 30 years...

 

[Gadawg73]

Dubya,living and having a very successful business in Australia.....I look at the really Cronic Wages most folk earn in the USA and think how on earth did a country so powerful allow their citizens live in such pauperdom and poverty.....it's not as if you have a welfare system or safety net.....for those who become unemployed or for your senior citizens to have a reasonable standard of living in their latter years.

In Australia for example American made drugs are much,much cheaper here than in the US,Americans are being exploited completely.

An American friends daughter was hospitalized in Perth for over 3 months,two operations and much intensive care.....thankfully she came good but when Randy asked for the treatment and hospital account he was told...."There is no CHARGE,everyone is covered"

Such is our health system.

Women(and men for that matter) can take Maternity Leave from their jobs (3-6 months)fully paid....plus a $5,000 to $10,000 Baby BONUS for essentials for their and our latest (Australian) child.......plus pre-and-post natal treatment for the mom and bub.

I could go on and on but I will close by saying every time I go to the States the way many folk live is so shocking....Why do you all treat and allow fellow Americans to live like this.

Your Wages are SHIT,Your Resulting Poverty is SHIT.............God continue to Bless Australia "The Lucky Country" where all are Welcome and cared for if requested and required.........The Unemployed or Under Employed have NO STIGMA,because there but for the Grace of God,could go all of US........something some of you Ghastly,Selfish,Greedy and Uncaring Americans should think about......there are Plenty of YOU

Keep Well Dubya,always great to talk to a kindred spirit steve

The drug issue has something to do with U.S. patent law and is more an exception than the rule. My observation has been most luxury items cost more in Australia than they do in the U.S. I know the products we make do.

Bern,many excellent American manufacturers have moved to China and elsewhere but their product becomes very low quality.....here in Aus we make most of our own product but still "Buy in" from the US because those companies that remained MAKE A BRILLIANT PRODUCT,MADE BY A BRILLIANT EDUCATED WORKFORCE

The main problem in the US and has been for about 20 years now,is that you out sourced so much Manufacturing to countries like Mexico,China and more.

Call you got in return is poor quality, this applies from a cotton T shirt to Farm Equiptment and everything in between.

Viva the American workers(who have been treated,quite frankly like shit) Educated,Efficient and Excellent Employees........say NO to Cheap and Shoddy Imports......Your Country and All Americans Need You TO.....steve

Who really cares if a cotton T shirt is of high quality?
Consumers want value these days and even though value may be a better made one that lasts longer price is what drives the demand for products like T shirts.
Farm equipment is different and Kubota makes a superior product than many American products but John Deere and Caterpillar do very well here.
Consumers are what drives consumption and it has been consumers that drove those jobs overseas.
Not companies. All we do is respond to and give to the consumers exactly what they want.
If we didn't we would not be in business.

 

[Dubya]

Your competitors are in the same boat as you are, fool, so if your wages increase, why hasn't their wages increased? You can't even mention your product and you want someone to follow your bullshit logic! You must think of yourself as a great businessman, who keeps his product a secret. YOU ARE THE ******* IDIOT! Now, you claim your wages have went up, but more people can't afford your product. How is that possible, if wages determine who can afford your product? You have to be a measly salesman to think the way you think. Businessman, my ass!

Umm no they're not in the same boat. Our competitors use overseas labor while we manufacture here in the U.S. and we are trying like hell to keep it that way. And what difference does it make if I won't mention what our company makes? It has nothing to do with this. We manufacture and sell a product used on boats. I am technical service rep for the company. I'm not being specific about it because I really would rather people not know where I live and work.

How is it possible that if we raised the wages of our employees demand for our product would not go up? How ******* dense are you? The same people that make and sell a product are not always going to be the same people that are demanding that product. Is that a difficult concept for your pea brain to grasp or what?

If an increase in minimum wage triggers a general increase in wages, explain why more people won't be able to afford your mystery product and why your competition won't have the same increases in their labor costs!

Take your own advice. I said because our production labor is here in the states. Their production labor for a similar product is overseas. So no, they are not hit with the same labor increases.

It's an either or situation. You said your workers get more than minimum wage, so either they will also have their wages raised by minimum wage increases or they won't. People within the amount of a minimum wage increase obviously get an increase as well, but wages just above minimum wage also increase, because minimum wage sets a base. Let's say someone is making $10 per hour and the minimum wage is raised from $7.25 to $9.00. There are minimum wage jobs that don't require a lot of physical labor or hustle, so the logic is why should I bust my ass for a buck more an hour? Why not just work four and a half hours more per week doing a much easier job and make $0.50 per week more? Minimum wage increases do increase the bottom wages, but the effect up the wage scale isn't as dramatic. For one thing, minimum wage jobs tend to be a dead end without the possibility of advancement. A person in manufacturing making $12.00 per hour isn't going to get anything near the percentage increase that the minimum wage worker received and would be lucky to get a buck out of it, if that was a starting wage. Part of it also has to do with how good the economy is doing, because workers further up the wage ladder are more inclined to seek wage increases following a minimum wage increase when times are good.

If your business has foreign competition, you need to start thinking in terms of protecting our market from unfair competition and stop trying to turn America into a third world country. I'll address that issue with another idiot, who can't see the macro-economic picture.

 

[Dubya]

You're presumptions remain unfounded an inaccurate. On what basis is someone going to buy more milk? And I can't put myself in the shoes of someone making minimum wage? So what you're essentially saying is if I could then I would insist then I would finally insist it's someone else's job to take care of me? I would hope I never become that pathetic.



Again every single thing that comes out of your idiot mouth is wrong. Every job in our company pays more than min. wage. Secondly paying our employees more doesn't change the demand of our consumer, because....wait for it....THEY AREN'T THE SAME ******* PEOPLE YOU ******* IDIOT. If we have to raise our prices to cover the increased cost of labor then we can no longer be competitive with our competitors that have no problem using overseas labor to make the same type of product. Demand for our product falls because there is an equal substitute that costs less. If demand falls then we have to produce less. Producing less requires fewer works, so the very people you tried to save have no income at all now because there is no point in building something that you can't sell and make money from.

Your competitors are in the same boat as you are, fool, so if your wages increase, why hasn't their wages increased? You can't even mention your product and you want someone to follow your bullshit logic! You must think of yourself as a great businessman, who keeps his product a secret. YOU ARE THE ******* IDIOT! Now, you claim your wages have went up, but more people can't afford your product. How is that possible, if wages determine who can afford your product? You have to be a measly salesman to think the way you think. Businessman, my ass!



Go back to school and learn how to read! I said:

First off, is your business paying people the mininum wage? If your product is only good for people who can afford it and is used one at a time, I would doubt it and it sounds like a car or boat.

If an increase in minimum wage triggers a general increase in wages, explain why more people won't be able to afford your mystery product and why your competition won't have the same increases in their labor costs!

You are a bunch of ******* bullshit, who sounds like a salesman believing his life's history of lies and only thinks he is a businessman.

Because the competition in manufacturing is in another country where someone with a 5th grade education can make the same product for 2/3 the money.
Amazing you want to reward our low skilled, undereducated workers with more $$$ which encourages more of the same:
A country that is more interested in what people make than what people can learn.

Consider your example and compare what is best for a nation! I can remember when it was common for working union people in manufacturing to be paying a third of their income in taxes. Those people made good money and they stimulated the local economies when they spent it. The times were good and those dollars were passed around quickly sending even more revenue to the governments and profit for businesses.

Now, let's put your manufacturing example into reality! I'll use 21% for the labor costs to make the math easy to follow. Yes the labor is cheaper and the product would cost 1.075 times as much to make here, but that's only $75 per $1,000 and we are losing much more than that not having that job here. The price of labor doesn't increase the cost of doing business that much. What we need are policies that protect our market, boosting our economy and not the world's economy, if that's what is happening. The odds are the corporation isn't passing on those savings from cheap labor and is just hoarding the extra profit.

 

[Mr Natural]

The minimum wage has been raised several times over the years.

And somehow, we've manged to survive.