1 Finish Profile

What is the purpose of setting a minimum wage?

Locked

(This is an offshoot of the “How can American IT Professionals Compete with asian workers?” discussion)

And how is it determined?

For what area is it determined? Some places cost more to live than others (sometimes even within the same city), so what do you do? Set it to be minimum for the ‘cheapest to live in’ place and let those in more expensive places suffer? or set it for the most expensive place, and give those who live in cheaper places a windfall? or do you tell people they can’t live in certain places where the cost is too high?

And who do you set it for? Do you set it to suit a single young man? a married couple, no children, both work? a maried couple, two children, one works? a single mother who has to pay a baby sitter? (and does the babysitter get minimum wage too?) or do you have different minimum wages for different people in different circumstances?

And how are businesses supposed to pay for it (especially small businesses)? Does he raise his prices? Lay off some workers? And if he raises prices, doesn’t that defeat the purpose? Soon prices on everything will be higher and the new minimum wage will have the same purchasing power as the old one does now, wouldn’t it?

And finally is there anyone else who has thought all of these things through?

Topic

The purpose is

In reply to What is the purpose of setting a minimum wage?

In my definition, to ensure that every person can earn enough money to meet the minimum standards of living. To ensure that each person working can afford, food, housing and utilities (power, water, etc). The second purpose is to stop exploitation of workers by unscrupulous employers.

I then decided to look it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage

How it is decided, in Australia it is based on the Cost of Living.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_living
I am not too well versed in specifics of the minimum wage is decided for families but I should be as our benevolent leader John Howard is slowly striping away workers rights .

I’m not sure which side of the argument you are on but the minimum wage has supporters and detractors and Max you may call me a socialist if you wish but the minimum wage is good as it prevents some businesses from exploiting under skilled or young workers (16-25). By exploitation I mean paying the workers less and forcing them to work longer hours so they can earn enough to pay all of their bills.

I’m sure we’ve all heard the stories of the slave labour factories in China I believe the minimum wage and other labour laws such as the work safety and fixing the hours in the work week (40 hours plus overtime) help protect people from working in sweat shop type conditions.

However Tony I am interested in hearing your perspectives on why the minimum wage is good or bad.

The problem is

In reply to The purpose is

The problem is that, as many small businessmen continue to pointout to me, there are some people whose labor is not worth the minimum wage.

I would have to disagree my friend.

In reply to The problem is

Everyone’s is worth at least 6.50 -7.00 and you can’t even live on that. You not only pay for the work done bu tthe person’s time and commitment as well. Besides, for the “small business man” who can’t stay in business without illegal workers at lower wages than minimum, drive a mid sized sedan instead of a mercedes. Live in a slightly less expensive home. Stop living in excess. Why should I have to pay for the cost of your “cheap lab or” with my taxes? A bit off topic but I think it kind of is related.

Wrong

In reply to I would have to disagree my friend.

Nobody is “worth” just 6.50 to 7.00 an hour. A person’s worth is
incalculable. However, I believe you are actually referring to the
worth of a person’s labor, and that is determined by how many
others can do the same job.

More people can dig a ditch than can build a nuclear reactor.
The ditch digger’s labor is worth less.

This is a fundamental law of human interaction. A government
telling you a ditch digger labor is worth $6.50 does not change
the actual worth of his labor, it simply assigns an arbitrary value
to it. The Nuclear scientist is still worht 50 times more and his
salary will increase correspondingly, thus re-asserting the true
value of the ditch-digger’s salary.

Minimum wage legislation does nothing except slow economic
growth, increase unemployment and create inflation. Oh, yes,
and buy votes.

Wrong

In reply to Wrong

A nuclear scientist can’t/won’t dig the ditches to build a nuclear reactor. Someone has to do that. If companies don’t pay for a living wage, then our tax dollars will make up the difference in food stamps and medical care while executive salaries are raping EVERYONE.

Easy solution. Pay the executives a lot less and pay everyone else a reasonable wage.

Wrong

In reply to Wrong

It’s popular to attack the CEO’s, but the fact is, it you took every cent they made and divided it among everybody else, it might be barely enough to buy an extra gallon of milk.

Hate to tell you this,

In reply to I would have to disagree my friend.

but there are several hundred thousand people who [b]are[/b] living on that, and more than likely at least as many living on [b]less[/b] than that. (for comparison, I think Welfare and foodstamps in ohio were, when a single person could get them, $216 and $128 respectively… that’s $344 a month, so that would be equivalent to what, about $1.90 an hour using 40 hour weeks?)

Perhaps you’ve never been in the position to know just how little you really can get by on. IT might not be a bad skill to learn… you know, just in case….

“you can’t even live on that”

In reply to I would have to disagree my friend.

[b]If[/b] that is true, “my friend”, there is no need for a minimum wage because corpses are notoriously lazy & non-productive.

Hate to tell you this,

In reply to I would have to disagree my friend.

but there are several hundred thousand people who [b]are[/b] living on that, and more than likely at least as many living on [b]less[/b] than that. (for comparison, I think Welfare and foodstamps in ohio were, when a single person could get them, $216 and $128 respectively… that’s $344 a month, so that would be equivalent to what, about $1.90 an hour using 40 hour weeks?)

Perhaps you’ve never been in the position to know just how little you really can get by on. IT might not be a bad skill to learn… you know, just in case….

Food for thought.

In reply to Hate to tell you this,

That is true . Perhaps part of the point I was trying to make was unclear. Living and surviving are two different things. Now , I am of the school that everyone should have the right to make whatever their abilities will take them . Realistically, while it isn’t my problem the guy who can’t make more that xyz lives above their means, I think to expect someone to “Live” on so little. And although its not going to happen what if the people at the top lived a bit less over the top and minimum wage was a bit higher. As far as the little guy who claims he can’t survive on paying out higher wages, I see plenty of them at least in my parts living it up. As far as the argument I can’t be in business if I don’t pay illegal workers illegal wages, the price of a meal may be a dollar cheaper but for sure your paying the difference in taxes. Oh and try living in NY on Minimum wage its all but impossible without public assistance which comes from taxes which I pay.

Living and surviving

In reply to Food for thought.

The difference is subjective. Nevertheless, I’ll go with it for the purpose of the following.

Does either of the two obligate “someone else”?

Not Over the top??!!

In reply to Food for thought.

Who are you to tell me or anyone else what is over the top and what isn’t? How bout this TekBoyNY; why don’t we take all you make and give to the poor people everywhere?! Why is it you want to punish those who actually want to make somthing of them selves and have proven it through hard work, diligance, and dicipline? Why is it that you want to reward those who want to do nothing with their lives and have no desire to do better or make things better by working for it? Why do you want restrict how people live their lives and have the government steal what they have earned and give it to someone who is not deserving?

Now I understand that there are special cases. They should be delt with on a case by case basis. I have no problem helping someone who is down on their luck and needs help standing back up. For those who have a minimum wage job and that’s all they have had for more than 3 years; I don’t really feel sorry for them. I started work when I was 13 for my dad just to earn a little money (and so they didn’t have to spend money on a babysitter). It tought me what work was. It also tought me how to budget and how to work smarter and not harder.

Just who are you to tell me not to live so over the top? What gives you the right to tell me that I spend too much or make too much and let’s give it to the poor? Are you God? I didn’t think so.

Like I said, deserving people I have no problem with, it’s the ones that don’t make an effort or even try that just grate the crap out of my nerves. When they show effort, progress, and a desire to make somthing of themselves instead of being the bottom feeders of socieity, then and only then should we help them. The other kind that I hate more than those that just wont are the enablers of these bottom feeders.

I really need to learn to make my point clearer apparently

In reply to Not Over the top??!!

First off my friend, I never said you can only make so much money or give money to the poor. Im not sure where you got that from. Im saying that the minimum living wage should be increased at least in my Area based on what I have seen. (people taking money from my pocket in taxes, because certain employers complain they have no money when clearly they do). Secondly, I expressed an opinion which I also have a right to do. You have the right to disagree with it even to the point of an agry response. Just don’t act like I dont have the right to say what I think.

Ultimately we are all responsible for ourselves and thats fine.(If I am guilty of anything , it’s making my point to benefit myself just like most people do.IE YOU )I’m all for hard work. I have always busted my hump for anything always and continue to do so. I will have financial success in life because I want it. I never claimed to be God so that was a bit over the top on your end .You know who enables “bottom feeders,” welfare and the institutions that cause it. Not Middle class folk like myself not wanting to pay for them through my taxes. Anyway I wish you a good day .

An apparent contradiction

In reply to Not Over the top??!!

[i]Ultimately we are all responsible for ourselves and thats fine.[/i]

Then “we” should have no trouble making what we are worth without resorting to extorting it from someone else.

Yes, you CAN live on that, and I DID live on that

In reply to I would have to disagree my friend.

I was making $6 an hour when my twin boys were born, and the wife stayed home with the boys for the first two years.

I did not receive government assistance.

You keep your expenses low and work hard.

The problem comes in is when losers think they DESERVE ANYTHING but an opportunity to EARN a living based on the skills they have acumulated.

You are free for the [b]Pursuit[/b] of happiness. You are not guaranteed anything.

If you have cable tv, multiple tv’s, multiple cars, cell phones [b]cigarettes[/b] and on and on, [b]the only thing you “DESERVE” is to get the bill at the end of each month.[/b]

Can’t afford them and still have the big fancy house? Nothing but stupidity is holding you back, by refusing to keep your spending in line with the income you have provided yourself.

And I don’t see small business men driving mercedes. Your completely detatched from reality if you think the SMALL business man is RICH, on an average.

COme to my Neck of the woods

In reply to Yes, you CAN live on that, and I DID live on that

Perhaps what I consider small business and you do is subjective. Come to my area in 2007 and see all the small factory owners with a bunch of illegals as employees, while they drive mercedes(general example for the literal amongst us), etc. Even the small pizza place/deli owners living in access. I do realize that life exists outside of my area, but, am I any more guilty of using my own experiences as a basis for argument than you are? You CANNOT in NYC in 2007 survive on minimum wage without assistance(whether it be family, friends, government, charity, etc). With that being said, that doesn’t obligate anyone else to assist anyone else. I thought I agrued that point myself eailer with the whole “We pay for it one way or another argument.” At the same token, the people whom I speak of shouldn’t be complaining then can’t afford to pay people more when they themselves overspend for what is really necessary for “survival.” As for the being out of touch with reality comment, let’s keep the discussion intelligent like adults and revert to personal attacks. Someone who is out of touch with reality can not even grasp how and why their point of view may differ from that of another but rest assured I do not suffer from that problem.
Here is a hypothetical example of what I mean. Company A has 50 employees. 35 of which are factory workers. The factory workers even if legal and on the books make minimum wage. They cannot afford to pay the outrageous fees of living in NYC in 2007. So they seek out public assistance. I pay taxes , thus I , stuck in the middle, offset some of their costs through the taxes I pay at my own expense. Company owner A cries poverty but shows up to work with a very expensive car, lives in an expensive home, does what he wants.Company A makes 1 Million Dollars in Profit each year . They do not reinvest most of it into the money into the company but instead the Owner makes himself richer. That is fine and he is entitled to that the way things work. Simply put if that Boss raised his 35 employees’ sallary 2 dollars per hour it would cost him more or less $150,000.00 per year to do so. It would cover the cost of the wellfare example given above, leave more than 3 qtr of a million in company resources for himself or whatever, and perhaps in some fantasy world make better use of my tax money. Now is every company that well off, no, but the point here is that from where I see things, everything is abused on all ends like crazy. Since a boss isn’t likely to pay his employees more if he doesn’t have to, I know I wouldn’t, raising the minimum wage would help that somewhat.

You should call the police.

In reply to COme to my Neck of the woods

if someone is holding a gun to your head, forcing you to stay in that ‘neck of the woods’. Almost anybody can walk 20 miles in a day.

Enough is enough

In reply to You should call the police.

I am not saying I have it so bad. My situation is decent. On a perosnal note I also am leaving this area at some point anyway. I am making a point of the reality of the situation in my neck of the woods. It is unrealistic to expect everyone who doesn’t like it to shutup or leave becuase if everyone shuts up the current system which doesn’t work continues, if everyone leaves , then the economy of NY has issues (which is negtive to the overall country ) or people replace them and someone else is in that spot. On a side note. It is unreasonable if not unrealistic to travel to most places on foot in my neck of the woods. What I suggest may not work for you in your area. I haven’t been there I know little about it. I do believe that you are in no postion to tell me what works for me. So let’s agree to disagree. In all likely hood there is not a one size fits all answer anyhow . I have work to do good day :).

It’s a vicious cycle

In reply to The purpose is

of raise and then everything else goes up. The vast majority of people don’t know that the money that it gets raised by comes from somewhere. It’s a vicious cycle that will never stop. The minimum wage gets raised. Well this raise costs the employer about twice what the actual raise is. Where does this money come from? The employer is going to raise the price on their goods to make up for this difference. So the people that are making only minimum wage are back where they started and everyone else is in worse shape simply because now we have to pay more for things we want with the same ammount of money. Since the minimum wage worker is back where they started they cry for another raise in the minimum wage. It gets granted and the cycle starts over again.

Now don’t get me wrong; I’m for people getting paid what they are worth. However, I do have to agree that there are alot of people out there that aren’t worth half of what they are paid weather they are minimum wage or not. Suprising thing is, these people always seem to be the ones that are kept while the good ones are sent packing to look for another job.

If you don’t believe me then take this into consideration; every time that the minimum wage was raised, inflation went up proportionally as well. True; there are several factors that drive inflation like the deficit and the national debt. However, those are usually very steady, unless we are at war, and increase at a fairly constant rate.

If you are in the United States, research the Fair Tax. This would help better than ever raising the minimum wage.

Three Cheers!

In reply to It’s a vicious cycle

Great message.

And I’m in 100 percent agreement with FairTax.

http://www.FairTax.org

The Only thing that makes more sense than the Fair Tax

In reply to Three Cheers!

The Only thing that makes more sense than the Fair Tax is an Objectivist ethic, and government, to go along with it.

It is hoped

In reply to The Only thing that makes more sense than the Fair Tax

that the implementation of the former will bring about the latter.

Make that six!

In reply to It’s a vicious cycle

If you accept the premise that liberty is the desired state, you should also accept that government (whose every action [/b]restricts[/b] the liberties of someone or other) must be strictly controlled. The FairTax will be a good start toward regaining that control in the U.S.

No, make it 9!

In reply to Make that six!

The minimum cheer was raised, and almost immediately we observe inflation in the cheering market.

The purpose is

In reply to The purpose is

so that the Democrate party can buy votes.

yup they have thought it through..

In reply to What is the purpose of setting a minimum wage?

usually.

the purpose is to make sure that people working full time make enough to buy the basic requirements for life, food, shelter, clothing.
everything else is a luxury for their calculations.

I actually talked with an MLA for here [ MLA = Member of the Legistative Assembly ] about minimum wages. We have had one in place here for years, wich even full time work at it leaves the employee making 800 / month less than the poverty line. most minimum wage jobs do not offer any benefits either, so medical / dental etc is out of the question for these people.

in my discussion with the MLA, I said clearly that the government has to offer these services to everyone, or force all employers to have benefits, since raising the minimum wage has the obvious issue of reducing employee numbers or bankrupting small businesses.

the best way for any level of Government to boost the wages being paid is to make the tax environment conducive to business, the more businesses that are looking for people the better wages they have to offer to get people.

right now, because of the 2010 winter olympic games coming here, I have heard that even places like McDonalds are offing a $10.00/hr starting wage, the minimum is $8.00/hr, after 500 hours it’s $6.00/hr before then if an employer doesn’t want to pay the full minimum until the three month trial/grace period is over.

Construction companies around here right now are offering $22.00/hr+ for unskilled labour, they are that desparate for bodies. The people leaving fairly good jobs to get the higher pay are making all industries re-examine their pay scales to a certain extent, there are enough jobs that every company is hiring here.

but like I said, it’s only because of the construction boom for the 2010 winter olympics, once the construction is over I expect the economy to nose dive until the games themselves, then the hospitality and Tourism sector will be booming for that period. then most likely, a local depression economically.

this is a “fair wage” for students

In reply to What is the purpose of setting a minimum wage?

It covers places like your burger joints, where the worker walks in off the street with no skills to offer.

Many of your small businesses do not have to follow this, depending on the size of the company.

Because this is the pay scale for jobs such as this, the cost of raising a family is not a consideration. If you wish to have a family, you need to get some kind of skill or find a shop that pays for manual laborers.

No one is told they can’t live somewhere, the fair housing bill ensures that. You have a right to live anywhere that you can afford. You do NOT have a right to live anywhere you can not afford. It is not a matter of “fair”, it is a matter of earning what you get. Just like you don’t have a “right” to drive a fancy car, you EARN money if you want a car.

When the minimum wage is increased, it is a direct assult on middle class America. People that are in the middle class bracket do NOT work for minimum wage, and it has no basis for their pay so when the rate goes up, middle class does not get that same pay increase. On the other hand, basic goods, such as your burger have gone up increasing your cost of living.

When your costs go up, but your pay doesn’t, that is the same affect as a pay cut.

So who is it really that has it in for middle class America, Democrats or Republicans?

Who is it that thinks “living wages” should be mandated for people that don’t have the skills to be worth that much, doing a job that again is not worth that much?

Democrats sure are generous and caring, when they are using someone elses money.

I just said the same thing before reading your post.

In reply to this is a “fair wage” for students

Well done, you’re right! Well, mostly:

“So who is it really that has it in for middle class America, Democrats or Republicans?”

Both have it in for the middle class, but the socialist wing of the Democrats are such a bunch of pantywaste sissy girls, they’re attacking the working poor instead of the middle class. Explanation below.

Something else many people overlook.

In reply to this is a “fair wage” for students

The typical hype is that minimum wage has not risen in xx years… the implication being that all of these poor people have been working at their same jobs for those same xx years without an increase. That implication is false. These minimum wage jobs are typically entry level jobs… and someone who has half an ounce of ambition is not going to be working there very long, unless another in the family is the primary wage earner, and you’re just working to have something to do.

That brings up something else… Shouldn’t we feel ashamed if our spouse works and doesn’t really need to? I mean, as long as there is one unemployed person, shouldn’t it be against the law or something?

False assumption

In reply to Something else many people overlook.

If your spouse works, it isn’t necessarily true that there are unemployed people waiting around who could step into that position.

Furthermore families with 2 incomes spend more, which in turn creates more jobs. How many more jobs in daycare, fast food etc are created simply because there are more 2 income families? How many more cars, major appliances are built because 2 income families have more disposable income?

My wife can’t work due to medical issues. Its tough making a good wage but still struggling – telling the kids we can’t afford to do the things their friends do, even when daddy makes a good wage. But I can’t be bitter.

If you inherit a fortune, in other words, have more money than you would spend, then perhaps you should feel ashamed for taking a position that someone else could do. But I wouldnt leap from that to a law.

James

I agree…

In reply to False assumption

it was a rhetorical question 🙂

Glad the kid has graduated

In reply to False assumption

Now maybe the wife and I can move away from the utter lack of economy that is Central Ohio. The kid will do ok in college. I have taught her most of what I know about IT, after extracting her promise to never take it up as a career. She should do something she likes, has value, and in a place where people actually will compete for your skills. (She has been talking either history or music major, so she is on the right track.)

And I get to look for a place where I can be employed, and not have to work two jobs while constantly lining up the next gig.

I don’t have to be bitter: I affirmatively choose to be as an alternative to chronic depression, which is more expensive to treat. The bitterness goes away fairly quickly when a recruiter is apologizing that he can only offer me 2.5 times my current salary to move away from this economic wasteland.

I can see why businesses stay here: labor is cheap when your state is 47th in new job creation. What I don’t understand is why businessmen whine the blues because “all the good talent” is packing up and moving out of the area. I am neither an econ nor a business major, but I can at least figure [b]that[/b] much out.

If it means dumping kids in daycare, yes

In reply to Something else many people overlook.

I think that should be criminal, provided the family can get along nicely without that second income.

Even though I didn’t make a lot back then (shoprat), I had the ex-wife stay at home with the boys because them getting a good start on life was more important than some extra cash to buy toys with.

On the other hand, after the kids are in school, knock yourself out. Even if it is just as a hobby, provided it is not harming your children, I would never say someone SHOULDN’T work if they don’t have to. You can work because you WANT to, but put your kids first.

Choice

In reply to If it means dumping kids in daycare, yes

That was your choice.
And it was my choice – my wife could work when my kids were young, but like you we chose not to.

But I don’t agree that even in jest we should force people not to – that would be freedom and wrong.

Lets face it, there are good day cares and bad, as well as good mothers and bad. Who is to say that the extras that the additional income provide don’t benefit the kids. Its too simplisitic to say the same rules should work for everyone.

Frankly I know some mothers where it would be better for the kids to be in a good daycare than with the mother all day.

James

That is where we get into

In reply to Choice

making people get a license to have kids, and have to pass a class on being a good parent and good person.

It is in a childs best interest to be with a good parent over a good daycare everytime.

No, the government can not do this and should not do this.

The hard FACT is that some people should not be allowed to breed.

Criminal?

In reply to If it means dumping kids in daycare, yes

Wow, two working parents to support a lifestyle filled with ridiculous ‘toys’. My parents worked so they could afford private school.

Popping them in front of a TV or video games for 6 hours a day is what should be criminal. The myth that daycare has a negative effect on a childs upbringing has been debunked enough, it’s a personal choice.

A disease called suburban aristocracy is spreading, symptoms include:
Fenced in back yards filled with scores of multicolored plastic toys.
Driveways filled with crap loaded $40,000 SUV’s, mini-vans, luxury cars.
A watercraft or two parked on the side.
Play rooms filled to capacity with toys spilling out into the rest of the house.
Several years history of every new video game gadget target marketed to children.
Gourmet granite\cherry kitchens filled with high end appliances and a freezer and cabinets full of microwave food.

Making something positive from your choice is the challenge. If the income is frittered away on crap or the kids sit in front of the tube for 6 hours a day, it’s a lose-lose situation.

People lose site of WHY they are working and living

In reply to Criminal?

I work so I can support my boys, and be able to DO things with them.

People that dump their kids off at daycare because they have to have the 200k house and the Hummer in the driveway to make up for the hummer that they aren’t getting in the bedroom, are really shallow, hollow people with no purpose of value.

If the material goods are the end-all to their existance, they never should have decided to breed a neglected child into the world.

And yes, dumping your kids in front of a TV for six hours a day is another sign of a poor parent. Goes back to needing to pass a class to be allowed to breed. Child neglect is a form of abuse.

A Perfectly Designed Trap

In reply to People lose site of WHY they are working and living

Something happened in the 80’s where a lot of easily borrowed money met up with a perfect marketing opportunity and suddenly, no thought went into the consequences of purchasing bigger-better-more on long term credit.

More and more people who were raised on the bad side of the depression pass away, their lessons totally lost to newer generations. I talk a lot to my son about how my grandparents and parents lived on both sides of our family. Three generations lived in a 1200 square foot house you were incredibly grateful to own. Gardens were a necessity to keep food on the table. A luxury in a car was an AM radio. My grandmother could walk into the woods on a fall day and walk out with a half bushel of fresh wild mushrooms and she knew the orchards where you could buy bruised apples and peaches for pennies on the dollar and can them to eat all winter.

Vacation was a 2 week camping road trip every summer. I have no regrets about any of it, especially not ‘having’ things, my memories are of ‘doing’ things.

I could go on and on but history moves in cycles and you don’t have to be a fortune teller to know hard times WILL come again.

Make a journal

In reply to A Perfectly Designed Trap

You need to get stuff like that written down for future generations.

With everything on a blog or website, nothing in perminate anymore, and this disposable generation will be forgotten because it is not being documented because nothing is getting saved to print.

Some archives will remain, but a lot of pictures are disapearing every day when a hard drive fails or a computer gets a nasty virus and the only copy is on that computer.

My formative years

In reply to A Perfectly Designed Trap

My father took a job that was not intially unionized and didn’t pay well. We lived in a house in the country because it was much cheaper than the city. We had an acre of land, and our own apple trees. We also put a third of an acre into a garden. Until we were old enough to earn money, our summer job was planting, weeding and picking. We had a small shed where we raised ducks, chickens and occasionally a pig.

We did go into the woods during puffball season (type of mushroom that grows huge, but only during a short season).

My brothers and I were labour for nearby farms. They paid us when they could, or would just trade favours. Sometimes in the middle of the winter we would find our driveway plowed. Or we would get a call that we could pick the field of beans, corn, whatever, because they had already harvested and we could have the rest.

I remember a car with a hole in the bottom that we could see through.

We all did a lot of favour trading to get by. At one point the farmer next door didn’t have enough quota for his milk, so we came by and took the excess – whole unpasteurized milk – totally illegal but it was fine.

Today I live in a small 1200 sq foot house, with a basement apartment that I rent out to a brother in law. I havent’ raised the rent for years. I tried a garden but my soil sucks. The only way it would work is if I built boxes out of 2x6s or railroad ties and filled it with good topsoil from somewhere else. I may yet cause I love fresh veg. nothing like a really ripe fresh picked tomatoe or corn right off the stalk.

I do go to farmers markets, including making a long drive to St Jacobs where the mennonites and other farmers have a great market. When you factor the gas costs in I probably save nothing, but I get good quality stuff – Mennonites and Amish are related. I buy maple syrup, mennonite summer sausage, breads and pastries from the mennonites, veggies from whoever has a sale. One of my distant cousins, and some of my childhood neighbours also sell at that market.

I did the camping trips when the kids were young and still would like to, but my wife’s condition precludes me from it. I may take them out on their own just so I can show them real wilderness.

I am a different person when I am back home at my parents – more relaxed, happier.

I could probably push to get a bigger house with the equity I’ve built, but we will make do. I was laid off a few years back and don’t want to consider risking more than I have to. I never moved once when I was a kid. Its good to get to know teachers and schools and neighbours.

James

You hit it on the nail

In reply to Criminal?

I agree two working parent homes is 90 done out of wanting “TOYS, NEWER, BIGGER, BETTER”.I believe some families do need to work two jobs to support thier families. But I believe because our focus has shifted from “Whats best for our Family” to “what bigger, better,newer toy can we get” is why we are having so many issues in the world today such as Guns in our schools or our kids using drugs and we are not winning the war on drugs.
I believe we should be paid higher wages. Everyday prices are going up. Well how can people afford to continue to buy the things they need when thier income stays the same. Lets say The average persons income is $800 a month,and for a year it’s tight but they find a way. Come the first of the year they raise the cost of everyone utilities by $10 a month, then they also raise the rent $50 a month. Gas is going up to where it use to cost $20 to fill your tank but now it’s costing $27 a tank x 4 “once a week”. Right there is $88 dollars a month. That’s over a thousand a year. So that’s to happen every year. I agree you need to be worth what you make. But company’s DO NOT give raises to freely, if at all and if so, a nickle. That’s a joke. I think guide lines need to be made on what they have to pay and with in six months of employment making some much extra dollars. Cause in six months you can tell if someones worth the higher wage bracket and if they are not then they shouldn’t continue to be on your pay roll.

I worked for the same company for thirteen years before this current job. It was only a waitress job but for a long time that’s all I knew. Raising my kids with no help didn’t leave alot of time to go to school and learn anything else.
In those thirteen years never was I given a raise. As a waitress you are told if you want a raise it’s through your costumers you will get one.
I don’t think it’s right your costumers have to pay your wages. You don’t work for them. If so then should someone working as an sales employee {which is the same as waitressing,the sale of a companies product}be paid by the costumer also. So on the reciept it will give the price,the taxes and the wage for sales person. And when they should be getting a raise we’ll just add more to the bill to make up for that raise.
Even after the kids were getting older I choose to continue to waitress cause I felt that was the best for my family. I didn’t want to take away more of my time away from them to go to night school, knowing that gives them alot of time on thier hands, and when that happens, thats when these kids start getting into trouble.
So I choose to just slid by every month, knowing we’d make it but not have alot of extras. But was it fair to put that many years into a company and never get a raise? Well most companies are the same way and it’s unfair that they can raise the prices or prices for the service they offer, but not spread that extra out to the employees who make that company run.
There’s a serious problem in this world and if we don’t find a answer soon, I feel sorry for the kids when they get older. I wouldn’t want to be around in twenty years if somethings not figured out.

“what bigger, better,newer toy can we get”

In reply to You hit it on the nail

Choosing to buy toys while poor keeps people poor. I don’t see any reason why such choices [i]entitle[/i] anybody to pay raises, such as “with in six months of employment making some (sic) much extra dollars”. That’s similar to a good idea, which would be to allow an [i]apprentice period[/i] during which employees can be paid [i]less[/i], as in France. If, after this time of proving oneself, the employee is good enough to keep paying, [b]then[/b] the money saved on not having to hire, at full price, employees who turn out to be incompetent and/or dishonest, can be spent on encouraging the good ones to stay. But the resources of even the largest companies are finite, and not mine or yours to take just because we feel sorry for ourselves, or needy, or whiny.

No, buying food or medicine or housing…

In reply to “what bigger, better,newer toy can we get”

…while poor keeps poor folks poor enough. One womans injustice is another mans “poor choices”. Right? People need choices…no?

oh no, the poor poor….

In reply to “what bigger, better,newer toy can we get”

What are you going off about “One womans injustice”?

And how does it impact on people poor choices on how to spend their money?

Do you KNOW any “poor” people? Of them, how many do not have a TV? How many don’t have cable or satalite? How many don’t have a cell phone? How many don’t have a game console of some kind? How many wear name brand shoes instead of the bargain shoes?

People make their own decisions in life, and a bad decision will negatively impact on your life, with no one to blame but yourself.

Oh Please! (wmlundine)

In reply to “what bigger, better,newer toy can we get”

Go to [/b]any[/b] housing project for the poor and see how many plasma TVs, Video game systems, and other “non-essentials” you find. You have to wonder what their children are doing without to buy these things, and why they are not in prison for neglecting their children. Most of these people are poor because they don’t prioritize (or thy DO, but it’s not the same priority other people would use).

And don’t forget Tony

In reply to “what bigger, better,newer toy can we get”

the boyfriend/girlfriends that live in a state paid apartment without reporting the added household income to make them pay their share of the rent/utilities.

Don’t forget about working for cash and not reporting the income.

Now lets talk about vehicles. No one “deserves” or “has a right” to a nice car. You only have a “right” to go out and EARN the money to purchase that car. My EX is dead broke because she has more vehicle than she can afford. Not sure if that is dumb, stupid, or both…….

It does happen way too often.

How about smoking? Anyone that throws away a few thousand dollars a year isn’t getting any sympathy from me.

Bottom line, live within your means. You don’t like it? Either work harder to increase your “means” or STFU because you have no one to blame but yourself.

Kinda makes you want to…

In reply to “what bigger, better,newer toy can we get”

[i]Don’t forget about working for cash and not reporting the income.[/i]

… support the FairTax, doesn’t it?

wmlundine: What are you implying about gender? Anything?

In reply to “what bigger, better,newer toy can we get”

wmlundine: [i]”No, buying food or medicine or housing while poor keeps poor folks poor enough. One [b]woman’s[/b] injustice is another [b]man’s[/b] “poor choices”. Right?”[/i]

Why the different genders in the same question? If you intended to imply something about a disparity in my compassion toward women as compared to men, please make your implication specific. If not, please explain why you [b]did[/b] use different genders in that one sentence.

[i]”People need choices…no?”[/i]

We’ll get to that, [b]after[/b] you explain yourself.

Ask yourself.

In reply to You hit it on the nail

[i]Everyday prices are going up.[/i]

Why do you suppose that is? Could “rising wages” have anything to do with it? So aren’t you then participating in an endless upward spiral?

[i]I don’t think it’s right your costumers have to pay your wages.[/i]

Where do you think the money comes from to pay yours? Does your boss have a printing press in the basement? Of course customers pay your wages!

[i]It was only a waitress job but for a long time that’s all I knew.[/i]

And did you make any effort to learn a skill that would pay more? Or do you think that money should just fall out of the sky for no reason other than you want it to?

we do what we have to

In reply to Ask yourself.

I understand costumers pay our income. But for a company to get away with paying thier help two dollars an hour and expept the costumers to make up the difference is wrong.
And yes I have gone to school, and have two degrees. But we do what we need to to support our kids and do the job that pays for the needs of our children.
And now that Ive raised my kids I can do alot of other things and I do.
Today I only have to worry about myself so I went away from what I went to school for and away from what I choose to do knowing it would pay the bills to doing a job I have fun at and enjoy and look forward to everyday. It’s more physical work than most jobs, but it’s my choice.
I wasn’t complaining about waitressing, I enjoyed it. I just don’t think it’s right restaurants don’t have to pay thier employee wages and the goverment thinks the costumers should. They are charging for thier product just like any other company and getting what the product is worth.
When I go out to eat I want to tip a waitress because it’s my way of saying thank you, not here’s part of your income.
But I guess some people look at it differently which is fine, that’s your right.
And to think I might not have any other skills, is what most people think of people like myself. Well some of us choose to do a job because it’s what’s right for our life at the time and is what will be the best in raising our kids. But we still deserve to earn what we are worth and earn what put into out job. And for some companys to be getting off so good as it is and only have to pay thier employees two dollars an hour and not even consider giving raises is wrong. Thay are cheap and selffish people in my view.

Economics 101

In reply to Ask yourself.

Price has a functional relationship to demand whereas labor is a component of cost and as such affects profit not price. Costs cause prices to rise only in a cost plus price structure. Most of the world developes a price strategy based on a product mix not cost. Don’t quit your day job.

so cost does not increase price?

In reply to Ask yourself.

then why did the price increase on many products when the COST of gas went up? Because it COST more to do business, cutting into the profit ratio. If that ratio gets below a point, they would make more money with their money invested in bonds than running a business.

So yes, rising costs gets passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, as we have repeatedly seen.

That is right!

In reply to Ask yourself.

If gas were plentiful….the price would not have gone up…period! I went to a movie today (Eragon). The movie cost $5 bucks but the popcorn cost me $5 too…voila…instant market mix. Again…there is no functional relationship between cost and price.

Actually, profit comes from different places

In reply to Ask yourself.

in the fast food joints, they make their profit on the drink and fries. The sandwich is just to get you in the door.

theaters, your ticket price covers their lease of the movie and overhead. Again the profit is in the concession stand. Mostly the soda and popcorn.

If someone in government were to decide to give away more of the theaters money in the form of a mandatory pay raise (that the employees had done nothing to EARN) then that cuts into the profits. The price of their goods will go up in relation to keep their profit ratio consistent.

Sure is easy to spend someone else’s money, and try to justify it away, huh?

Bottom line, the employee gets paid what they are WORTH, and if the employee is worth ANYTHING, they will not be working at minimum wage anyways.

Wrong Answer.

In reply to Ask yourself.

Price is a function of supply and demand…period. You could triple wages at a Nike factory and only add about a dollar to the cost. Would the price for a pair of running shoes go from $90 to $91 to cover the additional labor cost? No! Nike will charge what people are willing to pay! Same for McDonalds. The marketing mix will change to provide a profit. Hey…this is basic stuff!

A question then

In reply to Ask yourself.

will the new increase in the minimum wage make it so people with no work skills will be able to make a living working at McDonalds?

If not, what will be the benefit and to whom?

Will this be what others have argued for, a “living wage”?

If it’s

In reply to Ask yourself.

[i]Well some of us choose to do a job because it’s what’s right for our life at the time and is what will be the best in raising our kids.[/i]

right for your life, then you wouldn’t be complaining about the wage (unless you life [b]is[/b] complaining, in which case I’d recommend a new one).

Well Heck then…(wmlundine)

In reply to Ask yourself.

If wages don’t cause prices to rise, why don’t we just raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour?

Economics is a game…

In reply to Ask yourself.

…and we all have a stake in trying to keep folks “in the game”. Heck…even George Bush aknowledged the need to raise the minimum this month no?

Nike

In reply to Ask yourself.

[i]ou could triple wages at a Nike factory and only add about a dollar to the cost.[/i]

Raising the minimum wage won’t just increase Nike’s labor cost, it will raise the cost of the laces (because the lace contractor also had to rais his wages), the rubber, the little eyelet thingies, etc. All of which ends up coming out of the consumer’s pocket.

You just don’t learn…

In reply to Ask yourself.

…do you? Or have you been hittin’ the sauce again?

aspong – re: “expept the costumers to make up the difference”

In reply to Ask yourself.

Low wages for wait staff are the result of the fact that tipping is customary, not the cause. If your wages were increased, prices to the customers would also have to increase, and customers would have less money to tip you.

The current system is better for you because it allows wealthier and more generous customers to give you more money, without driving up prices on customers with less cash.

Actually…

In reply to Ask yourself.

…as menue prices rise tips rise too…you tip 20% no?

tips may go up, but number of diners goes down

In reply to Ask yourself.

if the cost of the meal keeps shooting up, people will not go to that establishment. A good reason to keep the expenses low, huh? You wouldn’t want to be directly responsible for these people losing their jobs now would you?

re: triple wages at a Nike factory, prices rise only $1

In reply to Ask yourself.

I really doubt you have data to prove that, but if you do, please post the data here.

jdclyde: “if the employee is worth ANYTHING, they will not be…”

In reply to Ask yourself.

[i]if the employee is worth ANYTHING, they will not be working at minimum wage[/i]

Although unskilled labor is less valuable than skilled labor, it is not worthless.

I don’t know anyone I agree with all the time.

In reply to Ask yourself.

and I disagree with the president’s statement.

Anytime you base a person’s wages on anything besides the market value of their labor, you are damaging the system.

AB and value

In reply to Ask yourself.

I didn’t say unskilled labor was worthless, but many that work in the unskilled labor shops make well over minimum. working hard makes up for the skilled aspect, giving a higher value to their work.

For someone to make minimum wage, they are doing a job that is not worth much, and so it will be at the lowest minimum allowed by law.

Of course the minimum wage does not affect small businesses either. You go into a mom and pop ice cream shop and the kids working there generally will not be making even the minimum.

so while not worthless, it is worth less.

JD and no value

In reply to Ask yourself.

“if the employee is worth ANYTHING, they will not be working at minimum wage”

Your words, your CAPS.

It’s sad…

In reply to You hit it on the nail

at the ammount of people with their hand out but not willing bring somthing more to the table in exchange for the higher wage.
It’s sad that people want what everyone else had but dosen’t want to earn it. It should just be given to them.
It’s sad that the people have the “everyone should have the same” mentality. Demanding that the government rob from those that apply themselves and give it to them.

I’m absolutely sick of the “Poor Me” syndrome. The “I can’t do it” people that haven’t even tried! I have friends that make $50+ an hour. Hell yes I would like to make that much, but I want to earn it! I don’t want it just given to me.

It’s time to make a choice people! Either SH** or get off the pot!

Plasma TV, cable, Play Station123…

In reply to You hit it on the nail

…provide more entertainment and less information than ever in America. For everyone…not just the poor and it is probably just as well. If Americans were informed they might get a little upset with the our lopsided economic model. Pinochet ended minimum wage in Chile’ but the people revolted and in 1982 it was re-established.

Moreover…if bad choices create poverty why isn’t Bush unemployed? Damn those victims!

The difference is

In reply to Plasma TV, cable, Play Station123…

some people use these things before or after work, and others use them INSTEAD of working.

That is DISGUSTING!

In reply to Something else many people overlook.

“Shouldn’t we feel ashamed if our spouse works and doesn’t really need to? I mean, as long as there is one unemployed person, shouldn’t it be against the law or something?”

Who is too pathetic to compete in a free labor market, meaning one in which people are allowed to work if they [i]want[/i] to earn more money than they already have? You are DISGUSTING!

“That”

In reply to That is DISGUSTING!

is called “Playing Devil’s advocate”. I hope you realize that.

🙂

There are enough earnest advocates for stupid ideas.

In reply to “That”

I don’t assume you’re playing. I say what I mean and I treat others as I expect to be treated.

Point taken

In reply to There are enough earnest advocates for stupid ideas.

I’ll keep that in mind.

…is a troll

In reply to “That”

Or, more commonly, it’s called being a troll, stirring up needless controversy for the joy of annoying other people.

and yet

In reply to …is a troll

you read my posts….

Our Spouses

In reply to Something else many people overlook.

So, if you lose your job, and your spouse still has one, you would be banned from getting another until the unemployment is 0%. Or to be more precise, while a single person is unemployed.

But hang on, you’re unemployed, since you lost your job, so the rate can never be zero, and so you should never work again.

Not Aginst the Law

In reply to Something else many people overlook.

For someone to work weather they need to or not should never be aginst the law. That’s like telling them that they can swim. We aren’t going to help you out of the middle of the lake even though you might drown getting to shore.

You are joking right?

In reply to Something else many people overlook.

I am not following you here.

Currying favor with poor voters.

In reply to What is the purpose of setting a minimum wage?

Minimum wages are never enough to support a family, and studies show that they tend to benefit mostly children who still live with their parents, whose income is entirely disposable. The true “working poor” tend to work for jobs that pay slightly more than minimum wage, and which are not entirely unskilled. But as a result of paying high school brats more than they’re worth, to flip burgers and do other zero skill jobs, the [b]real workers[/b] suffer in the labor market because the interaction of the market forces called “supply” and “demand” are truly governed by a “law” of human nature. The Soviet Union managed to violate this law for 80 years – not forever! – before going bankrupt. When minimum wage laws violate the law of supply and demand, the price is paid by the rest of the workforce, who must be paid [b]less[/b] than we’re worth so the aforementioned high school brats can be paid [b]more[/b] than they’re worth.

I’m aware that the preceding hasn’t been stated “nicely”. But it is correct, and if you would like me to state facts more kindly, you must pay me more.

Violating laws of supply & demand harms the poor MOST!

In reply to Currying favor with poor voters.

As I said above, when more money is paid to people than they deserve, the entire labor market suffers. What I intended to emphasize, but forgot, is that those who are [b]most[/b] harmed by minimum wage laws are those whose skills are truly [b]worth[/b] only slightly more than the minimum wage, simply because they can least afford the negative effect on wages that the existence of a minimum wage has on every job that pays more than the value set as minimum.

Consider this:

Joe McTrustfund comes from a rich family, and has never learned how to do anything right. At age 16, after crashing the third of Daddy’s Vettes, Daddy decides Joe isn’t worth his allowance any longer. So, Joe goes to a local fast food joint and completes an application. He has no initiative and no skills of any kind, and we assume for the sake of this discussion that his ability to obey is worth $3/day on the free market. Because he lives in Oregon, minimum wage laws dictate that we pay him about 32 times that, for an eight hour shift. Those $61 dollars that are paid to him instead of to somebody who would produce more for the same amount of money have [b]been stolen from the community[/b]. Most importantly, they have been stolen from other workers who [b]do[/b] have the skills & initiative to keep the same fast food joint working better, with half as many workers, who are only paid slightly more per person, suppose 75% total labor cost. Minimum wage laws punish all industrious workers in favor of lazy ones, but they punish poor, entry level industrious workers worst of all.

However benevolent you wish to proclaim your motives for supporting minimum wages, their effect is not beneficial. When you study the real effects of minimum wage laws on real people in the real world, you cannot support minimum wages unless you hate the poor who strive to better ourselves.

Absolutely silly

In reply to Violating laws of supply & demand harms the poor MOST!

The minimum wage doesn’t violate the law of supply and demand. It merely sets a new equilibrium level for them. No one paid the minimum wage is overpaid. Their work becomes worth that once the new equilibrium is reached. At the most, very most, some jobs that shouldn’t even be done in this country, jobs that often rely on shifting their costs on to the backs of taxpayers to subsidize, are no longer done. That is little loss at all. In fact it is a benefit to be rid of such poor jobs.

I’m Absolutely correct, moron.

In reply to Absolutely silly

The minimum wage sets a [b]false[/b] equilibrium level, [b]different[/b] than the one set by the laws of supply & demand, [b]unless[/b] everybody is [b]already[/b] paid more than the wage set as “minimum” by the laws. In such a case, bleeding hearts would have more trouble stirring up the unwashed masses to support such regulations.

Consider This;

In reply to Violating laws of supply & demand harms the poor MOST!

Joe Mctrustfund is the President (aka GWB). We should pay him to just stay home (he does less harm that way and his daddy can afford it).

I agree 100%

In reply to Consider This;

The masses only agree about 65% so far, though.

🙁

TacoBell hiring for $7.50

In reply to Currying favor with poor voters.

The work market does determine the worth of a worker based on both the value of the work provided AND how many people want that job. The more people applying for a job, the less an employer has to pay to fill it.

Last week on the way back from Detroit, the tacobell had stickers taking up most of the window advertising for help wanted, paying $7.50. Where is a good “undocumented worker” when you need one to fill a job americans are too lazy to do?

And yes, the fact that the poor poor DON’T WORK FOR MINIMUM WAGE shows the lack of logic and reasoning by the supporters of higher minimum wages.

Think people. Now is a good time to start.

true

In reply to TacoBell hiring for $7.50

basic economics 101

min wage shouldn’t be “high”, but enough to stop exploitation.

i was gonna start something with ya..but i too tired 🙂

😡

First, we must

In reply to true

define ‘exploitation’. Frankly, if you’re using the dictionary definition, I see far more employ[b]ees[/b] doing it than employ[b]ers[/b].

touche

In reply to First, we must

yes, i see that. It does go both ways though.

I guess it even depends where you are and what you are doing. For instance in ireland min wage is 7.65.
5 years ago there was no min wage, and it was not uncommon to work for 2-3 and hour. It was appalling.
I would consider it fair, it is just hardly enought to live on.

I do take the approach that IF you want to have the house, the car and the holidays, then you must work your way up to the larger wages..you should not make 30K a year for flipping burgers.
If you want more money, work for it..I’m not a “bleeding heart”, but having worked like a dog for next to no pay, for a small business that made plenty of profit, i think min wage is a good idea.

I think the key word is Minimum. Just enough..the absolute minimum..

Which is why…

In reply to touche

[i]I think the key word is Minimum. Just enough..the absolute minimum..[/i]

…in the original post, I asked the questions.

Your False Assumption

In reply to true

There is no “exploitation”.

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=201870&messageID=2103837

Hey JD…

In reply to TacoBell hiring for $7.50

Any of those positions still open?

Van

In reply to Hey JD…

There are always positions to be tried out… ]:)

😡

[i]”I’m a baaaaaaad boy!”

It’s because they don’t consider it

In reply to TacoBell hiring for $7.50

working for minimum wage. They consider it working for the difference between minimum wage and what they are getting by not working (or not working legitimately).

This is a complex issue requiring 20,000 plus words to cover well, in brief

In reply to What is the purpose of setting a minimum wage?

It is a figure, set by government, for the whole of its area of jurisdiction, based on the average minimum living costs for the same area above. It incorporates a lot of things, and is meant to relate to a single person, not a married couple or a family. In every case studied, so far, it’s more than sufficient to live on, and keep people out of poverty.

The reason for basing it on a single person, is a couple has double the income- as they are both expected to work until they one gets a better job and they can afford to have kids on that one income. Married single income families are usually provided with extra assistance via the tax system. Here in Australia, a person with dependents, usually, gets tax cuts – I say usually because this doesn’ apply to a divorced person paying child support where the courts have given custody to the other parent, you can only claim deductions for the period the child is with you, yet you pay for the whole year.

Here in Australia we have had it for many decades and it does work. At the moment there is much arguement about work relations laws and their effect on this and the economy. Much of what is in the media about this issue is lies, generated from improperly used statistics.

A very related issue to the minimum wage is poverty. However, for the last 25 years social engineers have been falsifying the placement of the poverty line, to such an extent that it is now seen as a totally seperate entity that has absolutely nothing to do with poverty by any real, or rational, economists.

By the dictionary, poverty is the state of being poor or deficient – nothing about being unable to survive as poverty is a relative thing.

Economically, poverty is seen as being the state where you are too poor to be able to pay for basic housing, basic clothes, and enough food to live on. Essential, you’re starving.

The wikepedia articles, I just read 15.29 AEST 4 Oct 2006, below are fairly good general statements on this issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_level

The modern poverty line used by community social welfare change organisations is usually based on a relationship to the average wage of a society, not the ability to survive in the society. Here in Australia, an organisation, ACOSS, often claims people on the basic unemployment payment are below the poverty line. yet all these poverty stricken people get enogh government benefits to afford alcohol, tobacco, drugs, gambling, and new electrical good on a regular basis. I’ve spent some years on the same benefits and afforded to replace my computer. while on the benefits. Most people that ACOSS claims are below the poverty line, spend a lot of time eating fast food, and otherwise wasting money in many ways. In the last 40 years, the only people, in Australia, that have been shown to be so poverty stricken as to be starving, have been that way because of their own decisions – they choose to spend the money on other things, like booze, drugs etc, or they choose not to register for government benefits – for personal reasons.

I’m sure that many out there will disagree with the above, but I’ve lived on welfare, and know thousands who have, or are, and everyone managed well, except where they wasted their money.

Hey D.E.,

In reply to This is a complex issue requiring 20,000 plus words to cover well, in brief

right here in Vancouver BC the $8.00/hr minimum wage has people living BELOW the poverty line.

labour laws: full time hours are 7.5 a day

there are on average 22 days worked per month

this gives to a goss monthly income of $1,320.00
minus the 17% taxes and other with holdings -$224.40 giving a net income of $1,095.60

rent, bachelor apartment for this area is $950.00/mo
power is $25.00/mo
food, shopping at cheapest stores around and buying to extend money will run you $200.00 or so.
if you need to take any form of public transporation to get to work, you are looking at a minimum cost of $78.00/mo
laundry, in facility in residential building,
wash $1-2.00/load
dry $1-2.00/load
figure you’ll have to do laundry of two loads a week minimum.

telephone, basic $36.00/mo – no long distance calls or it’s more, no call features or it’s more.

cable, basic, no extra channels $24.95/mo

no internet, since you really can’t afford it.

that gives you a total expense of $1,319.95
okay, definately don’t have that do we, so take out cable and phone, kill the transit so you are using feet or bycycle, leave expenses at $1,181.00
hmm still more than is made. ok , kill the groceries to be only $85.40 a month, now you broke even, but are starving to death, no entertainment, no means of contact with the world and you have to live like a hermit in your place.

bare cost of living for this area is placed at a take home income of $1800.00/mo
that is the official poverty line.

minimum wages aren’t meant to stop you from being poor, or poverty ridden, only to make sure you have a place to live.

Jacqui, I can’t speak re Vancouver, not been there

In reply to Hey D.E.,

but I’ve ssen these same sets of figures for Sydney Australia, where I grew up. The biggest issue with them is looking at the quality of the items concerned, and how you go about living.

Minimum wage, welfare, etc are calculated on the minimum BASIC needs. A bachelor apartment is NOT minimumbasic needs. A dorm bed, or a room, at the YMCA is. Wash and dry at $1.20 a load, why pay?

Over the years I’ve lived on basic wage, I’ve lived on welfare (which is lower than MW down under), I’ve also survived on no income. How much you spend on accommodation and food is very much a choice thing.

At one time in my life, ACOSS (the premier Aust organisation that lobbies for increases in upping MW, welfare and other social welfare agendas) put out figures for what it cost to live at the poverty line in the very suburb I was living at the time. I was working, running a car, living by myself, eating reasonably well, and putting money in the bank. Adding up all my living expenses, I found out that I was living quite well for only 75% of what ACOSS set as the poverty line for my suburb.

I checked where they got their figures, seems they felt the housing costs had to be based on living in a house or two bedroom flat, food was based on eating out twice a week, and using a lot of prepackaged food, etc. Just by living in a bed-sit, hand washing in the bathroom sink, with it drip drying over the bath each day, and cooking meals from scratch, I was undercutting their figures by huge margins. All these matters are personal choice. I chose a bed-sit over a nice apartment or flat or house. I chose to do my own wash, instead of machine it. I chose to cook meals from raw ingredients than buy microwave dinners or frozen foods for reheating – again personal choices.

When official poverty line figures are produced you have to look at the fine details of what they’re using to calculate them.

If you’re under the poverty line, you should be starving, yet the only people starving in Australia, are those that choose to spend there money on drugs or alcohol, or (more commonly) the kids of parents who choose to buy drugs and alcohol over food for their kids.

Here in Aust, if you handle your money carefully, you can live on minimum wage, and even put some in the bank, I know, I did it when I first moved out from home. I didn’t live in a nice apartments, but the YMCA was acceptable and more sociable than any apartment I’ve lived in since.

Accommodation costs is a very tricky issue. I’ve seen suburbs where the lowest renatl is higher than the highest in the next suburb. I’ve lived in places where by paying an extra $0.25 per day on the train, I go one extra station, and save $80 per week on the rental of a two bedroom flat of the same size.

A very close examination and review of the situation in Vancouver may find that the people calculating the PL figure need to review the standards they are using, or the minimum wage figure may need adjusting – I don’t live there, so I can’t give an exact answer.

several factors

In reply to Jacqui, I can’t speak re Vancouver, not been there

that make the official poverty line more accurate.
the real estate market is in a huge boom, with prices very similar to those I’ve heard for Sydney Aus.
[ $600,000.00 to $2,500,000.00 for a house purchase]
this being caused by the previously mentioned winter olympics. [ in my first post in this discussion ]

I based my own food cost estimate on exactly the type of cook from scratch model you used. 🙂 the official food costs are also based on cooking from scratch.

they do base their projection on a full one bedroom apartment, which in Vancouver itself starts at $1,000.00/mo I used a bachelor.
the hostels, such as the ymca, have a rule that you cannot be from the area when you stay there, only from out of town.
the SRO, bet/sit rooms are roughly half the cost of a bachelor apartment, and very hard to find, since they run at 100% occupancy due to the expensive market rent units.

the affordable housing system, with lower rents won’t look at anyone not on some form of government assistance, since they already have a 5 year waiting list.

BC has the highest MW in Canada at $8.00/hr.

I have supported three people on a take home pay of $1800.00/month. we always had food.
the only thing that was a struggle was new clothes for growing child. 🙂
I live as simply as possible myself, I don’t need the frills. it was the only was Icould support my wife and daughter before immigration canada kicked them out of the country.
[ and the US immigration service doesn’t want to allow canadians to go there. ]

I’m gonna have to find a company outside of canada and the us that would be willing to sponsor me and my family for immigration. just so we can be together.
[ I’m not happy with either canada or us governments for a good reason ]

Try migrating to Australia, we’re very friendly, usually

In reply to several factors

and the govt is trying to get professionals at present. Check the Aust govt immigration web site

http://www.immi.gov.au

You could try under general migration

http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/index.htm

or seek someone to employ your as a visiting worker, not as a migrant

http://www.immi.gov.au/employers/index.htm

Check out the dates for expos

http://www.immi.gov.au/skillexpos/expos-skilled-workers.htm

Good luck with your family.

No, it only takes about 600 words

In reply to This is a complex issue requiring 20,000 plus words to cover well, in brief

(or fewer)

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=201870&messageID=2103837

Any claim that a topic is too complex to summarize leads me to suspect…

In reply to This is a complex issue requiring 20,000 plus words to cover well, in brief

Any claim that a topic is too complex to summarize leads me to suspect that you’re trying to hide something from me, by using a lot of words while saying nothing, hoping that I’ll bore of you and concede the point. While I am quite bored by claims that the [i]effects[/i] of socialism can be justified by benevolent [i]intentions[/i], I will not concede the point. Just as a tree is known by its fruits, socialism is known to be [b][i]evil![/i][/b]

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=201870&messageID=2104332

I suggest you read the post, I did give a brief after

In reply to Any claim that a topic is too complex to summarize leads me to suspect…

saying it was too complex to give a full detailed account here. In doing so, I left out huge chunks of detail, and related aspects. If you’d bothered to read the post, and my others on this issue, I think you’ll find we’re in agreement – that this is a social engineering thing that is manipulated to the detriment of society.

We have a problem in modern society, in that it is no longer possible to obtain a block of land, and grow what you need to survive. Taxes, govt charges, fed / state / local, ensure this is not possible. Nor will society allow that these people be left to starve to death. So some thing must be done.

MW is one attempt, Workhouses for the poor was another. Not a simple issue since it involves the whole social spectrum to cover fully.

I suggest you re-examine your assumptions.

In reply to I suggest you read the post, I did give a brief after

We are not in agreement.

20,000 words (or more) may be required to describe the harm governments do when they take from the rich to give to the poor, but those words would be a waste of time and of the medium storing them.

Very few words are needed to describe the motives for socialism, and the inevitable result of giving any privileged class (rich or poor) something for nothing. Simply put, socialism occurs when incompetent people weasel their way into government power, then promise other incompetent people a free ride. In decadent societies, enough such people vote to ensure the utter failure of that society. Refer to the fall of ancient Rome.

I suggest you do some mor reading on Rome

In reply to I suggest you re-examine your assumptions.

Rome was strong and vibrant when a very strong man, Julius Cesear, took control and changed it from a republic to a dictatorship with the outward appearance of a republic in that the Senate existed and got voted in, but had no power and did nothing of value. A few emporers later, it started its slide into decadence, and a few hundred years after that it was badly damaged by internal wars of control damaging its economy and its military. Then external attacks finished it off.

However, I agree that when the government take money from those with it and just hand it out like condetti to those without, it causes damage in many ways. But many elected official like this process as it makes a lot of people dependent upon them and makes vote buying much easier.

Was that a typo?

In reply to I suggest you do some mor reading on Rome

Or a deliberate reference to Condoleezza?

“However, I agree that when the government take money from those with it and just hand it out like condetti…”

The ominous parallels to Bush, Jr. in the paragraph above were obvious.

I didn’t assume, I asked.

In reply to Was that a typo?

Bloody British subjects, think we defeated your Queen by sheer luck?

I know you asked if it was a typo, but I meant

In reply to Was that a typo?

the bit about expecting me to know who Condoleezza was, I had to google the name to understand who you were refering to. But in a way it’s a nice double pun. I meant to say confetti, and rice is a commonly used in place of confetti – hmm, wasn’t intended at the time, but not bad in hindsight

Touch wood

In reply to This is a complex issue requiring 20,000 plus words to cover well, in brief

I’ve lived on welfare too and it’s fine as long as nothing major goes wrong. Fortunately, in my case nothing did go wrong.

Depends on the Country!

In reply to What is the purpose of setting a minimum wage?

My Dear Tony,

In some countries that work on a more “purely” socialized basis, the minimum wage may indeed be intended and work to keep people out of poverty.

Here in the U.S., no such thing.

As mentioned before, the vast majority of people actually making the minimum wage are no-skill kids slacking through their summer jobs.

When I was a teenager, I don’t think I ever worked for the minimum wage (though I did, at a camp, work for less).

Even worse, there are some people trying to raise a family with 1 minimum-wage earner. A very bad idea, I’m sure. Like trying to go up a steep hill in a very small car with an automatic.

But, NO-ONE has mentioned the REAL reason why the U.S. minimum wage goes up every once in a while: because of the tens of millions of UNION workers whose contracts are, in fine print, tied to the minimum wage.

Please don’t ask me why a teacher or pipefitter or longshoreman earning upwards of $50K should get a raise when the minimum wage goes up, but they do.

The politicians know that they will “give” all these millions of workers a raise when they just raise the minimum wage. That’s why, BTW, a raise of the minimum wage has such a huge impact on inflation.

The wage raise is quickly eaten up by inflation, leaving the politicians the only ones who really benefit from it. As usual, small business owners are left carrying their bag (full of poop).

Main purpose

In reply to What is the purpose of setting a minimum wage?

To differentiate between working and welfare.
Leave minimum wage to the market and the tax payer foots the bill in taxes. Set one and the consumer pays the bill.
In a competive market, increased salary does not increase prices, it increases value for money, employee investment and efficeiency, it may cut profits initially, but nobody who wants their people to work in poverty while they own an island doesn’t deserve to be in business anyway.

It will be slightly different because of your employment law, but all the UK business types who said minimum wage would cut jobs have been proved very wrong.
Any who say they would have employed more people are lying, the administrative cost of an employee is pretty much fixed.

Curious

In reply to Main purpose

What is your rate of taxation in Jolly ol’ England?

Depends on what you call tax

In reply to Curious

after your allowance, 22% ’til ?37k then 40%.
Then there’s 17.5 VAT on a lot of stuff. Duties on fuel, tobacco and alchohol. Then there’s local taxes, called the council tax…..

We pay but the safety net is very good, depends on where your priorities are. It could be argued in my case I’d be OK if the burden for thing like health care and education were shifted from the state to the individual, but that has not always been true.

I’left school in 79, in time for hideous levels of unemployment that were a direct result of government policy. The sort of policies, you and others are advocating. So getting buy in off me is going to be impossible, no matter how much personally I might be better off now.

Institutionalising welfare to keep a low wage economy, is a disastrously stupid policy.

I think we agree then

In reply to Depends on what you call tax

I think we can agree then that less government is better. I am for the individual keeping his or her money and doing with it what they will rather than giving the money to a central government so that government can institute regulations and controls on what the individual can and cannot do.

Yes and no

In reply to I think we agree then

I’m all for minimising government, compressing them all in a garbage masher seems like a good start.

A pure free market economy, now globalistaion is a fact, will be just as damaging to a country as a socialist model like France’s.

One gives you a nation of professional welfare scroungers the other increases the gap between rich and poor, that will divide society and bring it down in flames.

Neither is good for business.

I’ve seen “I’m alright Jack, FU” in action. been there done that, sold the teeshirt for a crust of mouldy bread when it went nipples up.

A goverments role is to create the conditions where businesses will invest to reduce the weklfare burden , not pay them off for keeping it, so it can milk votes.

Whether you pay Acme corp or the government for such basic services makes no odds, it’s still money you have to spend! It’s outgoings, who gets it, is immaterial.

Who should profit from providing health and edcuation, the state, or some fat b’stard in a tax haven?

Wealth and Privilege

In reply to Yes and no

I don’t understand why you associate wealth with greed or avarice. I also don’t understand why you assert that we will either have to pay “the man” for government programs or “fat b’stard” in order to work. As I am a normal worker I get paid for working and not the other way around.
If your greif is with an “unfair” tax system I agree with you. I say equal rights for everyone and special rights to none. Flat tax across everyone, remove Indian reservations and take away all entitlements. Sink or swim but everyone gets the same treatment.

Stop it, my ribs are killing me

In reply to Wealth and Privilege

Everybody gets the same treatment!

I know I’m a tree hugging socialist and I foolishly don’t believe in god or GWB, but I aren’t the one who continually underestimates his opponent either.

Get real !.

Taxes will always be unfair, the main purpose of getting ahead in the system is to shift the burden of paying them to someone else!

Who pays more tax in %age terms you or Bill Gates?
Why ? Because he has the power to manipulate the system and transfer that burden on to you. You aren’t advocating equality, you just want to pass the kick in the nuts down to those worse off than you.

If that’s the system, thats the system, but do not come out with crap about it being fair!

Bill gates Pays more taxes

In reply to Wealth and Privilege

The 13% that make more than 250K/yr pays most of the taxes. Why? Because they are the minority of the vote. It’s all because of the “everyone should have what they have” mindset. The only way to shift the burden of taxes to someone else is to show a loss or to just not make money and sit on your a** at home while drawing welfare or some other government subdisied program.

Ribs

In reply to Wealth and Privilege

Who claimed that a percentage was fair? People get ahead by being productive. Penalizing them for that is unfair (not to mention that it will encourage them to be less productive, which is why socialism ultimately fails every time… you can’t legislate human nature).

One man, one vote, one breath every three seconds, one dollar in taxes. Now that’s fair.

re: CP

In reply to Wealth and Privilege

Right! Wouldn’t they holler if the weight of each vote were based on the wealth of the voter? 🙂

Americian education system is a big let down

In reply to Wealth and Privilege

Wealth did decide votes
guess who fixed that? Socialists !

Let me get this straight the 13% of your highest earners pay more tax as a %age of their income than those on less ?

They pay more tax as a percentage of the gross take than those on less?

Your tax system is even more socialist than the UKs?

Or are you a victim of the socialist school system and incapable of basic arithmetic?

Productivity is a measure of efficiency not volume

I didn’t mention fairness or in fact equitability, that was ProteusX. We can have fair anytime you want, only problem is I don’t think it’s fair to take something off everybody who has bugger all and give it those who’ve got enough already. One of those nasty socialist principals you know.

Not everybody who can’t get off welfare is a shiftless scrounger you know. While the economic system you are so fond of, puts them there and keeps them there, you have no right to take the welfare entitlement they paid with their taxes, until one of your fellow travellers off shored them.

So cease with the fair crap, nothings fair and you are not talking about making it fairer, but of weighting the system even more in favour of those of us who for one reason or another aren’t on welfare.

Still I suppose it gives you something to do when you aren’t taking candy off babies eh?

Tony H

In reply to Wealth and Privilege

I don’t think it’s that the American education system is such a letdown. It probably has more to do with the difference in income levels between the top and the bottom.

If anything, CParris understated. According to the U.S. Treasury, for the 2002 tax year, the top 5% of wage earners paid 53.8% of all individual income taxes but reported only 30.6% of the income. The top 50% of wage earners paid over 96% of individual income taxes. http://tinyurl.com/ljn8p – 2 page pdf.

According to the IRS, for the 2003 tax year, the top 1% of taxpayers were earning
$295,495 or more. The bottom 10% of taxpayers were earning $5,432 or less (Caveat-read the note!). The median Adjusted Gross Income was $29,019. 182,932 people declared an AGI of $1,000,000 or more. http://tinyurl.com/rp9kh

Those are the official numbers. Make of them what you wish.

Edit: clarify target…searching…searching…

shiftless scroungers

In reply to Wealth and Privilege

are the reason welfare was created…. they could no longer fool the people of the community that they weren’t shiftless scroungers, so they went to the government to fool them!

[i]only problem is I don’t think it’s fair to take something off everybody who has bugger all and give it those who’ve got enough already.[/i]

How pretentious of you to mandate what is “enough” for someone else. Especially when that “someone else” is providing a living for others!

Tony: YOU are disappointed in the AMERICAN education system???

In reply to Wealth and Privilege

Tony Hopkinson claims: “Wealth did decide votes guess who fixed that? Socialists!”

Um, no, American revolutionaries fixed that when they established the first society not [b]based[/b] on inherited class membership, the politics of which you “socialist” Brits still recognize in your houses of lords and commons. We also have two parliamentary bodies, but they exist in order to prevent more populous states from overwhelming the interests of the less populous states. Every state has the same number of Senators, two, but every state has a number of Congressmen which is decided by the population of that state. Whether this is a clever way of preventing a tyranny of the majority, or whether it over-represents rural states, is a separate question. [b]Your[/b] two houses of parliament still acknowledge the concept of inherited political privilege, which is a completely different issue than inherited wealth. You still can’t be born a commoner and earn your way into the house of lords, no matter how much money you earn.

Aristocracy: wealth is distributed primarily according to accident of birth.

Socialism: wealth is (supposedly) distributed primarily according to need.

Capitalism: wealth is distributed primarily according to merit.

I know which system I prefer, and why.

Opinion not improved

In reply to Wealth and Privilege

Revolutionaries fixed it.
Indeed they did.
Socialist revolutionaries in the UK.

Where do you think one man one vote came from when you created your constituion. european factory owners ? It wasn’t constructed from a vacuum, but to address the inadequacies of other systems in existance at the time.

You guys talk like the world and history started on the 4th of July.

“Welfare was invented for scroungers”

That’s either the most pathetic quote on this discussion, or we have a major semantic disconnect.

Welfare to me is state assistance , for single mums, broken families, the handicapped…

Guys who make a career out of it are a problem, but you penalise them not Miss Jane Doe who got left holding the baby by John.

Pretentious – I pretend to nothing if you can’t afford basic health, education, housing, food and clothes then your state, your community and your government are a cruel joke. Who you pay for this provision does not matter, the fact that you cannot most definitely does.

Try living on welfare for a bit, that way you won’t look like you are talking out of your arses.

semantic disconnect, perhaps.

In reply to Wealth and Privilege

Substitute ‘deadbeat’ for scrounger.

It used to be that the townsfolk helped all who need help, and were in a position to know if, how much, and what kind of help was needed (all problems aren’t solved by throwing money at them!). Deadbeats learned to take advantage. The townsfolk caught on to this, and rightfully cut them off. Then the deadbeats went to the government complaining that the townsfolk weren’t helping. The government, not knowing (nor caring) that these deadbeats were attempting to scam them the same way they scammed the townsfolk, created Welfare (it was also a benefit to some in government who saw it as a way to control people).

Of course, the townsfolk had to pay for this, which lessenned their ability to help the ‘truly needy’ in their community. So the ‘truly needy’ were added to the welfare rolls, requiring even more money.

And if it weren’t bad enough, over half of what the government takes for the needy actually goes to greasing the gears of government!

[i]Pretentious – I pretend to nothing if you can’t afford basic health, education, housing, food and clothes then your state, your community and your government are a cruel joke.[/i]

Pretentious is that you pretend to know what’s “enough” for me better than I do. However, I partly agree with you about government: It is [b]because of[/b] our government that most of these problems exist.

A government cannot create anything, it can only be a drain on its people (and in this case it is a bigger drain than are the people they pretend to help!). How big a drain its people can tolerate is the ultimate question.

Tony Hopkinson

In reply to Wealth and Privilege

Let’s get things straight. First, I have said it before and I will say iy again, I have no problem helping someone get back on their feet. The structure of our socieity is almost to discourage advancement and betterment of ones self. It’s structured that the more you make the more taxes you pay in percentage. For example: Joe makes $15k a year. He pays no taxes. Bob makes $35K a year and pays 27% in taxes. Jill makes $60k a year and pays 29% in taxes. Scott makes $100k+ a year and pays 35% to 45% in taxes.
That is unfair at best. Those that just live off of wellfare and food stamps are the slime of humanity. They are either robbed of purpose, will, or they are just plain lazy.
I have seen several “families” abuse the welfare system. They are perfictly aboe to work but just won’t because they will loose their benifits. The welfare system is biased as well. For me, I can’t work on the welfare system for two reasons, my skin’s the wrong color, and I’m the wrong sex. I would be living out of some cardboard box in an alley somewhere before I got welfare or foodstamps.

So, Is line with the discussion topic, to pay a worker in company note is a bad thing and the worker should be paid in national currancy. As for the minimum wage, I think it’s somthing that should be repealed. Welfare, should be limited and the reciepiant should at least be looking for a job and if they haven’t found a job in 6 months, then it should be revoked.

cp

In reply to Wealth and Privilege

I wouldn’t go so far as to say everyone on Welfare and foodstamps are the slime of humanity. Some genuinely need long-term material help, some just need a little boost to get them started or to to make it across a rough patch, and some are just users and will continue to be as long as they think they can get away with it.

What I would say is that if the people of the community had the money the government is taking from them, they are in a better place to determine if, what kind of, and how much help is needed, and could deliver that help far more efficiently and effectively than some bureaucrat a hundred or a thousand miles away (of course, that might not set well with the bureaucrat… since his livlihood depends on people needing him).

Tony

In reply to Wealth and Privilege

I can see how you translated what I said the wrong way. I almost did it myself.

When I said “Those that just live off of wwellfare and foodstamps are the slime of humanity” I was reffering to those that make a career of living on wellfare and foodstamps not the ones that actually need the help. It’s easy to overlook the “just” in there.

However, those that aspire to stay on wellfare for their entire lives are the leaches of the socieity. They suck out what they could get on their own. Like tape worms. They will take what is eaten with no regard for the host eventually causing the host’s death.

A more localized system would seem to work better. Who would manage it? How would it be controlled? Where would the funds come from? Would the funds come from a voluntary means or would they be required like taxes? What of the poorer areas that don’t have as much surplus as the larger ones but more apparent need?

One final thought for the rest of you….

How bout we box up all of the illegal immigrants and send them home. On the ride home, we let them know that if we catch them again, we’ll drop them off in anartica next time. When they come back and are caught the second time, we make good on our word and ship them to anartica. And on the trip there, let them know that if they are caught a 3rd time, they will be considered a hostile force or terrorist and shot on sight.

That would be the last time they tried to come here. That would also aleviate the resources required to keep these people alive in our country.

Those of you that think we should give them aministy and make them citizens… Maybe we should treat you that way as well. To be ehre illegaly is a crime. It should be punished as such. As for being born in America to be a citizen… nope, that shouldn’t count either unless your parents are citizens of the US as well.

Mechanics

In reply to Wealth and Privilege

[i]A more localized system would seem to work better. Who would manage it? How would it be controlled? Where would the funds come from? Would the funds come from a voluntary means or would they be required like taxes? [/i]

Of course it should be voluntary… it [b]is[/b] charity, after all. And again, it’s not always money that is needed. Indeed, that should always be the last resort (Didn’t your momma teach you that it’s tacky to give money as a gift? 🙂 ). If it [b]needs[/b] managed or controlled (yuck!), I would think the community would be more than capable of coming up with a means… a ‘school board’ type structure might work but a ‘volunteer fire department’ structure would probably be better.

[i]What of the poorer areas that don’t have as much surplus as the larger ones but more apparent need?[/i]

First things first. I wouldn’t be so bold as to march into a community and be a judge of what they need or don’t need (poor doesn’t necessarily mean distressed or even unhappy). That said, you and your neighbors can certainly offer to help someone in another community. You’d certainly have more resources with which to do it. All you need is the willingness to do something, and not be afraid to get your hands dirty if necessary. Direct involvement. That’s what builds and maintains the sense of community… and you sure can’t replace that with a check!

[Added]:
[i]When I said “Those that just live off of wwellfare and foodstamps are the slime of humanity” I was reffering to those that make a career of living on wellfare and foodstamps not the ones that actually need the help. It’s easy to overlook the “just” in there.
[/i]

and for those, we could always offer one more good-will gesture… give them a ticket to the homeland of our socialist friends who seem to care about them so much ]:)

Devolving power

In reply to Wealth and Privilege

well that’s something we can agree on.
I’m a fully paid up member of the Yorkshire secessionist movement. Though I’ll settle for a northern assembly for a start, those wankers down south keep allocating my taxes to their needs.

On average southerners live five years longer than us northern types. So I’m paying for them to live longer by dying sooner.

It’s a good start on killing big government anyway.

The other point of agreement is none of us like what institutionalised welfare does to a country. I look at ways to reduce the need, you are looking at ways to reduce the cost of it.

In my opinion, my approach is much more rational, more long term and takes into account the real cost of a purposely impoverished underclass.

That is what socialism is about, a consideration of the real effects of a policy on society. Paying more welfare is not a socialist policy, it’s a capitalist one.

Invest in creating jobs and penalise those who destroy them for a short term and personal financial gain. These are the real drain on the state, not the poor twats they put out of work.

reduce the need

In reply to Wealth and Privilege

[i]I look at ways to reduce the need, you are looking at ways to reduce the cost of it.[/i]

… and better determine what’s ‘need’ and what’s ‘want’. That will reduce the cost even more.

[i] That is what socialism is about, a consideration of the real effects of a policy on society. [/i]

I’d rather make my own policies. It’s called freedom.

[i]Invest in creating jobs and penalise those who destroy them for a short term and personal financial gain. These are the real drain on the state, not the poor ***** they put out of work. [/i]

Unless you bury your money in cans in the back yard, anything you do with your ‘financial gain’ is going to create jobs for somebody somewhere. ‘The State’ needn’t be involved at all, except to print more money 🙂

Ironic, Tony: “…allocating my taxes to their needs”

In reply to Wealth and Privilege

“…those wankers down south keep allocating my taxes to their needs.”

I think this whole exchange is getting too abstract. What I’d like to hear from a “socialist” or “welfare statist” or “safety net proponent”, or whatever name you choose to describe your belief, in partial or absolute collectivism in ownership, is this: how much should be taken, from whom, and given to whom? I’ll be asking “why?” later, and repeatedly.

Abs – ooh scary

In reply to Wealth and Privilege

I know you are going to keep asking why until you recognise the fundmanental and inexcusable blindness in your position.
You only consider one side of the equation.

Deride people on welfare for taking ‘your’ income while simultaneously patting yourself on the back for promoting a system that put them on welfare in the first place.

To Tigrish Tony

In reply to Wealth and Privilege

Wealth will only create jobs if it’s put back into the economy, one extra person to help read the zeros on the end of a bank balance doesn’t count.

How many jobs come from currency speculation for instance.

You may even be right about global jobs, but all off shoring does is swap one bean counter for many people, and the bean counter doesn’t pay that much more tax than one of the people they off-shored.
That should be redressed (not the bean counter’s tax). Equally the sort of b’stard who employ’s illegal immigrants becuse it’s worth the joke of a fine thet get compared to the profit they make.

Are these position too ‘socialist’ for you or did you have plans to profit from such activities.

I must say I’m enjoying being the moderate in this debate.
LOL

TonyH

In reply to Wealth and Privilege

[i]Wealth will only create jobs if it’s put back into the economy, one extra person to help read the zeros on the end of a bank balance doesn’t count.[/i]

Bean counters buy homes and cars, hire babysitters, etc. Like I said, unless it’s put into a hole in the ground or a matress, it [b]is[/b] put back into the economy.

On the other hand, bean counting that companies do for government accounting purposes accounts for roughly $500 billion (10^9) a year. That’s almost $1700 for every man, woman and child in the country (and that’s not inclusive of any other taxes)! That [b]is[/b] throwing money in a hole, because it adds nothing to the value of the company’s product or service except make it cost more to the consumer. That’s one reason I have been a supporter of the Fairtax proposal here. It eliminates those costs right off the bat, which will lower prices on almost everything.

[i]Equally the sort of b’stard who employ’s illegal immigrants becuse it’s worth the joke of a fine thet get compared to the profit they make.[/i]

That’s one area where I part from many of my friends, conservative, liberal, and in-between. I don’t want illegals here either, but my reason is simply because they are illegal. I have no problem with anyone competing for jobs. I am an anti-protectionist capitalist. If someone wants to try to undercut me for my job, more power to them. Truth be told, I’d go pretty low myself, as my needs aren’t lavish.

You see, I’ve been there… I’ve lived for months at a time with little or no income. I’ve grown and killed my own food. I’ve even performed minor surgery on myself. I know what (most) people can do when they have to… because I’ve had to. That’s how I know when someone says they can’t live on minimum wage they are full of $hit!

I never said they could n’t live on it

In reply to Wealth and Privilege

did I.
Aside from in line with inflation type rises I don’t see any need for it to go up either.
If they are on minimum they aren’t on welfare and they are paying taxes, if that wasn’t true it would be an utter waste of time would n’t it.

A question for you given.
Politicians use welfare to buy votes and businesses use it to reduce employment costs and sponsor politicians who keep this nasty cycle going so they can make money while we get taxed to support their profits. How effective do you think the lets cut welfare spending campaign is going to be ?

Do you think you are in the majority, in the country or if some sort of devolution occurred , your state ?

After all whther you are ‘right’ or not doesn’t matter for crap, if you are in the minority!

In practice

In reply to Wealth and Privilege

I am in the majority… most people instinctively take responsibility for themselves most of the time. It is the politicians who seperate us into various groups to pit against one another for their gain (and I suspect, their amusement). They take the tiniest of problems and make them seem bigger than they are (As Max pointed out… about half a million on minimum wage, and more than half of those in miltiple-earner families. Yet as small as this problem seems to be when you look at the data, nearly every Democratic candidate mentions in their campaign ads that their opponent opposed raising it).

Where I am in the minority, I think, is in my belief that “the government” creates and/or enhances these problems in order to demonstrate the ‘need’ for more government.

It, however, is a growing minority.

Thank you. I appreciate your perspective and your interest.

I’ve enjoyed the debate

In reply to Wealth and Privilege

I’m way less ‘socialist’ than I used to be, some real life experience having wiped out the pie in the sky drivel I used to take as self evident. I’ve never lost the us vs them background that being marked at birth as one of the underclass though.

Half a million, in workforce the size of yours?. Makes you wonder what was worth arguing about. The minimum wage breaking ?5 an hour was predicted to affect about 1.5 million in the UK.

?5 isn’t as bad or as good as it sounds, there are a lot of exceptions, which employers take advantage of. Like defining all new young employees as ‘apprentices’, paying them f’all and then getting rid of them before they are ‘qualified’. SSDE as it were.

Tony H.: I don’t promote any such system.

In reply to Wealth and Privilege

“Deride people on welfare for taking ‘your’ income while simultaneously patting yourself on the back for promoting a system that put them on welfare in the first place.”

The only system that “put” anybody on welfare is their own digestive system, and their parents’ reproductive systems. I promote neither! The system I promote provides only the law enforcement apparatus necessary to leave us all free to earn our own “welfare” or to beg for it, but never to have it given by any entity that has taken it from another person.

Tony H: job elimination

In reply to Wealth and Privilege

I had a very similar conversation this weekend, walking out of grocery store that has fairly recently installed four bar code scanners equipped with payment receptacles, which allow shoppers to check out and bag our own groceries. I find this to save me the trouble of pretending to be as interested in the clerk’s day as the clerk is pretending to be about mine, and it also gets me out of the store at least as fast, unless I buy beer or wine. Then I still have to wait for a clerk to check my drivers license.

I was remarking to my friend how inspiring it is that mindless jobs are being eliminated by automation. She replied that such jobs are all that some people have. I believe that’s impossible. When such boring, routine work is replaced by automation, money becomes available to invest elsewhere, and of necessity, that investment will require some work which will have to be done by humans. The idea that eliminating mundane jobs reduces the total number of jobs to do is extremely myopic. When mindless tasks are done by mindless automatons, the net result is that the jobs available to humans are more interesting, not that there are fewer. As long as there is greed, intelligent greedy people will find ways to make productive tasks for even unskilled people with barely enough greed to provide for their own basic survival. It’s just human nature.

from experience

In reply to What is the purpose of setting a minimum wage?

well, in real life terms, for the average joe, min wage is a good thing.

Not so long ago..8 years ago, i worked 2 part time jobs that payed min wage (in canada), and my ex had a full time job paying slightly above min wage. We had a child to feed, bills to pay, etc etc.

If there had not be min wage and we would have had to work for even less money, i would have had to have 3 jobs to put food on the table.

There is the considerations to small business’ however, i rememeber when min wage was increased by a few cents once, and my ex’s employer screamed holy murder about laying off people and what not..then proceeded to buy a new SUV.
So really, if you cannot afford to pay your staff a bare minimum, then move on.

Also, when i first moved to Ireland, there was no min wage. They brought one in and all employers cried they would be out of business..i’m sure maybe a few did..but almost all seemed to be OK, they just made a bit less profit in the end.

Ever worked for 1.50 an hour? (in this day and age, i don’t mean in 1942)
I have, 4 years ago..10 hour days..but generally only got paid for 8 hours. See, because i couldn’t legally work in Ireland, i had to work for cash..that was the going rate.

Not fun. Now i know not all business people are money hungry, in fact i know a lot who are the opposite. But come on, if you expect these people to work for YOU so YOU can make a profit at least pay the min wage so they can feed thier families.

Not everyone is university/college material. Sadly, plenty of people just never get the chance to get educated, and if they are hard working decent people flipping a burger to pay the bills, then fair enough, they deserve to be rewarded for thier work regardless of thier social standing.

Excuse me maam, but may I cheer

In reply to from experience

Sorry if I seem over polite, but I agre so much with your final paragraph, that I feel the need to cheer you on.

I never made university out of school, no free uni in those days, now days it’s free – from taxes, and drop out rates are horrendous, costs are outrageous. I finally got a uni degree, some decades later, paying full fees, and studying at night and weekends. But I’ve spent time on minimum wage, and on unemployment. It’s livable, not fun, but livable. Most don’t choose to be there, but some are by choice.

yes you may

In reply to Excuse me maam, but may I cheer

🙂

I still don’t have Uni..I’m working my way up through hard work..but thats my choice..

I don’t ever want to be on min wage again.
You are right though, there are plenty of people there by choice. At the end of the day, thats thier problem. I took what little money i had left and saved up for a MS Access course. Took me 4 months to save for the 200 i needed to get started..but look where i am now.

On the other hand, my ex..is currently scheming to get disability pension so he can leave his min wage jobs..he’s pushing 40..a min wage lifer and its his own fault

ah..i think if us at TR got toegther, we’d solve all the worlds problems wouldn’t we 🙂

the hardest thing about solving problems involving

In reply to yes you may

people, si the people. They NEVER do anything the same twice. But it would be fun trying.

from experience, sans analysis

In reply to from experience

“If there had not be min wage and we would have had to work for even less money, i would have had to have 3 jobs to put food on the table.”

Most likely, your ex would have been paid more, except that the existence of an economically false minimum on the pay scale meant that money was diverted from its most productive possible use, to pay that false minimum to workers who would have done the same boring, easy work for less. In fact, you might even have been able to get a better paying job if the lowest end of the pay scale could have been divided into $3, $4, $5, $6, and $7/hr jobs. But the minimum wage forces employers to pay many workers with zero experience, and no proven work ethic, the same as many other workers who have some experience, at least slightly more work ethic, and/or slightly more skills, but no formal education, training, or certificates of any kind.

“Not everyone is university/college material. Sadly, plenty of people just never get the chance to get educated, and if they are hard working decent people flipping a burger to pay the bills, then fair enough, they deserve to be rewarded for thier work regardless of thier social standing.”

It may not be easy to explain the dynamics of a complex system like the economy well enough to illustrate why the minimum wage harms the poor more than it hurts anybody else, but I’m willing to keep trying. See, it’s only talentless politicians and talentless political commentators who make the argument [i]for[/i] socialist measures, because they don’t have any productive ability, but wish to enjoy the luxuries enjoyed by people who have learned to be productive.

i do see it

In reply to from experience, sans analysis

but its one thing to understand it, and another to live it..

minimum wage forces employers to pay many workers with zero experience, and no proven work ethic, the same as many other workers who have some experience, at least slightly more work ethic, and/or slightly more skills, but no formal education, training, or certificates of any kind

That was me 🙂
17 with a 2 year old child..no qualifications, no experience,dropped out of school to look after baby, worked graveyard shift so that i would have my day to look after baby as thats what i was taught good mommies do (and financially if i had to pay for childcare i could’t have afforded to be working)..

But ya know what..i worked hard..i knew there was 40 people behind me begging for a job, any job, MY job.. as in Saskatchewan, jobs were not aplenty, and if i didn’t work hard i’d lose it. I refused to go on welfare, absolutely refused, the only thing i ever took from welfare was free medicine once for baby, as i could not pay for it. To this day, i would like to give them that 70$ back..this way i owe them nothing!

In 3 months i worked hard enough to be given a slight pay rise, and then another month later i was given assistant supervisor..which gave me a bit more.
and the other job i worked..ahh Tim Hortons..how low can ya go?? What a feeling to get up at 5 am and step into that sh1thole. Again, i worked hard, i smiled the biggest and had the cheeriest Hello..and my bosses noticed, and i climbed ever so slowly up the pay scale..

All the academics and politics in the world don’t mean squat when you have to choose between feeding OR buying medicine for your child. I even had a garden..ya at 16 i grew veg and made my own babyfood..

maybe its just my work ethic..i know there are a lot of people who abuse the system and who don’t want to work hard, but for those of us who do..we deserve to have a slim chance at bettering ourselves.

“but for those of us who do”

In reply to i do see it

“i know there are a lot of people who abuse the system and who don’t want to work hard, but for those of us who do..we deserve to have a slim chance at bettering ourselves.”

Nobody gave you that, including any minimum wage law. You earned it, and you have nobody to thank but yourself, and no need of anybody to [b]give[/b] you the chance at bettering yourself which is available to everybody, and which you virtuously chose to use wisely. You succeed by your own effort. Give yourself the credit you deserve. You never needed any law to force any employer to pay you more than you’re worth, and you don’t owe anybody else any support for laws that allow [b]them[/b] to be paid more than [b]they’re[/b] worth.

From experience, with compassion

In reply to from experience

I worked minimum wage after high school. In rural Colorado, you could get by okay. When I got out of the Air Force, my jobs were close to minimum wage, but I knew I was going to college next, and it seemed okay. When I dropped out of college to support a wife and a baby, I worked for near minimum, lived poor, and knew this was not what I was born to be. So I got out of the trap. Every time a lucky opportunity came by, I was smart enough (and hard enough) to dump everything that was fond and familiar to me (except wife and kids) and make my advantage. Same with the wife. We talk sweet and value kindness, but we’ve been tough. Tougher than many. If I felt the need to live forever in Craig, Colorado, I’d still be living poor.

I knew a lot of people on the bottom, some of them with very nice hearts, some who had what it takes to climb, and some without it. Some work hard all the time but get lazy or sentimental at the crucial moment, or get drunk and get fired once a year, or just don’t have the judgement. A lot of my friends were just dopers who’d never get anywhere except rehab, if they were lucky. The ones who were lazy and no good and had no character were never friends of mine, but they were always around the fringes.

There’s a big diverse bunch of people out there. Some of them are just on a short vacation to the low end, and some of them live there forever. I was born richer, and got clear of it. I am not vain enough to say I was born better. The minimum wage made a big difference to me, and it goes on making a difference to good people still. The poor, good and bad, will be with us forever, and they deserve to have a floor under them, beneath which their employers cannot bargain their wages away.

If it were about compassion,

In reply to From experience, with compassion

then ALL employers would be required to pay it. Compassion is a human emotional trait. It’s not, nor should it be, a government policy.

You have the right to offer, not to demand, compassion.

In reply to From experience, with compassion

eom

And justice?

In reply to You have the right to offer, not to demand, compassion.

At who’s pleasure is that dispensed?

whose

In reply to And justice?

Your error reveals carelessness, either now or in the past when you should have been learning when “who’s” is appropriate vs. “whose”. Which of those is the case is irrelevant. Your carelessness reveals that you do not care enough to be correct in your attempt to blur the distinction between the concepts “justice” and “compassion”, meaning that you are not sincere enough in the assertion you imply to present it in a manner that portrays you as literate and your assertion as that of a literate individual.

People overlook the facts

In reply to What is the purpose of setting a minimum wage?

Looking at the replies you’ve received thus far, not one of them provided any facts or reasoning to support their claims or assertions, instead simply repeating the same, tired old nonsense about a person making enough money to live, to support a family, and so on. These sentiments are probably well-intentioned, but they’re very misguided.

First of all, let’s look at some facts (from the 2004 BLS, Bureau of Labor Statistics):

1. Out of 74 million “hourly workers”, only 520,000 are paid the current minimum wage. That’s only seven-tenths of one percent.

2. Eighty percent of all minimum wage earners have no dependents.

3. Fifty three percent of all minimum wage earners are between the ages of 16 and 24.

4. Sixty Seven percent of the minimum wage jobs are part-time. (Students, for example, who might live at home with parents or in a dorm paid for by parents.)

5. Other minimum wage workers are retirees, who are also receiving a pension from a previous job and/or Social Security.

6. The average family income of the average minimum wage earner is almost $50,000 per year. (More than the national average.)

7. 1.5 million “hourly workers” are actually paid LESS than the minimum wage (legally), but whose income relies on tips or commissions.

8. Sixty-three percent of workers hired for the minimum wage get raises within the first year.

9. Many minimum wage positions are starter, entry-level, positions, given to people with absolutely no experience, and initially have no value to the employer. Not only is the employer absorbing the cost of training this person, but paying him for an undetermined period of time before this person starts to “earn” anything.

10. We already have a “welfare program” for low-income wage earners, some of whom are families. It’s called the Earned Income Tax Credit, through which these people are actually the recipients of taxes rather than the payers of taxes.

I’d challenge anybody to go into any neighborhood McDonalds and inquire about job openings. If a person is breathing, he/she probably qualifies for most positions. And I’d bet a dollar to dirt that the starting wage is higher than the current minimum wage.

So why does the issue of minimum wage often arise? Among other reasons, because anti-free-market activists are hell-bent on controlling more and more of American business; because the usual “do-gooders” falsely believe they are doing some good; because politicians tug on people’s emotions in order to gain votes, thereby gaining power; and because union wages are often tied to the minimum wage, thus Labor Unions and Democrats are the usual suspects supporting the measure. A twenty percent increase in the minimum wage, for example, could automatically trigger a twenty percent (or some factor thereof) increase in a person’s salary who’s making upward of $30 per hour. (And people wonder why Toyota is thriving, while GM, Ford and Chrysler are hemorrhaging money.) But none of the reasons actually produce the results they suggest. It’s all a facade. It’s all smoke-and-mirrors. It’s all irrational and overly-emotional.

The establishment of a minimum wage is not only contrary to the laws of supply and demand in a free-market economy, not to mention a gross infringement on “private business”, but is advanced for all the wrong reasons. And those advancing the issue always tug on people’s emotional heart-strings, relying on their uninformed and misinformed sense of compassion. And with all such programs, not only do they fail to produce the stated desired end-results, but they are actually doing more harm than good. But as usual, the minimum wage advocates will ignore these facts, and they’ll continues to let their emotions trump their reason.

And on it goes…..

Waitressing, etc.

In reply to People overlook the facts

[i]7. 1.5 million “hourly workers” are actually paid LESS than the minimum wage (legally), but whose income relies on tips or commissions.[/i]

That’s often overlooked too. Some of these workers make pretty good tips (My daughter [b]averages[/b] over $200 a night, and some days she makes more than I do!) but not all of them report all of this income (the assumption by the IRS is that tips will roughly equal wages, so that’s how much they report). This calls the credibility of the statistics into question.

I’m not a fan…

In reply to What is the purpose of setting a minimum wage?

of minimum wage laws. From everything I have ever seen/read/experienced, minimum wage laws are a superficial attempt to redistribute wealth. I think the minimum wage laws are something politicians do to have themselves look effective (without doing anything of substance) and to make them look like they are “for the people.” Unfortunately, forced wage levels have historically been bad for both workers and employers. Regretably, the “average” person on the street isn’t aware enough of this imposed socialism to make an informed decision.

Here in Oklahoma is case in point. Oklahoma has a depressed economy. This is both good and bad. Its bad because wages are relatively low. But its good, because cost of living is very low. Someone recently sent a letter to the editor asking why Oklahoma sticks with the federal minimum wage when California pays $8.00 an hour for minimum wage. Well, hello…. the cost of living in California is 3 to 4 times more than that of Oklahoma. Other things must be considered besides just dollars in the check. I’ll take the lower wage (relatively) in order to be able to afford to buy and pay for my home. I am a native Californian, and I could never afford to own a home there. (My $40,000 home in Oklahoma would easily be a $250,000+ home in California.)

Other people probably brought up similar points. But handicapping free enterprise through socialistic restraints hurts, not helps.

I agree, but with the tax systems currently in use

In reply to I’m not a fan…

this is about the best way to handle this issue.

The very best way of handling tax and minimal living income levels that I’ve come across, would require a major shake up within all governments and tax systems. I don’t see the changes happening as it would greatly reduce the power of the government, especially the public servants, to interfere in your individual life.

First blow away all existing tax systems. Introduce three types of taxes.

a. A flat tax on all goods and services provided, one rate for everything.

b. A flat rate income tax paid on all interest paid out on investments, calculated by, deducted, and paid by the investment organisation.

c. A flat rate of tax on the nett profit, before R&D and expansion, for all limited liability corporate organisations.

Note – no taxes on a private individual at all, if the business is privately own, no taxes either. Take all the risks, you get all the profits.

2. No one can be employed to do anything without a govt registered number tax file number, social security number – whatever, you choose one. But you got to have it before you can start work. All wages and salaries paid to be reported, identification by this number.

3. Use a reasonably accurate method to set a minimum income level (MIL).

4. Anyone not earning the MIL can register for assistance, investigation reviews their whole lifestyle, and where adjudged suitable, they receive support.

NB: Recommended method of support being assisted housing and food voucher processes. The idea is to give them housing and food not money to buy drugs.

This allows the free market to get on with the business of setting wages, while still allowing for the social welfare support process to see minimum levels are provided, and making them adjustable to local areas and individuals.

As someone who has actually run a business..

In reply to What is the purpose of setting a minimum wage?

that hires minimum-wage employees, I can comment on the direct practical effect that raising the minimum wage has on a small business (retail bakery).

Most small businesses have absolutely no control over what they pay for supplies, inventory, rent, utilities, etc., but they do have some control how much they pay for labor, and they have some control (subject to competition and customer resistance) over what they charge for their products.

In order for us to make a profit, we determined that our labor costs could not go any higher than 32% of our sales.

When the minimum wage last went up, there was a ripple effect on our entire payroll. We had to give raises to every hourly employee from top to bottom, though the raises tended to diminish toward the top of the pay scale. (When you’ve given someone a raise for good performance and given them supervisory responsibilities, they’re understandably upset when suddenly everybody they’re supervising is making just as much as they are.)

As a result of the raises, we had to both raise our prices and trim the number of hours worked. All of our minimum-wage employees were high school students working part-time on afternoons and weekends, so they ended up working fewer hours per week on average.

So, in the end, part of the increase in cost was paid by the customer in the form of higher prices, and the rest was paid by the employees in having fewer hours scheduled for them to work.

To me, a minimum wage acts as a barrier to employment, and reduces the number of jobs available at the entry level. Most entry level job functions can be broken down into 10-15 minute tasks, and those tasks will tend to get assigned to existing workers before you’ll go to the expense of hiring and training a new employee.

Labor cost as a percentage of sales tends to be much higher in small businesses with lower sales volumes. Raising the minimum wage makes it harder for those businesses to compete with larger ones for which direct labor costs may be a tiny fraction of sales. That’s why you can buy an entire box of Nabisco chocolate chip cookies for 2 bucks, but if you come into my bakery, I’ll have to charge you $6.00 a dozen.

France is a perfect example of how NOT to do it. Youth unemployment in France runs so incredibly high for two reasons: the high minimum wage and other costs and benefits imposed on businesses by the government, and the practical impossibility of ever being able to fire or lay-off someone once they’re hired.

Most small businesses have decided it’s better to remain small and hire only family or well-known friends than to try and grow and take the risk of hiring someone worthless who they are then saddled with until retirement.

In their socialistic desire to help the status of the common worker, France has only managed to hurt them and cripple their economy to boot.

France is an example

In reply to As someone who has actually run a business..

of the reasoning taken too far.
Sweatshop economies are the other extreme.

Neither one works for the people at the bottom of the pile.
One pays them to stay there, the other pays the legislature to keep them there.

Course as long as they don’t squeak too much when we are standing on them, who gives a bog eh?

Sure, it costs jobs

In reply to As someone who has actually run a business..

Setting any kind of minimum wage is guaranteed to kill off some number of jobs. It will make some businesses unprofitable. No way around it.

What the minimum wage is about (besides buying votes) is a measure of how much a society values its low-end workers. Thirty years ago I was making minimum plus fifty cents sweeping and mopping floors. That would be worth about $9 an hour these days. I was supporting a wife and a brand new baby. There were no opportunities in town (Fort Collins), which was filled with hippies, retirees, and college students, all willing to work for dirt. The effect of today’s minimum wage would be to cut my money by a third. It was hard then; I don’t know how much harder I could have taken. The thing that made it bearable was that I was raised as a middle class kid, and there was a middle class man inside me, and no freaking way was this cruddy situation going to last. I knew it was just a bad holiday.

By the way, France has got a lot more barriers to hiring than its high minimum wage (about $13/hour, plus vacation and benefits.) Once you hire somebody in France, it’s just about impossible to fire him, and if you do, it’ll cost you most of a year’s wage in severance. They also have loads of additional restrictions on business that inhibit entrepreneurial startups. France has a lot more than its lavish minimum wage to blame for its high unemployment.

What government touches, it breaks

In reply to Sure, it costs jobs

Once you allow someone to step in and tell you how to run your business, you have greatly reduced the chances of staying in business.

Years back, “government” decided that all full time employees “deserve” health insurance to be given to them, paid for by the employer. A good friend was working full time at Kmart at the time. No benifits or insurance, but he was paying his bills and was content. When this went through, Kmart cut all of these employees to part-time status. Now, not only did he NOT have insurance, but he now had a huge cut in pay. For a while, he ended up having to work two jobs to make ends meet. The problem with this is now anything over 40 hours a week is not overtime because it isn’t with a single employer.

The people that rob from the rich to buy votes from the poor are dragging out country down.

Politics in Ohio

In reply to What is the purpose of setting a minimum wage?

The move to raise the state minimum wage (which is well below what anyone pays anyway) is just a smoke screen to slip in a provision which would make [b]ALL[/b] employee records available to the public.

Talk about your identity thief’s dream!

The purpose of society

In reply to What is the purpose of setting a minimum wage?

In a modernist, capitalist, democratic society, we’re all supposed to be benefiting from our membership in the club. The capitalist types play by the rules and get most of the rewards. The worker types keep their heads down, play by the rules, and get enough to get by. Sometimes the workers have to adapt or there’s no place for them to work. Sometimes the capitalists lose everything on a dumb bet. (Often their workers lose everything at the same time, sharing the capitalist’s pain. Pain doesn’t flow the other way, though.) This is how the most successful economic system in the world works. Capitalists like it ’cause they get rich and have more stuff. Workers grumble, but workers will always grumble. It’s part of their class identity. Academics admire it, because it delivers more total stuff to more people than alternative systems, and politicians like it, because rich capitalist nations are more likely to win wars against their less efficient neighbors.

What happens when the capitalists, who also get to write the rules, get greedier and want more than they got formerly? What if they look at an ever-expanding pie, and decide “We get the growing parts, and your piece can stay the same.” This is essentially what has happened in the American economy since the Carter administration. What has also happened since the Clinton administration is that more and more people are sweating it out without health insurance, and that the minimum wage has stayed frozen while prices slowly creep up. This frozen wage helps our poor people stay competitive against foreigners, but it does make them a little more disappointed about the social contract.

If people get really bummed about the social contract, what do you have? France 1789? Newark 1967? The poor don’t always experience the minimum wage as a first rung on an endless ladder. Their ladder is often about three rungs high, before a business cycle or their bad habits get them bumped back down. The height of the first rung can make a big difference.

A lot of poor people make the trip out of poverty. A lot don’t, and they raise children who won’t, either. The minimum wage helps to set a bottom for them. Our economy needs them, and needs them at a cheap price, and they aren’t going away, and we’d be in trouble if they did. The minimum wage makes more difference to their lives than it does to ours.

family and education

In reply to The purpose of society

Was reading a study about two weeks ago that found that it isn’t “poor schools” that cause drop-out rates and has resulted in less and less people graduating high-school as we go on.

It is uneducated parents that did not get an education that don’t see the need of it. This gets passed on to the kids.

A clear case of stupid breeding more stupid.

Society does not own stupid people a way of life.

It owes nobody a way of life, but provides anyway

In reply to family and education

It’s kind of nonsense to say that stupid people are owed no kind of life by society. Probably you don’t mean that being unable to do simple arithmetic exercises means somebody is eligible to be cheated out of their assets and physically abused by everybody at will. No, you probably think that society owes justice even to stupid people, and legal protection of their rights.

Your mother is owed medicare, because your father earned a wage and paid taxes. (Maybe she did, too.) No IQ test required.

Kensington Nigel Snodgrass IV, twenty-something playboy inheritor, who flunks out of 15 colleges and can’t do anything right, is still entitled to society’s enforcement of contract law that keeps his daddy’s estate pouring money into his checking account. In fact, little KNS4 is entitled to more rights and protections than your mother, and more than the minimum wage cleaning woman, because he is a guardian of capital. Again, no IQ test required.

Society manages to make use of the stupid people who are born of stupid people and spend their spare time raising tomorrow’s stupid people. We pay them minimum wage and expect them to rake lawns in the summer and find other work in the winter. If all these stupid guys managed to uplift themselves and started looking for more meaningful work, would it be ready for them? Who would fill all the stupid people jobs? It wouldn’t work as well as you’d hope.

Well, there’s stupid….

In reply to It owes nobody a way of life, but provides anyway

and then there’s stupid. Some [b]can’t[/b] some [b]won’t[/b]. The two groups should [b]not[/b] be treated the same by society.

They are treated the same

In reply to Well, there’s stupid….

No other way to do it. Law of the market, and all that.

Are you serious?

In reply to They are treated the same

Someone who can’t work should be treated the same as one who can, but refuses to?

How are you going to make a difference?

In reply to Are you serious?

Would you have different laws for people who gave you the impression of being less hard-working? Would you give lower welfare payments to somebody who worked but failed, and even lower still to somebody who failed even further in the past?

There’s a difference between knowing who you’d be friends with and being able to execute public policy.

It would certainly be easier

In reply to Are you serious?

[i]Would you have different laws for people who gave you the impression of being less hard-working?[/i]

No, I would have no laws one way or the other.

[i]Would you give lower welfare payments to somebody who worked but failed, and even lower still to somebody who failed even further in the past?[/i]

I would put that decision into the hands of the people in that community… the ones who [b]know[/b] the person; not into the hands of some blind and half-deaf bureaucracy a hundred miles away. It would be a more accurate assessment, as well as a more appropriate and more efficient response.

“can’t work”

In reply to Are you serious?

gets disability checks.

Won’t work gets welfare checks.

See, they ARE treated differently.

Making a difference

In reply to Are you serious?

First, you put a limit to how long someone can leach of the teet of society. Say three years. If they can not provide for themselves after three years, to bad.

If they have kids that they can’t provide for, find a foster home for them.

Hold people accountable for themselves. It is amazing what people CAN do when they need to.

Especially the kids.

In reply to Are you serious?

Get them out of there so they don’t turn out like their parents!

Every state has laws against neglecting children. Chronically failing to support them is neglect, so criminal charges are in order… in fact, they should be demanded!

But that’s not all. The community also has to step up. When these children are removed, don’t just sit there applauding. The job’s not over, it’s just starting. Get involved. Hands on is best. It’s the perfect opportunity to change the world, and to practice what we preach, to put our hearts and souls where our mouths are. It’s an investment that’ll return more than money.

Oh, neat… “Tony and Clyde’s Home for the Improvement of Our Inferiors”

In reply to Are you serious?

Snatch away kids from people who don’t have the work ethic and good character, so’s you can bring ’em up good? Talk about delusions. If you thought Iraq was a mess of unintended consequences and unforseen difficulties, try implementing a police state that would appropriate all the children in the poor neighborhoods and put them in Tiger School. You’d have to get them young, too, like at age 2 or earlier, before they got imprinted with too many bad habits.

So

In reply to Are you serious?

offer or promote an alternative that will fix the root problem. Don’t just attack a solution because you’re too lazy to participate or you’re benefitting from the status quo.

As they say: Lead, follow, or stay out of the way.

[added]

Oh, and to be clear: The ‘people’ are not inferior, it’s the way some of them were brought up that is inferior.

Duh… that would be the minimum wage issue

In reply to Are you serious?

Offer real alternatives? Here goes:

Offer a minimum wage that gives a poor person a chance to live in poverty, and not taking the escalator down to even darker depths.

Make decent free public education available. Reward merit.

Guarantee everyone the equal protection of the law.

Guarantee health care, because it’s basic, and our society is rich.

There you go. If a poor person who lives on minimum wage and can’t get any further has these guarantees, then he is more likely to resign himself to it and not be a problem. It offers the motivated ones the open path and the support to get somewhere else in the economy. It costs, but not that much, and all alternatives have costs.

And, incidentally, it makes you an upright Christian man, decent to the brethern his father provided him, and not a bitter, selfish, and sanctimonious animal in the food chain.

So cheer up… just because you can be a decent human being, doesn’t mean you have to stop being a right-wing dupe.

OK

In reply to Are you serious?

[i]Offer a minimum wage that gives a poor person a chance to live in poverty, and not taking the escalator down to even darker depths.[/i]

And this is the reason for the initial questions I asked. An amount that would be “the depths of poverty” for a family of 4 living in the city might be nearly a king’s ransom to a teenager with two working parents in a rural area a scant 50 miles from said city.

[i]Make decent free public education available. Reward merit.[/i]

I like this one best… Even college should be free to those so motivated (the payback to society would be greater than the cost to the taxpayers).

[i]Guarantee everyone the equal protection of the law.[/i]

As long as you mean equal opportunity and not necessarily equal outcome, I agree.

[i]Guarantee health care, because it’s basic, and our society is rich.[/i]

Yuck. Sorry. Most need for medical services are due to self-inflicted conditions. I don’t believe a law mandating this would meet your requirement of ‘equal protection’ stated above. I would go for immunizations and well-baby care though.

Adults need to take responsibility for taking care of their own health. In the off chance that an illness or injury is due to the actions of another, go after “the other”, not all of society.

[i]And, incidentally, it makes you an upright Christian man, decent to the brethern his father provided him, and not a bitter, selfish, and sanctimonious animal in the food chain.[/i]

Your malinformed assumption regarding my beliefs notwithstanding, I wouldn’t think wanting people to have the ability to make their own wellbeing is “unchristian-like”. I am not at all bitter at anyone. I am angry at those who use their cunning psychological traps to keep other people believing that the only way they can get anything is to leech off of someone else.

DelbertPGH & Tony suggest you review your last posts

In reply to Are you serious?

Here in Australia, we have minimum wage laws, we also have fre eductaion that includes university, a free health service, and welfare that can go long term. Yet we still have those same problems that are being discussed in this thread.

The community spends billions each year for the health services to treat self inflict illnesses related to drug addiction, alcohol misuse, and tobacco use related issues – the system has been collapsing since the ‘free health for all’ was introduced over 20 years ago. Luckily it had a lot of slack and still has some free enterprise aspects, so the government has been able to prop it up and keep it going.

Free education to high school has been in for many decades and is essential in modern society. However, education costs and quality have been dropping since free university education was introduced 20 years ago. Drop out rates have also skyrocketed. Again, slack in the system and previous infrastructure development had hidden the collapse for many years. But today, we have people who are failing their first year uni exams because uni deos NOT have remedial level classes.

These have no effect on minimum wage, nor does it affect them, but they all effect the cost to society through taxation and increased living costs. They have not made our society a utopia, and have created some problems. However, they are no so entrenched in our society that it would be impossible to remove them without major upheaval.

The three biggest mistakes we have made in modern society are:

1. Made it impossible for people to be self sufficient without money – you can’t live by just growing your own food anymore.

2. Letting the elected officials convince us that they have a right to take our money in takes and run all community welfare and charity tasks.

3. That people can be helped by just giving them money and free services.

All our ills come about because these three add together to make a significant proportion of the society feel that the government HAS to fix everything and give them everything that they feel they need. And then the government tries to do that by giving them money.

Australia has had an unemployment scheme running for about 80 years. When it started it worked very well, now it doesn’t work so well. It’s been changed a lot. The original system the government didn’t give you money each week. They gave you food vouchers one week, and the second week you got paid full wages for doing so many hours work on government jobs as unskilled labour. People soon worked their way out of unemployment, couldn’t afford too much cigarettes, alcohol or drugs on that. Today they give them cash and a lot of it is wasted on alcohol, drugs etc. Since going to the cash handouts, individual self-esteem has plummetted and the feeling of ‘why bother’ has increased.

Please forgive me if I

In reply to Are you serious?

Don’t ‘Throw in the towel’ just yet!

No free college

In reply to Are you serious?

In almost every situation where higher education has been made essentially free, both initial enrollments and student drop-out rates have soared. People sign up because “I couldn’t afford it before, but now I can get a good education.” After the first weeks, they realize they are woefully unprepared for the rigors of college courses or this isn’t what they wanted or this is too much like work and drop out.

If you wish to provide free education, charge a substantial up-front fee, then reimburse that fee on the [u]successful[/u] completion of all enrolled courses. The reimbursed fee could then be applied to the next term’s classes. This will weed out those who are not absolutely serious about taking advantage of such a opportunity.

Yeah but what else have they got to do?

In reply to family and education

If you want people off welfare and which ever political ideology you follow most do.
How ?
Education cost’s money, they haven’t got it, so it comes out of taxes. Fine now we have an educated poor person. Right, here’s a job pays pays less than welfare. Are we seeing a problem here ?

High welfare keeps people on welfare, low wages keep people on welfare.

Who pays for welfare, we do. Who pays for a cut in welfare, politicians. Guess who’s going to keep paying. If yiu’ve got a job, you are probably intelligent enough to work this out.

You can’t maximise shareholder value, reduce unemployment and run a democracy at the same time except in extreme circumstances like world wars, preparing for 6m tides, and such like.

I wouldn’t make that leap.

In reply to Yeah but what else have they got to do?

[i]If you want people off welfare and which ever political ideology you follow most do.[/i]

An assumption many wouldn’t make… there are many whose livlihood depends on maintaining poverty and the problems that often accompany it.

[i]You can’t maximise shareholder value, reduce unemployment and run a democracy at the same time except in extreme circumstances like world wars, preparing for 6m tides, and such like.[/i]

Sure you can. You can start by not punishing people for becoming successful! That can be accomplished by taxing unnecessary consumption instead of income. Removing the roadblocks to success will make products more affordable, thus more would be sold, thus more would have to be hired to make, which will create a worker shortage, which will drive up wages.

of course,…

In reply to I wouldn’t make that leap.

[i]Sure you can. You can start by not punishing people for becoming successful! That can be accomplished by taxing unnecessary consumption instead of income. Removing the roadblocks to success will make products more affordable, thus more would be sold, thus more would have to be hired to make, which will create a worker shortage, which will drive up wages.[/i]

… this is going to be a hard sell to the politicians, since it will rob them of nearly all of their power (and don’t think for a minute they don’t [b]know[/b] that).

Wrong from the start

In reply to Yeah but what else have they got to do?

[i]”If you want people off welfare and which ever political ideology you follow most do.”[/i]

Over here, the Democrats depend on having a ready made peasent class stuck in a bottomless welfare system. It all part of the different ways you can gain and maintain power, and power is all they care about (top politicians)

One way is to take an army and rule over people.
The way the Democrats rule is called a “gift society”, were if I give you things, you will allow me to do as I please. When you pay people to breed, you increase your voter base quickly, and now that people have learned that they can steal from people by voting instead of at gun point, they follow right along.

Democrats “care so much” but think so little. They like to show how much they care, by spending other peoples money.

Tony and JD

In reply to Yeah but what else have they got to do?

We’ve institutionalised welfare. Minimum wage and the policies that support it is an attempt to fix it. No minimum wage and leave it to market is how we got to this position.

You don’t like minimum wage , fine, provide an alternative that encourages people off welfare, that the politicians can swallow, which leaves cutting welfare out.

If a businessman says oh look you are cutting the number of people I can employ, he’ll have a smile on his face, he is not complaining! The minimumwage is not a reason for that, it’s an excuse.

How do you encourage people?

In reply to Tony and JD

Simple, you let them know that they have two years to get on their feet or they are cut off, completely.

You start a “work-fare” program where if people want that government check, they show up from Y to Z at such and such a place and WORK all day to earn the government check. Does it make them more than welfare? No, but they can at least develope a sense of self-worth that they never will from sitting around watching tv all day.

They would also be developing a skill set that can help them move on to non-work-fare jobs.

See how simple it really is when you stop and think about it?

On the other hand

In reply to How do you encourage people?

If you have them doing things that would ordinarily be done by government employees, their union would bitch about taking away their jobs 🙂

Well given we were restricting the cut

In reply to How do you encourage people?

off to those who coudl earn and the economy was going well enough to give them something to go for I’d vote for you. None of those in welfare mode would though.

How about you only get a vote if you could pay taxes and you do. That would cut out MDs and scroungers.
Course that would violate both our constitutions.

Seriously whatever incentives we create, without something to put opportunities within reach, we are just swapping problems.

We are probably the worst people to come up with a solution, we’ve built our lives on wanting to pay our way and wanting to better ourselves and through ability, drive and a smidgeon of luck succeeded.
I know a few lifelong welfare recipients, they are alien to me. I don’t get the way they think at all.

You don’t.

In reply to How do you encourage people?

Anybody who needs any encouragement beyond the profit available in a [b]free[/b] market deserves [b]less[/b] encouragement, not more.

Limbaugh wisdom

In reply to How do you encourage people?

Yeah, and abolish the minimum wage, so they can get on their feet for $2 an hour. Probably the minimum wage is destroying all kinds of sub-five-dollar jobs. Ain’t that the story you’re peddling?

Despise the poor. If they were worth your respect, they’d be doing okay already. And cut their minimum income, just to make sure they have an extra incentive.

That’s Right…

In reply to Limbaugh wisdom

Forget the poor…any breaks they get will be squandered on stupid stuff like food and housing. Tax breaks for the rich (on the other hand) stimulate the economy ’cause they what to do with money…buy an expensive gas guzzler…of course!

So many straw men, so little time.

In reply to Limbaugh wisdom

“get on their feet”

I didn’t knock anybody off their feet, and I don’t owe everybody help getting on their feet.

“Yeah, and abolish the minimum wage, so they can get on their feet for $2 an hour. Probably the minimum wage is destroying all kinds of sub-five-dollar jobs. Ain’t that the story you’re peddling?”

I’m not peddling anything, fool. The fact is that if living people take a job, and don’t die, they are able to [b]live[/b] with that wage. They may need another job to buy all the necessities of life, but convenience and ease are not guaranteed by the Constitution, and for good reason. Hard work builds character.

Sounds wonderful…

In reply to The purpose of society

all the caring words in the politically correct place, and all the demonizing words where they’ll have the desired impact; yet it doesn’t answer a single one of the questions I asked.

If you don’t give them a stake in the game

In reply to Sounds wonderful…

If you make sure that the terms of the contract have some appeal to the inferior partner, then he’ll reneg. In the case of society and its poor, that means petty theft, armed robbery, riot, and rebellion, in order of escalating response.

Most of the working poor don’t believe they are entitled to much. That’s fair, too; they tend to have low-value skills, and often behave stupidly. However, it has to be enough to live, offer moments of contentment, and to give the kids a chance. That’s fair, too. People who are poor or working class will stand up to whatever life gives them, because they figure they’ve screwed up enough that they deserve it. But they think the kids deserve to get better, even though they teach them to be just like mom and dad, every day.

Class is not going away. People are proud of who they are. Rich people are proud to be elite, middle class are proud to be mannered, working class are proud to be tough and more real than the rich kids, and the poor are proud to fight everything that gets thrown at them, and survive laughing in spite of losing all the time. Sounds like a loser’s game to me, but everybody plays it, and it’s not going away. Ever.

Minimum wage sets the bottom. It doesn’t need to be great, just enough.

Now you’re scaring me…

In reply to If you don’t give them a stake in the game

So if they don’t get the wage they want, it’s ok to resort to extortion!?!

Be real

In reply to Now you’re scaring me…

Social breakdown is not extortion. It’s a consequence.

If you drop a rock and it lands on your foot, is the rock doing it to extort altitude from you?

Are you as stupid as a rock?

In reply to Be real

Is everybody else who comprises society as stupid as a rock?

Check your premises.

That is typical

In reply to Be real

of someone who doesn’t think he is responsible for his own actions. The trial for these people usually ends with confinement to a mental health facility.

The less you expect from people

In reply to If you don’t give them a stake in the game

the less you will get.

Ever read a sign that says “Please don’t feed the animals”?

Do you know WHY that sign is there? Beleive it or not, it is NOT to be mean or crual to the animals.

Think about it.

“Please don’t feed the animals”

The sad thing about that is

In reply to The less you expect from people

Animals are being treated better than humans.

The Romans handled this well, for many centuries

In reply to If you don’t give them a stake in the game

they gave free bread issue to ALL citizens, and free entry into regular public entertainment. Kept everyone happy.

There is no social contract

In reply to The purpose of society

Rubbish. Absolute rubbish! I suggest you read Maxwell’s post which clearly and very concisely deals with the subject of a minimum wage.

As to your notion of a social contract – One of the things that has always made this country great and has attracted hundreds of millions of people from around the world to flock here is that in the United States of America it is possible to create vast amounts of wealth and prosperity from relatively nothing. As examples of this I give you Bill Gates (now the richest man in the world) and Oprah Winfrey. Both individuals were born into the middle class and both took the opportunities given them and forged great wealth and prosperity from it.

Social contract indeed, Hogwash!

Not only did they take advantage of opportunities.

In reply to There is no social contract

they [b]created[/b] opportunities that others have taken advantage of. I wonder how many [b]more[/b] opportunities they could create if their corporate taxes were eliminated.

To specifically answer your questions

In reply to What is the purpose of setting a minimum wage?

You asked, [i]”For what area is it determined? Some places cost more to live than others (sometimes even within the same city), so what do you do? Set it to be minimum for the ‘cheapest to live in’ place and let those in more expensive places suffer? Or set it for the most expensive place, and give those who live in cheaper places a windfall?[/i]

The federally mandated minimum wage is established on the national level. Each state may (and many do) establish its own minimum wage, but it may not be less than the national. The same applies to localities (cities), but it may not be lower than the state’s established minimum wage.

You asked, “….or do you tell people they can’t live in certain places where the cost is too high?”[/i]

I assume this is a rhetorical question. (But don’t plant any ideas in their minds!) However, a person’s financial capacity and resourcefulness does indeed limit the places he/she will be able to afford.

You asked, [i]”And who do you set it for? Do you set it to suit a single young man? a married couple, no children, both work? a married couple, two children, one works? a single mother who has to pay a baby sitter?”[/i]

Yes.

You asked, [i]”(and does the babysitter get minimum wage too?)”[/i]

No. Such a job is not covered under any minimum wage laws. They only apply to established employers who meet a certain set of criteria.

You asked, [i]”….or do you have different minimum wages for different people in different circumstances?”[/i]

No, one minimum wage applies to all.

You asked, [i]”And how are businesses supposed to pay for it (especially small businesses)? Does he raise his prices? Lay off some workers?”[/i]

Yes and yes.

You asked, [i]” And if he raises prices, doesn’t that defeat the purpose?”[/i]

Yes, it does.

You asked, [i]”Soon prices on everything will be higher and the new minimum wage will have the same purchasing power as the old one does now, wouldn’t it?”[/i]

Yes, it would.

You asked, [i]”And finally is there anyone else who has thought all of these things through?”[/i]

Yes, I have. Very thoroughly. But not many other people have.

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=201870&messageID=2103837

Thanks Max,

In reply to To specifically answer your questions

I have a pretty good idea of where various people stand, but was wanting to know the “Why’s and how’s”. For example:

[i]You asked, “And who do you set it for? Do you set it to suit a single young man? a married couple, no children, both work? a married couple, two children, one works? a single mother who has to pay a baby sitter?”[/i]

and you answered ‘Yes.’

But which one? The financial needs of these groups is certainly different, so am I to conclude that the setting of a minimum wage is completely disconnected from the needs of anyone?

and:

[i]You asked, “(and does the babysitter get minimum wage too?)”

No. Such a job is not covered under any minimum wage laws. They only apply to established employers who meet a certain set of criteria.[/i]

So the minimum wage has nothing whatsoever to do with what employees should earn, but (aside from it’s use as a propoganda tool) with what (some) employers should pay?

Interesting….

Most of you…

In reply to What is the purpose of setting a minimum wage?

…are too young to remember why we established the minimum wage but just keep electing free market privateers and you will find out first hand.

Times change

In reply to Most of you…

No longer are we limited to a single employer in an area, nor is it as difficult to go to another area. As with the unions, the original purpose has faded into oblivion.

True to an extent

In reply to Times change

The main purpose of a union was to protect employees when there was no legislation to do s. Now there is , but of course that could be changed and who funds the legislature.
You can give away your freedom whenever you want, you always have to take it back though.

It’s irrational to believe. . . . .

In reply to Most of you…

…that a change in policy will automatically mean a change in the status quo and/or a return to the past. I’m simply amazed that so many people in this discussion apparently believe that’s the case. I’m also amazed at how people ignore reality so as to avoid changing their long-held position. (Not one person, for example, has challenged or addressed the “facts” I previously posted, yet they continue with their misinformed arguments.)

Whereas labor unions, the establishment of a minimum wage, child labor laws, et al, once had both a valid and noble purpose, they’ve outgrown their usefulness — perhaps even to the point of becoming intrusive and unfair themselves. I apparently give people more credit than you (and others) seem to do, in that I believe society learns from past mistakes and experiences, and is an ever-growing and dynamic force which is built on those past experiences.

We could actually abolish the Thirteenth Amendment to our Constitution, for example, but there’s no way slavery would ever be acceptable in America again. We’ve grown beyond that; and we don’t need a law to keep it from happening. I’m not suggesting that we repeal the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, but there are indeed many laws on the books that should be repealed, and the minimum wage law is one such example.

It’s almost humorous, if it wasn’t so sad, that people debate today’s issues on the reality that existed one hundred years ago. After all, we all know that horses deserve the right-of-way on the nation’s roads! Right? (And I’d bet that there are, somewhere, still such laws on the books!)

We live (or should live) in a free society in which unnecessary government infringement into the lives of people and private business should be both strongly discouraged and limited in scope. And when laws (which are, by definition, intrusive on individual liberty) outlive their usefulness, they should be repealed.

We simply do not need a minimum wage law in the United States. Not only does the law no longer apply, but the law, itself, has now become the abuser.

How charitable of you!

In reply to It’s irrational to believe. . . . .

“I apparently give people more credit than you (and others) seem to do, in that I believe society learns from past mistakes and experiences, and is an ever-growing and dynamic force which is built on those past experiences.”

When people fail to live up to my standards, I withdraw my respect for those people.

Therefore what?

In reply to How charitable of you!

Does that mean you’re in general agreement or general disagreement with the general intent of my message? (Generally speaking, of course.)

P.S. For a person to “set standards” for others to live up to is …… well, I won’t go there, but it’s anything but libertarian. A true libertarian will concede that others have the right to set their own standards, as long as the establishment of those standards doesn’t infringe in the liberty of another.

Oh well, whatever floats your boat! I find contradictions in your messages all the time. I shouldn’t be surprised to see another one.

Therefore, very little.

In reply to Therefore what?

A small point, but to be as generous as you would be frustrating to me. I doubt you deserve that.

“P.S. For a person to “set standards” for others to live up to is …… well, I won’t go there, but it’s anything but libertarian. A true libertarian will concede that others have the right to set their own standards, as long as the establishment of those standards doesn’t infringe in the liberty of another.”

I agree that others have the right to set their own standards, and I see I was unclear. I don’t withdraw the basic respect [b]of[/b] others’ rights to set their own standards (provided theirs don’t infringe on my equal rights to set mine), but I withdraw the additional level of respect, akin to friendship, when others fail to live up to the basic standards of a rational human, making a reasonable effort. What I was trying to say is that you seem to be trying awfully hard to encourage people who don’t wish your encouragement, nor to attempt to live up to the standards that you implicitly assume all two-legged walkers must recognize. Most do not. You have my sympathy, Maxwell, little as you may want it.

I thought my 13th Amendment example . . . .

In reply to Therefore, very little.

…was a pretty clear illustration to show how societies grow. Just as I don’t believe slavery could ever happen again in the United States (even without that particular amendment), I also don’t believe that gross mistreatment of workers could ever happen again either, at least not in today’s business and economic climate. Agree or not, it doesn’t really matter, though, because the worst that could happen is that I’m wrong about the outcome if all minimum wage laws were repealed — in which case, they could always be brought back. I think it’s more reasonable to assume that I’m right, however, because “society” has grown past that, and it no longer needs that particular law to maintain a reasonable semblance of order in that regard.

And you actually have my sympathy if you disagree. By the way, do you disagree? (A simple yes or no will suffice.)

No.

In reply to I thought my 13th Amendment example . . . .

Those laws were never necessary. When Pope Leo XIII “benevolently” suggested a “living wage”, slavery had already been abolished in the United States, meaning that people were already [b]free[/b] to leave a job that paid too little for them to [b]live[/b]. When somebody can explain to me why workers ever had the right to extort more than their fair market value, I’ll discuss in terms of “growing past” that need, but nobody can.

No need?

In reply to I thought my 13th Amendment example . . . .

[i]…slavery had already been abolished in the United States, meaning that people were already free to leave a job that paid too little for them to live.[/i]

Did I miss something in my labor history classes? Could you please explain to me how a coal miner living in a company town, being paid in company script, was “free” to leave on the company train and not essentially a slave? Many other workers in single-industry towns were in the same situation. They were not free to leave because they were paid in script, not cash, and therefore had no actual money. “Fair market value” was decided by the same people who hired the thugs to keep workers in and unions out.

Granted, by the time the first national minimum wage was passed in 1938, companies were required to pay workers in currency and allow other businesses to compete for the worker’s custom, but it had only been since 1933.

NickNeilsen: I never took that labor history class.

In reply to I thought my 13th Amendment example . . . .

I have never heard of laborers accepting jobs that pay anything but government-backed legal tender. Assuming that your story is something more than the product of your own imagination, the workers in question did, at they time they accepted employment, have the option to decline such employment. Based on the fact that they accepted the terms of employment in the first place, [b]the[/b] rational conclusion is that such was their [b]best[/b] option, at that time. Do [b]you[/b] assert that all laborers are morons incapable of identifying, and choosing [b]how[/b] to pursue, our own self-interest?

[edit: specified replying to NickNeilsen]

And it shows

In reply to I thought my 13th Amendment example . . . .

For a minute there, I WAS imagining a reasoned discussion, but I guess I was wrong.

Live & learn:

http://tinyurl.com/f66v5
http://tinyurl.com/ko2sl

Edited to correct spelling and add: This was not the best option for them; it was the [b]only[/b] option for them.

And even more important is the question

In reply to How charitable of you!

what happened to your mouse?

Only half your avitar is loading.

My mouse???

In reply to And even more important is the question

What do you mean? I know my avatar used to take a ridiculous time to load, but I thought that replacing the .bmp with a .jpg fixed that long ago.

Anyway, what would the mouse have to do with a picture file problem? You techies…

You should get out more

In reply to It’s irrational to believe. . . . .

Slavery still exists.
So does indenture.
Repeal the laws and someone will use them to make a profit. It’s not against the law, so why should they not? There’s only one reason to support repealing the codifications of basic human rights, so you can violate them again ‘legally’.

You want to have a real effect on society by repealing a law, drugs is where you should look. That’s profitable because it is illegal.

You should read my messages

In reply to You should get out more

Slavery does not exist in the United States, which is what I said. Nonetheless, it’s a moot point, since our 13th amendment should not, and will not, be repealed.

I’m also in favor of repealing most drug laws as well.

It doesn’t ?

In reply to You should read my messages

It doesn’t exist as an instituion. I bet there are slaves in the US. Prostitution slavery is big business in europe.

Nice to know we do agree on something else though. I’d love to see the drug cartels faces if it was legalised.

Today in the New York Times (TPOR)

In reply to Most of you…

…Corporate profits, meanwhile, are at their highest share of gross domestic product since the 1960?s…(meanwhile)…We are getting closer and closer to a work force with no benefits and no substantive protections.

Now me…Our elected officials (federal) take an oathe to uphold the Constitution. Historically; the government has enacted worker protections (like minimum wage) under the welfare clause. That is …”promote the general Welfare…” of the people to whom the Constitution is dedicated (as in “We the People..”. Nowhere does it say “..to protect our corporate interests here and abroad”. But like I said…keep it up and you we learn the hard way…”those who forget history are doomed…”

Thanks

In reply to Today in the New York Times (TPOR)

[i]…Corporate profits, meanwhile, are at their highest share of gross domestic product since the 1960?s]

I’ll bet that the New York times thought you understood the significance of that statement, they wouldn’t have printed it.

(clue: What happenned (or perhaps more accurately, “Who”) in the 1960s to cause the profit margin to drop?)

And Who…

In reply to Thanks

…decided it is a good idea to lower taxes on the wealthy during times of war…and who says it is ok to spend Trillions on a war based on lies while cutting social programs..and who would advance those corporate interests abroad while demanding draconian cuts in funding in oppressed countries? If people are that stupid they deserve what they get.

I don’t know where you get that….

In reply to And Who…

[i] And Who…

…decided it is a good idea to lower taxes on the wealthy during times of war.[/i]

…However you figure it, actual dollars, adjusted dollars, or percentage of GNP, spending on social programs has increased every single year since LBJ took office.

And I hate to tell you this again, but businesses (most wealth is created by business) do not pay taxes… any tax levied upon them is passed along to the consumer, built in to the cost of the product or service… so when you cut taxes on business, you are actually helping the consumer.

[i]and who would advance those corporate interests abroad while demanding draconian cuts in funding in oppressed countries?[/i]

You really should see an eye doctor, because you’re as blind as a bat! Do you really think the government makes anything? Did they build a single city? Have they made a microwave, a car, or even a bicycle?

No, they didn’t. They [b]can’t![/b] “Corporate interests” makes these things. Always have, always will. It is they who put off their ‘instant gratification’ by investing, and they who risk losing their capital in the process. Profit (when it happens) is the reward for their patience and willingness to risk.

Leeching off of that profit is what big government, and those who support it, do. You can only load the mule down so much before you break its back. That’s what you and yours are trying to do, and if you are successful, more businesses will pull out of this country. Then what are you going to do? Who is going to pay for the social services then? Oh, I know, you’d do what the Russians did… have the government take over all capital… well, we know how that one turned out. Without profit, there was no new capital created, so they just rode that horse until it broke down.

Your way is already a proven failure. Government, any form… any party…, is the enemy of human advancement. They leech off the fruits of your labors, and restrict your freedoms. The need to be minimized and put back in their place as [b]servants[/b] of society and the first step is to get them completely out of the charity business (they’re obviously not very good at it!).

Oops… little faults in the dogma

In reply to I don’t know where you get that….

While I’m not anti-capitalist, I don’t lean on fantasies to make them seem more saintly, nor government more evil.

Spending on social programs, even as a % of GDP, probably has gone up every year since LBJ, but that includes a little program called Social Security. Possibly you were thinking of everything else (job training subsidies, welfare, etc.)

The idea that the consumer, in the end, pays all business taxes in the form of higher prices is true, but if businesses were not taxed at all, then business owners would find ways of including personal activities as business operations, to exclude them from tax. For example, in the 70s, somebody I knew very well created a leasing corporation to own his family cars. It only cost $20 to file a corporation in Colorado in those days. Everything he invested in the business was lost, because it made no profit and was left with nearly worthless cars at the end of his lease; hence his car payments became business losses, deductible against his other investment income (which was taxed at the rate of 40% to 80% in those days.) Clever, and completely legal, at the time.

Corporate owners do not actually “make” anything… they assume risk, and they manage, but the president of a pencil company does not spend many hours in the year bent over a lathe or a glue machine. His workers make the product, and the gross margin (retail value vs factory cost) is what makes all other business activities, including profit, possible.

It is possible to break the financial back of the business owner, by assigning more and more costs to him, but it is sure possible to break the spiritual back of the worker, who is the fuel for the whole capitalist engine.

That’s one of the reasons why we need a minimum wage.

Investment income shouldn’t be taxed either.

In reply to Oops… little faults in the dogma

If there’s no tax, there’s no reason for a loss deduction! The only thing that should be taxed is excessive consumption (‘excessive’, for this purpose, is defined by the poverty level), as everything people tend to do with capital (besides consuming, of course) tends to create more capital.

[i]It is possible to break the financial back of the business owner, by assigning more and more costs to him, but it is sure possible to break the spiritual back of the worker, who is the fuel for the whole capitalist engine.

That’s one of the reasons why we need a minimum wage.[/i]

First, as has been pointed out incessantly by those who are accusing the government of violating the first amendment, [b]It’s not the job of government to care for anyone’s ‘spirit’![/b] Second, if anything, setting a minimum wage breaks the workers’ spirit, thus also violating the first amendment. It also violates the 14th (equal protection). How dare the government prevent the lesser-skilled citizen with no prospects of formal education the same option that others are allowed to freely choose. A business owner is permitted to operate at a loss (investing in the future… when it is hoped that business will pick up). A college student is allowed to work a few hours a week when not studying (basically doing the same thing… studying is an investment in [/b]his[/b] future when it is hoped that [b]his[/b] ‘business’ will pick up). Why is the low-skilled worker not allowed to do the same thing? operate at a lower wage to start… to get an opportunity to learn… in the workplace itself, in the hope that [b]his[/b] ‘investment’ will lead to bigger and better things?

It seems to me… yet again… that the government is actually [b]causing[/b] the problem it claims it is trying to solve!

Yeah right…

In reply to I don’t know where you get that….

…that’s the same crap Regan spread in the eighties…”..get off the back of business and they will energize America” (to paraphrase)… and America is still waiting. Business took the windfall profits and headed offshore before people woke up. What is a corporation without people? When is the last time you saw a corporate executive create anything (or their rented politicians for that matter)? And please do not tell me we are better off! I have lived long enough to know better!

If businesses’ backs had been

In reply to Yeah right…

actually ‘gotten off of’, it would have slowed, but not stopped the problem. Even Reagan couldn’t undo the damage that has been done. Government cannot solve this problem… they [b]are[/b] the problem!

Haleula!!!

In reply to I don’t know where you get that….

Praise Jesus!
Sombody spoke the truth!
Big government is the downfall of any nation. Big government “robs” from the working man or woman no matter how much they make and gives it to the “poor me” people that are too lazy to get off their duffs and make a living like everyone else. The “I should have what they have” dilusion that most people are under these days is redicilious! It’s just plain out crazy and will lead to the fall of us all!

How bout this…
Why don’t we try taking the money that the government is giving away to these lazy “couch testers” and breeders and pay off the national debt. Remember when gas was $0.50 a gallon? Milk was less than a dollar a gallon? A loaf of bread was $0.75? what was the minimum wage then? I believe it was somthing like $4.25 and hour. Now it’s $5.75 and hour and Milk a gallon is almost 4 buck, bread is 2 buck and gas in back down to 2 bucks a gallon.

I hope that you see a point in this comparision. If you don’t, then you are truly blind.

If Government is the Problem…

In reply to I don’t know where you get that….

…then we are the problem…all of us…as in “We the People…”. (You should try to think these things through).

Thinking Things Through

In reply to If Government is the Problem…

Let’s see here…
We the people…
Elect government officials…
The people never have direct control if any control over the House, Senate, or the legislative branches…
Then the elected officials do what they want to…
Elected officials hiding what they actually do by distracting the people with other things…
Elected Officials do one or two things at the end of their term for the people to get re-elected for their office…
Somewhere in all of this they vote to give themselves pay raises…

Now… think about that for quite a while before responding…

Our government is never actually and has never actually been controlled by the people, EVER! In the end, it all comes down to what do I have to do to buy votes.

It’s not about lierity. It’s not about happines. It’s not about freedom.

IT IS ABOUT MONEY! ALL ABOUT MONEY!

Stop being blind and realize this.

You go ahead and think that

In reply to If Government is the Problem…

while your representative votes himself another raise, without producing a raise in the level of ‘service’.

[sarcasm]
Gee, maybe everyone should work for the government, then everyone would get a raise.
[/sarcasm]

Tony

In reply to If Government is the Problem…

We should run for pres and vice pres!
Then we could vote ourselves a pay raise and maybe make some good change!

The change

In reply to If Government is the Problem…

has to come from within. People can’t be dragged kicking and screaming into happiness.

Corporate profits are decided by much more than wages

In reply to Today in the New York Times (TPOR)

Being up asa percentage of domestic product, just shows that the DP is down for some reason, and they’re getting more profit from overseas. Another side aspect is that they are looking at the total dollars – a much more accurate way of looking at corporate profit is to look at it as a percentage of total revenue, this gives a much clearer picture of their profit margins. If small business worked on the same profit margins as major corporations, they wouldn’t exist – many overheads reduce, per capita, with size.

However, a few really big companies are a problem, either individually, or as a group, because of their predatory business practices (notably MS and RIAA) it’s these types that go about buying protective actions and legislation by buying elected officials.

Anyway, back to the subject – corporate profits are not directly affected by the minimum wage issue, while small business operations are.

Interesting is

In reply to Corporate profits are decided by much more than wages

how many of those (things that determine profit) are imposed on them by the government… how much “overhead” is used, just to comply with government regulations (and add no value to the product or service). In the U.S. it’s some half a trillion (that’s the US trillion, 10^12) dollars a year! money that consumers are spending, but does nothing useful for the economy.

If Everyone Made What They Were Worth…

In reply to Most of you…

…half of you friggin’ techno-geeks would starve. What are you gonna eat?…code…printed circuits?…no…you need food, which means you need farmers…which means we need everyone, so forget the life-boat politics and the “bottom feeder” hate-speech. This is the USA damnit and there better be a social contract. That’s why there is a minimum wage!

The less you expect

In reply to If Everyone Made What They Were Worth…

the less you will get.

I can’t speak for you or the techs you know that you seem to think are all way over paid, but I AM worth what I am paid.

Earn your own keep.

Expanding the welfare state is not a solution, and raising minimum wage does not help low income as the majority are not working at McDonalds flipping burgers, and generally make over minimum.

Do you really think farmers are poor? Do you think farmers pay more than minumum wage to field workers? Who do you think one of the biggest employers of illegal imigrants is? Bingo, the farmers.

This has been your wakeup call.

And Farmers are paid to…

In reply to The less you expect

leave a field fallow for a season by the government.
(For those who don’t know what fallow is, it’s where you don’t grow anything there for a while. To let the soil rest.)

From what I understand, the government pays them more to let it lay fallow than they would actually make growing somthing on it. I could be wrong on this fact considering that I heard it third hand.

Yes most to all farmers are one of the highest contributors to illegal immigrant employment. The second is the small construction companies. If you think your house was built by a white guy? Think again, the white guy was calling the shots and the illegal mexicans built it. That’s one reason that build quality is so poor.

If you doubt me; go by a subdivision they are building in your area while the construction crews are there. Count how many hispanic workers to others. Now take 95% at least and those are illegal. Let Immigration come by, only the black and white guys will be left and all the hispanics will have fled. I’ve seen it first hand.

That’s Al Gore’s plan.

In reply to And Farmers are paid to…

Declaring tobacco smoke a ‘major contributor’ to global warming, getting it banned, then reaping the rewards of operating his tobacco fields at a ‘loss’ 🙂

They’re also paid to store it in siloes “for emergencies”.

In reply to And Farmers are paid to…

Enough to feed every hungry person on Earth, and it isn’t even for sale. I know that isn’t contributing to [b]my[/b] life, liberty, welfare, or pursuit of happines. What about you? I call for a roll call vote.

Storing in silos IS a good thing!

In reply to They’re also paid to store it in siloes “for emergencies”.

Think of this for a moment.

say somthing catastrophic happens. A volcano erupts that sends ash in to the atmosphiere that blocks the majority of the suns rays for a year or two. That would make a short growing season. Proabbly so short that not enough food could be grown to support the population. That’s when what’s stored in those silos would benifit us.

Or better yet, a drought. How many plants do you know that grow with out water that we can actually eat? None or not many? If you do, please let me know. That’s when the surplus in those silos would be useful.

The government pays rent to store those reserves in those silos. That’s smart. It dosen’t benifit us immediately but it sure does cover our arses if somthing happens to stunt our food production capabilities.

Did you think that far ahead? Proably not. That’s ok though, most people just aren’t equipped to think that far ahead. It’s a lesson that we can learn from history and (gasp) even the Bible. It’s not trivial to store food for the hard times. It’s smart.

So, tell me, would you rather them store the food and have it if and when we need it and accept the cost of storing such provisions, or would you rather not do that and sooner or later look starvation in the face?

Basically, feast or fammon?

I disagree.

In reply to Storing in silos IS a good thing!

Natural disasters are local, and we’d be better off in the long-term if we send our excess food to countries that would eat it, in exchange for both money and the simple pleasure of putting the food to use, feeding people whose countries aren’t productive enough to provide for them all. In the case of a drought or other disaster, the local decrease in agricultural output could easily be covered by imports. The short term financial cost of that solution would be greatly exceeded by the long-term benefits to our relations with the rest of the world.

cparris: “The government pays rent to store those reserves in those silos. That’s smart. It dosen’t benifit us immediately but it sure does cover our arses if somthing happens to stunt our food production capabilities.

Did you think that far ahead? Probably not. That’s ok though, most people just aren’t equipped to think that far ahead. It’s a lesson that we can learn from history and (gasp) even the Bible. It’s not trivial to store food for the hard times. It’s smart.”

In biblical times, food could not have been imported from the far side of the Earth, in the case of a localized natural disaster. Today it can, and should, instead of ignoring improvements in transportation technology. What we can learn from history, [b]above all else[/b], is that times change, so the choice that was best in one time and place will not necessarily be the best in another time and place. Much of what was smart in the past is foolish now, including hoarding food as though a natural disaster could occur that would uniformly reduce agricultural output everywhere on Earth. Any such cataclysm would kill us all instantly, and we wouldn’t have the time to get hungry.

I agree but it may not be first hand

In reply to Most of you…

It may take a little longer than that. It will be their children that learn that lesson.

my thoughts

In reply to What is the purpose of setting a minimum wage?

i dont believe the minimum wage is enough to live anywhere really.BUT most people do not call the basics “food,shelter” its food,shelter,cell phone,cable,nice car.I know a few people at work who complain all the time about not being able to pay bills and such but they all have cell phones,all the cable channels you can get.so i dont understand that part.we have a local news guy that did a story about time warner charging a dollar to pay their bill in person.and the person who is complaining about this is some poor person and im supposed to feel bad he is being charged a dollor to pay his bill?…..yea whatever.

Dumb people deserve what they get

In reply to my thoughts

If “you” run up “your” expenses because “you” feel you DESERVE something, then the average person would not and should not shed a tear of sympathy over “your” stupidity.

[i]disclaimer: “you” is meant in the generic form, not pointed at Ericl or anyone specific. If you see that it applys to YOU, then YOU are the YOU I was refering to.[/i]

Secret to happiness, want less, and appreciate what you DO have more.

Dumb and Stupid

In reply to Dumb people deserve what they get

are two diffrent things. Dumb is you don’t know better so you don’t or can’t do better.
Stupid is you know better but you still don’t do any better.
With that said, if anyone is actually stupid enough to run up their debts to where they can’t afford it; I have absolutely no sympanthy (sp?) for them. They knew that they shouldn’t do it but did anyway.
The question here actually is “why should I be penalized for your lack of ability to have dicipline and manage your finances correctly?”
Speaking of which….
Why should I penalized for those that won’t make an effort to get off their tails and get a job? Why do they have the fedral govenment rob from me to support their stupid lives and choices?

Ignorance can be fixed

In reply to Dumb and Stupid

Stupid is forever.

The ones that bother me are the ones that rack up the bills, then declare bankrupcty, rack up the bills, then declare bankruptcy…

My question is who do these people know that they can continually get credit after consecutive bankruptcies?

How the law is structured

In reply to Ignorance can be fixed

People who declare bankruptcey cannot declair it for a few years after that. During that time they have to pay every bill they’ve created or settle the agreement in satisfactory terms. After the time limit is up they can declare bankruptcey again. That’s how they get credit afterwords.

Now, if you have to point the blame finger, it would have to be at the financial institutions that do this even though they have a guarranteed payback for a few years. They should deny anyone that has declaired bankruptcey more than once within 15 years.

Definitely

In reply to How the law is structured

The people I am talking about are the serial bankrupts: rack up the bills, bankrupt, discharge, rack up the bills, bankrupt, discharge, ad infinitum. I know of a couple in their 60s who have declared bankruptcy 5 times! Five! Every 8 years, like clockwork. Each time they owed over $100k (not including the new house). Each time they kept a bigger house and better cars.

How do these people get credit? I should think the credit agencies would flag their records or something.

BK

In reply to Definitely

Not the home of the whopper. BK is how it shows up for 10 years on your credit report.

It’s not that difficult to get credit after a BK. You may end up paying a higher interest rate but you can get credit. I get at least one credit card offer every day of the week. Sometimes two or three. Add a little melted parrafin wax and they make great fire starters. B-) I have a debit card. It works for me.

I worked on the same hierarchy level with a Corporate Manufacturing Engineering Manager at a Fortune 500 company who had owned and bankrupted 3 [b]businesses[/b]. He worked there to pay off a personal loan from the very wealthy Chairman of the Board thru payroll deduction.

Think of the lives disrupted.

Amazingly, to me, some of his former employees were still loyal to him. That’s probably because he found them to be “qualified” for jobs at the same place we both worked. They seemed to avoid me for some reason.

He was a trip.

During an overseas assignment to India he had to fly Tourist class while the rest of us flew Business class at $5,000.00 a pop. Bummer. His sense of humor about that was what you’d expect when I asked how he managed to squeeze his fat ass into one of those seats. He almost spewed his after dinner cocktail thru his nose.

There must be some way to finagle debt that I don’t know about. The dood mentioned above never lost his home, his cars, or anything substantial. He’d laugh about the entire BK thing. He wouldn’t explain anything, he’d just laugh.

I’ll guesstimate the market value on his home during his last BK at $750K. It’s a little bit nicer than the one I have.

Seems fair to me.

The laws usually state that a bankrupt person is cleared

In reply to How the law is structured

of the debt after ‘x’ years, and it’s not allowed for people to hold that against them. Maybe we should see about changing the laws and reinstating a debtors’ prison, where they can do semi-skilled work to pay off the debt.

Great idea!!!

In reply to The laws usually state that a bankrupt person is cleared

Where do I sign up?

I don’t know if blame is the right word.

In reply to How the law is structured

[i]Now, if you have to point the blame finger, it would have to be at the financial institutions that do this even though they have a guarranteed payback for a few years.[/i]

Just like a store owner includes the loss due to the occasional theft in his prices, banks include the loss due to the occasional default in theirs.

It’s just business!

My student life

In reply to my thoughts

Yes it has been years since my university days, but when I look back, here is what I had and didn’t have.

I didn’t have a car. I took the train or bus from school to home(not often), a trip of about 400 miles. I had a bus pass for the winter and a bicycle in the summer.

I didn’t have a TV. My roomate did and that was fine. I was studying with a radio, mono with cassette. I didn’t have a stereo. We just had rabbit ears and got 4 channels.

Didn’t have a cell phone, or even an answering machine. Roomate would take messages for me and vice versa.

I couldn’t afford to eat out much. I did get one meal a day at the university – the salad bar was cheap. That was my luxury. A couple of times a week I might have a beer.

But when I look back at it, it was some of the happiest times in my life. I had great friends. We had good times on the cheap.

James

Study History

In reply to What is the purpose of setting a minimum wage?

Everything you mentioned should be considered but you never mentioned the history behind the whole thing. Why did it start in the first place? Weren’t the open markets able to support an adequate wage for all employees? Maybe not. A sliding scale seems to be valid. You never mentioned taking a cut in profits to pay your employees more. If you’re running a small business and you have to pay too high of wages to make a go of it; find another business or go get a job. Cotton farmers in the South took a huge cut in profits when slavery was abolished. Stop making buggy whips and create a business model that pays a high enough wage to the people who are making your business function. Unless you want to do everything yourself.

I don’t know who was responsible for the minimum wage elsewhere

In reply to Study History

but in Australia it was brought in by the political arm of the Trade Union Movement, way back when.

You guys think you have it bad, here in Australia, one of our major political parties is the mouth piece for the Trade Union Movement, and their constituion is such that if the party membership says “a” and the union leadership says “b”, then the political party MUST do “b” and any attempt to do otherwise sees them dumped from their position in the party.

There have been cases of the party pushing a policy during an election campaign, and upon election the trade union mangement say “don’t do it” and the elected government doesn’t do it as its that party – seems not even the voters have a right to expect those party people to do anything but obey the union movement.

Unions are Detrimental

In reply to I don’t know who was responsible for the minimum wage elsewhere

to business and the work place anywhere. They want a raise… they go strike and just about shut the business down. I see it like this…
If a union strikes… fire every one of them that’s out there picketing or on strike, hire new people, move on with life.
Unions impede progress. Unions say that you can’t fire someone just because they are part of a union. Unions expect dues paid to them and what I’ve here they aren’t cheap. Unions say that every year that the company is REQUIRED to give a specific raise weather the employee is deserving or not. And if a company dosen’t… look out they start threatening to strike or actually do strike until their demands are realized.

For those of you that are part of a union, please don’t be offended. This is only what I have seen as an outsider looking in.

However, if the shoe fits; wear it.

Sometimes, not always and never used to be.(UK)

In reply to Unions are Detrimental

the only reason you don’t need a union now is because they were needed once, and they answered that need.

Every piece of legislation that safeguards us from abuse by an employer is a result of union activity.

I’m a brit without the labour movement which was paid for by my forefathers contributions to a union out of a salary that an illegal immigrant wouldn’t touch, I wouldn’t even have a vote !

A lot of your constitution is a reaction against the injustices unions were fighting.

There are unions who’ve forgotten, there are workers who have, but remember the union wasn’t some external political body, it was us and if required it will be again.

True, but…

In reply to Sometimes, not always and never used to be.(UK)

The unions that have forgotten will eventualy take the companies that they work for and make them go under. It is good that they caused good changes, but when they get upset over somthing like a pay raise and strike, that’s bad for business everywhere espically if it’s a company like FedEx or UPS.
The last UPS strike is what I remember. UPS lost millions of dollars in accounts simply because the union striked. The vast majority of that business went to FedEx and Airborne. Then after that, UPS laid off lots of people. This all happened over the thanksgiving and Christmas holidays. That was a nice present from the union to those that wern’t protected by it.

That’s my point. People are too selfish to consider the big picture. It’s almost always “what can I get me with the lease ammount of effort?” not “What kind of ripple will this cause and could it possiably put me or anyone else out of a job?”

Does that make any sense?

I can only argue from a UK perspective

In reply to True, but…

Unions with this sort of practice no longer exist in the UK.
I was a fully paid up member of a union from 81 – 99. I’ve never been on strike.
I have been injured though, I’ve seen colleagues suffere even worse. I’ve seen management encourage people to fracture safety procedures so they can make and extra buck. I’ve seen them try to hide the evidence of their culpability. I’ve seen them try to rip me off, to renege on verbal and written agreements.
All of which I would have been next to powerless to fight on my own.

Don’t throw unions out, throw the chiselers out. Like any other politician the only power they have is that which you lend them. If they aren’t using it in your interests, take it back.

You usually don’t continue

In reply to Study History

to take antibiotics after the infection is gone.

buggy whips?

In reply to Study History

That had nothing to do with rising wages, so not the best thought out example.

Cotton farmers, now that is an example of a shifting economy. Sure they “freed” the slaves, and even started to pay a wage. Of course what they charged to live there was more than the workers made, so they HAD to work more to pay off their debt. I think that is EXACTLY what happens with the minimum wage and the people that are of limited mental capacity that think they “deserve” to make a living at that skill level of a job. Yes, you make more, but the price of everything goes up and so they are not any better off. But the feel gooders like yourself can trot around because you did something to “help” the poor poor without having to reach in your own pocket once, until YOU have to purchase the products at a higher price. You sure are generous with other peoples money.

Back to “How can Americans compete with Asians?”

In reply to What is the purpose of setting a minimum wage?

Move the Asians here. In other words, increase immigration quotas. That way, the competition will at least have to pay American prices, and will be less able to work for drastically less than American wages. Anyway, we’re competing against person X in country Y already. The more “foreigners” we see in person, the better we’ll understand the competition.

You are obviously on crack

In reply to Back to “How can Americans compete with Asians?”

Move MORE foreigners here??!! Why? They already suck our economy dry by being illegial! They disrespect our country! They fail to abide by our laws! They don’t pay taxes! Not to mention that most of the immigrants that come here are criminals anyway! I know what you are going to say… not all immigrants are criminials. Illegial imigrants are criminials! They have violated many laws and the immigration process! I am not opposed to someone wanting to come here from another country legeally and do their best to assimilate into our culture. Our ancestors did when they came over. More power too them and welcome!

It’s time for me to stop. I really want to get ugly about this immigrant thing.

You already have.

In reply to You are obviously on crack

“I really want to get ugly about this immigrant thing.”

You may check that off your to-do list, you’ve already done it.

“Move MORE foreigners here??!! Why? They already suck our economy dry by being illegial! They disrespect our country! They fail to abide by our laws!”

Which immigrants? Which laws? Other than wading across the Rio Grande, would you be surprised to learn that crime rates are lower among immigrants, including both legal and illegal, than among citizens born in the United States? That immigrants consume less money in government handouts than citizens born in the United States? That may be partly because they don’t own corporate farms or oil companies, but still, they are better citizens, on average, than “you”.

Also, they can probably spell “Illegial imigrants” better than you did!

“I am not opposed to someone wanting to come here from another country legeally and do their best to assimilate into our culture.”

You are a moron, and intelligent people have better things to do with our effort than “do their best to assimilate into our culture.”

How bout this

In reply to You already have.

1. Since you’re in Oregon, I’m fairly sure, it?s an assumption, that you don’t have a Hispanic epidemic like we do here in the south.
2. How many stores do you walk into that you have to speak another language to be able to buy or find anything?
3. The spelling thing; most of these illegals can’t speak English much less spell or write it. I don?t profess to be and English major or teacher or even have a decent grasp on spelling but I am able to communicate in English.
4. These “angels” as you make them out to be want us to speak their language, and want us to teach in their language, fly their country’s flag, etc, etc, etc add nausea. Yes the puke kind.
5. The fact of the matter is the illegal immigrants that are here are criminals. They have and are breaking federal and international laws. You can justify it any way that you want with money, or crop harvesting or what ever. I am not opposed to them being here as long as it?s in some sort of legal sense.
6. For those that have come here legally; these illegal immigrants are an insult, and an embarrassment to who they are. That?s straight from the ?horse?s? mouth. They learned English. They followed the process and actually probably know more about the history of this country than I do currently. As for their original language, I don?t care if they use it at home or between themselves.
7. It is fairly apparent that you have never been in this region of the country. Until you have lived here and understand what exactly is going on; put a sock in it. On the off chance that you are an immigrant, are you legal or illegal? If you’re illegal then you are a criminal as well. If you are legal, then congrats, good job, and welcome.

Finally, where do you get your numbers for the support and government funding? What are your other sources of information on this matter?

What about free trade?

In reply to How bout this

It’s a good thing right? Capital is free to make investments around the globe…free to cross borders without restriction. Why not people?

because not all people

In reply to What about free trade?

are people we want in this country.

But you already knew that.

Some money is not clean either…

In reply to because not all people

…but that is not the point. There are two basic business components; labor and capital. Capital is free to cross borders with a minimum of restrictions and people are not. How can trade with people who are locked down be called free?

Money dosen’t commit crimes…

In reply to because not all people

or harm people. People harm people. To blame money is like blaming guns for killing people. Guns don’t kill people by themselves. People kill people.

Think about that and then apply it to other aspects of people wanting control.

Right you are…

In reply to because not all people

…a gun does not kill…it’s the man behind it: so people don’t kill… it’s the money behind it. Money has killed plenty of folks pal.

Then the obvious solution

In reply to because not all people

is to ban the money, NOT allow an open house to anyone that wants to come into the country.

We can start by you sending me your next pay check?

Money dosen’t kill….

In reply to because not all people

Tell me…
How exactly does an inanimate object kill someone? Does it get up and paper cut them to death? Oh, I know, a gigantic quanty of it falls on them!?

Face it, your logic makes no sense. It’s the person that either has or wants the money that does the killing; not the money it’s self.

Money does nothing but sit there unable to think, breathe, move, speak, or anything else for that matter. Same thing with a gun. They both do nothing until a person picks them up and utilizes it.

If you can think of a way that money can, all by it’s self, kill; please, let me know.

Logistical Nightmare

In reply to What about free trade?

Then who would pay taxes? How would that be kept up with? The only way that we could be fair on taxes is the national sales tax or the Fair Tax.

There are many many people that we don’t want here. We don’t want to support them. To open our boarders to anyone and everyone would make us a third world country almost overnight.

An excellent reason

In reply to Logistical Nightmare

to end ALL entitlement programs…

TonyTheTiger: “An excellent reason to end ALL entitlement programs”

In reply to Logistical Nightmare

Would you begin with corporate bailouts, utility subsidies, and other government gifts to millionaires & billionaires, or would you begin with Welfare, food stamps and other government gifts to the poor?

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-sm063099.html

Yes.

In reply to Logistical Nightmare

All of them.

So, by your rant

In reply to How bout this

every Hispanic in the South is illegal? Speaking of smoking illegal substances…

And an alternate point of view from the non-white non-European crowd:

Edit: formatting

I didn’t say…

In reply to So, by your rant

that every hispanic in the south was an illegal. Just most of them. Don’t forget that it’s not just the hispanics but there are illegals from almost every country.

Nice pic BTW.

Rebuttals, point by point – 1

In reply to How bout this

[i]1. Since you’re in Oregon, I’m fairly sure that you don’t have a hispanic epidemic like we do here in the south.[/i]

In fact, I have worked with legal migrant workers in the landscaping profession, here in Oregon. The Willamette Valley is very fertile, and as in other agricultural regions, a lot of farm work, especially during harvest, is performed by migrants, both legal and “illegial”.

You buffoon!

There?s a difference

In reply to Rebuttals, point by point – 1

You said ?legal?; I said ?illegal?. Their differences are like pistachios and watermelons.
Most illegal immigrants don?t like very cold weather.

2

In reply to How bout this

[i]2. How many stores do you walk into that you have to speak another language to be able to buy or find anything?[/i]

Zero. I use my eyes to find Asian or Central American foods in those stores, and my US currency is accepted regardless of the proprietors’ level of proficiency in English speech. If another language is spoken in a store [i]by the [b]rightful, legal owner[/b] of that store[/i], no person’s rights are violated by that. If, however, you walk into a store [b]owned by somebody else[/b] and presume to tell the owner of that store what language to speak, [b]you would be exceeding your station and violating that person’s rights[/b].

So I take it that?

In reply to 2

All of the products have the English names displayed? What about a big store like Wal-Mart?
And, no I don?t go to these stores unless it is an ABSOLUTE necessity.
And let?s get something straight. I am NOT proposing to tell someone how to run their store. I am my own keeper not yours or anyone else?s.

“…proposing to tell someone how to run their store.”

In reply to So I take it that?

[i]”And let?s get something straight. I am NOT proposing to tell someone how to run their store.”[/i]

Not directly or literally, I agree. Instead, you have taken the less honorable approach: you have included the complaint about foreign-born shopkeepers speaking their own languages in [b]their own[/b] stores in this discussion of illegal aliens (who will never own stores, unless US-born citizens transact illegally with them), but then disclaimed the assertion, disowning your previous complaint like a coward and ignoring the context of your remark.

[i]I am my own keeper not yours or anyone else?s.[/i]

Let’s get that straight, and apply it continuously.

You have it wrong again… Clairify before assumption, please

In reply to So I take it that?

Here is what I mean by all of that. I was providing a service for a Hispanic bar owner. I had built this guy up to 4K to 6K in gross sales on the nights I was there. I was the one that carried the bar and kept it open. Well I guess I wasn?t Hispanic enough for this fellow and he canceled my show only to bring me back 3 months later trying to jumpstart the crowd again. After My show was canceled he brought this Hispanic DJ in that was cheaper than my service. I watched his place go bankrupt over the course of les than six months. His Hispanic compadres had ultimately let him down. I didn?t tell him because I didn?t want to offend him. I hate to have seen that happen to a good guy. He called me up later wanting to sell it for $475K.

That?s what I mean by ?in their best interest?. If they are able to make it speaking whatever language they want, fine, it just seems to me that they would make more money by having the English as a secondary language. It just seems to me that they would have more customers spending money. If they want to fight the economy, fine. If they can keep their finances straight and in the ?black?, fine.

Keep this in mind; I have a hard time communicating my thoughts at times. However, I was not being cowardly or sheepish or anything else of that.

Make no mistake, though, this is an invasion.

Go “clairify” yourself, I made no assumptions.

In reply to So I take it that?

I responded to what you posted:
[i]So I take it that?
All of the products have the English names displayed? What about a big store like Wal-Mart?
And, no I don?t go to these stores unless it is an ABSOLUTE necessity.
And let?s get something straight. I am NOT proposing to tell someone how to run their store. I am my own keeper not yours or anyone else?s.
[/i]

You were talking about a store, and only changed the subject to your DJ job after I destroyed your argument as you originally presented. It isn’t my job to figure out what you mean but don’t say, nor to accomodate your deficincies in written communication.

[i]You have it wrong again… Clairify before assumption, please
Here is what I mean by all of that. I was providing a service for a Hispanic bar owner. I had built this guy up to 4K to 6K in gross sales on the nights I was there. I was the one that carried the bar and kept it open. Well I guess I wasn?t Hispanic enough for this fellow and he canceled my show only to bring me back 3 months later trying to jumpstart the crowd again. After My show was canceled he brought this Hispanic DJ in that was cheaper than my service. I watched his place go bankrupt over the course of les than six months. His Hispanic compadres had ultimately let him down. I didn?t tell him because I didn?t want to offend him. I hate to have seen that happen to a good guy. He called me up later wanting to sell it for $475K.

That?s what I mean by ?in their best interest?. If they are able to make it speaking whatever language they want, fine, it just seems to me that they would make more money by having the English as a secondary language. It just seems to me that they would have more customers spending money. If they want to fight the economy, fine. If they can keep their finances straight and in the ?black?, fine.

Keep this in mind; I have a hard time communicating my thoughts at times. However, I was not being cowardly or sheepish or anything else of that.

Make no mistake, though, this is an invasion.[/i]

I’ve heard that story before, but usually not in the context of race or immigration. A lot of owners of bars have been known to treat “the entertainment” as a commodity and sacrifice quality to save a buck. Every time, the more talented DJ is inconvenienced, but finds work, while the bar goes kaput. Usually, this story is delivered by a gloating DJ who has fared better than the guy who acted like he was “in charge” because he owned a building. It’s usually a very funny story to hear told.

It still looks to me like you’re trying to define somebody else’s best interest for him, but I appreciate putting your comments in context.

[i]That?s what I mean by ?in their best interest?. If they are able to make it speaking whatever language they want, fine, it just seems to me that they would make more money by having the English as a secondary language. It just seems to me that they would have more customers spending money. If they want to fight the economy, fine. If they can keep their finances straight and in the ?black?, fine.[/i]

A legal immigrant, who owns property legally, has inalienable rights, so, no matter what, as long as he doesn’t commit a crime, “fine”, with no qualifications whatsoever as to how he manages his property.

3

In reply to How bout this

[i]3. The spelling thing; most of these illegals can’t speak english much less spell or write it.[/i]

If misspelling was a crime you would be serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Capitalize “English” you buffoon.

And there it is again

In reply to 3

Name calling again? Like I said, it shows your true character and maturity level.
If name calling was a crime I?m sure you would be on death row by now and already put under.

If it were a crime

In reply to And there it is again

they would hang him high as an example for everyone else……

Ever seen “The Stand”?

THAT is enforcement/deterrent!

And if stupidity were a crime

In reply to And there it is again

The likes of you wouldn’t be around for me to call names, so we’re both lucky there aren’t such laws.

4

In reply to How bout this

[i]4. These “angels” as you make them out to be want us to speak their language, and want us to teach in their language, fly their country’s flag, ect, ect, ect add nausea.[/i]

Please cite examples of [b]illegal aliens[/b] asking or demanding any of the above.

The French “et cetera” is correctly abbreviated “etc.” with the “t” before the “c”. Also, you misspelled the Latin phrase “ad nauseum”. People with glass diplomas shouldn’t throw stones, you buffoon!

The real problems facing this country are due to ignorance and laziness of citizens born here, not migration of industrious workers from other countries.

It was Nausea… not nauseum

In reply to 4

Ok? let?s just petition our government to become part of Mexico. That will solve all of the problems. However, before that takes place, I will be exercising my right to leave if they actually decide to do that.

Whatever.

In reply to It was Nausea… not nauseum

[i]However, before that takes place, I will be exercising my right to leave if they actually decide to do that.[/i]

Want help packing?

Sure…

In reply to It was Nausea… not nauseum

As long as I can pack you in my septic tank before I go…

Cite examples…

In reply to 4

How?s this; friends, family, and myself have all been told by MANY of these illegals to speak their language, to teach in their language, and angrily and forcefully been commanded that we will conform to their society and customs. You?ll never see this on the news.

If you come here there many people that can tell you of their personal experience or someone that has had an experience of such nature.

People can lie.

In reply to Cite examples…

Record it on your video phone if it ever actually happened.

[i]How?s this; friends, family, and myself have all been told by MANY of these illegals to speak their language, to teach in their language, and angrily and forcefully been commanded that we will conform to their society and customs. You?ll never see this on the news.

If you come here there many people that can tell you of their personal experience or someone that has had an experience of such nature.[/i]

I suspect it’s true that I’ll never see any of that on the news. That doesn’t help me believe what you say.

5

In reply to How bout this

[i]5. The fact of the matter is the illegal immigrants that are here are criminals. They have and are breaking fedral and international laws.[/i]

You omitted an “e” from the word “federal”, you buffoon! I might stop critiquing your misuse of the English language, but only after you stop expecting others to conform to your irrational whims, such as speaking English in stores that [b]they own, and you do not[/b].

It is indeed a fact that immigration without documentation is defined by regulation as “criminal”. However, it is also a fact that without the number of “criminals” who immigrate illegally every year, the agriculture industry would be unable to harvest the crops that you and I both enjoy in grocery stores and restaurants as easily affordable meals.

You cannot [b]survive[/b] without Central American agricultural workers, [b]including those who migrate illegally every harvest season[/b]. I recognize the benefits that these “illegal aliens” provide to me and to the entire US society enough to accept that their presence is necessary. To count only the criminals, and inconveniences like hearing a second language in a store or classroom, is plain stupid.

It is apparent

In reply to 5

That you like to call names. That?s fine, to call someone else a name either to their face or behind their back is dishonorable. I haven?t called you anything.
The federal thing was a typo? so I can?t type, sue me which in PERFECTLY WITHIN YOUR RIGHTS. I never stated or implied that I was an English teacher, professor, or major for that matter.
I didn?t say that the store owners had to speak English or use it as their primary language in their store. However, would it not be in their BEST INTREST to at least have 1 person that spoke English since they are in a primarily English speaking country? You would have to agree that they would make more money that way. Or do you oppose the customer service aspect of business as well?
Necessary that they are here; maybe. Don?t kid yourself by thinking that they go back at the end of the harvest season. I do ask that if they do come here, that they do it legally.

I have always said that if someone wants to come to this country legally then welcome! If they want to speak their language in their family unit; fine. But be prepared to communicate with others that don?t speak that particular language. For example, if I were going to France, I would learn at least a little French. Or if I were going to Italy, I?d learn at least a little Italian.

re: “…would it not be in their BEST INTREST…?”

In reply to It is apparent

Maybe. Maybe not. The question is irrelevant, because it is not for you or for me to decide any third person’s best interest.

6

In reply to How bout this

[i]6. For those that have come here legeally (sic – correct spelling is “legally” without the second “e”); these immigrants are and (“an” not “and”, you buffoon) insult, and an (You spelled “an” correctly! Want a cookie?) embarrassment to who they are. They learned english. (If you feel so strongly about [b]other people[/b] using English, why do [b]you[/b] repeatedly fail to capitalize it, hypocrite?[/i]

How presumptuous of you to pretend to speak for [b]all legal immigrants![/b] You really are an [b]arrogant[/b] son of a monkey!

I’m glad that you have …

In reply to 6

sense enough to tease and taunt people. It shows your true character and your maturity level. I sincerely hope that you don?t treat your underlings in such a manner. If so; I would imagine that you either have low department morale, no one wants to work with you, or you have a high turnover rate in employees. I also wouldn?t be surprised if you had a really high IQ either. It?s a proven fact that people with high IQ?s are really book smart but when it comes to common sense, ?they ain?t got a lick.? That?s the norm; however, there are exceptions.

FYI… I don’t care if I misspelled any words in this one.

Does that mean people with high IQ don’t share your premises? I think so.

In reply to I’m glad that you have …

I don’t know a single, specific meaning of the phrase “common sense” so I’m not certain what it is that you asserting high IQ people haven’t licked. Based on what I know of you so far, thank you for the compliment.

[i]It?s a proven fact that people with high IQ?s are really book smart but when it comes to common sense, ?they ain?t got a lick.? That?s the norm; however, there are exceptions.[/i]

Proven how? By whom?

7

In reply to How bout this

[i]7. It is fairly apparent that you have never been in this region of the country. Until you have lived here and understand what exactly is going on; put a sock in it. On the off chance that you are an immigrant, are you legal or illegal? If you’re illegal then you are a criminal as well. If you are legal, then congrats, good job, and welcome.[/i]

Until [b]you[/b] know the facts you incorrectly assumed about Oregon in your part 1, [b]you[/b] put a sock in it, you buffoon.

Then inform me…

In reply to 7

I’d like to know.

100% legal citizen

In reply to Then inform me…

Whether immigrant or US-born is none of your business.

“Finally…”

In reply to How bout this

According to the Department of Customs & Border Protection, the cost of enforcing immigration law is only $7.8B:
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/fact_sheets/budget/bush_2007_budget.xml

The agriculture industry, [b]depends[/b] on illegals (52% of farm workers are undocumented, according to http://cds.aas.duke.edu/saf/pdfs/fwfactsheet.pdf), contributes $132B or $149B to GDP, depending whether you calculate 1% of “GDP (purchasing power parity)” or 1% of “GDP (official exchange rate)”.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

If you don’t like the numbers, take your whining to Duke University, the CIA and the Department of Customs & Border Protection, you buffoon!

And Again With The Name Calling

In reply to “Finally…”

It?s nice to know that you missed the point entirely!

I?m sure that the Department of customs and Border Protection would tell me that they are under funded.

Duke University would say ?so what??

The CIA probably would arrest me for wanting to know about something that is probably secret or higher.

The facts from what I have seen so far is that they aren?t really doing anything to rectify the problem. Weather that actually is that case or not I don?t know. I will find out what they are doing eventually when I have the time or feel like trading the sleep to know.

After all of this; Absolutely will come back and call me a ?buffoon? again. Showing his true character and maturity level.

“It?s nice to know that you missed the point entirely!”

In reply to And Again With The Name Calling

Assuming you are correct, what is the point? or your point, whatever.

[i]It?s nice to know that you missed the point entirely![/i]

Maybe. Until you state the point, we won’t know whether I missed it.

[i]I?m sure that the Department of customs and Border Protection would tell me that they are under funded.[/i]

Do you mean the director, or every single individual working there? I’m sure you could find more than one employee who, in private at least, would confess that strategy, not funding, is the problem, but that admitting as much would result in a fired & scandalized director, possibly preceded by a dangerous spending cut. “Spend it all or get less next year” applies in entities funded by taxation to a degree impossible to entities funded by production.

[i]Duke University would say ?so what??[/i]

If Duke University doesn’t care, why did it fund the production of that web page?

[i]The CIA probably would arrest me for wanting to know about something that is probably secret or higher. [/i]

I used my Comcast connection and an old Linksys router to connect to their web page and I haven’t been arrested yet. I think it’s pretty safe to use information posted on unencrypted websites ending in .gov, and beginning in http://www. If it began with https and ended with .gov that might be a reason to worry, but I guarantee you, I did not obtain any secret or classified information from the government for this nor any other discussion.

[i]The facts from what I have seen so far is that they aren?t really doing anything to rectify the problem. Weather that actually is that case or not I don?t know. I will find out what they are doing eventually when I have the time or feel like trading the sleep to know.[/i]

What problem? How many illegal immigrants are jobless? Homeless? A real problem is certain non-immigrants who won’t lift a finger to better themselves and presume to blame their troubles on people willing to travel hundreds or thousands of miles for the privilege of working 18 hours, 7 days a week. If you grew up in this land of plenty and cannot compete against immigrants who did not, what is your excuse?

Also, iff you insist on misspelling “whether” please remember to also misspell “naught”.

[i]After all of this; Absolutely will come back and call me a ?buffoon? again. Showing his true character and maturity level.[/i]

No, I have cleared that string from my clipboard, and achieved the desired effect.

Please tell me, do you consider yourself a patriot? Are language, ethnicity and religion more or less important in your concept of the United States than the premise that individual rights are inalienable? My belief is that some governments recognize these rights, but that they are the rights of every person. You?

I’m glad your true charcter has been revealed.

In reply to And Again With The Name Calling

The director or whomever is in charge of the finances would state that they are under funded.

Good! I?m glad that you are legal.

I hold my own. I don?t rely on anyone to ?give? me anything I cannot get on my own.

Let me ask you a question; IF our country is so great that all of these people come here to become part of it and start anew, why do the majority of them insist on turning it into what they left behind? I thought they came here to have a new life, not recreate the old one. Did you think about it that way? Maybe you did and maybe you didn?t.

If you persist in this ?everything must be explained? direction; I?ll start explaining things like programming.

Why they come here is the immigrants’ business, not mine or yours.

In reply to And Again With The Name Calling

“Let me ask you a question; IF our country is so great that [b]all of these people come here to become part of it and start anew,[/b] why do the majority of them insist on turning it into what they left behind? I thought they came here to have a new life, not recreate the old one. Did you think about it that way? Maybe you did and maybe you didn?t.”

I haven’t met “all of these people”, and I don’t agree that you have any right to expect that they come to “start anew” & “have a new life, not recreate the old one”. Each immigrant has their own reasons, and once they earn the money to buy a store, they have the same right as any shopkeeper, to reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. Most stores don’t exercise this right often because they exist primarily to earn money, and refusing service isn’t profitable. But, ownership means the right to control one’s property, and [b]that[/b] is part of what I think is best about this country, and hopefully part of why many immigrants come here. With luck and enough immigration, the likes of you will be taught the meaning of the word “inalienable”, and that your rights are dependent on your respect for the rights of others.

Guess what?

In reply to How bout this

If I don’t like the language spoken by a store owner, or the color of his shirt, or anything else, I don’t go into the store. Likewise if he doesn’t like the language you speak, or the color or your shirt, he doesn’t have to serve you.

You’ll have that in a free country, donchaknow 🙂

Wrong answer…

In reply to Guess what?

…I guess you never heard on a certain SS Kresge lunch counter in the ’60s.

I am aware of

In reply to Wrong answer…

“protected classes”. As long as your refusal to serve is not for “that reason”, it is legal.

I agree

In reply to Guess what?

that is is true. It works both ways.

Exactly

In reply to I agree

Now all we have to do is teach consumers that, and THEY will be in charge. You don’t get businesss to do what you want by legislating it, you get it by spending your money elsewhere if they don’t!

Not these days, Tiger.

In reply to I agree

It’s cheaper to buy a Senator than a decision maker in a business interest.

Minimum Wage in the Philippines sucks !!!

In reply to What is the purpose of setting a minimum wage?

Whatever the purpose is…The minimum wage
in the Philippines is way below the
required daily budget. That is why experienced professionals migrate to other countries that offer better living conditions and better opportunities for career growth.

thoughts on this

In reply to What is the purpose of setting a minimum wage?

I think most everyone thinks about these things. I’m not saying that your thoughts are wrong cause I agree on alot of your thoughts and ideas…
But I also know that at some point somethings got to be done. We have these business were not alot of training or skill is needed, so they pay the lowest wages they can, speaking of fast food, retail, and many more. We can’t just close all those places because they don’t want to pay a good wage, enough for one to make it, and allow the employees to gain raises. And in the mean time while everyone’s worring about other issues, more and more people are loosing things, more and more are becoming homeless.
I don’t know the answer to the problem, but somethings got to get done soon or I believe we are in alot more trouble than this war that’g going on

NO KIDDING!!! [i]”somethings got to get done soon”[/i]

In reply to thoughts on this

And if they don’t start doing it [b]for themselves[/b] as soon or sooner, the collective dead weight will become impossible for the few whose production exceeds our consumption, regardless of our willingness to continue carrying unproductive sacks of water & carbon-based tissue.

[Author]

Replies