View Full Version : Fair Pay for a Days Work
bigmack
08-02-2006, 04:50 PM
The current salary for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $165,200 per year
State minimum wages vary from none to $7.75 in WA. It's $2.65 in KS
The oil companies have no compuction over record profits.
They grab illegals from businesses hiring them because of lower wages and judges and the feds let em go.
I don't know but paying an American Citizen $5/hr in todays world seems a bit out of line.
JWBurnie
08-02-2006, 05:22 PM
The current salary for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $165,200 per year
State minimum wages vary from none to $7.75 in WA. It's $2.65 in KS
The oil companies have no compuction over record profits.
They grab illegals from businesses hiring them because of lower wages and judges and the feds let em go.
I don't know but paying an American Citizen $5/hr in todays world seems a bit out of line.
IMO, the minimum wage is legalized slavery. I guess that's how they justify exploiting labor.
PlanB
08-02-2006, 05:57 PM
It suprised me that Henry Paulson said that many Americans are not seeing
benefits from this "UP" economy. He's a wise rich guy. Wall St doesn't need
social upheaval now, mostly because early 4th QTR financials might reflect
trouble(s).
Dave Schwartz
08-02-2006, 05:59 PM
(I will not get on the soapbox here. I will not... will not.)
Thank you both for bringing this up.
When a family of four cannot rise above the poverty level with the two parents working full-time jobs there is something wrong with the system.
(Will not... will not.)
Just my opinion.
Regards,
Dave Schwartz
bigmack
08-02-2006, 06:28 PM
When a family of four cannot rise above the poverty level with the two parents working full-time jobs there is something wrong with the system.
It's outrageous that people are willing to work and can barely get by
Federal mimimum wage has been $5.15 for 8 years!
Congress has now voted itself a total of $16,700 in raises over the last six years. Since 1990, congressional pay has increased from $98,400 to $165,200 in 2006.
If somebody cannot offer a "fair day's work" worth more than the minimum wage, there is something wrong with the PERSON.
Should the greeter at Wal Mart make a living wage?
Is his contibution worth , what $20-25,000 a year?
If it is, I want $150,000 a year.
what makes you worth so mutch more than a wm greeter,are these not humans just like you mabe not like you mabe better
KingChas
08-03-2006, 12:26 AM
It's outrageous that people are willing to work and can barely get by
Federal mimimum wage has been $5.15 for 8 years!
Nothing like working an hour to fill your lawnmower up.....Agree?
what makes you worth so mutch more than a wm greeter,are these not humans just like you mabe not like you mabe better
You miss the point. Not all people contribute equal. We pay people for what they contribute - that's where the phrase a fair days pay for a fair days work comes from. Why do you think you don't make 5 million a year?
People who do not contibute a value should not be paid like they were.
Any idiot can stand there and say welcome.
KingChas
08-03-2006, 01:01 AM
Tom, you talking about Terrel Owens or Barry Bonds? :lol:
what did the exonn ceo do for 146000 / day
if someone will give up so many hours / day they should at least make enough to live a little if you cant make a living then just become a bum and have the same thing or mabe more
what did the exonn ceo do for 146000 / day
if someone will give up so many hours / day they should at least make enough to live a little if you cant make a living then just become a bum and have the same thing or mabe more
He made 8 bazillion dollars for his company - what did Happy Jack at Wal Mart do?
Get real - should, should, should, - youare very free with other people's money. Like I said, if you pay the Wal Mart waver $20,000 a year, and he neesd no slkills, no education, no abilities, never has to make a descision, never brings in any sales, contract, etc, for this boss, what do you pay the guy who needed to have a 4 year degree, has to travel exttensivley, work overtime, brings in millions of dollars for his company?
You SHOULD get paid accodring to the value you add to the company.
What you are talking about is welfare.
If yuou can't offer value to a job, maybe you should consider gtting training, doing studying at home, taking calsses - exploring what social progams are out their to help you. Maybe, if your skill inventory include smiling and shaking hands and nothing more, you should re-consider having kids that you can't afford to raise and will force others to pay for.
Sec and the Dems are so outraged about min wage, yet, are they willing to extend min wage to EVERY SINGLE JOB OUT THERE?
Including farm workers and others now exempt? Are they willing to pay more for leettuce, bean?
Should a high school kid working fo rthe summer get $20,000 a yuear (pro-rated)
If ta Wal Mart greeter is worth $20K a yeaer, how much is a nurse worth? A firman? A cop? A teacher?
This is a reward for results world.
DJofSD
08-03-2006, 10:55 AM
This is a reward for results world.
Tom, in general we are on the same page here.
However, how do you justify the ever increasing gap between the pay of the average rank and file corporate employee v. the CEO?
Also, what about the executives of the companies that are losing money -- the Fords, GMs, any airliner, etc. -- shouldn't they share in the suffering too?
DJ, you think governement should regulate this?
Hey, persoanlly, I do not think any CEO is worth that kind of money, but since I do not own stock in them, it is not my business. If the shareholders are satisfied with it, then fine. If ineffective CEOs are mkaing too much, it is up to the shareholders to rectify it. BTw, Toyota is now #2 - just passed Ford. It is working - I'm sure the next annual meeting for Ford will be interesting.
You put the government in charge of this kind of stuff, the next thing we get is them telling us we can't bet on line, can't play poker on line, can't smoke anywhere, and then.........
keilan
08-03-2006, 11:28 AM
You put the government in charge of this kind of stuff, the next thing we get is them telling us we can't bet on line, can't play poker on line, can't smoke anywhere, and then.........
and then no nookie on Wednesdays
DJofSD
08-03-2006, 11:41 AM
DJ, you think governement should regulate this?
Good question.
At some point the government gets involved. Like the old TV commercial, ' you pay me now or pay me later.'
Look at the banking problem of the 1930's, S&L debacle of the 1990's and Enron. You can say it is strictly a problem limited to the stock holders but those problems spill over into the rest of the society.
A balance is required. And my feeling right now is there are too many aspects of business that are out of balance.
and then no nookie on Wednesdays
Well of course not - first day of the racing week? Gadzooks, man, TUESDAYS! :lol:
tahoesid
08-03-2006, 12:59 PM
The constitution states there should be equal opportunity for everyone, not everyone having a right to all the goodies of a good life. If you can't make enough money then you shouldn't have a big family or any family. There is no right to have a big car, any car, house kids etc.
In a free market people get to make what they are worth. It isn't perfect but try doing what Russia did. Close the borders and see how fast wages go up for just about any type of job. One way or another people pay for any kind of government intervention in the market. If people had to pay a little more for a burger they would if it was convenient for them.
Dave Schwartz
08-03-2006, 01:41 PM
Tom,
If somebody cannot offer a "fair day's work" worth more than the minimum wage, there is something wrong with the PERSON.
Should the greeter at Wal Mart make a living wage?
Is his contibution worth , what $20-25,000 a year?
If it is, I want $150,000 a year.
In every economy there is an "artifiicial" sense of "worth." That is why a factory worker in L.A. gets $5.15 per hour while a worker doing the same thing gets $6 per day.
The point is that our country is (and should be) a leader in human dignity in the world. As such it is just wrong on so many levels that any viable business in the US would pay a worker a below-poverty wage simply because they can.
And, just for the record, pushing up the minimum wage will have a positive impact on your income.
(I will not... I will not... get on the soapbox.)
Dave
skate
08-03-2006, 02:13 PM
comes down to regulation or Not regulation. the amount is secondary
at $5.00 an hour for the employee, the exec makes $5 million per year.
so increase the employee to $10.00/per hour and the exec pulls $12 million per year and congress goes to $923,000.00 per year.
thats why this country went union and now we are going non-union
peoples fault
46zilzal
08-03-2006, 02:21 PM
what makes you worth so mutch more than a wm greeter,are these not humans just like you mabe not like you mabe better
as much as I DO NOT CARE for WalMart, many of the greeters are seniors and the mentally/physically disabled people. They give them a chance.
Dave Schwartz
08-03-2006, 03:52 PM
46,
as much as I DO NOT CARE for WalMart, many of the greeters are seniors and the mentally/physically disabled people. They give them a chance.
Just checking here, but are you saying that it is okay for them to be underpaid?
Dave
46zilzal
08-03-2006, 04:34 PM
46,
Just checking here, but are you saying that it is okay for them to be underpaid?
Dave
No. At the bottom rung, even when capable, it is often the only place where seniors and people with disabilities can find work. While I don't agree with the salary, one of the FEW things that WalMart does well, is give these people a chance.
My cousin has cerebral palsey and worked all his life as a janitor. He has a iron will and was told he would never walk. He would not even have gotten THAT opportunity if it were not for a man in management who had a family member with the same physical disability. I am proud to say that Wayne was TWICE employee of the year over the 18 years he was able to do his job.
He made 8 bazillion dollars for his company - what did Happy Jack at Wal Mart do?
He made the 8 bazillion dollars for his company by exploiting the Happy Jacks of the world. Those who would not be exploited were outsourced. He also made the money by using the courts to help him in disregarding the contracts he had signed giving pensions to his retired employees.
Happy Jack at Wal Mart did his job to the best of his ability. If Happy Jack's services were not needed for the success of the company Happy Jack would not have a job. Have Happy Jack and the CEO stick a finger in a glass of water and remove same quickly, see any difference?
In conclusion, (deadbeats excluded) everyone contributes what they can to the success of any enterprise.
boxcar
08-03-2006, 05:07 PM
what makes you worth so mutch more than a wm greeter,are these not humans just like you mabe not like you mabe better
Yes, they are fellow human beings. But what technical or professional skills do they bring to the table? What make the contributions of the unkilled labor force more valuabe that those of their skilled counterparts? Once you arbitrarily uprade the unskilled, you automatically downgrade the skilled labor force.
The minimum wage BS is a social engineering ploy designed to level the proverbial playing field. It's grossly unfair to those who have invested time and money in their education in order to acquire technical and professional training.
Boxcar
boxcar
08-03-2006, 05:09 PM
The constitution states there should be equal opportunity for everyone, not everyone having a right to all the goodies of a good life. If you can't make enough money then you shouldn't have a big family or any family. There is no right to have a big car, any car, house kids etc.
In a free market people get to make what they are worth. It isn't perfect but try doing what Russia did. Close the borders and see how fast wages go up for just about any type of job. One way or another people pay for any kind of government intervention in the market. If people had to pay a little more for a burger they would if it was convenient for them.
Wow! Someone gets it!
Boxcar
JWBurnie
08-03-2006, 05:53 PM
Business today is based on exploitation. For the most part. Think about it in your own job. You're hired to a new company for an agreed upon salary and benefits package, with set responsibilities. As time passes your responsibilities grow but your salary never seems to increase proportionally. What would happen if they outsourced those additional responsibilities? They'd pay out the nose. So, why pay "government" prices for a job to be completed when I can exploit this guy, and pay nothing? Who cares if his life outside of work suffers? He should be happy he's got a job. Oh, and we're no longer matching your 401k contribution.
He made the 8 bazillion dollars for his company by exploiting the Happy Jacks of the world. Those who would not be exploited were outsourced. He also made the money by using the courts to help him in disregarding the contracts he had signed giving pensions to his retired employees.
Happy Jack at Wal Mart did his job to the best of his ability. If Happy Jack's services were not needed for the success of the company Happy Jack would not have a job. Have Happy Jack and the CEO stick a finger in a glass of water and remove same quickly, see any difference?
In conclusion, (deadbeats excluded) everyone contributes what they can to the success of any enterprise.
Are you going to pay Happy Jack the same salary as you would pay the rainmaker? Of course not. Are you paid the same as your boss?
Should all people get paid the same?
Get your head out of your political arse and pay attention to the discussion here. This is about how some people are paid more because they are worth more. You bull shit about the politics of the Exon guy are totally outside this thread.
As you point out, and as 46 mentioned - Wal Mart provide employment for people with limited capabilities - becaseu theywant to, not because they have to. You jerk the min wage around, how long do you think this will last?
46 - don't take this the wrong way, because I agree with you, but Ljb, facts are none of the WalMart greeters are needed. Cahsiers are needed. Stock boys are needed. Seciruty is needed. Greeters are not. You jerk them around and tell them they now have to pay X dollars more per hour for everyone, guess who is going to get cut out? I would wager less than 1/2% of all WM customers go there because they like to get smiled at.
Business today is based on exploitation. For the most part. Think about it in your own job. You're hired to a new company for an agreed upon salary and benefits package, with set responsibilities. As time passes your responsibilities grow but your salary never seems to increase proportionally. What would happen if they outsourced those additional responsibilities? They'd pay out the nose. So, why pay "government" prices for a job to be completed when I can exploit this guy, and pay nothing? Who cares if his life outside of work suffers? He should be happy he's got a job. Oh, and we're no longer matching your 401k contribution.
Welcome to the real world.
They never had to match your 401K, you do not have to stay and accept the added duties. Suck? Of course it does, but like you say, be lucky you have the job. If there that many out there, why wouldn't you be out getting a new one?
JWBurnie
08-03-2006, 06:10 PM
I completely agree. Find a trade, work for yourself.
I completely agree. Find a trade, work for yourself.
I would have to outsorce me to India and save money! ;)
csperberg
08-03-2006, 06:55 PM
Bottom line if you own a business you exploit and if you work for someone you get exploited.
When you own you get the most out of it, when you work you try to get the most you can.
Its a dog eat dog world, snooze you lose and all the other sayings that fit with this.
Sure I dont like it when it seems these people in positions to make great wealth exploit the little guy. I also dont like the little guy trying to get more than he deserves either.
The world is filled with the have's and have not's. It has allways been this way and will probably be this way for a long time. At least untill the next level of humanity takes over, but the rate we are going I wouldnt bet on it happening any time soon.
I am begining to wonder do I come to PA for horse racing or for the off topic things discussed here.
I really like these off topic conversation here at PA. The members here seem to be from all differnt backrounds. They are filled with all sorts of opinions making for a very diverse place to have debates. Every time there is a heavy left opinion we know there is going to be those right wingers making sure their two cents are heard, or vice versa.
Sure heck beats the one sided news and reporting I have to see day in and day out. A real enjoyment and I am glad I found this site and have become a member of it.
I almost forget that there is stuff about horse racing on here.
Are you going to pay Happy Jack the same salary as you would pay the rainmaker? Of course not. Are you paid the same as your boss?
Should all people get paid the same?
Get your head out of your political arse and pay attention to the discussion here. This is about how some people are paid more because they are worth more. You bull shit about the politics of the Exon guy are totally outside this thread.
Why do you insist on making personal attacks ? I expressed an opinion I never said pay Happy Jack the same salary as the rainmaker. I was trying to imply that the ceos seem to get an inproportional piece of the pie. Another example would be AT&T having 45 percent of their pension funds allocated to 1500 top executives while the other 55 percent is to be split amongst the 189,000 employees.
You can disagree with my opinion without the personal attacks. And no I am not paid the same as my boss and do not expect to be.
Oh, your "poor little me getting attacked" routine again, eh?
Never tire of it , do you?
Almost as routine as you going off topic with more of your political crap.
Personal attack - hardly.
Statement of fact, for sure.
Are you willing to make a minimum wage, and apply it to EVERY SINGLE JOB in this country? No exceptions?
Turntime
08-03-2006, 09:43 PM
Just some observations. I don't know anyone or know anyone that knows anyone who makes $5.15 /Hr. (I know a pizza delivery driver who gets base pay of $5.15 but averages $15/Hr. with tips so that doesn't count). Where I live Taco bell jobs start at $7/Hr. and most entry level jobs start at $8-$9/Hr.
When I worked in the manufacturing sector we had a heck of a time finding a competent delivery driver (key word competent) although we were offering $10/Hr. to start with full benefits. This is for a job that has skill requirements of being able to read and drive. I can only imagine the type of employee that would have responded to an offering of $5.15/Hr. (if anyone would have responded at all). Where are all the $5.15/Hr. jobs? I'm having a hard time finding any that don't involve gratuities.
Most entry level jobs are filled by young people just starting out who lack skills and either couldn't afford to or elected not to further their education. If you reach thirty and are still making entry level wages then most likely you didn't work hard enough to elevate your worth in the job market or simply made some bad life choices. This pretty much covers it with the exception of some people who were dealt rotten cards (the mentally ill and mentally challenged come to mind).
Of course the best way for wages to increase is a robust economy. When employers have to fight over workers, wages go up. How to achieve a robust economy? I think most economic factors are beyond the control of politicians, but raising taxes (which IS under their control) is certainly not one of the ways to achieve it.
So what do I think about raising the minimum wage? I think it will cost some jobs and possibly fuel inflation, but hopefully our economy is strong enough to absorb it and things will soon be back to normal (whatever normal is). And yes, the death tax is way too high and needs to be revised.
Could this be the real reason for Sec's "outrage?"
Is this his attempt to keep this thrad bumped up?
Wouldn't this be the real outrage, using this issue for political gain? Hmmmmm?
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/07/17/democratic_activists_push_minimum_wage_hikes_state _by_state/
"Democrats hope any extra turnout for the wage proposals from low-income voters would benefit their candidates, similar to the conservative-voter boost received by some GOP candidates in states with gay-marriage bans on their ballots in 2004."
Gee, sounds like the very wsame thing libs were outraged by over repubs last time out.
Lefty
08-03-2006, 10:35 PM
dittos to what tahosid, boxcar and turntime said.
Anybody with a family that is making min wage has done absolutely nothing to help themselves succeed.
From the boston.com link:
"Twenty-three states, including six this year, have already have raised minimum wages above the federal level -- mostly by legislative action. Workers in those places must be paid the higher state amount."
OK, so 46% of the states already are over the federal minimum.
Here is the breakdown by state:
http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm
Hmmmm - NY, California, Florida, Illinois. Some pretty populated states.
Add them all up - population-wise these states add up to about 136,000,000 out of 296,000,000 total populatin - so the same 46% of all population is above the federal minimum.
Half of the 10 most populouws states have exceeded Federal minimums, and almost half of all states have done so, too.
Why is this a Federal issue?
Why is it not left to the states to set minimum wages, based on thier own individual situations?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=arLH2cHXlAQY
"As an economist, I would like to believe that the minimum wage doesn't work politically because voters, unlike Howard Dean, understand the economics. There is an abundance of research on the minimum wage, and literature reviews regularly report that raising it induces firms to hire fewer workers, and to cut back on hours."
and
"Should we enact a policy that gives 10 people an extra $40 a week, but whacks the 11th guy? Shouldn't the terrible disruption to the lives of those who are fired be more of a concern to us than the extra money for those who are not? Is it right to redistribute from the worse-off poor to the better-off poor?"
boxcar
08-03-2006, 11:38 PM
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=arLH2cHXlAQY
"As an economist, I would like to believe that the minimum wage doesn't work politically because voters, unlike Howard Dean, understand the economics. There is an abundance of research on the minimum wage, and literature reviews regularly report that raising it induces firms to hire fewer workers, and to cut back on hours."
and
"Should we enact a policy that gives 10 people an extra $40 a week, but whacks the 11th guy? Shouldn't the terrible disruption to the lives of those who are fired be more of a concern to us than the extra money for those who are not? Is it right to redistribute from the worse-off poor to the better-off poor?"
And the linear thinkin' libs, who have a tough getting past their noses, also don't understand who really pays for all these pay hikes. Hint: The folks who are also at the bottom of the Tax Chain. So, what we have is a another contributing cause for inflation.
Boxcar
Boxcar,
If Wal Mart has to pay more, they will either hire less, fire some, cut back on hours, or raise prices.
All of theses tings hurt low income people.
I don't know about YOU, but I sure don't shop at Wal Mart - I do all my shopping at
"RICH BASTARDS R US!" :lol:
Boxcar,
If Wal Mart has to pay more, they will either hire less, fire some, cut back on hours, or raise prices.
All of theses tings hurt low income people.
Or, Heaven forbid, the CEO may have to take a smaller bonus. :(
Well, that was certainly unrelated to my post.
Why did you quote me and then talk about something unrelated?
Was it your intention to take the thread off topic yet again?
Were you threatened by facts posted earlier and attempting a diversion?
Or just antoher DNC attempt to bump up one of thier hot button topics?
We all know that the CEO pay will suffer - the items I listed are most likey the real reactions.
Perhaps you could share with us your unique economic theories on why you feel CEO pay will be cut before the other options are exercised?
Oh, your "poor little me getting attacked" routine again, eh?
Never tire of it , do you?
Almost as routine as you going off topic with more of your political crap.
Personal attack - hardly.
Statement of fact, for sure.
Are you willing to make a minimum wage, and apply it to EVERY SINGLE JOB in this country? No exceptions?
Sorry Tom,
I had forgotten that whenever you are topped in an honest debate you use the slime bag Rove's technique of attacking the messenger. From now on I will just take your personal attacks as a Rove moment by you. And you were doing so well in your little lefty role, for shame.
I don't give a damn what they do with minimum wage but, did you know our congress has given themselves 8 raises since 1997 and raised the minimum wage 0 times?
Well, that was certainly unrelated to my post.
Why did you quote me and then talk about something unrelated?
Was it your intention to take the thread off topic yet again?
Were you threatened by facts posted earlier and attempting a diversion?
Or just antoher DNC attempt to bump up one of thier hot button topics?
We all know that the CEO pay will suffer - the items I listed are most likey the real reactions.
Perhaps you could share with us your unique economic theories on why you feel CEO pay will be cut before the other options are exercised?
You are almost right here Tom. The items you listed are most likely to happen, the CEO's pay will not suffer.
Notice I said "heaven forbid".
bigmack
08-04-2006, 02:13 PM
Arugably wage structure is generated by the marketplace and in a less competitive employment environ wage goes up as businesses need to attract good folk with a fair wage to minimize turn over and compete within the marketplace for employees.
In outlying areas there is more competition for the few jobs they have and oftimes the wages are low as a result of the employers offering a wage that is at the minimum as mandated by state/feds. In many cases they'd hire employees for less if they could so IMO the mandates work in those situations.
I'm not a big fan of big bro government but in some cases the GMen have to draw a line for people otherwise it's a situation ripe for abuse.
Sorry Tom,
I had forgotten that whenever you are topped in an honest debate you use the slime bag Rove's technique of attacking the messenger. From now on I will just take your personal attacks as a Rove moment by you. And you were doing so well in your little lefty role, for shame.
I don't give a damn what they do with minimum wage but, did you know our congress has given themselves 8 raises since 1997 and raised the minimum wage 0 times?
Topped? Hardy - I posted legit data from real economists and I agree wtih them. Mabey topped in your little world, but not the real one. And I did not change a thing nor attack you - I pointed aout what realisstically will happen and YOU changed the topic to CEO compensation because YOU have nothing more to offer. You cannot address any real issues at all. I asked you to enlighten us from your vast economic knowledge, but obviously, you possess none or would have responded with more than a pot shot.
Topped? Hardy - I posted legit data from real economists and I agree wtih them. Mabey topped in your little world, but not the real one. And I did not change a thing nor attack you - I pointed aout what realisstically will happen and YOU changed the topic to CEO compensation because YOU have nothing more to offer. You cannot address any real issues at all. I asked you to enlighten us from your vast economic knowledge, but obviously, you possess none or would have responded with more than a pot shot.
What the world needs is a one armed economist. Your legit data is subjective at best.
I mearly pointed out that CEOs rarely if ever suffer from adverse business conditions even if they bring them on themselves. Check out the tidy golden parachutes so common amongst the few and the mighty.
Amazing! Even when it is pointed out to him, he still strays further off topic.
I believe the topic is fair pay for a days work. You are the one who started into all the areas of different pay for different work etc. Why is CEO pay not to be considered here ? And why shouldn't ceos get fair pay for a days work ?
Secretariat
08-04-2006, 04:05 PM
It’s been eight years since the minimum wage was last increased. If the minimum wage today was worth what it was in 1968, it would be about $8.50 an hour.
Based on 2005, paying minimum wage of $5.15 was worth about $4.30 in 1998. In other words due to inflation, the minimum wage workertoday is making $0.85 AN HOUR LESS han his minimu mwage counterpart in 1998. In 2006 it is even a larger reduction.
This is in essence equivalent of a tax on minimum wage workers. A severe punishment to the poor. Now, why I think this is so egregious is that at the same time, the wealthiest in this country are given bigger and biger tax breaks, and now the House is attmepting to reward even the heirs of the wealthiest. It is despicable, and demonstrates the sleaziest of values in terms of ultimate greed. And when you get into CEO pay, it becomes repulsive.
....
"Greed is good."
Michael Douglas in Wall Street
Apparently they do. Their shareholdsrs - the owners - thier bossed - are allowing it, so there ya go - no porblem-o. Those with the dogs in the fight have spoken.
DJofSD
08-04-2006, 04:11 PM
It is despicable, and demonstrates the sleaziest of values in terms of ultimate greed.
The ultimate greed can evenly be split between all of you do-gooders and the government.
Sec, you have ignored everyting I posted last night, and you continue to psot information not exactly accurate. You make it sound like the Federal Min is what everyone works for, but as I posted, 46% of the states offer more. And 46% of the gross population lives in areas where the min is higher.
States offer nim wages, too - why is this not a state issue? Several prominent BLUE states are lacking in Min wages - why is that? Ljb's own Michigan is lacking - why is that?
Why can 46% over ride the feds and 54% cannot?
My population numbers apply to general populations, not workers, but I figured since this was your life and death issue, you could come up with some real numbers - how many people acutally work for $5.15/hr or less?
And nobody has answered my other quesiton yet - would you favor a min wage increase if it applied to every single job in the country - every single job - no exceptions?
Secretariat
08-04-2006, 08:24 PM
Sec, you have ignored everyting I posted last night, and you continue to psot information not exactly accurate. You make it sound like the Federal Min is what everyone works for, but as I posted, 46% of the states offer more. And 46% of the gross population lives in areas where the min is higher.
States offer nim wages, too - why is this not a state issue? Several prominent BLUE states are lacking in Min wages - why is that? Ljb's own Michigan is lacking - why is that?
What do you mean? Michigan raised there min wage this year to $6.95.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080100546.html
States hike minimum wage as Congress battles
By Carey GillamReuters
Tuesday, August 1, 2006; 11:50 AM
KANSAS CITY, Missouri (Reuters) - As Congress battles over whether or not to raise the minimum wage, Main Street America is moving on.
More than a dozen U.S. states, including Massachusetts, Michigan, Arkansas and Missouri, have either already raised the minimum wage in their states above the federal level of $5.15 an hour, or have ballot initiatives for a raise in the works for November elections.
Why can 46% over ride the feds and 54% cannot?
"Generally the overrides are above the minimum wage. To me, the federal minimum wage sets the lowest standard. Obviously, someone living in manhattan has a higher standard of costs than someone in Bismarck, North Dakota."
My population numbers apply to general populations, not workers, but I figured since this was your life and death issue, you could come up with some real numbers - how many people acutally work for $5.15/hr or less?
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefaq
Tom, you should read this site. It will tell you exactly what you want to know.
"An estimated 14.9 million workers (11% of the workforce) would benefit from an increase in the federal minimum wage to $7.25 by 2008. Of these workers, 6.6 million would be directly affected and 8.3 million would indirectly receive raises due to the spillover effect of a minimum wage increase. Of the total affected workers, 80% are adults and 59% are women. Over half (54%) work full time and another third (30%) work between 20 and 34 hours per week. More than one-quarter (26%) of the workers who would benefit from an increase to $7.25 are parents of children under age 18, including 1,395,000 single parents. The average minimum wage worker brings home over half (58%) of his or her family's weekly earnings"
And nobody has answered my other quesiton yet - would you favor a min wage increase if it applied to every single job in the country - every single job - no exceptions?
Wel, this is subjective, but here's my slant. I would apply it as a minimum for all American citizens. For those applying for citizenship and meeting certain standards they should qualify on a gradual scale of merit. For non-citizens I do not bleeive the minimum wage should be applicable, and for those hiring illegals should risk serious employer penalties.
tahoesid
08-04-2006, 09:11 PM
Last I heard a good percentage of people don't work for minimum. A lot of those that do also work for tips. I wish I made what some of these cocktail waitresses that work for minimum wage make. Forcing business' to pay any kind of minimum probably doesn't guarantee anything except possibly fewer jobs.
JustRalph
08-04-2006, 09:24 PM
"An estimated 14.9 million workers (11% of the workforce) would benefit from an increase in the federal minimum wage to $7.25 by 2008. Of these workers, 6.6 million would be directly affected and 8.3 million would indirectly receive raises due to the spillover effect of a minimum wage increase. Of the total affected workers, 80% are adults and 59% are women. Over half (54%) work full time and another third (30%) work between 20 and 34 hours per week. More than one-quarter (26%) of the workers who would benefit from an increase to $7.25 are parents of children under age 18, including 1,395,000 single parents. The average minimum wage worker brings home over half (58%) of his or her family's weekly earnings".
this is some of the biggest doubletalk I have ever seen. The spillover is what kills jobs too. Some contracts are tied to minimum wage rates. So the spillover is a "masked effect" that you wont' hear anybody talk about because it implicates the unions in the call for min. wage increase. You can find numbers like this depending on who is reporting the data. I heard on Cnn today that 1/2 of 1 percent of workers in the U.S. work for minimum wage. Sounds like a good reason to raise it to me........give me a break! :bang:
If Michign rasied it, it was just recerntly - my stats are from US DOL April, 2006.
Ralph, don't forget too, if they raise the base pay, guess what happend to benefits?
Suddenly , you make $30 more week and pay $40 more in health insurance.
bigmack
08-04-2006, 11:25 PM
1/2 of 1 percent of workers in the U.S. work for minimum wage. Sounds like a good reason to raise it to me........give me a break!
JR - The "floor" of what employers must in the very least pay their employees is the MWage. Most up their pay slightly so you have very few showing up statistically as working for MWage thus the .5%.
I have little vested interest and the issue has no effect on my life but from a cursory glance shouldn't the "floor" be raised in light of todays augmented cost of life? The "ceiling" is known to all to be limitless. The floor seems out of wack. We all know that little is done on the illegal imgrant front as R's see it as a good opp for business to get cheap labor and the D's see it as a human rights issue.
Mandating a higher floor, as heavy handed as it may be, seems like an ok thing to do.
Secretariat
08-05-2006, 04:21 AM
I heard on Cnn today that 1/2 of 1 percent of workers in the U.S. work for minimum wage. Sounds like a good reason to raise it to me........give me a break! :bang:
I link to 14 mil, and you counter with 1/2 of 1 percent of workers will be affected. If your numbers are right, then what is the big deal? The argument that it's bad for business falls flat since so few are affected according to your figures.
You can't have it both ways. Either only 1/2 of 1 percent are affected, or so many are affected it is bad for business.
You guys don't mind taxing the little guy as inflation eats away at his meager earnings, but make sure the CEO's and millionaries are well taken care of. Apply to Exxon. You'll go far there.
"More than a dozen U.S. states, including Massachusetts, Michigan, Arkansas and Missouri, have either already raised the minimum wage in their states above the federal level of $5.15 an hour, or have ballot initiatives for a raise in the works for November elections."
OK, so 23 already are above it, and 12 more will be soon. That is 35 states not need Uncle Sugar to take care of thier business.
We now ae left with 13 states - mostly "blue" - not taking care of thier own.
The Louisiana syndrom?
How about moveon.org getting on the stick and demanding states they already control perform better? Those damn dems, anyway!:lol:
bigmack
08-05-2006, 11:54 AM
Since September 1997, the purchasing power of the minimum wage has deteriorated by 20%. After adjusting for inflation, the value of the minimum wage is at its lowest level since 1955.
Wage inequality has been increasing, in part, because of the declining real value of the minimum wage. Today, the minimum wage is 31% of the average hourly wage of American workers, the lowest level since the end of World War II
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefacts
http://www.epi.org/issueguides/minwage/epi_minimum_wage_issue_guide.pdf
(http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefacts)
Turntime
08-05-2006, 03:12 PM
From an AP article on the Minimum wage bill:
"Left behind, however, are more than 5 million hotel maids, dishwashers, fast food and janitorial workers and other minimum wage earners stuck at $5.15 an hour. Adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage is the lowest it's been in 50 years."
Once again I ask the question, where are all these $5.15/Hr. jobs that don't involve gratuities? Where I live fast food jobs start at $7/Hr. and even evil Wal-Mart starts at around $6.75.
If you're going to base statistics on a number such as the $5.15/Hr. minimum wage, then that number should reflect some sort of reality in today's job market. Stating things like 'Adjusted for inflation a minimum wage worker has 20% less purchasing power than his 1997 counterpart' is a distortion of reality and a meaningless excercise.
Here's a statistic from the Department of Labor. The median hourly wage for all workers in the production sector in 1999 was $10.75/Hr. and for 2005 it was $12.91. In the Food preparation and Serving sector the median salary rose from $6.64/Hr. to $7.74/Hr. between 1999 and 2005. These are increases of 20% and 17% respectively despite no intervention from the Federal Government.
These statistical distortions the media keeps throwing at us simply makes a meaningful discussion about this topic more difficult.
My gut feeling is this is more of a political issue than anything else. The economy has seemingly moved forward from the the impact of the $5.15/Hr. minimum, and is probably strong enough to absorb any artificial Federal increase with minimal loss of jobs.
TT - yes, it the libs "feel good" issuie - desinged to get voters from the base out. Make them think the DNC is out there figthing for them. They are not. It is anekd ploy to get votes. The Dems have nothing to offer and any real issues, so they have to make stuff up. It's all in the moveon emails...which I get.
I call it the "yummy pie in the sky" ploy.
Secretariat
08-05-2006, 05:42 PM
From an AP article on the Minimum wage bill:
"Left behind, however, are more than 5 million hotel maids, dishwashers, fast food and janitorial workers and other minimum wage earners stuck at $5.15 an hour. Adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage is the lowest it's been in 50 years."
Once again I ask the question, where are all these $5.15/Hr. jobs that don't involve gratuities? Where I live fast food jobs start at $7/Hr. and even evil Wal-Mart starts at around $6.75.
If you're going to base statistics on a number such as the $5.15/Hr. minimum wage, then that number should reflect some sort of reality in today's job market. Stating things like 'Adjusted for inflation a minimum wage worker has 20% less purchasing power than his 1997 counterpart' is a distortion of reality and a meaningless excercise.
Here's a statistic from the Department of Labor. The median hourly wage for all workers in the production sector in 1999 was $10.75/Hr. and for 2005 it was $12.91. In the Food preparation and Serving sector the median salary rose from $6.64/Hr. to $7.74/Hr. between 1999 and 2005. These are increases of 20% and 17% respectively despite no intervention from the Federal Government.
These statistical distortions the media keeps throwing at us simply makes a meaningful discussion about this topic more difficult.
My gut feeling is this is more of a political issue than anything else. The economy has seemingly moved forward from the the impact of the $5.15/Hr. minimum, and is probably strong enough to absorb any artificial Federal increase with minimal loss of jobs.
If there are no signfiicant 5.15 an hour wages out there, then why would the GOP fight such tooth and nail against the raise?
TT - yes, it the libs "feel good" issuie - desinged to get voters from the base out. Make them think the DNC is out there figthing for them. They are not. It is anekd ploy to get votes. The Dems have nothing to offer and any real issues, so they have to make stuff up. It's all in the moveon emails...which I get.
I call it the "yummy pie in the sky" ploy.
You are right Tom, It is the Dems answer to the Repubs abortion thingy.
Lefty
08-05-2006, 07:48 PM
lbj, you're always telling me the repubs control congress and can basically do anything they want. So how come they can't get this bill passed? Maybe they can't do anything they want, hmmmm?
rastajenk
08-06-2006, 03:03 AM
If seven dollars and change is a good minimum wage, then why isn't eight and change a better minimum wage? Or nine and change? After all, gas prices, college tuitions, and rent aren't going to go down soon, if at all. If you're going to fix something, fix it good.
JustRalph
08-06-2006, 03:47 AM
Sec, because the min. wage is used as a barometer in some contracts and in other "formula's" for bidding jobs etc.
I saw an Oprah show a while back where Morgan Spurlock of "30 Days " fame, tried to do a show on living on the minimum wage in Columbus Ohio. Only one problem..........they couldn't find a job paying minimum wage.......the lowest they could find was 8.70 an hour. But they did the show anyway.
http://www2.oprah.com/tows/slide/200604/20060414/slide_20060414_284_102.jhtml
lbj, you're always telling me the repubs control congress and can basically do anything they want. So how come they can't get this bill passed? Maybe they can't do anything they want, hmmmm?
Lefty,
Again you missed the message. Read Toms note. min wage is the dems get out the vote issue and abortion is the repubs get out the vote issue. Now do you understand ?
As in interesting aside. The min wage increase is supported by most Americans and a federal law banning abortion is opposed by most Americans. hmmm? on that for a bit.
And yet they keep rejecting the dem candidates. Hmmmmmm.
And yet they keep rejecting the dem candidates. Hmmmmmm.
They, like many on this board, have been fooled. Hmmm?
Lefty
08-06-2006, 11:58 AM
Lefty,
Again you missed the message. Read Toms note. min wage is the dems get out the vote issue and abortion is the repubs get out the vote issue. Now do you understand ?
As in interesting aside. The min wage increase is supported by most Americans and a federal law banning abortion is opposed by most Americans. hmmm? on that for a bit.
lbj, why don't you answer my q? You keep harping at me that a repub controlled congress can do anything it wants? So why can't they get this estate tax deathknell through?
It's like i been telling you all along:Repubs can't do anything they want. There's enough dems to defeat them on a lot of issues. Get it, son?
Most americans might favor min wage cause they blve the crap doled out by the mainstream press. And I do not blve most americans favor abortion. SAdly it's about 50-50. But when conservatives run on pro life platform they usually win. Hmmm?
bigmack
08-06-2006, 01:18 PM
I saw an Oprah show a while back
Your quota for watching O is up JR. The allotment for the avg man is one for every other year.
DJofSD
08-06-2006, 01:23 PM
The allotment for the avg man is one for every other year.
Ya, JR, watch out for that giant beer can about to descend upon your head!
Secretariat
08-06-2006, 01:51 PM
lbj, you're always telling me the repubs control congress and can basically do anything they want. So how come they can't get this bill passed? Maybe they can't do anything they want, hmmmm?
Not when they tie things like the estate tax to it. IF they voted up or down on the min. wage bill, it'd pass in a second.
Secretariat
08-06-2006, 01:56 PM
Sec, because the min. wage is used as a barometer in some contracts and in other "formula's" for bidding jobs etc.
I saw an Oprah show a while back where Morgan Spurlock of "30 Days " fame, tried to do a show on living on the minimum wage in Columbus Ohio. Only one problem..........they couldn't find a job paying minimum wage.......the lowest they could find was 8.70 an hour. But they did the show anyway.
http://www2.oprah.com/tows/slide/200604/20060414/slide_20060414_284_102.jhtml
Well, I don't watch Oprah, but are you now inferring that there are no min. wages in Columbus, OH?
btw.. on the show, how did the person do on 8.70 an hour. Living in luxury?
As to the "barometer" argument...guess what, change the barometer. You're argument is specious. On one hand you argue there are no min wage jobs, or in insignificant amounts, then you argue that contracts are based on a min. wage barometer. In other words the contracts are not really based on significant real data. it's ridiculous. As I posted before and linked to there are many people living on min. wage, you simply don't want to see it, or do a damn thing about it despite these people losing a huge percentage to inflation over the last min .wage increase.. More Republican values.
lbj, why don't you answer my q? You keep harping at me that a repub controlled congress can do anything it wants? So why can't they get this estate tax deathknell through?
It's like i been telling you all along:Repubs can't do anything they want. There's enough dems to defeat them on a lot of issues. Get it, son?
Most americans might favor min wage cause they blve the crap doled out by the mainstream press. And I do not blve most americans favor abortion. SAdly it's about 50-50. But when conservatives run on pro life platform they usually win. Hmmm?
First I did answer your question. They can't get the estate tax through because they tied it into a raise in the min. wage and they know, in reality, a tax relief program for 1 percent of the population in an election year is not a good thing. You are starting to understand a little bit here. Yes, when repubs use abortion as an issue they usually get out enough religious fanatic votes to win. You are starting to catch on a bit. Keep up the good work, son.
Not when they tie things like the estate tax to it. IF they voted up or down on the min. wage bill, it'd pass in a second.
So you are ssaying the republican WNAT a min wage bill - becasue it would never pass on its own with them.
Did anyone read DILBERT in the comics today?
I feel just like the pointy -haired guy sitting down with Sec and Ljb....JUST like him! :lol:
bigmack
08-06-2006, 04:39 PM
This is not intended to encourage T - It's for edifying purposes only:
Secretariat
08-06-2006, 05:12 PM
So you are ssaying the republican WNAT a min wage bill - becasue it would never pass on its own with them.
Did anyone read DILBERT in the comics today?
I feel just like the pointy -haired guy sitting down with Sec and Ljb....JUST like him! :lol:
I think a min wage bill on its own right now would pass regardless of party. The election is a few months away and it'd be very difficult to go back to your constituency and defend not voting for a min. wage increase with voters. THe GOP knew that and tied it to an estate tax that they knew would be voted against by the Dems. THe GOP could then go back and say they voted for a min .wage hike, but the Dems defeated it. Seems like a smart move, except I beleive people are a lot smarter than that. i may be wrong.
Based on who we have for President, I wouldn't vouch for how smart people are. The best cartoon this weekend was doonsbury. Check it out.
Based on who we have for President, I wouldn't vouch for how smart people are. The best cartoon this weekend was doonsbury. Check it out.
It was you.
The tap.
I think a min wage bill on its own right now would pass regardless of party. The election is a few months away and it'd be very difficult to go back to your constituency and defend not voting for a min. wage increase with voters. THe GOP knew that and tied it to an estate tax that they knew would be voted against by the Dems. THe GOP could then go back and say they voted for a min .wage hike, but the Dems defeated it. Seems like a smart move, except I beleive people are a lot smarter than that. i may be wrong.
Only problem with that is that the repubs COULD do it and aren't. You forget, they don't really need the dems all tht much.
Secretariat
08-06-2006, 11:10 PM
Only problem with that is that the repubs COULD do it and aren't. You forget, they don't really need the dems all tht much.
We'll see after the mid-term elections.
I actually like when they do stuff like this because it is so transparent, and reveals them for what they are. Slime.
I believe the word is incumbant slime! :rolleyes:
Lefty
08-07-2006, 12:13 AM
lbj, so if you don't wanna kill a baby by sucking it down a sink, then you're a religious fanatic. Says it all about you.
sec, so when dems attach other things to bills, are they slime too?
PaceAdvantage
08-07-2006, 03:30 AM
Ya, JR, watch out for that giant beer can about to descend upon your head!
Evidently, most on here are unfamiliar with that commercial series. I for one found your post hilarious!
JustRalph
08-07-2006, 04:09 AM
On one hand you argue there are no min wage jobs, or in insignificant amounts, then you argue that contracts are based on a min. wage barometer. In other words the contracts are not really based on significant real data. it's ridiculous.
No Shit Sherlock! You ever been a party to a wage contract negotiation? I have, and the numbers used are never real world. They are based on what you think you can get..........to be more accurate, they are based on a bunch of other stuff that has nothing to do with the real world. You use numbers that favor your position and tap dance like hell to convince the other side that they are real world. If you are lucky there is an arbiter that will believe you.
I still believe that there are very few min. wage jobs........that doesn't stop contracts from being based on the rate in whatever state you are bargaining in. Sometimes the minimum wage or the prevailing wage is used in a contract to allow for increases in labor costs etc during a large scale project etc. Many times the prevailing wage is increased at the same time the Min. wage gets increased. So they are linked. There is more than likely nobody on the job working for min. wage, but the contract contains a clause that if the min. wage is increased then an increase in labor costs will be borne by the entity contracting for services (mostly government contracts) this means that if you are paying your construction crew 18.00 bucks an hour and you figure in labor costs in your bid for a job that is going to take a year or more, and that 18.00 an hour is the "prevailing wage" that applies to the job and the prevailing wage is automatically increased by statute etc whenever the min. wage is increased by the Fed Gov. then you have to increase your "prevailing wage" by that same percentage as the min wage. There are several ways in which this stuff is done, depending on jurisdiction.
But, if I am a contractor who has a budget and submits a bid based on a certain set of circumstances (min wage and prevailing wage rates) and they change, I better have a clause that will cover me. This is where jobs are lost too. When an increase makes a job too tight.........I am going to layoff or respond in some fashion. I might even layoff 10% of a crew because the extra payroll will be more expensive than the bonus I get to finish the job early or on time. Maybe I don't have a penalty for being late? then I damn sure lay off and take longer to finish etc. This preserves my profit margin on the job.
JustRalph
08-07-2006, 04:28 AM
Ya, JR, watch out for that giant beer can about to descend upon your head!
I side stepped it...................
yeah I know................ the wife tapes it on her DVR. I usually watch ten minutes and end up screaming at Opry................
But when i saw Morgan Spurlock......... I had to watch. I think he is a joke. That Mcdonalds thing he made was so damn hokey and full of crap.........
lbj, so if you don't wanna kill a baby by sucking it down a sink, then you're a religious fanatic. Says it all about you.
Lefty,
Nice attempt at spinning. This debate is not about abortion, we were discussing getting out the vote methods used by the two major partys in this country. Perhaps if you want to debate abortion you could start another thread.
DJofSD
08-07-2006, 10:53 AM
we were discussing getting out the vote methods used by the two major partys in this country.
Gee whiz, and here I thought this thread was about minimum wage, Federal v. States rights, and the demlibs ever-present view of utopia (as they define it).
Gee whiz, and here I thought this thread was about minimum wage, Federal v. States rights, and the demlibs ever-present view of utopia (as they define it).
Gee whiz, maybe you should read the notes in the thread before you post your thoughts.
DJofSD
08-07-2006, 11:04 AM
ljb,
Nice attempt at spinning. This debate is not about getting out the vote methods used by the two major partys [sic] in this country, we were discussing the minimum wage. Perhaps if you don't want to debate the minimum wage you could start another thread.
Lefty
08-07-2006, 11:39 AM
The reason there aren't many real min wage jobs out there; is because they're either entry level or supplemental. In other words free mkt forces rule and there's really no need to keep artificially boosting min wage.
ljb,
Nice attempt at spinning. This debate is not about getting out the vote methods used by the two major partys [sic] in this country, we were discussing the minimum wage. Perhaps if you don't want to debate the minimum wage you could start another thread.
:ThmbUp::lol::ThmbUp::lol:
Talk aout side stepping - I'm still waiting for an answer to my Q? to Sec - Ifposted 46% of states now exceed the Fed min wage, and he posted at least 12 more were in the process of raisin gtheir own mins above. That's 35 of 48.
The rest are predominatley BLUE states - what's the problem with these dem strongholds stepping up to the plate?
ljb,
Nice attempt at spinning. This debate is not about getting out the vote methods used by the two major partys [sic] in this country, we were discussing the minimum wage. Perhaps if you don't want to debate the minimum wage you could start another thread.
Dj,
I have to repeat myself here. Please read the notes prior to posting.
Tom said something to the affect of "the min wage is just a tool for the dems to get out the vote" I agreed with Tom and added the same holds true for abortion and the repubs. Now I know this requires some thought on your part but I am sure you can follow if you read one note at a time.
Secretariat
08-07-2006, 03:51 PM
sec, so when dems attach other things to bills, are they slime too?
I beleive they are when the attaching of the amendment is so far removed from the orginal issue of the bill. Yes.
Had the Repubs attached an amendment to the bill based on regional differences, or age restrictions I can see the merits of that, but to attach the estate tax bill to a min .wage increase is pure slime.
Wherre you been living?
Unrelated ammendments are the rule rather than the exception.
But in this case, at least both had to do with money - benefits for everyone involved.
Wherre you been living?
Unrelated ammendments are the rule rather than the exception.
But in this case, at least both had to do with money - benefits for everyone involved.
Unrelated ammendments are a major part of the problem with our government today.
Everyone benefits except us folks in the middle that have to foot the bill.
So you are saying you oppose raising the min wage?
Lefty
08-07-2006, 06:39 PM
I beleive they are when the attaching of the amendment is so far removed from the orginal issue of the bill. Yes.
Had the Repubs attached an amendment to the bill based on regional differences, or age restrictions I can see the merits of that, but to attach the estate tax bill to a min .wage increase is pure slime.
Then the dems are slime slime slime. They have done it many times.
chickenhead
08-07-2006, 07:06 PM
if you're worried about jobs and wages, issue numero uno is immigration. Min Wage is a sideshow.
So you are saying you oppose raising the min wage?
Yes,
I am opposed to both sides of this vote. Raising the wage and eliminating the estate tax.
if you're worried about jobs and wages, issue numero uno is immigration. Min Wage is a sideshow.
Correcto! But the neocons love el cheapo labor, so we will have to continue living with porous borders.
skate
08-08-2006, 01:08 PM
this sort goes back many years and covers BOTH partys.
thats what would bother me most, the fact that the voters want to put blame on one side or da other.
hey Sherlocks, its them against you, maybe not on purpose, but thats the way it is.
back in the 80s (some) made $50,000/per year while congress made in the 60s. today those people still make in the 50s, while congress is up around $165,000.00. BOTH, both parties took over, you got the snowball along with globe warming.
ya think your pension gonna hold up, huh? looks good now...
Correcto! But the neocons love el cheapo labor, so we will have to continue living with porous borders.
I believe if you look closer, the HOUSE bill - republican controlled HOUSE - is very tough on illegals.
The senate has sold out of courese.
Yes,
I am opposed to both sides of this vote. Raising the wage and eliminating the estate tax.
Sec, first Hcap, now Ljb...are you feeiling sort of Lieber-ish this week? :D
this sort goes back many years and covers BOTH partys.
thats what would bother me most, the fact that the voters want to put blame on one side or da other.
hey Sherlocks, its them against you, maybe not on purpose, but thats the way it is.
back in the 80s (some) made $50,000/per year while congress made in the 60s. today those people still make in the 50s, while congress is up around $165,000.00. BOTH, both parties took over, you got the snowball along with globe warming.
ya think your pension gonna hold up, huh? looks good now...
excellent observation. Big money and corporations hold control of our government.
I believe if you look closer, the HOUSE bill - republican controlled HOUSE - is very tough on illegals.
The senate has sold out of courese.
Many in the republican controlled HOUSE are up for re-election. They expected the republican controlled SENATE to quash their voter appeasing bill.
ok, I'm not reading all 8 pages, but based on the first 2 (this is like a crist book review) tom is 100% right --- anyone who feels differently feel free to subsidize some minimum wage employees w/your own cash.
min wage IS NOT a goddamn career path to raise a family on.
frankly, if you ARE raising kids on a min wage job, you should be jailed for child abuse, but fortunately for you there are numerous gov monies and cheese for you to slurp up.
the unfortunate facts of this country are that we have become so spoiled that if you can't afford the deluxe cable package then you are impoverished and need to apply for food stamps.
fyi -- there's a timely little story brewing here in chicago that's right in line w/this thread.
there's some pressure to raise the 'big box' (target, wal-mart, etc) superstore min wage in chicago's city limits to 12 bucks/hour, or something ridiculous.
as a result, wal-mart is now threatening to cancel plans for their new chicago stores and build in the 'burbs.
goodbye hundreds of jobs....
minimum wage for minimum work.
Lefty
08-08-2006, 09:21 PM
Correcto! But the neocons love el cheapo labor, so we will have to continue living with porous borders.
so why were they so porous during the dem regimes?
Lefty
08-08-2006, 09:25 PM
lbj, you spent a lot of the telling me that raising min wage was a good thing. Then you said you didn't care on way or another(I paraphrase so keep your panties on)now you say you're against both sides of the bill, which means now you're against increasing min wage. Have you been drinking with the Clintons or John Kerry?
bigmack
08-08-2006, 11:30 PM
if you ARE raising kids on a min wage job, you should be jailed for child abuse, but fortunately for you there are numerous gov monies and cheese for you to slurp up.
Little in the way of empathy for them but an insistant abundance for jocks to gain 10lbs - Sounds reasonable
NoDayJob
08-09-2006, 01:34 PM
Put Congress and the President on minimum wage until they prove that they're worth more than that... :lol:
lbj, you spent a lot of the telling me that raising min wage was a good thing. Then you said you didn't care on way or another(I paraphrase so keep your panties on)now you say you're against both sides of the bill, which means now you're against increasing min wage. Have you been drinking with the Clintons or John Kerry?
Lefty,
If you look back in the thread of our previous debate on min. wage you will find that my notes were just refuting the "lies" you had posted regarding min. wage.
Lies in quotes, as you are not being accused of creating the lies just perpetuating them.
ps I would enjoy having a drink with either of the two you mentiond. Could you set it up ?
Secretariat
08-09-2006, 04:26 PM
Sec, first Hcap, now Ljb...are you feeiling sort of Lieber-ish this week? :D
That would take a lot to kiss GW as he did.
See, Tom, I'm fine with disagreements with Hcap or LJB. Unlike the typical Repub like Hastert who is driven to an alternative fuels conference in a hydrogen vehicle, and then is seen later getting into his gas guzzling SUV.
I am totally against the Estate Tax, and for the minimum wage increase. I don't beleive that min wage workers in 1997 were worth more than min wage workers today, but with inflation they are being treated accordingly. And for min wage workers in the 60's it is even more disparate. As to CEO pay it shoudl qualify as pornography.
Well there ya go.
I am in favor of porn.
Got me a new keyboard for my puter - only two keys - "Results" and "Porn":p
Secretariat
08-09-2006, 06:26 PM
Well there ya go.
I am in favor of porn.
Got me a new keyboard for my puter - only two keys - "Results" and "Porn":p
lol...we all know...Google has forwarded your records to the Justice Department, and Libby and Rove leaked it.
You kidding me, Sec.
They are in my "Circle of Freinds" plan!
Sort of like Netflix.:eek:
twindouble
08-09-2006, 07:03 PM
Look at the bigger picture.
To me it's simple, historically it always has been a struggle between the classes. The have's the have not's and those that make up the middle class think they are climbing the ladder only to end up back where they were or worse off. The latter is the norm.
How do you define economic progress or for that matter a better quality of life?
The fact that one is living in a 2,000 or 2,500 sq foot home verses a 1,200 to 1,600 in the 50s don't improve your "Quality" of life. It took one income in the 50's, now it takes two. You would have to be dam fool to think that's progress ESP when the children suffer as a result. Just think about the huge prison population, let alone the cost and then tell me we are better off.
Here's a laugh, with the cost of health care today you could have purchased 3 or 4 new homes in the 50's and a couple new cars. :lol: Look at the cost of SS then compared to today, your taxed up the ass on all levels of government and to top it off they spent your SS money, aborted millions of children and opened the borders to foreigners to fill the gap with cheep labor slaves in my opinion, no different than putting the better percentage of woman to work to survive. Progress? Bull shit!
Who in their right mind would want to live an extra 5 or 6 years drugged up only to sacrifice everything they worked for to pay the medical and nursing home care bills. You can rest assured that I'll be cashing in, rather than let those suckers steal it. $300 to $500 a MO for drugs and $2,0000.00 MO for someone wipe your ass.
Can anyone here tell me how many people lost their pensions over the last 50 years? Even if they didn't lose them, the majority of pensions along with SS isn't enough to live on today. The elusion of security is just as prevalent today as it was in the 50's on.
Geography, security and economics? Sure some places are booming but when it comes the others I call them potential or existing geographic economic disasters.
T.D.
Indulto
08-09-2006, 08:39 PM
...Who in their right mind would want to live an extra 5 or 6 years drugged up only to sacrifice everything they worked for to pay the medical and nursing home care bills. You can rest assured that I'll be cashing in, rather than let those suckers steal it. $300 to $500 a MO for drugs and $2,0000.00 MO for someone wipe your ass.TD,
News Flash .... Nursing homes get $6,000/mo these days and more if your ass isn't wipeable. Hope I know I won the photo giving me 6 of 6 before I cash.
twindouble
08-09-2006, 08:51 PM
TD,
News Flash .... Nursing homes get $6,000/mo these days and more if your ass isn't wipeable. Hope I know I won the photo giving me 6 of 6 before I cash.
From what I've seen so far of your handicapping, 6 of 6 is on the horizon and it won't be peanuts. Horses like Harmony Hall, Rebuttle and Angara will seal it. Keep up the good work.
You might right on the nursing homes, I did a renovation job at one about 15 to years ago, wouldn't suprise me the cost has trippled.
T.D.
he's not talkin' about nursing homes, just somebody that comes by his place every day.
wish I had that kind of extra dough just lying around.
Indulto
08-09-2006, 09:51 PM
he's not talkin' about nursing homes, just somebody that comes by his place every day.
wish I had that kind of extra dough just lying around.Dave,
Just find somebody's a$$ to wipe ........ or ki$$.;)
Indulto
08-09-2006, 10:05 PM
...Keep up the good work.TD,
Some of that good work was wiped out in the Whitney -- Premium Tap wasn't, and Flower Alley failed to blossom.
Lefty
08-09-2006, 10:13 PM
Lefty,
If you look back in the thread of our previous debate on min. wage you will find that my notes were just refuting the "lies" you had posted regarding min. wage.
Lies in quotes, as you are not being accused of creating the lies just perpetuating them.
ps I would enjoy having a drink with either of the two you mentiond. Could you set it up ?
Well now, lbj, if it was a lie that min wage increases cost jobs, and true, as you say, it increases jobs. Then why would you post you're not for it?
twindouble
08-09-2006, 10:20 PM
TD,
Some of that good work was wiped out in the Whitney -- Premium Tap wasn't, and Flower Alley failed to blossom.
Just a minor set back, I saw were Premium ran 5th, that would have been nice 33-1. Flower Alley, what can I say? Many people licking their wounds on that one.
T.D.
Indulto
08-10-2006, 12:26 AM
TD,
Here's an old cyberfart special:
Horse racing: A ticket to longevity? by Chuck Morison
Seniors make up a substantial part of the horseplayer population, and the sport stimulates both mind and body
http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/commentary/commentary.asp#viewpoints (http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/commentary/commentary.asp#viewpoints)
“The over-60 generation is perhaps better off financially than any other group in our history. They did not get that way by wasting their money. Quite a few seniors, including myself, see horse racing as a form of entertainment and budget accordingly.
Unfortunately, the horse racing industry often fails to see seniors as its core market and instead spends much of its marketing budget on attracting a younger crowd. In the meantime, "Long live horseplayers" will continue to be the motto of those seeking the physical, mental, and social well-being resulting from a day at the races.”
The only home nursing I want is the jockey nursing my frontrunner's lead in the homestretch. :D
bigmack
08-10-2006, 01:39 AM
http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/commentary/commentary.asp#viewpoints (http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/commentary/commentary.asp#viewpoints)
Nice art Indulto - Thancs
Indulto
08-10-2006, 03:14 AM
Nice art Indulto - ThancsYou're welcome.
I've always believed that the best way to attract new (younger) fans to the track is to provde incentatives for existing fans to accompany fresh blood through the turnstiles and teach them what the game is about. Concerts aren't going to create new horseplayers, but handicapping classes with contests restricted to novices might.
And then there's the off-track/on-line market. On another board, I recently proposed a reality TV show based on a handicapping tournament between novice groups trained by vendors to use their products. My focus at that time was to prove which product was easier to learn and apply by new customers rather than try to convince longtime existing customers to switch.
I suggested that each product team be assisted by an expert wagering advisor who would help that team structure wagers based on its selections, but could not provide input to the selection process.
Can you imagine being able view 1) how each trainee group was taught, 2) the subtleties of dealing with various handicapping factors by each, 3) how selections for the same race were justified by competing teams, 4) the logic behind the wagers, and 5) the emotions prior to, during, and after a race?
This game has to be experienced to be embraced. Since most new players can be expected to participate from home, then racing has to go into those homes and provide that experience.
Upon reflection, the data vendors may not be the best sponsers for such a show/tournament. The track operators in aggregate -- perhaps even the NTRA or its successor -- have greater resources and more to gain from such promotion and exposure. They could support ongoing tournaments, if popular, with reruns of the vendor instruction.
I'd appreciate comments from anyone in the entertainment business.
Well now, lbj, if it was a lie that min wage increases cost jobs, and true, as you say, it increases jobs. Then why would you post you're not for it?
I am against it for personal reasons. An increase in minimum wage eventually creates and increase in wages for all workers. Being on a fixed income this would not bode well for me. And of course the ceos of America may have to get smaller bonuses. ;)
twindouble
08-10-2006, 10:00 AM
You're welcome.
I've always believed that the best way to attract new (younger) fans to the track is to provde incentatives for existing fans to accompany fresh blood through the turnstiles and teach them what the game is about. Concerts aren't going to create new horseplayers, but handicapping classes with contests restricted to novices might.
And then there's the off-track/on-line market. On another board, I recently proposed a reality TV show based on a handicapping tournament between novice groups trained by vendors to use their products. My focus at that time was to prove which product was easier to learn and apply by new customers rather than try to convince longtime existing customers to switch.
I suggested that each product team be assisted by an expert wagering advisor who would help that team structure wagers based on its selections, but could not provide input to the selection process.
Can you imagine being able view 1) how each trainee group was taught, 2) the subtleties of dealing with various handicapping factors by each, 3) how selections for the same race were justified by competing teams, 4) the logic behind the wagers, and 5) the emotions prior to, during, and after a race?
This game has to be experienced to be embraced. Since most new players can be expected to participate from home, then racing has to go into those homes and provide that experience.
Upon reflection, the data vendors may not be the best sponsers for such a show/tournament. The track operators in aggregate -- perhaps even the NTRA or its successor -- have greater resources and more to gain from such promotion and exposure. They could support ongoing tournaments, if popular, with reruns of the vendor instruction.
I'd appreciate comments from anyone in the entertainment business.
Nice article, describes us to a tee. I think the stories I told here reflect some of those sentiments.
I recently proposed a reality TV show based on a handicapping tournament between novice groups trained by vendors to use their products. Quote Indulto.
Sounds like a good idea, I would hope to think the vendors would include traditional handicapping, The DRF only.
Can you imagine being able view 1) how each trainee group was taught, 2) the subtleties of dealing with various handicapping factors by each, 3) how selections for the same race were justified by competing teams, 4) the logic behind the wagers, and 5) the emotions prior to, during, and after a race?
I don't know about the above, "viewing how each group was taught". That might be a little booring. I think each team using different products and just let the better one win, just indtro's to start the show to create intrest in the products might be better. But who am I to say, The Fat Man thinks I'm a boor. :lol:
Maybe our resident entertainer Tom will jump in.
T.D.
Back to the thread topic - FAIR PAY FOR A DAYS WORK -
Many here seem ready to jump on the chance to legislate a fair days pay - do we also get to legislate a fair days work as well?
Lefty
08-10-2006, 11:34 AM
I am against it for personal reasons. An increase in minimum wage eventually creates and increase in wages for all workers. Being on a fixed income this would not bode well for me. And of course the ceos of America may have to get smaller bonuses. ;)
lbj, well if you go back and read that's what i said too. That unions base their demands for payraises at least partly on min wage increases, other wages go up too, cost of goods increase...
So nice to know, even thiough you can't say it, you agree with me.
"Lefty, you're right again." Let's say it together lbj!
chickenhead
08-10-2006, 11:44 AM
do we also get to legislate a fair days work as well?
that's easy....it's just slightly more than I do now.
Lefty
08-10-2006, 12:03 PM
Many yrs ago, I worked for a man who invested his life's savings in a small motel. He gave up his 8 hr a day job for his dream of being self-emplyed. In turn he worked at least 15 hrs a say running the motel.
Many yrs ago, I worked for a man who invested his life's savings in a small motel. He gave up his 8 hr a day job for his dream of being self-emplyed. In turn he worked at least 15 hrs a say running the motel.
And ?
lbj, well if you go back and read that's what i said too. That unions base their demands for payraises at least partly on min wage increases, other wages go up too, cost of goods increase...
So nice to know, even thiough you can't say it, you agree with me.
"Lefty, you're right again." Let's say it together lbj!
Wrong again Lefty,
I don't agree with you, you agree with me. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Lefty
08-10-2006, 07:36 PM
Wrong again Lefty,
I don't agree with you, you agree with me. :lol: :lol: :lol:
you are a velly velly funny man. You're the one that trumpeted min wage increases and then turned against. I've been consistently against and for the reasons you have "lifted" from me. Maybe a tiny bit of hope for yuh, son.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.