It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GOP rep.: Keep minimum wage low ‘for minorities’ who aren’t worth more than $7 an hour

page: 4
32
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

I just wanted to commend you on your attitude of paying above minimum wage to start. I've never paid it and I never will. It's ridiculous. You get what you pay for and I don't want minimum wage employees so I don't pay for them.

The people I always hear complaining about it (as far as local business owners) are often people who are clearly terrible at running their business and bit off more than they could chew. Grow your craft with abundance, not greed.




posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1




If you own a business you're paying for results, not somebody's time. If worker A cleans 10 toilets in an hour, and worker B cleans 20 toilets in an hour, you can pay worker B twice what you pay worker A. If the Minimum Wage is $7 an hour, that means Worker A gets his $7 an hour, and worker B gets $14 for the same production.

If the government forces a business to pay Worker A $10 an hour, then what happens to worker B? Does he still get $14 an hour?

Is that fair?

Or does he now get $20 an hour?

Selfish is demanding that you get paid more than your worth in comparison to those who are better at their job and more productive.



this use to be true but every company iv worked for in recent times has a % cap on raises

resturant im at started at 9.50 50c lower than everyone since im white and no one thought id keep up with the rest

proved myself got 3 promotions outpace everyone there

i now make wow 11 but i do almost 2x more work

coperation percentage based raises my bosses want to pay me 16+ but there bosses wont alow it

go figure

bye percentage based raises they explained it to me they get a total of 7% of the labor pay per year to give out raises
if they give any one persion more than 50c someone would lose 50c even tho iv been promoted to a position that pays more i cant have the pay due to this rule

if i quite and was rehired loseing my benifits i would make 14 a hr

all larger corperations seem to work this way

my bosses are actualy really cool they work right with us and tell us everything otherwise i would of quit



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

While I am at it ?

Alrightie then:



Liberty and democracy are eternal enemies, and every one knows it who has ever given any sober reflection to the matter. A democratic state may profess to venerate the name, and even pass laws making it officially sacred, but it simply cannot tolerate the thing. In order to keep any coherence in the governmental process, to prevent the wildest anarchy in thought and act, the government must put limits upon the free play of opinion. In part, it can reach that end by mere propaganda, by the bald force of its authority — that is, by making certain doctrines officially infamous. But in part it must resort to force, i.e., to law. One of the main purposes of laws in a democratic society is to put burdens upon intelligence and reduce it to impotence. Ostensibly, their aim is to penalize anti-social acts; actually their aim is to penalize heretical opinions. At least ninety-five Americans out of every 100 believe that this process is honest and even laudable; it is practically impossible to convince them that there is anything evil in it. In other words, they cannot grasp the concept of liberty. Always they condition it with the doctrine that the state, i.e., the majority, has a sort of right of eminent domain in acts, and even in ideas — that it is perfectly free, whenever it is so disposed, to forbid a man to say what he honestly believes. Whenever his notions show signs of becoming "dangerous," ie, of being heard and attended to, it exercises that prerogative. And the overwhelming majority of citizens believe in supporting it in the outrage. Including especially the Liberals, who pretend — and often quite honestly believe — that they are hot for liberty. They never really are. Deep down in their hearts they know, as good democrats, that liberty would be fatal to democracy — that a government based upon shifting and irrational opinion must keep it within bounds or run a constant risk of disaster. They themselves, as a practical matter, advocate only certain narrow kinds of liberty — liberty, that is, for the persons they happen to favor. The rights of other persons do not seem to interest them. If a law were passed tomorrow taking away the property of a large group of presumably well-to-do persons — say, bondholders of the railroads — without compensation and without even colorable reason, they would not oppose it; they would be in favor of it. The liberty to have and hold property is not one they recognize. They believe only in the liberty to envy, hate and loot the man who has it. "Liberty and Democracy" in the Baltimore Evening Sun (13 April 1925), also in A Second Mencken Chrestomathy : New Selections from the Writings of America's Legendary Editor, Critic, and Wit (1994) edited by Terry Teachout, p. 35


en.wikiquote.org...

Zieg heil.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12



McClintock continued: “If your labor is an unskilled person just entering the workforce is worth say $7 an hour at a job and the minimum wage is $10, you have just been made permanently unemployable. That first rung of the economic ladder has been ripped out and you can’t get on it. That is a tragedy.”




Not to mention that he implies that that unskilled worker that was needed at 7$ an hour magically is not needed anymore at 10 Dollar an hour and hiring somebody to serve burgers to customers or something along those lines of a sudden has become optional for restaurant owners.
edit on 22-1-2015 by Merinda because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-1-2015 by Merinda because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Cuervo

Well said.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 08:01 PM
link   
The new $10.10 workers will make up the difference for the lost $7 jobs.

They will have to do more in less time and then their taxes will help pay for the millions added to unemployment and lifetime debt.




posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
The new $10.10 workers will make up the difference for the lost $7 jobs.

They will have to do more in less time and then their taxes will help pay for the millions added to unemployment and lifetime debt.





Just means the state has more money to blow on pork.

Wage increases are nonsensical.

Guess they forgot their own creation the 'progressive' tax rate.

The more someone makes the more they pay the feds.

Then the states gets their cuts too.

Then doesn't factor in the cost of living average across the country.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
The new $10.10 workers will make up the difference for the lost $7 jobs.

They will have to do more in less time and then their taxes will help pay for the millions added to unemployment and lifetime debt.





Thats not possible. Businesses are not charities. If a Burger King has 3 workers in its shift thats because those 3 workers are needed. If less people are hired service is going to suffer and eventually overall profit is going down so much that the owner is better off keeping those workers employed at 10$ an hour.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 08:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Merinda

originally posted by: xuenchen
The new $10.10 workers will make up the difference for the lost $7 jobs.

They will have to do more in less time and then their taxes will help pay for the millions added to unemployment and lifetime debt.





Thats not possible. Businesses are not charities. If a Burger King has 3 workers in its shift thats because those 3 workers are needed. If less people are hired service is going to suffer and eventually overall profit is going down so much that the owner is better off keeping those workers employed at 10$ an hour.


The 2 remaining workers will be told to do more work to make the difference for the 1 lost worker.

The somebody who can't cut it will be replaced with somebody who can cut it.

That's the way it happens in the u.s.

The sluff-off fumble-flop workers will be chopped up by the more aggressive 10.10'ers and will be unemployed in short order.




posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Horrible that money/wages have to determine a person's worth as a human being.

gag.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 09:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Merinda

originally posted by: xuenchen
The new $10.10 workers will make up the difference for the lost $7 jobs.

They will have to do more in less time and then their taxes will help pay for the millions added to unemployment and lifetime debt.





Thats not possible. Businesses are not charities. If a Burger King has 3 workers in its shift thats because those 3 workers are needed. If less people are hired service is going to suffer and eventually overall profit is going down so much that the owner is better off keeping those workers employed at 10$ an hour.


Or Burger King is going to do the math and figure out that at $10.10/hr it is more cost effective to just replace two of the workers with an Ipad and pay the remaining worker $12/hr. At $7/hr or whatever, BK figures the two workers are worth it. They are not worth it at $10.10/hr so they look for other ways to increase productivity while eliminating the jobs.

Minimum wage is why you no longer see jobs like gas pump attendants, elevator operators, ushers at theatres, newspaper delivery boys, etc. A lot of these jobs made sense at low hourly wages and were mostly given to teenagers who just wanted a summer job and required little or no skill, but provided some value to the employer. As the cost of the jobs increased, employers did what every smart business will do... eliminate them.

These jobs are designed to get you in the work force, not to be a career. They give the unskilled a skill. The worker then moves up to a better paying job after they've proven themselves. The first job I had in college, paid ZERO. I worked all summer for basically free. The point wasn't the money. It was gaining some experience so I could then make myself more valuable to the next employer. My employer could not afford to pay me, but the pay was essentially the experience I got.

The next summer, I got a job at a bank paying a very good salary for a college intern (roughly $30k/yr). I would not have gotten that job had I not worked for free at the previous employer.

When I graduated, I got job offers from top investment banks and other very prestigious firms because of the culmination of my experience. That is how you move up the ladder.

Minimum wage removes the bottom rung for a lot of people and prevents them from being able to take that first step.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: sarra1833
Horrible that money/wages have to determine a person's worth as a human being.

gag.


The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.

Aristotle



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 12:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
The new $10.10 workers will make up the difference for the lost $7 jobs.

They will have to do more in less time and then their taxes will help pay for the millions added to unemployment and lifetime debt.





That at least be of set by the $10.10 workers no longer needing welfare to eat.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 12:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Merinda

originally posted by: xuenchen
The new $10.10 workers will make up the difference for the lost $7 jobs.

They will have to do more in less time and then their taxes will help pay for the millions added to unemployment and lifetime debt.





Thats not possible. Businesses are not charities. If a Burger King has 3 workers in its shift thats because those 3 workers are needed. If less people are hired service is going to suffer and eventually overall profit is going down so much that the owner is better off keeping those workers employed at 10$ an hour.


The 2 remaining workers will be told to do more work to make the difference for the 1 lost worker.

The somebody who can't cut it will be replaced with somebody who can cut it.

That's the way it happens in the u.s.

The sluff-off fumble-flop workers will be chopped up by the more aggressive 10.10'ers and will be unemployed in short order.





Your scenario is not workable.

You have to have 1 person on drive thru one on the front counter and at least one working the sandwiches...there is no compromising this.

I know from experience, I did fast food in highschool.

That is why the places that stay open at night don't usually have the lobby open only drive through, they don't have a full staff, and it shows because it takes twice as long also.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 01:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Merinda

originally posted by: xuenchen
The new $10.10 workers will make up the difference for the lost $7 jobs.

They will have to do more in less time and then their taxes will help pay for the millions added to unemployment and lifetime debt.





Thats not possible. Businesses are not charities. If a Burger King has 3 workers in its shift thats because those 3 workers are needed. If less people are hired service is going to suffer and eventually overall profit is going down so much that the owner is better off keeping those workers employed at 10$ an hour.


Or Burger King is going to do the math and figure out that at $10.10/hr it is more cost effective to just replace two of the workers with an Ipad and pay the remaining worker $12/hr. At $7/hr or whatever, BK figures the two workers are worth it. They are not worth it at $10.10/hr so they look for other ways to increase productivity while eliminating the jobs.

Minimum wage is why you no longer see jobs like gas pump attendants, elevator operators, ushers at theatres, newspaper delivery boys, etc. A lot of these jobs made sense at low hourly wages and were mostly given to teenagers who just wanted a summer job and required little or no skill, but provided some value to the employer. As the cost of the jobs increased, employers did what every smart business will do... eliminate them.

These jobs are designed to get you in the work force, not to be a career. They give the unskilled a skill. The worker then moves up to a better paying job after they've proven themselves. The first job I had in college, paid ZERO. I worked all summer for basically free. The point wasn't the money. It was gaining some experience so I could then make myself more valuable to the next employer. My employer could not afford to pay me, but the pay was essentially the experience I got.

The next summer, I got a job at a bank paying a very good salary for a college intern (roughly $30k/yr). I would not have gotten that job had I not worked for free at the previous employer.

When I graduated, I got job offers from top investment banks and other very prestigious firms because of the culmination of my experience. That is how you move up the ladder.

Minimum wage removes the bottom rung for a lot of people and prevents them from being able to take that first step.



You are equating a minimum wage jib with an education....you are sadly mistaken.

Nobody is going to higher you because you got "skills" working at McDonalds.

Nobody cares about any of that.

Your first rung fantasy is just that a fantasy.

If you can't afford an education or get lucky in a trade you are stuck.

You will never be able to afford an education, you will never get a chance to acquire any real skills that matter.

Quit trying to push be, some of us are very well educated and smart, we can see the world for what it is.

There is for a fact, not enough decent paying jobs even for those with a education.

Most people under our current economic model will by default have to live in poverty, no matter their ability or skill level.

This is retarded.

If everyone willing to work can't afford to live, nobody should be rich.

And I don't mean everyone willing to show up, I mean everyone who shows up and works.

Businesses should not be subsidized by the taxt payers.

None of theses giant corps would be able to pay these slave wages if not for welfare. They would have to pay better or nobody would work there.

Who would work 40 hours so they can be homeless and hungry?

Stop welfare raise wages overnight.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 01:27 AM
link   
a reply to: St Udio

I just want to clarify something with you, so we can both be on the same page.

$10/hour full time comes out to a bit over $20k a year ($20,800) BEFORE taxes
After taxes they would be looking at around $18k a year.

Where do you live where that is enough to buy smartphones and the other luxuries you mentioned and still be able to pay for food, housing, utilities, and all the other miscellaneous necessities?

I would like to know where you are because I have lived on less than $20k/year take-home, and I am currently not making much more than that and I am barely keeping my head above water with no smartphone or other luxuries. Even my food bill has been trimmed down to less than $50 a month because I simply can't afford to eat better than that.

Please tell me where this magical place is, because I am moving there tomorrow.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 02:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
California Republican Rep. Tom McClintock said on Thursday that the minimum wage should not be raised because low pay was necessary for minorities and other unskilled workers who were not worth more than $7 an hour.


I am curious as to where Rawstory extrapolated this above notion from what he actually said? He never said that they were not worth more than that; he highlighted the fact that most businesses that are seeking unskilled workers are probably not going to seek labor at rates that are above market prices for such labor.

He spoke of teenagers and minorities; which are historically unskilled on a whole according to data.

Labor Statistics

Analyzing government data, it clearly shows that the young and "minorities" (side note "whites" hold the largest amount of "unskilled" labor) are at that "rung" the representative speaks of.

Regarding what he said, it depends on what school of economics you adhere to. While we are not a truly free market, we have free market principles in play. Businesses operate within the constructs that the Federal government -- and States -- have created; i.e, you must pay this amount per hour.

With that, businesses will operate within those limits at a bare minimum because that is all that the position requires. It has nothing to do with age or skin color or religion. Stocking shelves isn't a high-tech job. It is menial.

Driving up the minimum wage only reduces the worth of higher paying jobs that do require some skill.


As a manufacturer, retail/wholesale business man; I start my unskilled people out at $10 to encourage loyalty and hard work. Rep. Tom is probably a lawyer and knows nothing about real business.


That is good. You do it because you want to; not because the Government has forced you. My guess, you have under 50 employees -- am I right?
edit on 23-1-2015 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 05:16 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Why do you think they imported them ito the US



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Well, there are kind and less-kind interpretations to what he is saying.

The basic point he is making - some jobs are only supposed to be (and only worth being considered as) entry level positions to the workforce, a first step on the ladder to finding better work, so stop trying to force businesses to pay them like it's a real profession - is broadly correct.

Bringing up minorities specifically is a bit odd. One interpretation is that he is stupid and meant what he said. The other, slightly kinder interpretation, is that he is still stupid but meant something slightly different.

He could be trying to say that raising the minimum wage would cut back on these entry level positions, which would disproportionately affect minorities - in other words, he's trying to jump on a liberal bandwagon and divert it to support his position, but instead it came out as an accusation that minorities aren't capable of doing anything more than flipping burgers in a fast-food joint.

Or... he could just be an idiot.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish
If something doesn't need to be done, then don't hire someone to do it and just because you may view picking vegetables and/or cleaning toilets, etc., as menial work without real value or merit, doesn't make it so.


Reread my post as I said no such thing, I stated that there are positions which are more valuable to any company and that these positions warrant and merit higher compensation based on the overall contribution to the company.

To think that everyone in a company some how contributes equally regardless of their role is farcical.




top topics



 
32
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join