The Terrible Fear of Paying the Poor Too Much

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Gates also interestingly believes that vaccines are a great way to depopulate through sterilization of third world people unawares

Since I know that this statement is complete BS on your part which you can't back up it makes me think the rest of your claims have also been pulled out of your neither regions.

Actually that statement isn't entirely BS. As countries modernize they have less children, in some nations the birth rate is even going backwards now. The long term solution to over population at this point is to try and modernize every nation. Vaccines are part of that. It's nothing malicious however like the person states.

originally posted by: daveinats

Let's see. if we pay burger flippers and street sweepers a 'living wage', what is the impetus for them to go to school and better themselves?

So they can do the job they want to do rather than an entry level job that simply pays the bills? You seem to think that someones appetite for more money disappears just because they have a roof, food, and tv. Do you not want to move up and earn more money even though you're making above the threshold for a living wage?

It would be the same for those burger flippers.

originally posted by: Merinda
Therefore, by extension, taxdollars subsidize the profits of the companies that rely on low income workers. I assume most of these companies are publicly traded companies. Because of this fact, the average taxpayer is forced to hold stock in these companies so that he does not incur a loss.

How widespread is stockownership in America with regard to the companies that employ workers whom get extensive government support? Are those stocks held by a few? I was under the impression that stock ownership is widespread in America and that the fedora is all the rage among Americans. Is any of this still true? Do Americans get the taxdollars dumped on companies whom pay wages their workers can not support themselves with, get those taxdollars back in the form of corporate profit through the shares they hold?

There's no public profit sharing among corporations. The subsidized wage from the government is there essentially to keep crime rates down. If people don't meet that minimum standard of living crime skyrockets. It pretty much forces the government to step in. You could call safer streets a form of profit sharing but at the same time we would have that if the corporations simply paid a living wage on their own without the government having to subsidize it.

a reply to: Aazadan

That is why I said his statement was complete BS.

There is absolutely no correlation between his statement and natural trends in society.

I get what you are saying but his claim had no basis in realty. In fact I know what he based the statement off of which was a quote mine taken out of context but he even butchered that so bad it resembled nothing even close to the original.

His statement was either a complete failure on his prt to remember the propaganda pushed by groups that are ativaccine correctly or a brazen outright fabrication either way I have zero confidence the rest of his claims are any closer to being factual.

What is the point of increasing the minimum wage?

A minimum wage without commercial price caps is useless.
What is to stop a store from charging you 2 times as much for a loaf of bread or a can of soda?
Remove the minimum wage and bring back strong unions.

a reply to: macman

No! Geez some imagination you have there, more so lack of one I would say. What I am saying is that skynet is quite inefficient. But even that just may be better then this masquerade going on today. I mean if its in a movie and the movie says its bad, then it must be true. Geez!

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
What is the point of increasing the minimum wage?

A minimum wage without commercial price caps is useless.
What is to stop a store from charging you 2 times as much for a loaf of bread or a can of soda?
Remove the minimum wage and bring back strong unions.

All of Australia (to name just one western country) disagrees.

What stops the store from charging more? Competition. If someone up's the price from $1 to $2, someone else will undercut to $1.50 because they still make a profit. Others will either face less sales as people buy the cheaper product, or they lower their price.

According to the CEO's of the companies that actually provide most of the minimum wage jobs, it could double with only a 1% increase in the cost of goods. In Australia it doubled with a 10% increase.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

A minimum wage without commercial price caps is useless.
What is to stop a store from charging you 2 times as much for a loaf of bread or a can of soda?
Remove the minimum wage and bring back strong unions.

And put the 'cap' on wealth. No one needs billions of dollars hidden away in the Cayman Islands or Belize!! It's obscene.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I'll move up. I always move up. Until the job is outsourced / downsized or is made obsolete by rapid technological advances. And then I'll do it all over again. Unless I get sick or hurt on the job. Which will be my own damn fault, obviously.

I sometime think people don't realize how bad the walmarts and targets of the world are to employees. These are 2 of the largest employers in the country and they treat and pay their employees terribly.

You are worked incredibly hard and for an average pay of 9000 a year after taxes. At least in my experience.

a reply to: drock905

Locally, Walmart pays $16hr for night stocking crews.

Day shift cashier, they make $14hr.


Sounds like you guys live in places that suck to begin with.

originally posted by: macman
Thanks for the detective work though.
...
Well good for him. I too work 2 full time jobs. Sleep about 4-5 hours a night. What is the point?
...
Because the excuse used for raising this, is to keep people off of welfare.
...
Yes, In-laws.
...
And when it is used as the biggest crutch to push it, it is an issue.
...
Yes, skill + need for skill does in fact drive wage.
...
Yes, but how on earth would all of them accept lower wages, and why would they? What-ifs are cute and all, but...........
...
Oh, I know exactly how Unions work. Seen it in action in the Telecom world for many years now.
Yeah, lazy and sleeping techs, refusing to do work during certain periods of the day, allowing themselves to be "specialized" in running a (2) wire circuit from left to right for 25 years. Yep, I have seen it up close.
...
Nope. I wonder how it is that someone like me has been able to rise through the industry with the "union" there to help me.
If a company needs someone to perform a task, and the task is not common, they will offer higher pay. Has very little to do with the hive bargaining for me.
...
That is a very Alinsky way of saying force of law.
...
No, Unions used force, blackmail and bribes.

It's not exactly detective work, since this site lists A) your # of posts and B) your date joined beside every post.

Do you still feel he deserves less than $9/hr for his hard work? It seems like everything has to be about you, when I specifically stated it was not - several times.

One reason (of many) - not excuse - to promote a higher minimum wage is to reduce the number of people on welfare. You keep crowing about how you didn't get government help. Does raising the minimum wage count as government help? Hell no. Frankly, as much as you complain about government assistance, I'd think you would be for raising the minimum wage just to get rid of some of it.

I can't say I think of in-laws as relatives, since we're neither related by blood or raised by them, but maybe that's just me.

Biggest crutch...? Look, I'm not sure you really 'get' economic thought here - people with a lot of income don't spend most of it - they save and invest. If you go down in income level, you spend increasingly more (as a percentage) of your income because you need to survive. The poorest of people spend greater than 100% of their income (due to assistance - from both charities and government). If you want to grow the economy, the absolute fastest way to do so is to get the poorest of people more money. You know, like raising the minimum wage.

Again, no, skill + need does not drive wages. They contribute to bargaining power, which is what drives wages. I give an example immediately after that.

You agree with the voluntary wage cut scenario, because it'd be very hard not to. It's an illustration of the previous claim - that skill and need do not set wages, but that they contribute to bargaining power - which actually sets wages. Remember, when a worker agrees to a wage - he has settled (ie: bargained) for that wage. It's not a scary term.

If you've worked with unions, than you should well know that it isn't skill and need that set wages, but bargaining power - which unions have a lot of. Individuals of equal skill have little bargaining power against a monolithic corporation, while unions of individuals have quite a bit more bargaining power against the same monolithic corporation.

You have more bargaining power with a rare skill that is in need, it's fairly simple! If you were the only one with that skill, you would have a monopoly on it. You could choose not use that skill at all, or even to use it with no compensation. However, acting as a monopoly on this skill, you would probably maximize your profit (pay). You'd do this by bargaining with companies that desperately need your unique skill, until you got to the highest bidder.

It's an economic take on things that fits this discussion.

Even if unions used these things (I'd argue they mostly responded to such, heard of the Battle of Blair Mountain?), it's still a form of power; less civilized than bargaining, true.

originally posted by: macman
Locally, Walmart pays $16hr for night stocking crews. Day shift cashier, they make $14hr. Sounds like you guys live in places that suck to begin with.

That's well above average Walmart pay. Walmart itself cites an average full-time (excluding part-time) pay of $12.83 per hour - and that includes all full-time employees: store management, district management, executives, etc. From this same article, Glassdoor calculates an average overall pay of $8.86 per hour.

a reply to: macman

Sounds like you guys live in places that suck to begin with.

The cost of living in my area is far lower than on either coast or in Chicago or Denver. Makes a difference.

My mortgage payment is lower than studio rental in those areas. Mac, dear, do you realize how often you use words that imply you believe others have simply "failed"?

(I don't know where Greven lives, or you.)

originally posted by: Greven
It's not exactly detective work, since this site lists A) your # of posts and B) your date joined beside every post.

Great on ya.

originally posted by: Greven
Do you still feel he deserves less than $9/hr for his hard work? It seems like everything has to be about you, when I specifically stated it was not - several times.

Regardless what he "deserves", I don't dictate to other businesses what they should pay their employees.

originally posted by: Greven
One reason (of many) - not excuse - to promote a higher minimum wage is to reduce the number of people on welfare.

No. It won't work out that way. First, it is the persons responsibility to be off of welfare, not that of anyone else.
Second, remove the welfare aspect, thus removing a tax portion, thus allowing people to have more of THEIR money, thus spending as a whole increases, thus creating the environment of a business needing more workers. Third, when has welfare created wealth for anyone? Fourth, it is not the responsibility of the Govt or the tax payer to financially support others for their life decisions.

originally posted by: Greven
You keep crowing about how you didn't get government help. Does raising the minimum wage count as government help?

It is Govt overreaching and telling how private people and business need to operate. If that is okay, then there should be no problem with them telling people what they can and can't do in their bedrooms. It is Govt control anyway you look at it.

originally posted by: Greven Hell no. Frankly, as much as you complain about government assistance, I'd think you would be for raising the minimum wage just to get rid of some of it.

Just to get what? Raising the Minimum wage will do nothing for me except raise the cost of goods/service and increase my taxes to further offset peoples lives.

originally posted by: Greven
I can't say I think of in-laws as relatives, since we're neither related by blood or raised by them, but maybe that's just me.

Well good for you.

originally posted by: Greven
Biggest crutch...? Look, I'm not sure you really 'get' economic thought here - people with a lot of income don't spend most of it - they save and invest.

BS. While they do in fact save and invest, they spend more on items like vehicles and homes. Higher costs cars and houses are just that. And they generate higher taxes for each.
So, your BS is just that .BS.

originally posted by: Greven
If you go down in income level, you spend increasingly more (as a percentage) of your income because you need to survive. The poorest of people spend greater than 100% of their income (due to assistance - from both charities and government). If you want to grow the economy, the absolute fastest way to do so is to get the poorest of people more money. You know, like raising the minimum wage.

So, take from me, to give to them, so I get it back? Sounds like you truly have this economics thing down. The Keynesian style has been successful where again?

originally posted by: Greven
Again, no, skill + need does not drive wages. They contribute to bargaining power, which is what drives wages. I give an example immediately after that.

So, bullying and group think is how to increase ones salary.
No thanks. I work for what I have. Don't need others to work for my value, nor my success allowed to have people shirt tailing on it for doing nothing.

originally posted by: Greven
You agree with the voluntary wage cut scenario, because it'd be very hard not to.

You clearly have a hard on for Unions. That is great. Good for you. I and millions of others don't need nor want them. I don't need the collective to get me stuff. I can take care of myself.

originally posted by: Greven
It's an illustration of the previous claim - that skill and need do not set wages, but that they contribute to bargaining power - which actually sets wages. Remember, when a worker agrees to a wage - he has settled (ie: bargained) for that wage. It's not a scary term.

My skill and experience + companies need + market demands is what drives my salary.

originally posted by: Greven
If you've worked with unions, than you should well know that it isn't skill and need that set wages, but bargaining power -

Which is the biggest load of BS ever offered.
So regardless of the skill-set of the person, the bullying mass gets to force a company to pay out to all based on the hive. Having worked alongside Unions people I can tell you this. If it wasn't for the Union, 80% would have been out of a job a long time ago. But, great for the Collective to force a company to keep on those people.

originally posted by: Greven
which unions have a lot of. Individuals of equal skill have little bargaining power against a monolithic corporation, while unions of individuals have quite a bit more bargaining power against the same monolithic corporation.

BS again. My skill-set expanded into at least 5 different areas, outside of my official position. While the Union worker knows one action. Way to promote and congratulate mediocrity.

originally posted by: Greven
You have more bargaining power with a rare skill that is in need, it's fairly simple! If you were the only one with that skill, you would have a monopoly on it. You could choose not use that skill at all, or even to use it with no compensation. However, acting as a monopoly on this skill, you would probably maximize your profit (pay). You'd do this by bargaining with companies that desperately need your unique skill, until you got to the highest bidder.

Again, I don't need others to bargain for me. I am not that weak. I can do it for myself.

originally posted by: Greven
It's an economic take on things that fits this discussion.Even if unions used these things (I'd argue they mostly responded to such, heard of the Battle of Blair Mountain?), it's still a form of power; less civilized than bargaining, true.

Great. So trade a company being in control of my work life, to having now the company and a union.

originally posted by: GrevenThat's well above average Walmart pay. Walmart itself cites an average full-time (excluding part-time) pay of $12.83 per hour - and that includes all full-time employees: store management, district management, executives, etc. From this same article, Glassdoor calculates an average overall pay of $8.86 per hour.

Huffington post huh?
Locally, that is what they pay.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
The cost of living in my area is far lower than on either coast or in Chicago or Denver. Makes a difference.

I am sure it does. But since people are free to move from state to state, the only thing that, at the end of the day, holds one back, is the unwillingness to move.

Just as the late Sam Kinison would tell the Ethiopians, they live in a desert, there is no food, want to eat? Move to where to food is.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

My mortgage payment is lower than studio rental in those areas.

That is impressive. Great to hear.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Mac, dear, do you realize how often you use words that imply you believe others have simply "failed"?

Yes. Yes I do.
Because we have moved to a world where feelings are valued higher then results, it is unpopular for my view.
For adults, regardless if the mental boo-boo happens when I speak, or type, it is still reality.
Failure, as designed, should be painful. It is a teaching moment when it is. When pain/suffering is removed, failure is accepted as a norm and then we have what we have today.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
(I don't know where Greven lives, or you.)

Mountain West area for me.

There was a couple in my last neighborhood, they worked night stocking at Walmart. Both made about $16hr.
They did just fine for themselves. Neither had a college degree.
It can be done.
Using the excuse that there are no jobs in the area you reside in, is a limitation you have placed on yourself. That isn't necessarily directed at you.

originally posted by: macman
...since people are free to move from state to state...

lol, no we aren't. Not to sidetrack but lol, no. You have to have a SSN to acquire a job, to pay for the move. If you do it yourself, you need a license. Nothing about that is 'freedom'.

Just as the late Sam Kinison would tell the Ethiopians, they live in a desert, there is no food, want to eat? Move to where to food is.

Yeah, just cross some artificial boundary into another nation. Since nations are so willing to accept mass immigration. /sarcasm

And to even use Wal-Mart as an example when it's public knowledge they do everything within their power to have individuals work hours off the clock to avoid minimum wage laws, actively encourage associates to receive welfare... lol, just lol.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: drock905

Locally, Walmart pays $16hr for night stocking crews.

Day shift cashier, they make $14hr.


Sounds like you guys live in places that suck to begin with.

I'd like to know where you live because in the NYC metro area starting pay for both companies hovers around 8--8.50. Overnight crew is around 9. Don't forget the average raise is around 10 cents if you even get one.

The problem is that these hugely successful and profitable corporations that employ millions of Americans pay so little that it forces their employees to seek government assistance just to feed themselves.

That's the issue.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Payroll is the #1 controllable cost, and for a center that is corporately owned, they set the payroll. For my company payroll is 10% of our operating revenue, or EBITDA, the more money each individual makes, the less hours go to workers. We run at about 16% and run with essentially a skeleton crew. It's nice to think that the company should pay us more, but kittens and rainbows are also nice to think about, and are actually real things. The company has to remain profitable. My company in particular has been pouring millions of dollars into remodeling stores to bring more customers in, and to bring in a new generation of customers in. Yes the CEO could make less and this might help, but honestly that money has to come from somewhere...if our center raises payroll and thus becomes less profitable we can only raise prices on our goods and services to make up for it....

please please take a business class or two...and econ

double post....

What go around come around that the universal law, so the rich of today will become the poor in their next life and the poor will be the rich.No one escape universal laws.

Call me crazy but I wish both rep and dem would stop kicking the can down the road and just get rid of the NONfederal reserve and go to the gold and silver standard. ...