To those saying flipping burgers or dunking fries deserves 15.00 per hour...

[Thinker101]

In the course of this thread I have not advocated NOR supported an laws that would impose a requirement that an employer pay an employee any kind of wage. Giving employers a chance to reduce their taxes by more than half (and it is clearly THEIR choice) is not socialism in any way, shape, fashion or form.

Great, then why not offer such tax breaks to employers that provide employees with healthcare insurance instead? I'd be all for that.

They are the ones against a free market. BTW, why protect jobs if you're only going to force people to work for slave wages?

Can you name me one person who is "forced" to work for anybody for any wage? I've had several jobs in my life, and nobody ever forced me to take any of them. I took those jobs by my own choice.

I agree, although when you consider many of the liberals out there, they feel having to show up on time for work is forcing them....and terribly difficult.

Humornut isn’t a liberal, he is a lefty.

Yikes is there a difference?

 

[Papageorgio]

In the course of this thread I have not advocated NOR supported an laws that would impose a requirement that an employer pay an employee any kind of wage. Giving employers a chance to reduce their taxes by more than half (and it is clearly THEIR choice) is not socialism in any way, shape, fashion or form.

Great, then why not offer such tax breaks to employers that provide employees with healthcare insurance instead? I'd be all for that.

They are the ones against a free market. BTW, why protect jobs if you're only going to force people to work for slave wages?

Can you name me one person who is "forced" to work for anybody for any wage? I've had several jobs in my life, and nobody ever forced me to take any of them. I took those jobs by my own choice.

I agree, although when you consider many of the liberals out there, they feel having to show up on time for work is forcing them....and terribly difficult.

Humornut isn’t a liberal, he is a lefty.

Yikes is there a difference?

Yep, Billy_Kinetta is a liberal, he has principles and character and his values don’t change. His best friends are conservatives. Lefty’s shift with the wind and political power overrides values and honesty. The worst enemy of liberals. They will sellout. Same is true about conservatives and righty’s.

 

[Auld Phart]

Mod Note:


Deleted 5 posts for personal attacks

This is Zone 2, people

 

[JBond]

View attachment 164037

Even McDonald's acknowledges that their business was intended for children.
Holding businesses that are created with the employment of kids & college students responsible for the poor choices people make in life is wrong. If you're in your mid to late 20's or higher & working for minimum wage you have no one to blame but yourself. You're poor choices should not result in a 10.00 Big Mac or 4 dollar fry.

Prices go up even when wages don't..Derp...

How much did you place in the tip jar?

 

[flacaltenn]

I came onto this thread to discuss the indefensible attitude that some people have toward paying their employees a realistic wage. I dare not say fair wage, minimum wage, and am even cautious about saying livable wage.

This issue is not about right versus left; it is about right versus wrong. When we have poseurs wanting to get personal, but lacking the brains to have a civil discussion nor the balls to back up their bloviating bullshit, then the conversation must be considered over.

Oh, the discussion aint' over yet. A rational response to your "proposal" which you THINK should be an obvious solution to safety nets and welfare is that --- making folks COMFORTABLE in endangered menial jobs is actually immoral and has some very obvious NEGATIVE consequences to the long term welfare of the people involved in your altruistic spending of other people's money..

It's immoral, because you are simply promoting THE JOB and not THE PERSON. By making them comfortable in jobs subject to extinction thru technology, automation or transformation to the web. The focus should be on WHO is ELIGIBLE for inflated wage jobs at the very bottom of the work force. IMO -- only folks who are currently pursuing continuing or higher education should be eligible for min wage jobs. With some exceptions for seniors and the mentally challenged. THAT WAY -- they have a trajectory in the workforce pyramid. A GED would qualify. As would vocational training or comm. College.

Lots of unintended SEVERE negative consequences to promoting jobs to "living wage". Inner city drop-out rates are embarrassing and atrocious. Most of the kids want OUT of their crappy home life and to leave abusive situations. If you dangle $15/hr to flip burgers in front of them -- you're dooming MORE OF THEM to a life of disenfranchisement from market labor. Schools wouldn't be able to KEEP them inside their doors.

That's not progress on "ending slavery".. That's a boat ride directly into slavery. Although I dread using your slavery analogy at all.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In the course of this thread I have not advocated NOR supported an laws that would impose a requirement that an employer pay an employee any kind of wage. Giving employers a chance to reduce their taxes by more than half (and it is clearly THEIR choice) is not socialism in any way, shape, fashion or form.

Great, then why not offer such tax breaks to employers that provide employees with healthcare insurance instead? I'd be all for that.

They are the ones against a free market. BTW, why protect jobs if you're only going to force people to work for slave wages?

Can you name me one person who is "forced" to work for anybody for any wage? I've had several jobs in my life, and nobody ever forced me to take any of them. I took those jobs by my own choice.

I noticed you put that term "forced" in quotations.

Why yes I did. How observant of you.

 

[JoeB131]

Oh, the discussion aint' over yet. A rational response to your "proposal" which you THINK should be an obvious solution to safety nets and welfare is that --- making folks COMFORTABLE in endangered menial jobs is actually immoral and has some very obvious NEGATIVE consequences to the long term welfare of the people involved in your altruistic spending of other people's money..

Oh, please. First, these jobs are hardly "endangered". They'll probably be the only jobs left at the rate the One Percenters are going at the middle class.

It's immoral, because you are simply promoting THE JOB and not THE PERSON. By making them comfortable in jobs subject to extinction thru technology, automation or transformation to the web. The focus should be on WHO is ELIGIBLE for inflated wage jobs at the very bottom of the work force. IMO -- only folks who are currently pursuing continuing or higher education should be eligible for min wage jobs. With some exceptions for seniors and the mentally challenged. THAT WAY -- they have a trajectory in the workforce pyramid. A GED would qualify. As would vocational training or comm. College.

Here's kind of hte problem with that mentality. Back in the 1980's, I worked two minimum wage jobs to pay for college at UIC. To pay tuition (when the army wasn't covering it for me) I had to work 10 hours a week. The rest of it went to paying rent, transportation and other stuff. I worked 35 hours a week between these two jobs. plus one weekend a month in the National Guard.

NOW- tuition at UIC costs close to $16,000 a year. You could work 40 hours a week and still not e able to afford it.

 

[JoeB131]

Lots of unintended SEVERE negative consequences to promoting jobs to "living wage". Inner city drop-out rates are embarrassing and atrocious. Most of the kids want OUT of their crappy home life and to leave abusive situations. If you dangle $15/hr to flip burgers in front of them -- you're dooming MORE OF THEM to a life of disenfranchisement from market labor. Schools wouldn't be able to KEEP them inside their doors.

and that would be bad, why? if the schools were teaching them anything useful, you might have a point. Right now they are largely glorified baby-sitting services.

 

[Moonglow]

View attachment 164037

Even McDonald's acknowledges that their business was intended for children.
Holding businesses that are created with the employment of kids & college students responsible for the poor choices people make in life is wrong. If you're in your mid to late 20's or higher & working for minimum wage you have no one to blame but yourself. You're poor choices should not result in a 10.00 Big Mac or 4 dollar fry.

Prices go up even when wages don't..Derp...

How much did you place in the tip jar?

I've never seen a tip jar at a McDonald's..

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Oh, please. First, these jobs are hardly "endangered". They'll probably be the only jobs left at the rate the One Percenters are going at the middle class.

Automation may soon render much of them obsolete.
McDonald's hits all-time high as Wall Street cheers replacement of cashiers with kiosks

 

[Humorme]

Great, then why not offer such tax breaks to employers that provide employees with healthcare insurance instead? I'd be all for that.

Can you name me one person who is "forced" to work for anybody for any wage? I've had several jobs in my life, and nobody ever forced me to take any of them. I took those jobs by my own choice.

I agree, although when you consider many of the liberals out there, they feel having to show up on time for work is forcing them....and terribly difficult.

Humornut isn’t a liberal, he is a lefty.

Yikes is there a difference?

You're asking a retard that is too chickenshit and cowardly to say that stuff in public? He voted for Hitlery, didn't.

There you go, love that your true colors have come out. It was just a matter of time, you dishonest assholes can’t cover up your real self for long.

I’d never vote for Hillary, she is dishonest. I wouldn’t vote for Trump either.

You need some new material. Everybody you disagree with is some negative label. But, you are not an honorable man. You and I know that is a fact regardless of how much shit you spew on this board.

 

[Humorme]

I came onto this thread to discuss the indefensible attitude that some people have toward paying their employees a realistic wage. I dare not say fair wage, minimum wage, and am even cautious about saying livable wage.

This issue is not about right versus left; it is about right versus wrong. When we have poseurs wanting to get personal, but lacking the brains to have a civil discussion nor the balls to back up their bloviating bullshit, then the conversation must be considered over.

Oh, the discussion aint' over yet. A rational response to your "proposal" which you THINK should be an obvious solution to safety nets and welfare is that --- making folks COMFORTABLE in endangered menial jobs is actually immoral and has some very obvious NEGATIVE consequences to the long term welfare of the people involved in your altruistic spending of other people's money..

It's immoral, because you are simply promoting THE JOB and not THE PERSON. By making them comfortable in jobs subject to extinction thru technology, automation or transformation to the web. The focus should be on WHO is ELIGIBLE for inflated wage jobs at the very bottom of the work force. IMO -- only folks who are currently pursuing continuing or higher education should be eligible for min wage jobs. With some exceptions for seniors and the mentally challenged. THAT WAY -- they have a trajectory in the workforce pyramid. A GED would qualify. As would vocational training or comm. College.

Lots of unintended SEVERE negative consequences to promoting jobs to "living wage". Inner city drop-out rates are embarrassing and atrocious. Most of the kids want OUT of their crappy home life and to leave abusive situations. If you dangle $15/hr to flip burgers in front of them -- you're dooming MORE OF THEM to a life of disenfranchisement from market labor. Schools wouldn't be able to KEEP them inside their doors.

That's not progress on "ending slavery".. That's a boat ride directly into slavery. Although I dread using your slavery analogy at all.

I would have agreed that the conversation is not over so long as people were discussing issues as opposed to personal stuff that needs to be taken to a PM.

At least the dialogue you present opens the door to some kind of discussion.

My mother was relatively young when the old man got sent to the hoosegow. There she was with four children and no support system. IF employers had paid her a realistic wage, we would not have had to rely on boxes of food and food stamps in order to eat.

Furthermore, when you witness employers raking in large bundles of cash and then squander large sums of money on vacations, strippers, expensive cars, etc. it makes the employees more agreeable to listen to a socialist like Bernie Sanders for their solutions.

An employer gets this fantastic sum of money from your efforts but it is only "worth" chump change when the employer is raking in huge profits. In reality, the overwhelming majority of workers are realistic enough to know they don't own a part of the company and are only entitled to a paycheck. But, the paycheck must be realistic.

So, where is the solution?

"The existence of a free market does not of course eliminate the need for government. On the contrary, government is essential both as a forum for determining the “rule of the game” and as an umpire to interpret and enforce the rules decided on."

— Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom

I am not dooming anyone to any particular lifestyle. IF an individual does not have the capacity nor the interest in pursuing a more meaningful life, it is not up to society to force them to become someone they are not.

Rather than to tell you why your solutions won't work, I'd rather try figuring out how some variation of your ideas could work. For instance, entry level jobs could pay a wage of $15 an hour AND last for a term (one to two years.)

Unless the worker qualifies under a protected class (mentally challenged, physically challenged, etc.) then they can only work for an employer for a definite term. As an added bonus on those jobs, the employer may get a tax credit (I think it already exists) to hire those who are furthering their education AND offer reduced college tuition and free GED classes for those who get one of these menial jobs.

That way, menial jobs will not be forever. There IS a solution other than what the mainstream is offering.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

My mother was relatively young when the old man got sent to the hoosegow. There she was with four children and no support system. IF employers had paid her a realistic wage, we would not have had to rely on boxes of food and food stamps in order to eat.

Are employers now going to be forced to pay wages according to a persons personal choices (4 children from a young mother/ a husband/father that made poor choices)? Obviously there was a support system if your mother got boxes of food and food stamps. Maybe your father should have been a better person/husband/and father. Why should the employer be saddled with your baggage?

Furthermore, when you witness employers raking in large bundles of cash and then squander large sums of money on vacations, strippers, expensive cars, etc. it makes the employees more agreeable to listen to a socialist like Bernie Sanders for their solutions.

Envy is a *****, maybe the employee should work harder and get educated enough to rise above their situation. Again its a personal choice to stay where you are.

An employer gets this fantastic sum of money from your efforts but it is only "worth" chump change when the employer is raking in huge profits. In reality, the overwhelming majority of workers are realistic enough to know they don't own a part of the company and are only entitled to a paycheck. But, the paycheck must be realistic.

Does the state and the federal govt not define what is realistic for jobs? A minimum wage is usually an entry wage into that line of work. If the employee fails to achieve, again who's fault is it?

So, where is the solution?

"The existence of a free market does not of course eliminate the need for government. On the contrary, government is essential both as a forum for determining the “rule of the game” and as an umpire to interpret and enforce the rules decided on."

— Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom

Quite the opposite of what you were claiming earlier in this thread. SMFH

I am not dooming anyone to any particular lifestyle. IF an individual does not have the capacity nor the interest in pursuing a more meaningful life, it is not up to society to force them to become someone they are not.

Each individual dooms themselves to their particular lifestyle.

Rather than to tell you why your solutions won't work, I'd rather try figuring out how some variation of your ideas could work. For instance, entry level jobs could pay a wage of $15 an hour AND last for a term (one to two years.)

So the employer is stuck training new employees every term, just additional costs on the employer which in turn increases costs and you have inflation, to which $15 per hour can no longer afford. Then you will be screaming it should be $20 per hour. It just keeps going on.

Unless the worker qualifies under a protected class (mentally challenged, physically challenged, etc.) then they can only work for an employer for a definite term. As an added bonus on those jobs, the employer may get a tax credit (I think it already exists) to hire those who are furthering their education AND offer reduced college tuition and free GED classes for those who get one of these menial jobs.

So is the employer now suppose to include college tuition money with their employee contracts?

That way, menial jobs will not be forever. There IS a solution other than what the mainstream is offering.

These menial jobs are nothing but entry level positions or positions for those that needed additional money to supplement themselves during hard times. Sounds as if you are still living in the recession.

 

[flacaltenn]

My mother was relatively young when the old man got sent to the hoosegow. There she was with four children and no support system. IF employers had paid her a realistic wage, we would not have had to rely on boxes of food and food stamps in order to eat.

Still - it's an example of promoting the JOB, not the person. Furthermore, you're making a plead by NEED. Which is something that is beyond the scope of mgt for setting wages in any respectable size business. Certainly paying a HS or college student who EXPECTS to live like a pauper the SAME and doesn't have 4 kids is inefficient and wasteful. And just that INEQUITY didn't get fixed.. When govt MANDATES a wage higher than the job should require, all those bad side effects kick in. The incentive to quit learning. The tendency to move that JOB to automation and many others.

Furthermore, when you witness employers raking in large bundles of cash and then squander large sums of money on vacations, strippers, expensive cars, etc. it makes the employees more agreeable to listen to a socialist like Bernie Sanders for their solutions.

An employer gets this fantastic sum of money from your efforts but it is only "worth" chump change when the employer is raking in huge profits. In reality, the overwhelming majority of workers are realistic enough to know they don't own a part of the company and are only entitled to a paycheck. But, the paycheck must be realistic.

Owners and management are taking all the risk and they are not UNIQUE in "blowing money" on sins. Employees do a marvelous job of "blowing money" as well. Besides this is HUGE misconception about wage gaps between owners and employees.

1) MOST of the mgt compensation is transferring EQUITY and Stock in the company to reflect their partial ownership of the enterprise. IT TAKES NOTHING FROM EMPLOYEES.. Not a dime.

2) The owners are bearing the total risk load. More FAILURES than successes in most biz sectors.

 

[flacaltenn]

Rather than to tell you why your solutions won't work, I'd rather try figuring out how some variation of your ideas could work. For instance, entry level jobs could pay a wage of $15 an hour AND last for a term (one to two years.)

BY DEFINITION of a job -- minimum wage of any type ONLY LASTS a year or two. So that's not the issue. It's the vertical wage inflation that you created ABOVE the entry level position..

Unless the worker qualifies under a protected class (mentally challenged, physically challenged, etc.) then they can only work for an employer for a definite term. As an added bonus on those jobs, the employer may get a tax credit (I think it already exists) to hire those who are furthering their education AND offer reduced college tuition and free GED classes for those who get one of these menial jobs.

Variations of this are what I've been pitching to the LParty for about 4 years now. I gave you a variation. Which is ONLY students (broadly defined) are eligible for min wage jobs. Employers probably wouldn't NEED a tax credit. They would advertise the hell of supporting students and helping to build careers. It's PR gold. And companies could NEGOTIATE with tech schools, GED services, etc and get MUCH better deals than the individuals could. And employer would rather kick in training than inflate EVERY JOB in his business..

 

[Skull Pilot]

Your average career fast food worker

 

[Papageorgio]

I agree, although when you consider many of the liberals out there, they feel having to show up on time for work is forcing them....and terribly difficult.

Humornut isn’t a liberal, he is a lefty.

Yikes is there a difference?

You're asking a retard that is too chickenshit and cowardly to say that stuff in public? He voted for Hitlery, didn't.

There you go, love that your true colors have come out. It was just a matter of time, you dishonest assholes can’t cover up your real self for long.

I’d never vote for Hillary, she is dishonest. I wouldn’t vote for Trump either.

You need some new material. Everybody you disagree with is some negative label. But, you are not an honorable man. You and I know that is a fact regardless of how much shit you spew on this board.

More personal insults I see. That is all you seem to have to be able to communicate.

I went third party because they were the two worst candidates of all time. Sanders would have gotten my vote over Trump, Cruz or Clinton. Kasich was my first choice but others were very acceptable.

 

[Humorme]

My mother was relatively young when the old man got sent to the hoosegow. There she was with four children and no support system. IF employers had paid her a realistic wage, we would not have had to rely on boxes of food and food stamps in order to eat.

Still - it's an example of promoting the JOB, not the person. Furthermore, you're making a plead by NEED. Which is something that is beyond the scope of mgt for setting wages in any respectable size business. Certainly paying a HS or college student who EXPECTS to live like a pauper the SAME and doesn't have 4 kids is inefficient and wasteful. And just that INEQUITY didn't get fixed.. When govt MANDATES a wage higher than the job should require, all those bad side effects kick in. The incentive to quit learning. The tendency to move that JOB to automation and many others.

Furthermore, when you witness employers raking in large bundles of cash and then squander large sums of money on vacations, strippers, expensive cars, etc. it makes the employees more agreeable to listen to a socialist like Bernie Sanders for their solutions.

An employer gets this fantastic sum of money from your efforts but it is only "worth" chump change when the employer is raking in huge profits. In reality, the overwhelming majority of workers are realistic enough to know they don't own a part of the company and are only entitled to a paycheck. But, the paycheck must be realistic.

Owners and management are taking all the risk and they are not UNIQUE in "blowing money" on sins. Employees do a marvelous job of "blowing money" as well. Besides this is HUGE misconception about wage gaps between owners and employees.

1) MOST of the mgt compensation is transferring EQUITY and Stock in the company to reflect their partial ownership of the enterprise. IT TAKES NOTHING FROM EMPLOYEES.. Not a dime.

2) The owners are bearing the total risk load. More FAILURES than successes in most biz sectors.

Non responsive and meaningless straw man post

 

[Humorme]

Humornut isn’t a liberal, he is a lefty.

Yikes is there a difference?

You're asking a retard that is too chickenshit and cowardly to say that stuff in public? He voted for Hitlery, didn't.

There you go, love that your true colors have come out. It was just a matter of time, you dishonest assholes can’t cover up your real self for long.

I’d never vote for Hillary, she is dishonest. I wouldn’t vote for Trump either.

You need some new material. Everybody you disagree with is some negative label. But, you are not an honorable man. You and I know that is a fact regardless of how much shit you spew on this board.

More personal insults I see. That is all you seem to have to be able to communicate.

I went third party because they were the two worst candidates of all time. Sanders would have gotten my vote over Trump, Cruz or Clinton. Kasich was my first choice but others were very acceptable.

Why do you ***** about insults when you are the one that started them?

 

[Papageorgio]

Yikes is there a difference?

You're asking a retard that is too chickenshit and cowardly to say that stuff in public? He voted for Hitlery, didn't.

There you go, love that your true colors have come out. It was just a matter of time, you dishonest assholes can’t cover up your real self for long.

I’d never vote for Hillary, she is dishonest. I wouldn’t vote for Trump either.

You need some new material. Everybody you disagree with is some negative label. But, you are not an honorable man. You and I know that is a fact regardless of how much shit you spew on this board.

More personal insults I see. That is all you seem to have to be able to communicate.

I went third party because they were the two worst candidates of all time. Sanders would have gotten my vote over Trump, Cruz or Clinton. Kasich was my first choice but others were very acceptable.

Why do you ***** about insults when you are the one that started them?

Where did I insult?