The Dirty Little Truth About the Minimum Wage

[Conservative65]

He actually admitted in another thread that he wants employers to be forced to hire based on community makeup and to be monitored by government to ensure compliance. So in order to do this, they would necessarily have to hire AND fire solely on the basis of skin color.

Under his system... if I look out there and find my community is 20% more white, I have to fire 20% of my black workers and replace them with whites. Next month, if my community is 20% more Hispanic, I have to fire the whites and hire Hispanics. Otherwise, I can't be in compliance when the government man comes around.

again, guy, your company is going to turn over a lot faster than your community ever will. I suspect that if you even owned a company, the employers are sending out resumes like madmen trying to get away from you.

The reality is WE ALREADY HIRE AND FIRE ON THE BASIS OF SKIN COLOR. It just works out well for whites. ANd you know what, the main beneficiary of affrimative action have been- wait for it - WHITE WOMEN.

Companies were told they had to hire a certain percentage of women and they did. Problem ******* solved.

No, the main beneficiary of AA has been women. White has nothing to do with it since white isn't a factor used in the application of it.

From what you've posted, seems where you've worked didn't wait on you to leave. They ran you off.

 

[xband]

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.

Your company must not be in a right to work state. I know for a fact that both Georgia and Ohio are Right to Work.

 

[Conservative65]

Sorry, but for MY business, I want to hire the best and most qualified individual regardless of their skin color, religious belief or gender. The last thing on my list of requirements is what you want. In fact, it's not even on my list.

I also think that any policy that gives any group an advantage over others is wrong. I don't care if it's blacks, women, Martians or white males. I want every person who applies for MY jobs to have an equal opportunity to obtain them. If that happens to conform to the community makeup... Great! But again, that isn't on my list of requirements or standards which must be met.

Right, guy. The problem is they've studied this. If you have a Black or Hispanic Name, you are less likely to get a call back for an interview, even if you have hte same qualifications as the white person. So in real companies that exist, not your pretend company run by a pretend Native American, this is a real problem.

Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination

We perform a field experiment to measure racial discrimination in the labor market. We respond with fictitious resumes to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. To manipulate perception of race, each resume is assigned either a very African American sounding name or a very White sounding name. The results show significant discrimination against African-American names: White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. We also find that race affects the benefits of a better resume. For White names, a higher quality resume elicits 30 percent more callbacks whereas for African Americans, it elicits a far smaller increase. Applicants living in better neighborhoods receive more callbacks but, interestingly, this effect does not differ by race. The amount of discrimination is uniform across occupations and industries. Federal contractors and employers who list Equal Opportunity Employer' in their ad discriminate as much as other employers. We find little evidence that our results are driven by employers inferring something other than race, such as social class, from the names. These results suggest that racial discrimination is still a prominent feature of the labor market.

Who is "they"? Are they ones like you that automatically think if a black doesn't get hired it's racially motivated.

So the "study" manipulated numbers? Got it.

 

[xband]

Sorry, but for MY business, I want to hire the best and most qualified individual regardless of their skin color, religious belief or gender. The last thing on my list of requirements is what you want. In fact, it's not even on my list.

I also think that any policy that gives any group an advantage over others is wrong. I don't care if it's blacks, women, Martians or white males. I want every person who applies for MY jobs to have an equal opportunity to obtain them. If that happens to conform to the community makeup... Great! But again, that isn't on my list of requirements or standards which must be met.

Right, guy. The problem is they've studied this. If you have a Black or Hispanic Name, you are less likely to get a call back for an interview, even if you have hte same qualifications as the white person. So in real companies that exist, not your pretend company run by a pretend Native American, this is a real problem.

Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination

We perform a field experiment to measure racial discrimination in the labor market. We respond with fictitious resumes to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. To manipulate perception of race, each resume is assigned either a very African American sounding name or a very White sounding name. The results show significant discrimination against African-American names: White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. We also find that race affects the benefits of a better resume. For White names, a higher quality resume elicits 30 percent more callbacks whereas for African Americans, it elicits a far smaller increase. Applicants living in better neighborhoods receive more callbacks but, interestingly, this effect does not differ by race. The amount of discrimination is uniform across occupations and industries. Federal contractors and employers who list Equal Opportunity Employer' in their ad discriminate as much as other employers. We find little evidence that our results are driven by employers inferring something other than race, such as social class, from the names. These results suggest that racial discrimination is still a prominent feature of the labor market.

Who is "they"? Are they ones like you that automatically think if a black doesn't get hired it's racially motivated.

So the "study" manipulated numbers? Got it.

'They' are an ambiguous collection of intellectuals.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Except that it routinely undercounts minorities...

Obviously, you've never collected Census Data. I did in 2000 and 2010. In 2000, it was in a town called Cicero, which had a very high Hispanic population, and frankly, they wouldn't even answer the door. When I did it in the Western burbs in 2010, it was more your white nuts who didn't want no gummit collecting data on them. And today we have computers and shit to help us fill in the gaps.

the Data in 1930 was probably absolute shit.

You're not going to suddenly change my mind..

GUy, I'm not about changing your mind. YOu are a sorry ass Tool who just needs to be mocked and humiliated every time you try to justify the racist status quo.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

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 about anybody physically and mentally capable of working have a job? That's not too bad of an idea. Unless you have a trade or a skill, you're not going to be making great money. So you start at the bottom like many of us did and work your way up to better money.

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

No, it upsets liberals like you which is one of the reasons I chose it.

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.

Nope. My apartments are inspected by an agency hired by our city to do code and safety inspections. Our law is that those inspections have to take place before you rent to any new tenant. If a tenant moves out in three months, you have to get the inspection done all over again.

Yep, our state sends out those phony applicants as well. a huge waste of my time and money. These are government workers so they're not very smart. They don't realize that if you dig into their rental and work history, their application doesn't line up with what you found.

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.

WTF does your company have to do with your political affiliation? I have no idea how any of my employers voted. Even if I did, why in hell would that make me change parties?

I've seen plenty of people get fired in my time. It mostly had to do with the worker being an idiot or slacking on the job. In fact, we have some of those where I work now, it's just my employer feels sorry for them because if he lets them go, Lord only knows who will provide them with a job.

I think your problem is you watch too many movies on television. Employers don't get rid of good employees for golf buddies. They have plenty of golf buddies outside of work. Good employees are hard to find, especially with these millennials. Most employers could care less about race, about gender, about sexual preference. They care about making money.

 

[dblack]

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.

I'm not saying that. I try to avoid blanket statements like that. But it does infringe on our freedom.

People tend to separate economic freedom from other civil liberties as though it's qualitatively different, but I see no justification for that. In fact, I'd argue that economic freedom is among our most important freedoms.

 

[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.

I'm not saying that. I try to avoid blanket statements like that.

...BUT I WASN'T TALKING TO YOU, I WAS TALKING TO SOMEONE THAT WAS MAKING A STATEMENT LIKE THAT.

You were just butting in without reading the exchange.

 

[JoeB131]

How about anybody physically and mentally capable of working have a job? That's not too bad of an idea. Unless you have a trade or a skill, you're not going to be making great money. So you start at the bottom like many of us did and work your way up to better money.

Meh, as long as the bottom is a living wage, I don't care.

Nope. My apartments are inspected by an agency hired by our city to do code and safety inspections. Our law is that those inspections have to take place before you rent to any new tenant. If a tenant moves out in three months, you have to get the inspection done all over again.

Guy, I've been to your city. IF there's a "code', it's not a very strict one.

WTF does your company have to do with your political affiliation? I have no idea how any of my employers voted. Even if I did, why in hell would that make me change parties?

Guy, I've explained this many times. When my ex-boss (who I now have deal with a supplier) screwed me over, he announced, 'that's why I'm glad I don't have to deal with a union.'

Done with Republicans and Plutocrats and Capitalism- THAT ******* DAY. My goal. Make America a European Style Social Democracy. Most of us will be better off for it.

 

[JoeB131]

I've seen plenty of people get fired in my time. It mostly had to do with the worker being an idiot or slacking on the job. In fact, we have some of those where I work now, it's just my employer feels sorry for them because if he lets them go, Lord only knows who will provide them with a job.

Yeah. right, Whatever. This would be the employer who won't provide you decent health care coverage. Battered Housewife Conservatism, everyone.

I think your problem is you watch too many movies on television. Employers don't get rid of good employees for golf buddies. They have plenty of golf buddies outside of work. Good employees are hard to find, especially with these millennials. Most employers could care less about race, about gender, about sexual preference. They care about making money.

Guy, I've seen it happen in an office i worked at. They fired a nice black lady who had a college degree and lots of experience to lower headcount enough to create a job for the Golf Buddy who really didn't do much of anything but take two hour lunches with the GM. Meanwhile, the rest of us in the department had more work to do.

The day they got pissed off at me is when I asked why I was still doing a report this clown should have been doing that otherwise had nothing to do with my job.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Guy, I've seen it happen in an office i worked at. They fired a nice black lady who had a college degree and lots of experience to lower headcount enough to create a job for the Golf Buddy who really didn't do much of anything but take two hour lunches with the GM. Meanwhile, the rest of us in the department had more work to do.

The day they got pissed off at me is when I asked why I was still doing a report this clown should have been doing that otherwise had nothing to do with my job.

So how do you know what kind of job she did unless you were her supervisor? Just because you have a college degree and experience doesn't mean you're not Fn things up. Plenty of college degree employees lose their job every single day.

The fact that she was a minority is also a problem if she actually got fired and not laid off. Why would a company risk being sued out of business just to get a "golf buddy" in to work there? Seems like a pretty high price to pay.

This is why your story just doesn't add up.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How about anybody physically and mentally capable of working have a job? That's not too bad of an idea. Unless you have a trade or a skill, you're not going to be making great money. So you start at the bottom like many of us did and work your way up to better money.

Meh, as long as the bottom is a living wage, I don't care.

Nope. My apartments are inspected by an agency hired by our city to do code and safety inspections. Our law is that those inspections have to take place before you rent to any new tenant. If a tenant moves out in three months, you have to get the inspection done all over again.

Guy, I've been to your city. IF there's a "code', it's not a very strict one.

WTF does your company have to do with your political affiliation? I have no idea how any of my employers voted. Even if I did, why in hell would that make me change parties?

Guy, I've explained this many times. When my ex-boss (who I now have deal with a supplier) screwed me over, he announced, 'that's why I'm glad I don't have to deal with a union.'

Done with Republicans and Plutocrats and Capitalism- THAT ******* DAY. My goal. Make America a European Style Social Democracy. Most of us will be better off for it.

Guy, I've explained this many times. When my ex-boss (who I now have deal with a supplier) screwed me over, he announced, 'that's why I'm glad I don't have to deal with a union.'

Done with Republicans and Plutocrats and Capitalism- THAT ******* DAY. My goal. Make America a European Style Social Democracy. Most of us will be better off for it.

Why not just move to Europe and try it out yourself? We like our capitalist country. We like freedom, we like less government, and we like having the sky as the limit. Hell, our so-called poor people live better than many working Europeans. You want to live like that, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Guy, I've been to your city. IF there's a "code', it's not a very strict one.

No, you might have been in downtown Cleveland, but I'm sure you've never been to my suburb.

Meh, as long as the bottom is a living wage, I don't care.

Why would you care if it's a living wage? And what is a living wage anyway? Have any numbers for us?

 

[Afterword]

Companies were not forced to hire black people, there were no laws protecting them from discrimination at the time. So when faced with the prospect of either hiring a black man or white man at the same mandated wage, they typically went with the white man. The Minimum Wage, so proudly promoted by Progressives to this day, was an abhorrently racist policy designed to improve employment opportunity for whites over blacks and minorities.

This was the result of employers with racist mind-sets. If anything the minimum wage highlighted this problem and in this way contributed to the eventual passage of laws protecting minorities from this kind of discrimination.

 

[Boss]

Companies were not forced to hire black people, there were no laws protecting them from discrimination at the time. So when faced with the prospect of either hiring a black man or white man at the same mandated wage, they typically went with the white man. The Minimum Wage, so proudly promoted by Progressives to this day, was an abhorrently racist policy designed to improve employment opportunity for whites over blacks and minorities.

This was the result of employers with racist mind-sets. If anything the minimum wage highlighted this problem and in this way contributed to the eventual passage of laws protecting minorities from this kind of discrimination.

Davis-Bacon was a racist act that created a discrimination problem progressives had to fix. It was the original minimum wage law.

Sent from my SD4930UR using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Afterword]

Companies were not forced to hire black people, there were no laws protecting them from discrimination at the time. So when faced with the prospect of either hiring a black man or white man at the same mandated wage, they typically went with the white man. The Minimum Wage, so proudly promoted by Progressives to this day, was an abhorrently racist policy designed to improve employment opportunity for whites over blacks and minorities.

This was the result of employers with racist mind-sets. If anything the minimum wage highlighted this problem and in this way contributed to the eventual passage of laws protecting minorities from this kind of discrimination.

Davis-Bacon was a racist act that created a discrimination problem progressives had to fix. It was the original minimum wage law.

Sent from my SD4930UR using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

The Davis–Bacon act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Herbert Hoover on March 3, 1931.[2]

Davis and Bacon were both Republicans, as was Hoover.

 

[Boss]

Companies were not forced to hire black people, there were no laws protecting them from discrimination at the time. So when faced with the prospect of either hiring a black man or white man at the same mandated wage, they typically went with the white man. The Minimum Wage, so proudly promoted by Progressives to this day, was an abhorrently racist policy designed to improve employment opportunity for whites over blacks and minorities.

This was the result of employers with racist mind-sets. If anything the minimum wage highlighted this problem and in this way contributed to the eventual passage of laws protecting minorities from this kind of discrimination.

Davis-Bacon was a racist act that created a discrimination problem progressives had to fix. It was the original minimum wage law.

Sent from my SD4930UR using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

The Davis–Bacon act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Herbert Hoover on March 3, 1931.[2]

Davis and Bacon were both Republicans, as was Hoover.

There were many Republican progressives back then.

Prior to the passage of the federal Davis–Bacon Act (abbreviated DBA), other jurisdictions in the United States had passed laws that required that contractors on public works projects pay the wage that prevailed locally. “In 1891, Kansas adopted a law requiring that ‘not less than the current rate of per diem wages in the locality where the work is performed shall be paid to laborers, workmen, mechanics, and other persons so employed by or on behalf of the state of Kansas’ or of other local jurisdictions. Through the next several decades, other states followed suit, enacting a variety of labor-protective statutes covering workers in contract production.” [3][4]

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.

Over the next few years, Bacon attempted to introduce variations on the prevailing wage bill 13 times.[7][8] Finally, in the midst of the Great Depression, with local workers complaining about cheap labor taking their jobs and Congressmen frustrated that their efforts to bring "pork barrel" projects home to their districts did not result in jobs (and therefore political support) from their constituents,[5] the Hoover Administration requested that Congress reconsider the Act once more as a means of preventing falling wages.[9]Sponsored in the Senate by former Labor Secretary Davis, it passed by voice vote and was signed into law on 3 March 1931.[3]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

READ IT! Tell us what initiated this? I'm reading that it was blacks taking the jobs whites could do because blacks were willing to work for less. That's exactly how free market works. But it was desperate times... progressives needed to use the power of government to control others and that's what progressives always do.

 

[Markle]

I'm curious, if there is no minimum wage, what would the 'market' minimum wage be? Is there anyone actually arguing for doing away with it entirely?

I think raising it from $7.25/hr to $15/hr is too much too quick. And it should be more a local increase based on local economy. The cost of living in some cities is double what it is in others and small businesses will have a much deeper impact from any raise in minimum wage than larger companies. The national minimum wage should go to maybe $11/hr for 3 years, then raised $2/hr every 2 years after up to $15/hr. And small businesses with less than 25 employees should be able to pay a lower national minimum than larger companies. Doubling the minimum in one shot is too much. It is well over due though.

Arguments against a minimum wage are callous. Beef, wood, gasoline, coffee, orange juice, rubber, steel, all these commodities continually go up in price, which is absorbed by all businesses and the economy WITH LITTLE BITCHING. To argue human beings are the ones that should be treated like the throw away commodity so business can bolster it's profit margin is vile.

For all you people who don't know the history of unions and why they are relevant today figure it out. They are the only gathered power that working people have ever had.

Your ignorance of the subject is duly noted.

NOTHING is "absorbed" by the company. Increased costs have to be passed on to the consumer. If you believe anything other than that, you are a fool.

Unions are of no relevance today. Even you know that.

 

[Markle]

The minimum wage peaked in 1968. You lose.

Huih???

The minimum wage, adjusted for inflation, has been falling for 48 years.

All of your complaints about a higher minimum wage are being made in the context of what has actually been a falling minimum wage for almost half a century.

Good, then you agree, the Federal Minimum Wage must be eliminated. If the states want one, or a city, that's their business.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Companies were not forced to hire black people, there were no laws protecting them from discrimination at the time. So when faced with the prospect of either hiring a black man or white man at the same mandated wage, they typically went with the white man. The Minimum Wage, so proudly promoted by Progressives to this day, was an abhorrently racist policy designed to improve employment opportunity for whites over blacks and minorities.

This was the result of employers with racist mind-sets. If anything the minimum wage highlighted this problem and in this way contributed to the eventual passage of laws protecting minorities from this kind of discrimination.

Davis-Bacon was a racist act that created a discrimination problem progressives had to fix. It was the original minimum wage law.

Sent from my SD4930UR using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

When did they ever fix it?

 

[Norman]

The actual reality is quite different. As we get older and go to college, we are able to read different accounts of what happened and we learn that many of his policies actually prolonged the Great Depression.

The above, from the same right wingers who claim that college education is run by leftist professors that pollute the mind of naive conservative students? LOL

Hmm...



What we are seeing here is objectivity, and definitely not Marxist indoctrination in any shape or form. Believe that! And believe Hillary too, she never lies!

You have the same problem as Hillary, it is really difficult to manufacture a lie when the truth is on tape. But please continue devolving into regression.