DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JeffBC
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Apparently, the boards of directors aren't doing a poor enough job to land them in hot water about it, though.
*nods* Welcome to two classes.
quote:
According to the BLS, the number of Americans paid hourly at rates at or below the minimum wage, is only like 5-6% of the American workforce. And, that number includes waitstaff that get paid a lower hourly rate, but make up for it (usually) in tips. And, you probably just overlooked it, but what happens when we raise the minimum wage to what a guy gets paid who's been in his job for a while? And, Unions tend to appreciate minimum wage hikes because it means wage hikes for their members, too.
I have to admit I don't understand why we are discussing sub-minimum-wage jobs. To the rest of your point, I didn't overlook it. I think it's a good thing. Again, let's remember that the actual story here is that there has been substantial productivity increase over the last 30 years and none of it has gone to workers. I am actively seeking to redress that... not because it's "fair"... but because our economy is broken right now and getting more broke fast.
The "below minimum wage" people will get raises, too. Whether or not it's the same raise or the same % would have to be seen later, but they'll get an increase. If you want to simply talk about those who get minimum wage, it was 2.1% of all hourly paid workers 16 years old or older (below min % is 2.6%; 4.7% of all hourly paid workers are at or below minimum wage). 24.1% of all hourly paid workers 16 years old or older that get paid at or below the minimum wage fall in the 16-19 age category. 65.2% of all hourly paid workers 16 years or older getting paid at or below the minimum wage have never been married. 57.4% work less than 35 hours/week. Have we really had such an amazing productivity increase in the no/low-skill labor force?
What has driven that productivity increase? Is it a better employee, or a better process? If the employee hasn't gotten better, then, what would the wage increase be for? Example: Company A has a press that Employee B can use to produce one widget per hour. Company A buys a new press that allows Employee B to produce 4 widgets in an hour. Does employee B merit a pay raise since productivity has quadrupled?
quote:
quote:
People are living now. At one point in time, McD's and BK were offering $10/hr. for regular workers because they couldn't get enough people. No idea if that's dropped now or not.
Not exactly... back to Walmart for a second. People are living only because the rest of us are subsiding Walmart's payroll... in massive quantities. IN my own little pea brain, I would like to calculate what the actual cost of living is in any given area (defined as food, shelter, and enough "frills" to not trap someone in that station forever -- eg: telephone and the like). Then I think an employer needs to pay that amount in that area because that's what it costs to hire labor in that area. I don't understand why we are, once again, subsidising the wealthiest corporations and people in the world.
If a company decides that their goal is a 50% margin, what do you think happens to that margin goal if prices are increased to account for increased wages? If a CEO decides that his pay should be 10% of the pre-tax profits, isn't he simply going to get paid more as prices rise? And, that isn't going to change the income divide, either.
quote:
quote:
I believe there is a very clear difference between a right and a goal. Rights need to be protected and filled. Period. Goals, however, are what you aim to fill, or work towards filling.
Well then I'm not sure I think there are any human rights. I might be more of a "law of the jungle" sort when push comes to shove. There are, however, some aesthetics I feel strongly enough about that I'd fight for them. It's kind of interesting to ponder the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness gig though.
Life: Poor people live 10-15 years less than rich folks.
Why? And, source it, please.
quote:
Liberty: Poor and black people are incarcerated in VASTLY greater numbers than rich & white folk. The DHS and associated legislative has done away with due process.
Is it because those people are poor or black that they are incarcerated at a greater rate than rich or white that perpetrate the same crimes? I am absolutely against $$ or skin color being a determining factor in verdicts and sentencing. Did the DHS do away with due process based on race or affluence?
quote:
Pursuit of Happiness: Class mobility in the US is at an all time low... or at least upward class mobility is.
In a ridiculously skewed land of consumerism, that is a rough row to hoe. Lack of money certainly does limit what one can have. But, is that really what happiness is? Is happiness only tied to material things? Therein lies a significant part of the problem, imo. Everyone wanted to "Be like Mike" so they bought shoes that were only worth the price because demand was high, not because the shoe was so good. Remember the beanie baby craze? All that money for something that had little intrinsic value. Comparing yourself against someone else isn't necessarily the right thing to do. I am not going to compare my house to Bill Gates' house. That would be ridiculous. Does that mean I'm not happy because my house isn't anything like Gates'? Not at all. It's not about person A vs. person B. At least, it shouldn't be. It should be about what person A does vs. what person A could have done. Oscar Pistorius wasn't as big a celeb because he was the fastest man in the world, but his track accomplishments compared to the shit sammich life served him certainly warranted that status.
quote:
I wouldn't score us too well on those three points if it were me.
But help me out here DS. Where DO you stand on this? If it's not "let them die in the streets" and yet you don't want government to step in what's your plan? How long will you wait for "the market to find an answer?" We've been waiting for quite a few decades now.
As I stated to tazzy, the market has given us the answer according to the way the market is set up. Set up a rigged market, and you'll get a rigged answer. Un-rig the market, and you'll get an un-rigged answer. We have been bouncing ideas back and forth about how to un-rig the system.
OWS wanted Wall Street to stop buying Government. I thought that was poorly aimed. I want Government to stop allowing themselves to be bought by Wall Street. IMHO, that's also what the Tea Party Movement was about. Obamacare did nothing other than shift costs. It's still going to cost a shitload of money to get health care. We are still going to outspend everyone else.
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: Single Payer for Dummies - 
Profile
RE: Single Payer for Dummies - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread