carlfense Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 If you don't understand what I meant by "being handcuffed by minimum wage laws" I'll explain it to you: Businesses, to turn the best profit want to hire cheap and produce a lot. They want to hire for cheaper than $7.50 [i think that's minimum wage]. Because government has a forced minimum wage law, companies cut down their workers because if they just hired willy nilly they would end up losing money [which isn't exactly the point of business]. So they cut workers or send jobs overseas. Low supply, high demand. You do the math. If the minimum wage law is lowered there will be even more money coming out of the taxpayers pockets. $15,000 isn't much of an annual salary. Lower the minimum wage and that goes down further. Basically a single person will have to have more than 1 job to make ends meet. Therefore, it would be interesting to see how many net jobs lowering minimum wage laws would create . . . if you create an extra job but a low level employee has to work 2 jobs to make ends meet then there is no benefit to unemployment numbers. The minimum wage laws are not the problem. Link to comment
johnnyrodgers20 Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 You figure it out you the smart one. Grammar, spelling and punctuation can be your friend. That is why you da smart guy!! As soon as the tea party gave them an invoice and asking for their money back he used the power of the local govt to audit them. Audits are an abuse of power? C'mon are you really that naive, as soon as they ask for their money back he slaps them with an audit. Maybe I am giving you too much credit!?!?! I am sure if it was a Pub doing this your precious Maddow will have figured it out by now!! What facts to you base your assured opinion on? Grammar, spelling and punctuation can be your friend. She figures out everything when it comes to Pubs doing wrong, that is her gift from the almighty God!! Link to comment
johnnyrodgers20 Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 If you don't understand what I meant by "being handcuffed by minimum wage laws" I'll explain it to you: Businesses, to turn the best profit want to hire cheap and produce a lot. They want to hire for cheaper than $7.50 [i think that's minimum wage]. Because government has a forced minimum wage law, companies cut down their workers because if they just hired willy nilly they would end up losing money [which isn't exactly the point of business]. So they cut workers or send jobs overseas. Low supply, high demand. You do the math. If the minimum wage law is lowered there will be even more money coming out of the taxpayers pockets. $15,000 isn't much of an annual salary. Lower the minimum wage and that goes down further. Basically a single person will have to have more than 1 job to make ends meet. Therefore, it would be interesting to see how many net jobs lowering minimum wage laws would create . . . if you create an extra job but a low level employee has to work 2 jobs to make ends meet then there is no benefit to unemployment numbers. The minimum wage laws are not the problem. I am not sure minimum wage jobs are meant for someone to live off of but rather a stepping stone to a better job. You get a low paying job aquire skills and then move up the ladder as it were. If you expect a person to live off minimum wage you will not be very happy. Link to comment
strigori Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 If you don't understand what I meant by "being handcuffed by minimum wage laws" I'll explain it to you: Businesses, to turn the best profit want to hire cheap and produce a lot. They want to hire for cheaper than $7.50 [i think that's minimum wage]. Because government has a forced minimum wage law, companies cut down their workers because if they just hired willy nilly they would end up losing money [which isn't exactly the point of business]. So they cut workers or send jobs overseas. Low supply, high demand. You do the math. If the minimum wage law is lowered there will be even more money coming out of the taxpayers pockets. $15,000 isn't much of an annual salary. Lower the minimum wage and that goes down further. Basically a single person will have to have more than 1 job to make ends meet. Therefore, it would be interesting to see how many net jobs lowering minimum wage laws would create . . . if you create an extra job but a low level employee has to work 2 jobs to make ends meet then there is no benefit to unemployment numbers. The minimum wage laws are not the problem. I am not sure minimum wage jobs are meant for someone to live off of but rather a stepping stone to a better job. You get a low paying job aquire skills and then move up the ladder as it were. If you expect a person to live off minimum wage you will not be very happy. But many businesses want to move to a more minimum wage worker and management and nothing in between. And because now your workers are making next to nothing, the levels of management pay are lower, unless you are in a corporate office, then you get more money pretty much regardless of how the company does. I'm so far beyond sick of this 'best profit' BS. There is such a difference between making a good fair profit, and being a greedy SOB. And things are clearly focused on the greedy SOB side of things now. If its borderline legal, and can make a few people more money, then they do it. Regardless of if its the right, or ethical thing to do. Businesses cut benefits, cut perks, less vacation, less sick days, cut pay, do away with raises, require more hours, and worse hours, all in the name of making more money for the greedy SOB at the top. No one hires 'willy nilly' The ONLY reason for an argument against $7.25 an hour is greedy leadership. Hate to break it to you, but businesses don't run without the ground floor employes, they deserve to be paid fairly for what they do for an operation. Anyone who can honestly say that $58(before taxes) for 8 hours of work is out of line needs to take a very long, hard look in the mirror. What things are really looking like is the .1% would like to go back to the aristocracy and serfs set up. Link to comment
carlfense Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 If you don't understand what I meant by "being handcuffed by minimum wage laws" I'll explain it to you: Businesses, to turn the best profit want to hire cheap and produce a lot. They want to hire for cheaper than $7.50 [i think that's minimum wage]. Because government has a forced minimum wage law, companies cut down their workers because if they just hired willy nilly they would end up losing money [which isn't exactly the point of business]. So they cut workers or send jobs overseas. Low supply, high demand. You do the math. If the minimum wage law is lowered there will be even more money coming out of the taxpayers pockets. $15,000 isn't much of an annual salary. Lower the minimum wage and that goes down further. Basically a single person will have to have more than 1 job to make ends meet. Therefore, it would be interesting to see how many net jobs lowering minimum wage laws would create . . . if you create an extra job but a low level employee has to work 2 jobs to make ends meet then there is no benefit to unemployment numbers. The minimum wage laws are not the problem. I am not sure minimum wage jobs are meant for someone to live off of but rather a stepping stone to a better job. You get a low paying job aquire skills and then move up the ladder as it were. If you expect a person to live off minimum wage you will not be very happy. Eh. Thanks to the Mrs./Dr. Carlfense I don't have to worry about it personally. I do care about the people who are working minimum wage jobs and barely making ends meet . . . particularly when those higher paying jobs don't exist. Tis the season to remember the less fortunate, I guess. Link to comment
HSKR Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 If you don't understand what I meant by "being handcuffed by minimum wage laws" I'll explain it to you: Businesses, to turn the best profit want to hire cheap and produce a lot. They want to hire for cheaper than $7.50 [i think that's minimum wage]. Because government has a forced minimum wage law, companies cut down their workers because if they just hired willy nilly they would end up losing money [which isn't exactly the point of business]. So they cut workers or send jobs overseas. Low supply, high demand. You do the math. If the minimum wage law is lowered there will be even more money coming out of the taxpayers pockets. $15,000 isn't much of an annual salary. Lower the minimum wage and that goes down further. Basically a single person will have to have more than 1 job to make ends meet. Therefore, it would be interesting to see how many net jobs lowering minimum wage laws would create . . . if you create an extra job but a low level employee has to work 2 jobs to make ends meet then there is no benefit to unemployment numbers. The minimum wage laws are not the problem. I am not sure minimum wage jobs are meant for someone to live off of but rather a stepping stone to a better job. You get a low paying job aquire skills and then move up the ladder as it were. If you expect a person to live off minimum wage you will not be very happy. But many businesses want to move to a more minimum wage worker and management and nothing in between. And because now your workers are making next to nothing, the levels of management pay are lower, unless you are in a corporate office, then you get more money pretty much regardless of how the company does. I'm so far beyond sick of this 'best profit' BS. There is such a difference between making a good fair profit, and being a greedy SOB. And things are clearly focused on the greedy SOB side of things now. If its borderline legal, and can make a few people more money, then they do it. Regardless of if its the right, or ethical thing to do. Businesses cut benefits, cut perks, less vacation, less sick days, cut pay, do away with raises, require more hours, and worse hours, all in the name of making more money for the greedy SOB at the top. No one hires 'willy nilly' The ONLY reason for an argument against $7.25 an hour is greedy leadership. Hate to break it to you, but businesses don't run without the ground floor employes, they deserve to be paid fairly for what they do for an operation. Anyone who can honestly say that $58(before taxes) for 8 hours of work is out of line needs to take a very long, hard look in the mirror. What things are really looking like is the .1% would like to go back to the aristocracy and serfs set up. What exactly are these career occupations that pay minimum wage? If they only pay minimum wage I wouldn't consider it anything other then a stepping stone job. You can argue that businesses will cut everything only on the employees side of benefits to keep their profits but that can be a double edged sword as well. By doing that, you may drive your most talented and productive workers to other businesses who offer more. Those who do stay may feel disgruntled and production could decrease causing more profit loss then it what would have originally taken place by taking their benefits. A good business owner knows it's a balancing act of maintaining good profits and keeping employees happy and productive for the business. Link to comment
It'sNotAFakeID Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Business operates to turn the best profit. In their position, you would too. It serves your best interests. Link to comment
strigori Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 If you don't understand what I meant by "being handcuffed by minimum wage laws" I'll explain it to you: Businesses, to turn the best profit want to hire cheap and produce a lot. They want to hire for cheaper than $7.50 [i think that's minimum wage]. Because government has a forced minimum wage law, companies cut down their workers because if they just hired willy nilly they would end up losing money [which isn't exactly the point of business]. So they cut workers or send jobs overseas. Low supply, high demand. You do the math. If the minimum wage law is lowered there will be even more money coming out of the taxpayers pockets. $15,000 isn't much of an annual salary. Lower the minimum wage and that goes down further. Basically a single person will have to have more than 1 job to make ends meet. Therefore, it would be interesting to see how many net jobs lowering minimum wage laws would create . . . if you create an extra job but a low level employee has to work 2 jobs to make ends meet then there is no benefit to unemployment numbers. The minimum wage laws are not the problem. I am not sure minimum wage jobs are meant for someone to live off of but rather a stepping stone to a better job. You get a low paying job aquire skills and then move up the ladder as it were. If you expect a person to live off minimum wage you will not be very happy. But many businesses want to move to a more minimum wage worker and management and nothing in between. And because now your workers are making next to nothing, the levels of management pay are lower, unless you are in a corporate office, then you get more money pretty much regardless of how the company does. I'm so far beyond sick of this 'best profit' BS. There is such a difference between making a good fair profit, and being a greedy SOB. And things are clearly focused on the greedy SOB side of things now. If its borderline legal, and can make a few people more money, then they do it. Regardless of if its the right, or ethical thing to do. Businesses cut benefits, cut perks, less vacation, less sick days, cut pay, do away with raises, require more hours, and worse hours, all in the name of making more money for the greedy SOB at the top. No one hires 'willy nilly' The ONLY reason for an argument against $7.25 an hour is greedy leadership. Hate to break it to you, but businesses don't run without the ground floor employes, they deserve to be paid fairly for what they do for an operation. Anyone who can honestly say that $58(before taxes) for 8 hours of work is out of line needs to take a very long, hard look in the mirror. What things are really looking like is the .1% would like to go back to the aristocracy and serfs set up. What exactly are these career occupations that pay minimum wage? If they only pay minimum wage I wouldn't consider it anything other then a stepping stone job. You can argue that businesses will cut everything only on the employees side of benefits to keep their profits but that can be a double edged sword as well. By doing that, you may drive your most talented and productive workers to other businesses who offer more. Those who do stay may feel disgruntled and production could decrease causing more profit loss then it what would have originally taken place by taking their benefits. A good business owner knows it's a balancing act of maintaining good profits and keeping employees happy and productive for the business. Pick a business that has a retail outlet. Many positions in these chains made more real money(per hour) 20 years ago than they do now, and I'm not talking about after adjustments for inflation. The rest of the argument there is totally one of those 'works on paper not in practice' things. In most industries the 'pay more for the best workers' is a long forgotten ideal. Its a race to the bottom. Its a competition to see who can get by with the lowest paid employes outside the headquarters anyway. And no Big XII, I would not. The phrase 'best profit' is something from the horrible influence the stock market has on everything. A profit yes, but seeing what ways you can screw over your employes or customers, to get a little more, not a chance. If I'm running an operation, I'm going to reward the people who had a hand in making it a success, I'm not going to be going out and buying a second, third or fourth house while those people struggle. I guess that makes us very different people. Corporate profits have actually been up in the last couple years, but do the workers in these companies get raises for their hard work? No. The earnings go to the upper management and the stock holders. Screw who actually made the company successful. Link to comment
gobiggergoredder Posted December 2, 2011 Author Share Posted December 2, 2011 Pick a business that has a retail outlet. Many positions in these chains made more real money(per hour) 20 years ago than they do now, and I'm not talking about after adjustments for inflation. The rest of the argument there is totally one of those 'works on paper not in practice' things. In most industries the 'pay more for the best workers' is a long forgotten ideal. Its a race to the bottom. Its a competition to see who can get by with the lowest paid employes outside the headquarters anyway. And no Big XII, I would not. The phrase 'best profit' is something from the horrible influence the stock market has on everything. A profit yes, but seeing what ways you can screw over your employes or customers, to get a little more, not a chance. If I'm running an operation, I'm going to reward the people who had a hand in making it a success, I'm not going to be going out and buying a second, third or fourth house while those people struggle. I guess that makes us very different people. Corporate profits have actually been up in the last couple years, but do the workers in these companies get raises for their hard work? No. The earnings go to the upper management and the stock holders. Screw who actually made the company successful. I don't want to come right out and tell you are wrong, but as a member of the real world I have to tell you there are a few things that I just don't get. In most industries the 'pay more for the best workers' is a long forgotten ideal. You can't just run a business because someone has a pulse. This is a gross generalization and far from accurate. I have people that work for me that make $10 an hour with no benefits and I have some that make $40-50K with great benefits. Most of my crew is hourly and in the 35K range. In general, I can get just about anyone that isn't a drug addict to do my $10 jobs. When I start getting to $15-20 an hour, that just isn't the case. Surprisingly, I don't get a lot of applicants for open positions. Say that you don't have to pay more for the best, especially in a state like Nebraska, is a farce. The industry/market decides what a particular employee is worth. I have a hard time believing that Taco Bell, Burger King, McDonald's and the local car wash have a master plan on they are going to screw someone. I can't get people for many of my positions if I don't pay. The phrase 'best profit' is something from the horrible influence the stock market has on everything. A profit yes, but seeing what ways you can screw over your employes or customers, to get a little more, not a chance. This is OWS talk. If your business can't make a profit that is at a minimum equal to traditional investment vehicles, then you are wasting your time. I will slow it down for those that have to take a breath between the puffs. If an entity has $100K there are many things they can do with. They could buy stocks/bonds/invest in other projects or they could put it back into their business. If the operating profit of your business is less than what you would get out in the market then your business is a loser. There really isn't anything to debate here. Screwing over an employee or a customer is completely up to the person working there or buying the product. I have been on the short end at previous employers and guess what....I left. I have had crappy service/products before and guess what....I don't go back. Corporate profits have actually been up in the last couple years, but do the workers in these companies get raises for their hard work? This is another blanket OWS statement. I really don't know what the corporate profits look like, nor does it really matter. I have worked for three companies in the last 10 years and only one year have we not had a merit increase. The fields that I have worked in it is pretty simple. You drive the costs out of your product/process costs or it will be made in Mexico/China. Wages are a big part, but abuse of health care may be one of the worst. Prices of commodities (oil is in everything folks, not just your gas tanks), legal costs, regulations are all other things that rarely get discussed. Employees abusing government leave rules add a tremendous amount of burden to a company as well. I don't want to paint a rosy picture and say everything is great because that just isn't true, but at some point the generic rhetoric and propaganda needs to stop. Why we throw every corporation, bank & trader into this bucket is beyond me? It's like everything else, there is a very small minority that is ruining it for the rest of us. I understand this is a board that is about opinions and that is extremely important. But it concerns me how many people run with arguments that are so vague. The victim mentality is permeating our culture like a virus. Link to comment
It'sNotAFakeID Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Mainly because I'm a psychology major, haha. I try to interject what little [and apparently it is extremely little contribution] into conversations just to better understand, from those that are more into the field of economics/politics know. And strigori, what you're operating under is called a self-serving bias. Under your conditions, you assume that, if given the power/position that corporate CEOs have, you wouldn't try to do the same thing they would. It sounds easy to say that you wouldn't, but I'm sure those same current CEOs were saying the same thing. Money corrupts even the best of us. Link to comment
carlfense Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Interesting take on job creators. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-01/raise-taxes-on-the-rich-to-reward-job-creators-commentary-by-nick-hanauer.html Link to comment
Hingle McCringleberry Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 If you don't understand what I meant by "being handcuffed by minimum wage laws" I'll explain it to you: Businesses, to turn the best profit want to hire cheap and produce a lot. They want to hire for cheaper than $7.50 [i think that's minimum wage]. Because government has a forced minimum wage law, companies cut down their workers because if they just hired willy nilly they would end up losing money [which isn't exactly the point of business]. So they cut workers or send jobs overseas. Low supply, high demand. You do the math. If the minimum wage law is lowered there will be even more money coming out of the taxpayers pockets. $15,000 isn't much of an annual salary. Lower the minimum wage and that goes down further. Basically a single person will have to have more than 1 job to make ends meet. Therefore, it would be interesting to see how many net jobs lowering minimum wage laws would create . . . if you create an extra job but a low level employee has to work 2 jobs to make ends meet then there is no benefit to unemployment numbers. The minimum wage laws are not the problem. I am not sure minimum wage jobs are meant for someone to live off of but rather a stepping stone to a better job. You get a low paying job aquire skills and then move up the ladder as it were. If you expect a person to live off minimum wage you will not be very happy. Eh. Thanks to the Mrs./Dr. Carlfense I don't have to worry about it personally. I do care about the people who are working minimum wage jobs and barely making ends meet . . . particularly when those higher paying jobs don't exist. Tis the season to remember the less fortunate, I guess. Holy crap this is your wife... I didn't know she split from The Monarch.... 1 Link to comment
carlfense Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 If you don't understand what I meant by "being handcuffed by minimum wage laws" I'll explain it to you: Businesses, to turn the best profit want to hire cheap and produce a lot. They want to hire for cheaper than $7.50 [i think that's minimum wage]. Because government has a forced minimum wage law, companies cut down their workers because if they just hired willy nilly they would end up losing money [which isn't exactly the point of business]. So they cut workers or send jobs overseas. Low supply, high demand. You do the math. If the minimum wage law is lowered there will be even more money coming out of the taxpayers pockets. $15,000 isn't much of an annual salary. Lower the minimum wage and that goes down further. Basically a single person will have to have more than 1 job to make ends meet. Therefore, it would be interesting to see how many net jobs lowering minimum wage laws would create . . . if you create an extra job but a low level employee has to work 2 jobs to make ends meet then there is no benefit to unemployment numbers. The minimum wage laws are not the problem. I am not sure minimum wage jobs are meant for someone to live off of but rather a stepping stone to a better job. You get a low paying job aquire skills and then move up the ladder as it were. If you expect a person to live off minimum wage you will not be very happy. Eh. Thanks to the Mrs./Dr. Carlfense I don't have to worry about it personally. I do care about the people who are working minimum wage jobs and barely making ends meet . . . particularly when those higher paying jobs don't exist. Tis the season to remember the less fortunate, I guess. Holy crap this is your wife... I didn't know she split from The Monarch.... lol. Venture Bros ftw. Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Money corrupts even the best of us. Some people are more easily corrupted than others. Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 Why I support the OWS movement, why progressive action is important: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/12/02-3 . And why I cannot support our Democrat/Republican foreign policy: http://rt.com/news/syria-iran-russia-china-921/ Link to comment
Recommended Posts