The Dirty Little Truth About the Minimum Wage

[JoeB131]

You write resumes as a side business? Bet you have a video dating site also were you record people on VHS...and have run a milk man business in the morning.


Yes you ghost read my thread a week ago and now claim it is your post.

I have the proof you have zip nadda to claim you are better informed then me.

Uh, guy, you are babbling incoherently again...

Tell you what, come back when you sober up, and then maybe we can have a conversation.

 

[Boss]

Oh, youre running a bistro now? It's so hard to keep up with your ever changing story.

Okay, so essentially, you are trying to come up with a convoluted nothing to do with the point thing to justify why some businesses can be racist.. Got it.

It's been a bistro since I opened it. That has never changed.

No.... you don't "get" much of anything, assmunch. I'm not racist but I discriminate when I hire people based on what I'm looking for. Anytime a person is hired, the people who weren't hired are discriminated against. It might even be based on their ethnicity... if that's the ONLY reason, that's wrong and we have laws against it and punish people for it. But there may be legitimate reasons I don't want to hire a black person or white person or woman or man... it may be something to do with the nature of the job. It may have something to do with the expectations of the clients or the style you want to convey. All jobs are different.

You can make the opportunity to apply for the job equal but you can't eliminate discrimination because that is inherent in the hiring process.

Well, no, I just see too many examples of it in real life. Again- going back to Mr. Golfing buddy....

And that is the only example you ever cite. If someone wants to hire their golf buddy, that's their business. It's their job to offer and they can hire whoever the hell they want to hire. Maybe it's a job where trust is important and they trust their golf buddy more than anyone else that would apply? Maybe they just want to help out their buddy? People are free to that in life... I help my buddies all the time... nothing wrong with that... nothing racist about it.

What does ANY of that have to do with the fact that black names only get called 50% of the rate at white names? Guy, you are dodging the issue.... None of these things have anything to do with what happens after the interview. We were talking specifically- Same Resume- Same qualifications- Black names vs. White Names. White names get called morewith EVERY OTHER FACTOR being equal.

I explained why. You simply want to demagogue and bloviate. We don't know what kind of businesses, we don't have any information about them, we don't know how many cities they surveyed and how many they discarded that didn't fit their preconceived outcome. All we know is what they reported which was a biased position set up to make a point.

And even IF the point they are trying to establish is absolutely true... SO WHAT? It's even MORE the reason why minimum wage mandates and raising the MW makes it harder on these people to get jobs. You think they might call in more "Jamals" if they're having to fork out $15/hr. for the job? I don't think so.

Again... The very FIRST law mandating a "minimum wage" was done in 1931... the Davis-Bacon Act. It was signed into law by President Hoover... a Republican... so I am not "playing favorites" here. Just stating historical facts.

The stated purpose and objective was to price African-Americans out of the job market and it worked well. The year before it was passed was the last year black unemployment was lower than white unemployment.

Here is what is public record behind the legislation:
In 1927, a contractor employed African-American workers from Alabama to build a Veterans' Bureau hospital in the district of Congressman Bacon.[5] Prompted by concerns about the conditions of workers, displacement of local workers by migrant workers, and competitive pressure toward lower wages,[6] Bacon introduced the first version of his bill in 1927.

In other words... the "darkies" were gettin' all them good government jobs while the white men were left unemployed. Something had to be done about that! Well, something WAS done, the Davis-Bacon Act was passed and since then, black unemployment has been higher than white unemployment.

Let's jump ahead to the late 1940s when inflation had rendered the minimum wage out of relevance because even the lowest levels of employment commanded more than the MW. At that time, black teen employment was higher than white teen employment. They raised the MW to match inflation and since then, black teen unemployment has been higher than white teen unemployment.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You write resumes as a side business? Bet you have a video dating site also were you record people on VHS...and have run a milk man business in the morning.


Yes you ghost read my thread a week ago and now claim it is your post.

I have the proof you have zip nadda to claim you are better informed then me.

Uh, guy, you are babbling incoherently again...

Tell you what, come back when you sober up, and then maybe we can have a conversation.

Seriously Joe I caught you lying again.

 

[JoeB131]

No.... you don't "get" much of anything, assmunch. I'm not racist but I discriminate when I hire people based on what I'm looking for.

Yawn, guy, you say too much racist stuff here for me to take that claim seriously.

And that is the only example you ever cite. If someone wants to hire their golf buddy, that's their business.

Um, no. it isn't. Not as long as the rest of us end up having to carry the weight. I know my work load doubled when Golf Guy got hired...

I explained why. You simply want to demagogue and bloviate. We don't know what kind of businesses, we don't have any information about them, we don't know how many cities they surveyed and how many they discarded that didn't fit their preconceived outcome. All we know is what they reported which was a biased position set up to make a point.

actually, we know all these things because they were in the study. We know they surveyed two cities (Chicago and Boston) we know that they send out hundreds of resumes and we know that the "White" resumes got more callbacks than the black resumes.

 

[JoeB131]

Seriously Joe I caught you lying again.

Have another drink. Didn't read your article when you posted it and it was stupid when I did bother to read it.

 

[JoeB131]

In other words... the "darkies" were gettin' all them good government jobs while the white men were left unemployed. Something had to be done about that! Well, something WAS done, the Davis-Bacon Act was passed and since then, black unemployment has been higher than white unemployment.

Since they had no accurate way of gauging that, how do you really know that was the case? Your whole premise is based on "We think this was the case, but no one collected any data before that happened, but when we did finally get around to collecting data, we found it to be what it is."

 

[Wyatt earp]

Seriously Joe I caught you lying again.

Have another drink. Didn't read your article when you posted it and it was stupid when I did bother to read it.

Thanks for the laugh Joe.

 

[Boss]

Since they had no accurate way of gauging that, how do you really know that was the case? Your whole premise is based on "We think this was the case, but no one collected any data before that happened, but when we did finally get around to collecting data, we found it to be what it is."

But we did have an accurate way to know and that WAS the stated purpose of Davis-Bacon.

Source: Bernstein, David E. (2001), "Prevailing-Wage Laws", Only One Place of Redress: African Americans, Labor Regulations and the Court from Reconstruction to the New Deal, Duke University Press

 

[Boss]

actually, we know all these things because they were in the study. We know they surveyed two cities (Chicago and Boston) we know that they send out hundreds of resumes and we know that the "White" resumes got more callbacks than the black resumes.

No, we don't know how many cities they may have studied and didn't report. We just know the two examples they cite. We don't know what types of jobs they were. All we know is some people did a survey to obtain a preconceived result they wanted to make a political point.

That is typical of the kind of slanted and biased propaganda you use to prop up your bigoted racist viewpoints. While, at the same time, rejecting the US Census as "unreliable data" like some kind of radical goofball.

 

[JoeB131]

But we did have an accurate way to know and that WAS the stated purpose of Davis-Bacon.

Nobody was collecting that data in the 1920's... So, no, they didn't.

 

[Boss]

But we did have an accurate way to know and that WAS the stated purpose of Davis-Bacon.

Nobody was collecting that data in the 1920's... So, no, they didn't.

It's already in the thread, we've already debated it, you're just repeating your same denials. That's really all you have... demagoguing and spinning... rinse and repeat.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What does ANY of that have to do with the fact that black names only get called 50% of the rate at white names? Guy, you are dodging the issue.... None of these things have anything to do with what happens after the interview. We were talking specifically- Same Resume- Same qualifications- Black names vs. White Names. White names get called morewith EVERY OTHER FACTOR being equal.

Two thoughts on this:

One is that when a business hires a black person, it's almost impossible to fire them if they don't work out. I've seen this repeatedly with our customers. They fear being sued or even accused of race discrimination. Such publicity could be damaging to a companies reputation whether true or false.

I have the exact same fears when interviewing a possible tenant. If I believe the minority applicant will not work out (for whatever reason) I do have to be concerned about getting sued for race discrimination if I opt to rent to a white applicant instead. If I deny a white applicant an apartment because half of his hair was died purple, and he used the word "dude" in every sentence, there is nothing that person can do to me because I used my instincts to make my decision, and there is no law against it.

These protected class laws work against people more than help them at times. An employers favorite color is green. The worker that can make them the most green is that employers favorite employee. As a landlord, my favorite tenant is one who can get along with all my other tenants; keep their place clean; pay their rent on time or early.

Second thought: I've seen some of our customers opt for black workers only. In fact, a few of our customers totally wiped out their white staff and replaced them with blacks. Why? Because black people can work for lower wages. In their neighborhood, the cost of living is much lower than middle-class white areas. The black workers may not be as productive as their white middle-class counter parts, but the company benefits more with cheaper labor than a little better productivity.

 

[JoeB131]

It's already in the thread, we've already debated it, you're just repeating your same denials. That's really all you have... demagoguing and spinning... rinse and repeat.

Yeah, the thing is, the Department of Labor didn't start collecting serious data on unemployment until well after the 1920's, so anything before that is a guess. Heck, even today, they count "non-farm" payrolls... So the employment rate of a largely agrarian population is kind of meaningless.

Two thoughts on this:

One is that when a business hires a black person, it's almost impossible to fire them if they don't work out. I've seen this repeatedly with our customers. They fear being sued or even accused of race discrimination. Such publicity could be damaging to a companies reputation whether true or false.

So what? It should be almost impossible to fire people. But frankly, as I've said, I've seen a black woman fired so that they could create a job for a golfing buddy who had zero qualifications. So, uh, no.

Welcome to the world of At Will Employment and No Unions, buddy. But I want to hear you whine about how your employer is cheating you on health insurance and it's all Obama's fault.

I have the exact same fears when interviewing a possible tenant. If I believe the minority applicant will not work out (for whatever reason) I do have to be concerned about getting sued for race discrimination if I opt to rent to a white applicant instead. If I deny a white applicant an apartment because half of his hair was died purple, and he used the word "dude" in every sentence, there is nothing that person can do to me because I used my instincts to make my decision, and there is no law against it.

Again, housing discrimination is still pretty common, despite best efforts.

Housing Discrimination More Subtle, But Still Absurdly High | DiversityInc

The study sent white, Black, Hispanic and Asian participants out to pose as potential renters or homebuyers, with each taking on a scripted socioeconomic persona that included annual salaries, car and credit card payments, and debt loads that made them equally qualified financially....Overall, the research finds minority renters are told about 10–12 percent fewer units than whites and are shown 4–7 percent fewer places by agents. Among potential homeowners, Blacks are most discriminated against, learning about 17 percent fewer available homes and being shown 18 percent fewer than whites.

******* Studies, man, don't you hate when they do ******* studies that prove this minority advantage you guys keep whining about doesn't exist?

These protected class laws work against people more than help them at times. An employers favorite color is green. The worker that can make them the most green is that employers favorite employee. As a landlord, my favorite tenant is one who can get along with all my other tenants; keep their place clean; pay their rent on time or early.

Right, Ray... because A guy with an avatar of a white dude pointing a gun at people is clearly going to be a totally sensible guy on race.

Second thought: I've seen some of our customers opt for black workers only. In fact, a few of our customers totally wiped out their white staff and replaced them with blacks. Why? Because black people can work for lower wages. In their neighborhood, the cost of living is much lower than middle-class white areas. The black workers may not be as productive as their white middle-class counter parts, but the company benefits more with cheaper labor than a little better productivity.

Except black unemployment is still higher than White Unemployment... so, um, no.

 

[Boss]

Yeah, the thing is, the Department of Labor didn't start collecting serious data on unemployment until well after the 1920's, so anything before that is a guess. Heck, even today, they count "non-farm" payrolls... So the employment rate of a largely agrarian population is kind of meaningless.

Again, the US Census is how we collected this information before the Labor Department started doing it in the mid 30s. Census data is far from a "guess" ...it's the most accurate measure of data we have. It shows in 1930, black unemployment was lower than white unemployment.

This makes perfect sense because at the time, there were no anti-discrimination laws. The stock market crash caused many businesses to make drastic cuts wherever they could and labor cost was one of those areas. They could pay blacks less to do the same amount of work, so that's what many did. As a result, blacks were more employable than whites.

This did not sit well with many whites of the time... to be out of work and look over at the black men doing their jobs. That was the rationale and reasoning behind the very first minimum wage law, the Davis-Bacon Act. Feel free to go research this legislation and the arguments made for it. No one can deny it was clearly to protect white jobs by forcing companies to comply to equal pay mandates. Suddenly, hiring the black man doesn't save the company any money and we see a stark decline in black employment which they've never recovered from.

If you just want to nit pick on the technicality of the way we collected data,,, that's fine, it just demonstrates how strongly you will defend racist policies. I actually love for you to do this... it illustrates your bigoted racism better than anything I could ever say about you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's already in the thread, we've already debated it, you're just repeating your same denials. That's really all you have... demagoguing and spinning... rinse and repeat.

Yeah, the thing is, the Department of Labor didn't start collecting serious data on unemployment until well after the 1920's, so anything before that is a guess. Heck, even today, they count "non-farm" payrolls... So the employment rate of a largely agrarian population is kind of meaningless.

Two thoughts on this:

One is that when a business hires a black person, it's almost impossible to fire them if they don't work out. I've seen this repeatedly with our customers. They fear being sued or even accused of race discrimination. Such publicity could be damaging to a companies reputation whether true or false.

So what? It should be almost impossible to fire people. But frankly, as I've said, I've seen a black woman fired so that they could create a job for a golfing buddy who had zero qualifications. So, uh, no.

Welcome to the world of At Will Employment and No Unions, buddy. But I want to hear you whine about how your employer is cheating you on health insurance and it's all Obama's fault.

I have the exact same fears when interviewing a possible tenant. If I believe the minority applicant will not work out (for whatever reason) I do have to be concerned about getting sued for race discrimination if I opt to rent to a white applicant instead. If I deny a white applicant an apartment because half of his hair was died purple, and he used the word "dude" in every sentence, there is nothing that person can do to me because I used my instincts to make my decision, and there is no law against it.

Again, housing discrimination is still pretty common, despite best efforts.

Housing Discrimination More Subtle, But Still Absurdly High | DiversityInc

The study sent white, Black, Hispanic and Asian participants out to pose as potential renters or homebuyers, with each taking on a scripted socioeconomic persona that included annual salaries, car and credit card payments, and debt loads that made them equally qualified financially....Overall, the research finds minority renters are told about 10–12 percent fewer units than whites and are shown 4–7 percent fewer places by agents. Among potential homeowners, Blacks are most discriminated against, learning about 17 percent fewer available homes and being shown 18 percent fewer than whites.

******* Studies, man, don't you hate when they do ******* studies that prove this minority advantage you guys keep whining about doesn't exist?

These protected class laws work against people more than help them at times. An employers favorite color is green. The worker that can make them the most green is that employers favorite employee. As a landlord, my favorite tenant is one who can get along with all my other tenants; keep their place clean; pay their rent on time or early.

Right, Ray... because A guy with an avatar of a white dude pointing a gun at people is clearly going to be a totally sensible guy on race.

Second thought: I've seen some of our customers opt for black workers only. In fact, a few of our customers totally wiped out their white staff and replaced them with blacks. Why? Because black people can work for lower wages. In their neighborhood, the cost of living is much lower than middle-class white areas. The black workers may not be as productive as their white middle-class counter parts, but the company benefits more with cheaper labor than a little better productivity.

Except black unemployment is still higher than White Unemployment... so, um, no.

So what? It should be almost impossible to fire people. But frankly, as I've said, I've seen a black woman fired so that they could create a job for a golfing buddy who had zero qualifications. So, uh, no.

Welcome to the world of At Will Employment and No Unions, buddy. But I want to hear you whine about how your employer is cheating you on health insurance and it's all Obama's fault.

You mean like your whining about who got what job at your place of employment?

And what do you mean it should be impossible to fire people? That's the way unions drove companies out of business. A good worker doesn't have to be worried about being fired. If you hire somebody to do the lawn care on your property, and every time they come out, they do a half-ass job, should you be forbidden from taking your business to another lawn care company?

You leftists really need to think things out before you say or write them.

Again, housing discrimination is still pretty common, despite best efforts.

So in other words, it failed. Well......that is typical of liberal policy you know. Hey! I have an idea: why don't we scrap all those rules so that landlords can rent to minorities without fear of retaliation in the event they don't work out? Or fear of retaliation if they don't rent to them in the first place?

Nah, that would never work. It makes too much sense. Liberals would never go for it.

Right, Ray... because A guy with an avatar of a white dude pointing a gun at people is clearly going to be a totally sensible guy on race.

More sensible and realistic, that's for sure. At least I'm not some kind of paranoid that screams racism at the drop of a hat.

Except black unemployment is still higher than White Unemployment... so, um, no.

Yes it is, isn't that amazing how that happens under a black President? It certainly can't be because people are fat and happy with their Obama phone and food stamp card. No. It must be because of employment discrimination.

 

[JoeB131]

Again, the US Census is how we collected this information before the Labor Department started doing it in the mid 30s. Census data is far from a "guess" ...it's the most accurate measure of data we have. It shows in 1930, black unemployment was lower than white unemployment.

Census Data isn't accurate today. It was a lot less accurate back in the 1930's.

You mean like your whining about who got what job at your place of employment?

And what do you mean it should be impossible to fire people? That's the way unions drove companies out of business. A good worker doesn't have to be worried about being fired. If you hire somebody to do the lawn care on your property, and every time they come out, they do a half-ass job, should you be forbidden from taking your business to another lawn care company?

Bullshit, I've seen good employees fired for all sorts of reasons. Again- reason I'm not a republican anymore is because a company in 2008 fucked me over when I had medical issues, the six years of loyal service before that be damned. I've seen people fired for being gay, people fired to make jobs for golf buddies. But mostly, I've seen people fired because more often than not, management just doesn't' know what the **** it is doing most of the time.

So in other words, it failed. Well......that is typical of liberal policy you know. Hey! I have an idea: why don't we scrap all those rules so that landlords can rent to minorities without fear of retaliation in the event they don't work out? Or fear of retaliation if they don't rent to them in the first place?

Oh, you do a sting operations and make a ******* glaring example out of racist landlords. Oops, your house is now under GOVERNMENT management. We'll let you have some of the proceeds, after we've taken out our handling fees, and maybe clean up some of those repairs you refuse to do.

More sensible and realistic, that's for sure. At least I'm not some kind of paranoid that screams racism at the drop of a hat.

Guy, have you looked at your Avi? Frankly, it screams "nutbag".

Yes it is, isn't that amazing how that happens under a black President? It certainly can't be because people are fat and happy with their Obama phone and food stamp card. No. It must be because of employment discrimination.

So let's try this. EVERY AMERICAN is garunteed a job. No Obamaphones, no section 8. Everyone has to show up for work somewhere, and they get a living wage, but they have to show up.

This isn't even a new idea. FDR suggested it in his State of the Union Address in 1945.

 

[owebo]

Again, the US Census is how we collected this information before the Labor Department started doing it in the mid 30s. Census data is far from a "guess" ...it's the most accurate measure of data we have. It shows in 1930, black unemployment was lower than white unemployment.

Census Data isn't accurate today. It was a lot less accurate back in the 1930's.

You mean like your whining about who got what job at your place of employment?

And what do you mean it should be impossible to fire people? That's the way unions drove companies out of business. A good worker doesn't have to be worried about being fired. If you hire somebody to do the lawn care on your property, and every time they come out, they do a half-ass job, should you be forbidden from taking your business to another lawn care company?

Bullshit, I've seen good employees fired for all sorts of reasons. Again- reason I'm not a republican anymore is because a company in 2008 fucked me over when I had medical issues, the six years of loyal service before that be damned. I've seen people fired for being gay, people fired to make jobs for golf buddies. But mostly, I've seen people fired because more often than not, management just doesn't' know what the **** it is doing most of the time.

So in other words, it failed. Well......that is typical of liberal policy you know. Hey! I have an idea: why don't we scrap all those rules so that landlords can rent to minorities without fear of retaliation in the event they don't work out? Or fear of retaliation if they don't rent to them in the first place?

Oh, you do a sting operations and make a ******* glaring example out of racist landlords. Oops, your house is now under GOVERNMENT management. We'll let you have some of the proceeds, after we've taken out our handling fees, and maybe clean up some of those repairs you refuse to do.

More sensible and realistic, that's for sure. At least I'm not some kind of paranoid that screams racism at the drop of a hat.

Guy, have you looked at your Avi? Frankly, it screams "nutbag".

Yes it is, isn't that amazing how that happens under a black President? It certainly can't be because people are fat and happy with their Obama phone and food stamp card. No. It must be because of employment discrimination.

So let's try this. EVERY AMERICAN is garunteed a job. No Obamaphones, no section 8. Everyone has to show up for work somewhere, and they get a living wage, but they have to show up.

This isn't even a new idea. FDR suggested it in his State of the Union Address in 1945.

How utterly fascist of you.....

 

[AntonToo]

Well, it's an ideal. A goal. Are you saying it isn't worth pursuing?

I'm saying you fellas need to come on down to planet earth and start talking about issues in a realistic way that doesn't make you look like martians.

Hmm. I'm not really sure what that means. I think freedom is a fairly natural desire, and something most people consider a good thing. I'm wary of attempts to write it off as a fantasy.

It means that society having some common sense redistribution doesn't mean it's NOT a free society. So stop saying that some particular redistribution means the end of free society.

 

[owebo]

Well, it's an ideal. A goal. Are you saying it isn't worth pursuing?

I'm saying you fellas need to come on down to planet earth and start talking about issues in a realistic way that doesn't make you look like martians.

Hmm. I'm not really sure what that means. I think freedom is a fairly natural desire, and something most people consider a good thing. I'm wary of attempts to write it off as a fantasy.

It means that society having some common sense redistribution doesn't mean it's NOT a free society. So stop saying that some particular redistribution means the end of free society.

So you confiscate my wealth for you to give to others, and that is freedom in your fucked up liberal mind? Huh......

 

[Boss]

Census Data isn't accurate today. It was a lot less accurate back in the 1930's.

Yes, it's reliably accurate and it was reliably accurate in 1930. It's how we've decided delegate apportionment and electoral votes, it's how we've determined federal funding and all sorts of things. To be sitting here arguing that Census Bureau data is not accurate is simply idiotic.

It's a nonsense argument you've made for several days now and you just keep on making it. You're not going to suddenly change my mind... I doubt you're going to change any other minds... so why not just shut up and drop it now? You've posted it, you made the point... no need to continue repeating the same thing over and over again. If you need to practice typing, open up your Mavis Beacon program or something.