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: 5
32
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:32 AM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob



Or... he could just be an idiot.


That seems to be the proper choice. This add support to my belief that most politicians are not very smart.




posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

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.



You know what your problem is Neo? I know it took me a while but I think I finally figured it out.

"You were born a couple hundred years too late."

I say this because, based on your view of what should be allowed in the labor market, you would have fit right in with the rest of the Slavers of the time.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 07:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic




What about all the NON minorities (white men) who have families and are taking crappy minimum-wage jobs just to get by? In his world, these people don't exist.



Oh stop it there is no such thing as unskilled white men or women for that matter, taking crappy minimum wage jobs to get by,remember all white folks by definition are Ryootch!... byootch!, poverty is strictly a minor minority thang.
If you are broke and fall below whatever is counted as at-least middle class status YOU ARE NO LONGER WHITE! your white privileges have been revoked please hand over your card to the officer on your way to a trailer park or some dusty looking neighborhood.
Off course I jest...well kinda but this is how "they" go about ignoring poverty by telling white people they can't possibly be poor and poor is just a brown thing sometime Anglo speaking sometimes not ,then the desperately broke former whites with no one to bat for them, some will turn Nazi or go full gangsta thug with their newly found Black N Brown fam ,all equally broke and dusty and sometime dangerous.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

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.


I don't think I've seen a single post in this thread asserting that every employee contributes equally, those are your words.

What we have said is that every employee deserves a bare minimum of a living wage for their efforts, regardless of their role.

Hell, I wouldn't stand around and watch you work for $7 an hour. Much less, clean your toilets.

Only difference between you and me is that I wouldn't ask someone else to do what I myself wouldn't do.
edit on 23-1-2015 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 07:36 AM
link   


these positions warrant and merit higher compensation based on the overall contribution to the company.


Which makes it a mystery as to why management get paid the most.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish
What we have said is that every employee deserves a bare minimum of a living wage for their efforts, regardless of their role.


So the unskilled, summer or menial laborer deserves to make how much?

Because what will happen is these people will not get hired at an inordinate salary because their net contribution does not warrant it. Minimum wage jobs should be a stepping stone, not a permanent position.




edit on 23-1-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Many companies are a couple of high paid managers and the rest low paid workers. It's the new American business system.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

So the unskilled, summer or menial laborer deserves to make how much?

Because what will happen is these people will not get hired at an inordinate salary because their net contribution does not warrant it. Minimum wage jobs should be a stepping stone, not a permanent position.


Yeah, and interns should have to bid on their prospective non-paying jobs and consider themselves lucky if they get selected, just for the experience.

PLEASE!!!
edit on 23-1-2015 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

Is that the best you have? Hypothetical anecdotal situations you want to attribute to me?

It is obvious that you have never run a business and if you did it would be a failure.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

So the unskilled, summer or menial laborer deserves to make how much?

Because what will happen is these people will not get hired at an inordinate salary because their net contribution does not warrant it. Minimum wage jobs should be a stepping stone, not a permanent position.


Yeah, and interns should have to bid on their prospective non-paying jobs and consider themselves lucky if they get selected, just for the experience.

PLEASE!!!


Interns are a net loss for most companies. First, they don't know jack so it takes a ton of time to show them how do things (meaning more productive employees have to take time out of their regular duties supervising the kid). The intern is there to gain experience. The employer hopes the intern can add some productivity around the margins, but most interns are just getting in the way of the real employees.

The intern is there hoping to gain experience and show the employer that they can learn quickly, trainable, dependable, etc. If the intern does a great job, even if it is making copies and getting coffee, the employer may see that they are worth bringing on for an actual job. The employer will need to invest a ton of money training them so in a way the internship is a good way for the employer to make a partial investment with minimal risk in the lowest rung employee. Internships are a win win for both employer and employee.

So yes, in many cases, interns should actually be paying the employer. Most employers pay the interns more out of just being kind and because they are competing against other companies that might want to hire the same kid (there is that whole free market working again!) for the best prospects.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

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.


I don't think I've seen a single post in this thread asserting that every employee contributes equally, those are your words.

What we have said is that every employee deserves a bare minimum of a living wage for their efforts, regardless of their role.

Hell, I wouldn't stand around and watch you work for $7 an hour. Much less, clean your toilets.

Only difference between you and me is that I wouldn't ask someone else to do what I myself wouldn't do.


No, labor is a commodity like any other, and sold based on it's value. If you have low value labor and skills you will get low value reimbursement. The role of a business is to provide goods and services that people want to profit those who run and own the business, not to guarantee any sort of standard of living.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

So the unskilled, summer or menial laborer deserves to make how much?

Because what will happen is these people will not get hired at an inordinate salary because their net contribution does not warrant it. Minimum wage jobs should be a stepping stone, not a permanent position.


Yeah, and interns should have to bid on their prospective non-paying jobs and consider themselves lucky if they get selected, just for the experience.

PLEASE!!!


Just as a follow up to my previous post, many industries don't pay their interns not necessarily out of greed but because there are far more people wanting the experience than there are available positions. As I mentioned, the pay is secondary for the intern as the kids know the experience is what will get them their next job. You see this most often in the entertainment industry which is notorious for making interns work for free or paying well below what say an intern at a typical f500 company would make. Of course, this is ironic considering how liberal the entertainment is that they basically exploit their interns while the greedy capitalist like those on Wall Street pay some of the highest rates for interns even though they really don't have to pay them at all.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
I wonder what minimum wage would be if EMPLOYERS where not paying half of employees ss, and and medicare contributions.

All of the employees workmans comp, and unemployment insurance.



I wonder if the difference could make up the cost of all these low wage workers having to foot the bill for their aged parents when they have to retire!

Looking at our healthcare costs I'd venture it wouldn't..
of course nothing would!!!

To me if we looked at things logically---

do we want people to earn their living through work??? yes
do we need people working in the fields picking our fruit?? yes
do we need them stocking our store shelves? yes
can all employers pay their employees a living wage? no!!
are there some that can but aren't? yes

could the gov't come up with a way so that those businesses that aren't but can to start paying a living wage?? yes!

could the gov't do things to bring the cost of living down in general?? yes!!

but the biggest question would be could the gov't find a way to help those businesses who truly couldn't afford to pay the laborers a living wage pay a living wage that is more cost effective than paying that money out to the workers through the various programs that are being run by the various agencies.. And I think they could!!!!!

I also don't think any of it matters much now anyways. It's gone too far.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar

but the biggest question would be could the gov't find a way to help those businesses who truly couldn't afford to pay the laborers a living wage pay a living wage that is more cost effective than paying that money out to the workers through the various programs that are being run by the various agencies.. And I think they could!!!!!


That amounts to corporate welfare and is not, in my opinion, an acceptable situation.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

and the role of the gov't isn't to make up the slack!!!
have you ever noticed that anything that the gov't puts their hands on and starts helping people out with because their wages don't cover it the inflation rate is higher than anything else?? have you ever noticed that when it does the gov't decides to take that out of their formula that calculates their overall inflation rate so it doesn't cause them to have to pay more in some of their programs??



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

So the unskilled, summer or menial laborer deserves to make how much?

Because what will happen is these people will not get hired at an inordinate salary because their net contribution does not warrant it. Minimum wage jobs should be a stepping stone, not a permanent position.


Yeah, and interns should have to bid on their prospective non-paying jobs and consider themselves lucky if they get selected, just for the experience.

PLEASE!!!


Interns are a net loss for most companies. First, they don't know jack so it takes a ton of time to show them how do things (meaning more productive employees have to take time out of their regular duties supervising the kid). The intern is there to gain experience. The employer hopes the intern can add some productivity around the margins, but most interns are just getting in the way of the real employees.

The intern is there hoping to gain experience and show the employer that they can learn quickly, trainable, dependable, etc. If the intern does a great job, even if it is making copies and getting coffee, the employer may see that they are worth bringing on for an actual job. The employer will need to invest a ton of money training them so in a way the internship is a good way for the employer to make a partial investment with minimal risk in the lowest rung employee. Internships are a win win for both employer and employee.

So yes, in many cases, interns should actually be paying the employer. Most employers pay the interns more out of just being kind and because they are competing against other companies that might want to hire the same kid (there is that whole free market working again!) for the best prospects.


Total and absolute B.S. in my opinion. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

If the employer is not paying the intern, then more than likely, that intern is receiving social assistance on the tax payers dime.

So in reality, that employer hasn't reduced risk or cost, he/she just pushed it off onto the tax paying public.

Like I said previously, it amounts to nothing more than corporate welfare.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: NavyDoc

and the role of the gov't isn't to make up the slack!!!
have you ever noticed that anything that the gov't puts their hands on and starts helping people out with because their wages don't cover it the inflation rate is higher than anything else?? have you ever noticed that when it does the gov't decides to take that out of their formula that calculates their overall inflation rate so it doesn't cause them to have to pay more in some of their programs??



Right. If your point is that everything government does to try to "help" ends up making things worse, I would agree.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

So the unskilled, summer or menial laborer deserves to make how much?

Because what will happen is these people will not get hired at an inordinate salary because their net contribution does not warrant it. Minimum wage jobs should be a stepping stone, not a permanent position.


Yeah, and interns should have to bid on their prospective non-paying jobs and consider themselves lucky if they get selected, just for the experience.

PLEASE!!!


Interns are a net loss for most companies. First, they don't know jack so it takes a ton of time to show them how do things (meaning more productive employees have to take time out of their regular duties supervising the kid). The intern is there to gain experience. The employer hopes the intern can add some productivity around the margins, but most interns are just getting in the way of the real employees.

The intern is there hoping to gain experience and show the employer that they can learn quickly, trainable, dependable, etc. If the intern does a great job, even if it is making copies and getting coffee, the employer may see that they are worth bringing on for an actual job. The employer will need to invest a ton of money training them so in a way the internship is a good way for the employer to make a partial investment with minimal risk in the lowest rung employee. Internships are a win win for both employer and employee.

So yes, in many cases, interns should actually be paying the employer. Most employers pay the interns more out of just being kind and because they are competing against other companies that might want to hire the same kid (there is that whole free market working again!) for the best prospects.


Total and absolute B.S. in my opinion. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

If the employer is not paying the intern, then more than likely, that intern is receiving social assistance on the tax payers dime.

So in reality, that employer hasn't reduced risk or cost, he/she just pushed it off onto the tax paying public.

Like I said previously, it amounts to nothing more than corporate welfare.


? The intern us usually a college kid who is living off his parents. Govt. usually isn't involved.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

Yeah, in 1968 when I graduated from high school, there use to "on the job training". Launched quit a few of boomers to careers. So expensive college was not always needed for a good job. But corporations have shifted all responsibility to the government. I think it was a tax deduction the at that time.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

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.


I don't think I've seen a single post in this thread asserting that every employee contributes equally, those are your words.

What we have said is that every employee deserves a bare minimum of a living wage for their efforts, regardless of their role.

Hell, I wouldn't stand around and watch you work for $7 an hour. Much less, clean your toilets.

Only difference between you and me is that I wouldn't ask someone else to do what I myself wouldn't do.


No, labor is a commodity like any other, and sold based on it's value. If you have low value labor and skills you will get low value reimbursement. The role of a business is to provide goods and services that people want to profit those who run and own the business, not to guarantee any sort of standard of living.


Really? So, at what point do they just become slaves?




top topics



 
32
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join