oldtimer Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Believe me, it's talked about. There are strong interests for minimizing what is heard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 (edited) Believe me, it's talked about. There are strong interests for minimizing what is heard. This should be the forefront of every debate then. Everything I see ends up just like what just happens, where we're 15 pages into a conversation before it maybe gets mentioned. It's a huge deal. To me, fighting for benefits makes way more sense and is way more legit and respectable. It's something I could get on board with. Purposely keeping people just below the 32 hour threshold is in fact taking advantage of them. Edited November 9, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 I'm trying to figure out what that problem is "respectable" but minimum wages are not! LOL The issue really has been all along: Wages (meaning all compensation including benefits) are dropping like a rock while the income for plutocrats is rising like a rocket. Maybe that creates a big enough respectable umbrella? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrow#422 Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 IMO, whatever number is implemented as a minimum wage nationally will either be too high for some areas, and too low for others. $15 / hr will equate to roughly $25 / hour labor cost after figuring workman's comp & unemployment insurance for that employee. Seems a bit much for the small business owner to initially absorb. My profession is seasonal, and the workers rely on the overtime that it requires. The minimum wage @ 1.5X the rate for overtime would be a huge burden for our company. Even at the discussed rate of $15, there will continue to be huge subsidies given for health care compliance. For many, it is actually cheaper to pay the penalty than walk around with an insurance coverage "umbrella" that supplements the larger pool - unless something catastrophic occurs of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 I'm trying to figure out what that problem is "respectable" but minimum wages are not! LOL You ask for somebody to double your salary for a job that requires maybe 5 minutes worth of training, and you're going to look like an idiot to hard heads like me. You ask for the ability to work at least 1 more hour a week so you're not getting exploited and cheated out of benefits that the government is going to have to pay for anyway, and suddenly that's viewed quite differently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 IMO, whatever number is implemented as a minimum wage nationally will either be too high for some areas, and too low for others. $15 / hr will equate to roughly $25 / hour labor cost after figuring workman's comp & unemployment insurance for that employee. Not to mention that as soon as you make it $15 nation wide, the people in downtown Seattle are going to want $25. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Seems a bit much for the small business owner to initially absorb. What do you consider a small business? The Government considers companies with 500, 1000, or 1500 employees (depending on industry) to be "small businesses." The SBA rules would accept 99.7% of all firms in the US to be small businesses. For others, they mean mom and pop shops with 3 or 4 employees. So in fact, the term "small business" is as meaningless as "lotsa ice cream." I bet I could count 1000 citations in news reports which speak of "small businesses getting hurt" without ever once defining what a small business means. What say you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 (edited) IMO, whatever number is implemented as a minimum wage nationally will either be too high for some areas, and too low for others. $15 / hr will equate to roughly $25 / hour labor cost after figuring workman's comp & unemployment insurance for that employee. Not to mention that as soon as you make it $15 nation wide, the people in downtown Seattle are going to want $25. Anything wrong with that? MINIMUMS There are THOUSANDS of utility corporations in the USA, which DEMAND AND GET minimum rates from customers. These are the same as demanding a minimum wage for a worker. This is the standard way of operating for many industries, not just utilities. Unived Van Lines, Mayflower and the like - are ALL granted "minimum rates" for moving your household junk. Here's one for you, the private prison firms in the USA, of which account for a huge number of prison operations ALL negotiate "guaranteed occupancy rates" which is another form of guaranteed minimum income. Any squaking about that? The "guaranteed minimum" is used in thousands of defense contracts every year. Any problem there? Utilities, defense contractors, prison management, movers, all have legally guaranteed protection for minimum income. Accounting for many billions of dollars of the GDP. In that light, how are they more deserving of guaranteed minimums than workers? Edited November 9, 2015 by jo56steph74 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prerich Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 I'm really laughing now!!!! In the 70's....that area was more "bourgeoisie" than Rosedale Park (were my family lived)!!!!! He was right next to Dearborn!!!! I think his ideal of what poor is might be warped - like the difference between Donald Trump broke and MC Hammer broke!!! LOL Apparently not quite the ghetto, but, bourgeoisie? This was his house. He wrote in his book that he literally attempted to kill a friend over what music he was listening to. Sounds like they were living it up in a respectable suburb, no? At least at one point they were in public housing as far as I could tell. This was probably the best home he had after his parents divorced. Believe it or not - due to redlining in Detroit - that was the "DREAM HOUSE". It's about the same size as the one my father had (our yard was just a little bigger). My father payed $160k for a house that size - our house was the smallest on the block. It also cost just as much as others. This is what happened in Detroit in the 60's and 70's. This is also a recent picture. I can tell by the neighborhood and the condition of Detroit in the 60's and 70's that this house was beautiful back then. For African Americans at that time....very mid to upper middle class. Don't think with today's views....take yourself back into time and think. I doubt that the Carson's were Brewster/Dexter projects poor....that's what I call poor. I've been there and lived there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Seems a bit much for the small business owner to initially absorb. What do you consider a small business? The Government considers companies with 500, 1000, or 1500 employees (depending on industry) to be "small businesses." The SBA rules would accept 99.7% of all firms in the US to be small businesses. For others, they mean mom and pop shops with 3 or 4 employees. So in fact, the term "small business" is as meaningless as "lotsa ice cream." I bet I could count 1000 citations in news reports which speak of "small businesses getting hurt" without ever once defining what a small business means. What say you? 86.4% of all businesses in this country have less than 20 employees. I think that's a pretty good cutoff point. http://www.sbecouncil.org/about-us/facts-and-data/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CECAA850 Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Anything wrong with that? If you're referring to people in Seattle demanding a higher FEDERAL minimum wage than everyone else then yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Don't think with today's views....take yourself back into time and think. I doubt that the Carson's were Brewster/Dexter projects poor....that's what I call poor. I've been there and lived there. I don't know anything about the area but my dad is from Detroit. Well, halfway. He was in a split family so during the school year he lived in the projects but then flew down to Florida to live like a king during the summer. Did this every year. I can't imagine having to adjust going either way so often. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Seems a bit much for the small business owner to initially absorb. What do you consider a small business? The Government considers companies with 500, 1000, or 1500 employees (depending on industry) to be "small businesses." The SBA rules would accept 99.7% of all firms in the US to be small businesses. For others, they mean mom and pop shops with 3 or 4 employees. So in fact, the term "small business" is as meaningless as "lotsa ice cream." I bet I could count 1000 citations in news reports which speak of "small businesses getting hurt" without ever once defining what a small business means. What say you? 86.4% of all businesses in this country have less than 20 employees. I think that's a pretty good cutoff point. http://www.sbecouncil.org/about-us/facts-and-data/ I'd say that's a fair cutoff too. On that basis, I'd be in favor of a two tiered system, where the Federal Minimum of $X applies to those with more than 20, and a different minimum of say, 2/3 of that, applies to the small guys. Along those lines. It's no big deal to manage such a system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Anything wrong with that? If you're referring to people in Seattle demanding a higher FEDERAL minimum wage than everyone else then yes. heh heh, well, I'd then apply my general rule of dissent and say, everyone has a right to demand whatever they want. $25 in Manhatten or San Francisco or DC won't get you far. Economic systems are designed to have advocate interest groups making demands. You don't hear about the corporations doing their demanding because it is done at cocktails with congresspeople in private. Workers have no such access, so they must make their demands in public. Whatever space you are not willing to fight for, you will lose to those who do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzydog Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Anyone link to this handy graphic yet? http://money.cnn.com/interactive/economy/minimum-wage-since-1938/index.html?iid=ob_homepage_deskrecommended_pool&iid=obnetwork Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prerich Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Don't think with today's views....take yourself back into time and think. I doubt that the Carson's were Brewster/Dexter projects poor....that's what I call poor. I've been there and lived there. I don't know anything about the area but my dad is from Detroit. Well, halfway. He was in a split family so during the school year he lived in the projects but then flew down to Florida to live like a king during the summer. Did this every year. I can't imagine having to adjust going either way so often. Man!!! Now that's having it rough!!!! Going to Florida....in the summer!!!!!??? Then coming to the dreary projects for the winter?!!!!! Back in the 70's we had to watch out for the guy killing kids and burying them in the snow - you wouldn't find them till spring! That was a very dangerous time indeed. We walked to school in extreme snow ...for approximately 1.75 miles - that's a lot for a first grader!!!! Had my brother and sisters with me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ski Bum Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 http://harmful.cat-v.org/people/basic-laws-of-human-stupidity/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 So has anyone's mind been changed as a result of reading the various points in this thread? I doubt it... I believe that there is a correct answer to the OP's question, but people these days seem so entrenched in their own political perspective that they're unwilling to change their opinion when presented with compelling arguments. Maybe I’ve changed my mind a little. My official opinion on all this is: 1. $15 is fine for the jurisdictions that require this but should not be implemented nation-wide. It should be based on the cost of living and average income for the immediate area. Two people making the same but living in Seattle vs. a rural area will have the rural guy with twice the effective income and I don’t agree with this in terms of minimum wage based on the arguments presented. It should be a local number that is set to maintain a certain standard of living in the immediate area. 2. The 32 hour ceiling for no benefits should be abolished. If you change it, employers will simply exploit that new number. This needs to be based on a formula or sliding scale to prevent this. 3. There should be some way of differentiating between temporary students and long term workers who are supporting a family. The supporters of the increase use the latter as their poster people but I don’t agree with a mandatory big wage increase for students and there’s a big chunk of them in the work force. 4. More than anything we need to identify what’s causing our buying power to become diluted then stop it. I don’t agree with basing minimum wage off of productivity or any abstract concept like that. It should be based on whether you can afford rent, food, and other necessities. When these things go up, your wage is diluted and you basically just took a big pay cut. Not only should minimum wage keep up with these things, there should be controls in place to limit the swings and increases. Just throwing money at the problem without doing something about the root cause makes no sense. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 With respect to lost purchasing power, which side of the coin are you looking at? Purchasing power can be defined as wages ÷ prices = purchase power. So, loss of power comes by lowering wages, or raising prices. Wages are being lowered by off shoring skill jobs, leaving unskilled or lower skilled work as the only alternative. That's caused by our lopsided Trade Agreements. Raising prices is caused by inflation, and loss of competition. The FED managed to a goal of 3% inflation. So, that much loss of purchase power is built right in to the equation. Loss of competition occurs because industries continue to consolidate with no blockage from the FTC anti trust division. Like many regulators, the FTC has been captured by industry. Put it all together and 97% of all workers are peddling backward. Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woofers and Tweeters Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 When wages go up, so does everything that's produced from those wages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.