Here's why minimum wage sucks

[Cousin Cucumber 0]

socialist imperialism from the Far east is obviously rubbing off on you

 

I actually thought that sounded more like something a conservative would say than a socialist.

[DrJ 0]

For a political operative, you really have very little awareness on how your own country's economy works, don't you? We are dealing with a fundamental philosophical difference here regarding the proper role of government.

 

The problem is that you folks care more about money than you do about people, so you view any sort of governmental regulation to improve the lot of labor (i.e. workers) as meddling.

 

However, when the government takes measures to improve the lot of capital (i.e. business), you are all for that.

 

So be it. To each his/her own opinion.

 

No, I think the goverment does have a responsibility to try and help these people. I just feel that doing this increases the liklihood that there will be LESS jobs available to them. Do something that will make more jobs available to them...like training them to do something other than drill a hole in a piece of metal.

 

If you are a grown adult and you have a family, and you are competing against illegals and 18 year olds for employment, you went wrong in your life somewhere. It isn't the government's responsibility to make sure that those that make poor choices and have no desire to improve can continue to make poor choices and survive. It is to give those people means to achieve something better if they choose to take advantage of it.

[Strike 5,535]

Correct. It's my opinion. Fortunatly my opinion is what is also the law while yours is not.

 

There are lots of stupid laws

[parrot 789]

My brother is the ops manager/hr manager of a small metal stamping company.

 

Yesterday in Ohio, the minimum wage was increased from 5.15 to 6.85.

 

The "grunts" that are currently making 7.15/hr are now complaining about making "a quarter over minimum wage." (Yeah, I know it's 30 cents.) They all want a dollar per hour raise now. These are mostly guys that live with their parents and go to college part time.

 

This business started out with just a handful of people and has grown to about 25 employees. 20 of them are hourly. 2 of the hourly guys have been there since the beginning, and make pretty good money.

 

Well, guess what? Ends aren't going to meet.

 

My brother was asked to either:

 

Fire all of the $7.15 guys and hire newbies (basically shuts the co. down for hiring and training, likely leading to lost business and further firings. It's extremely difficult to find 18 year olds that will work for just-over-minimum-wage.)

 

Layoff 5 or 6 mid level hourly workers to cover the "grunts" pay increase, since they would also need a pay increase (Fock you grunts, but the likely option.)

 

Layoff both of the original hourly guys that helped build the company. (Backstab-defined.)

 

Everything was fine when the MW was $5.15. Nobody worked for it, and everyone was happy.

Couple problems here;

 

1. This measure just focking passed in the last day or two and already all of these things have transpired? Clearly "everyone was happy" was not the case. The grunts were obviously looking for leverage to ask for a raise.

 

2. It's their right as workers to ask for a wage, and it's the right of the employer to deny it. Maybe something is worked out from there, maybe not. Some might quit, some probably stay. But to immediately talk about firing them or laying off other workers is a little premature, not to mention stupid. Overly reactionary management looks to be the real problem here.

[Voltaire 5,315]

Doesn't this give these employers further incentive to hire those illegals? Anyone can work at these factory jobs, and now the illegals are willing to work for half of minimum rather than 3/4 (arbitrary numbers, you get the point). It certainly becomes a lot more attractive of an option...

 

It encourages larger companies to send these manufacturing facilities to India, where it doesn't cost $7 an hour to drill a hole in a piece of metal.

 

Wouldn't it be better of the government to find a way to get these people job training so they aren't competing against illegals and sweatshops for minimum wage?

 

Yes, job training is important, I think everybody realizes that.

 

Manufacturing will still be around. Obviously in many ways comanies are finding it's less competitive to have factories in the US. One thing though is that shipping is expensive and slow so having local factories supplying things, at least on a smaller scale, will always be around. Also final assembly is cheaper domestically- the shipping a fridge or an oven means paying for a lot of expensive air. Most companies find it more cost effective to assemble stateside.

 

As for illegal Mexicans, you need a two prong approach. Patrolling/securing the border and cracking down on companies that hire them. A third prong would be to have a police force hunt them down where they congregate, but that's just too gestapo-ish for me.

[DrJ 0]

Yes, job training is important, I think everybody realizes that.

 

Manufacturing will still be around. Obviously in many ways comanies are finding it's less competitive to have factories in the US. One thing though is that shipping is expensive and slow so having local factories supplying things, at least on a smaller scale, will always be around. Also final assembly is cheaper domestically- the shipping a fridge or an oven means paying for a lot of expensive air. Most companies find it more cost effective to assemble stateside.

 

As for illegal Mexicans, you need a two prong approach. Patrolling/securing the border and cracking down on companies that hire them. A third prong would be to have a police force hunt them down where they congregate, but that's just too gestapo-ish for me.

 

And increasing the mimimum wage will only make it even less competitive. There may be a gap due to shipping costs which keep some facilities here, and you just closed that gap if you didn't eliminate it entirely.

 

On illegals, I agree - attack the problem of illegals creating downward pressure on wages at it's source...increasing minimum wage to combat it is counterproductive and will only give further incentive to those that are hiring them.

 

Bottom line is that not every job should be livable. There is no need for a 16 or 18 year old kid with no training to be afforded a livable wage. And if you are competing against that person, or an illegal alien, for your income then you went wrong. The government's role isn't to make sure that everyone that makes these poor choices can continue making poor choices and survive. It's to provide an infrastructure that allows them to make better choices. Beyond that, there has to be some level of personal responsibility. You can't save everyone, and trying to allow people to feed their family as a greeter at Walmart or fry guy isn't helping anyone. Just because they're a step above crackhead doesn't mean they are making the right choices - just a little less bad. I'd really hope we had higher standards than that.

[phillybear 366]

Secure an alibi.

Burn the business to the ground.

Collect insurance money.

Find instructions on internet on how to make crystal meth.

Start up new business.

 

YWIA.

[DanXIII 8]

QUOTE(DanXIII @ Nov 9 2006, 04:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You're the most classless piece of sh!t ever to grace these boards, bar none.

Talk about classy. Typical liberal hypocrisy. I own you.

 

Yes...because personal attacks against another poster's wife is exactly the same thing as telling unskilled workers to find another job if they're unhappy with their wages.

 

Add "dumbest motherfocker" to "most classless POS". You probably don't even own the trailer you're living in.

[resser2 0]

Shhhh... The democratically controlled congress might hear you.

 

To late, that is goal number #2 (impeachment #1)

[MDC 7,405]

My brother was asked to either:

 

Fire all of the $7.15 guys and hire newbies (basically shuts the co. down for hiring and training, likely leading to lost business and further firings. It's extremely difficult to find 18 year olds that will work for just-over-minimum-wage.)

 

Layoff 5 or 6 mid level hourly workers to cover the "grunts" pay increase, since they would also need a pay increase (Fock you grunts, but the likely option.)

 

Layoff both of the original hourly guys that helped build the company. (Backstab-defined.)

 

Everything was fine when the MW was $5.15. Nobody worked for it, and everyone was happy.

 

So basically your brother is employing 5-6 mid-level hourly workers who he does not really need to get the job done? He should lay them off. Not because of the minimum wage increase. Because only a stupid business owner hires a single worker more than he needs to get the job done right.

 

HTH.

[DanXIII 8]

only a stupid business owner hires a single worker more than he needs to get the job done right.

 

...a point which has been totally missed in this discussion. Being a "nice guy" and letting people remain on your payroll you don't need is the first step toward bankruptcy.

[parrot 789]

Okay, I've been looking at this scenario a little more;

 

We have 20 hourly employees; at least five or six of them are mid-level, and two of them are higher than that. That leaves us a maximum of 12 grunts asking for the pay increase.

 

Assuming these 12 are all full time wokers (2080 hrs/yr) that would mean a labor increase of roughly twenty five grand.

 

12guys x 2080hrs x $1 = $24960

 

Throw in a couple more grand for employer matching and whatnot and lets call it a cost increase of $30G (being generous).

 

Now I don't know what the mid-level guys make, but it's more than $7.15 an hour obviously which means they should run the company at least $15G a piece per year. Why the fock would you have to lay off 5 or 6 guys making $15G a year to cover a $30G cost increase? Or lay off two guys making "pretty good money?"

 

Now I'm not saying this story is bullsh!t, but it don't add up. Maybe management just wants to cut dead weight but wants the minimum wage increase to take the bullet for it.

[Montezuma 0]

And increasing the mimimum wage will only make it even less competitive. There may be a gap due to shipping costs which keep some facilities here, and you just closed that gap if you didn't eliminate it entirely.

 

On illegals, I agree - attack the problem of illegals creating downward pressure on wages at it's source...increasing minimum wage to combat it is counterproductive and will only give further incentive to those that are hiring them.

 

Bottom line is that not every job should be livable. There is no need for a 16 or 18 year old kid with no training to be afforded a livable wage. And if you are competing against that person, or an illegal alien, for your income then you went wrong. The government's role isn't to make sure that everyone that makes these poor choices can continue making poor choices and survive. It's to provide an infrastructure that allows them to make better choices. Beyond that, there has to be some level of personal responsibility. You can't save everyone, and trying to allow people to feed their family as a greeter at Walmart or fry guy isn't helping anyone. Just because they're a step above crackhead doesn't mean they are making the right choices - just a little less bad. I'd really hope we had higher standards than that.

 

This is somewhat questionable reasoning. Admittedly a 16 to 18 year olds with no training should not have access to particularly high paying jobs, nor do they. But to say that they don't need a living wage assumes that someone else (presumably parents) is providing a reasonable standard of living for them, which simply isn't always the case. What about teenagers who have deadbeat/drug addicted/imprisoned parents? They clearly need a job for more than extra spending money to go on dates on the weekends, for some it's a matter of survival, if teenagers are going to be allowed to work they should be treated like any other worker and be given a living wage. Simply turning 19 shouldn't suddenly entitle a laborer to more money.

 

Also, on a slightly different note, how do those of you that support letting the market determine wages respond to claims that doing so simply triggers a race to the bottom. Free market principles allow for slave wages to be paid to workers in the third world, should they simply find a better job? I know that it's somewhat different since they're not American workers, but isn't that the same idea? The market has determined that these workers are worth 1.50 a day should that simply be accepted?

[davebg 0]

Yeah, but it might help them pay for groceries and their focking heat bill.

And their XBOX360, plasma TV, bling bling...

 

I will NEVAH forget Mrs. DaveBG's days in the classroom in Queens...where she'd have kids show up to class w/no school supplies and no breakfast, but the day after their birfday they had a fist full of Pokemon cards, a glittering NY Yankees medallion hanging around their neck and whatever the latest portable gaming system was at the time.

[Chronic Husker 85]

And their XBOX360, plasma TV, bling bling...

Yeah dave, you're right. Tons of people making minimum wage have XBox360s and plasma TVs.

[Strike 5,535]

Also, on a slightly different note, how do those of you that support letting the market determine wages respond to claims that doing so simply triggers a race to the bottom. Free market principles allow for slave wages to be paid to workers in the third world, should they simply find a better job? I know that it's somewhat different since they're not American workers, but isn't that the same idea? The market has determined that these workers are worth 1.50 a day should that simply be accepted?

 

There is a minimum point where it just does not make sense to work. It costs you more to work than not. That would be the bare minimum and it would take an increase from that for people to accept the job. From there it's simple supply and demand that determine the actual wage paid.

[davebg 0]

Yeah dave, you're right. Tons of people making minimum wage have XBox360s and plasma TVs.

Yeah CH, you're probably right. I mean, it's not as if this country has any fiscally irresponsible people who would rather pay the cable bill so they can see the next episode of the Sopranos, rather than send their kids off to school w/things like school supplies.

 

It's not as if there are tons of people who drive around in phat cars and the newest trendy clothes, but then can't afford the rent.

 

It's not as if there are plenty of people in this country whose priorities are completely out of whack like that, right?

[pimptastic69 0]

Okay, I've been looking at this scenario a little more;

 

We have 20 hourly employees; at least five or six of them are mid-level, and two of them are higher than that. That leaves us a maximum of 12 grunts asking for the pay increase.

 

Assuming these 12 are all full time wokers (2080 hrs/yr) that would mean a labor increase of roughly twenty five grand.

 

12guys x 2080hrs x $1 = $24960

 

Throw in a couple more grand for employer matching and whatnot and lets call it a cost increase of $30G (being generous).

 

Now I don't know what the mid-level guys make, but it's more than $7.15 an hour obviously which means they should run the company at least $15G a piece per year. Why the fock would you have to lay off 5 or 6 guys making $15G a year to cover a $30G cost increase? Or lay off two guys making "pretty good money?"

 

Now I'm not saying this story is bullsh!t, but it don't add up. Maybe management just wants to cut dead weight but wants the minimum wage increase to take the bullet for it.

 

The problem is that all of the hourly employees would get a raise (in addition to their regular annual raise). The guys making 7.15 haven't been employed for even a year, yet. They did an expansion a few months ago, so money's pretty tight right now.

 

It seems that the "grunts" had formed their own mini union (a "minion"? ) and were planning this for a few weeks. They were all scheduled for a raise in May, but were given the option of taking it now and foregoing it in May. My bro thinks this will work.

 

I would have liked to see them kicked to the curb, but they need the help. You have to be 18 to run the machines, so it's not like they can comb the highschools for 15 and 16 year olds.

[De Novo 0]

Minimum wage isn't the answer. The reasons for minimum wage is to ensure a wage that you can live on. High school/college kids don't need that. Families do. By forcing a minimum wage that results in cutting jobs, you're defeating the purpose. I'm as capitalist as they come, but I agree that something needs to be done about wage levels for full-time employees. I make damn good money for someone my age (~90k), don't have a girlfriend, and don't have kids, and while I do spend money on unnecessary things like bar tabs and other fun stuff, I save very little money. When I take a look at my monthly expenses that aren't completely unnecessary:

Rent 1250 (small 1 BR)

Electric and Gas 100

Student Loans 250

Cell Phone 50 (no landline)

Cable & Internet 150 (I could get away with 100)

Food 250? (I spend way more but I could live off 250)

Healthcare 150 (My company covers double that)

Gas 50 (and I have one of the shortest commutes)

Car Insurance 150

Car Payment 200 (made up number, my car is paid off)

401(k) 500....

 

That's $3,100/month in fixed expenses before I spend any money on fun, all but $650 of which is taken from post-tax income. Somebody would need to make about $1,000/week pre-tax to cover those expenses. That's $25/hour. Even stripping out 401(k) savings and student loans, how the hell is somebody supposed to live off of minimum wage!?!?

[pingpong 0]

No, I think the goverment does have a responsibility to try and help these people. I just feel that doing this increases the liklihood that there will be LESS jobs available to them. Do something that will make more jobs available to them...like training them to do something other than drill a hole in a piece of metal.

 

If you are a grown adult and you have a family, and you are competing against illegals and 18 year olds for employment, you went wrong in your life somewhere. It isn't the government's responsibility to make sure that those that make poor choices and have no desire to improve can continue to make poor choices and survive. It is to give those people means to achieve something better if they choose to take advantage of it.

I totally agree. I am all for spending federal dollars to help someone help themselves to a better life. I am 100% against legislation that basically rewards them for doing nothing. Why should I pay to help someone that doesn't want to help themself?

[De Novo 0]

only a stupid business owner hires a single worker more than he needs to get the job done right.

 

HTH.

 

You couldn't be more wrong. So let's say you need 20 people to meet production requirements (not even considering the fact that production requirements change daily/weekly). You hire 20. 2 quit at once. You're screwed. So, you keep a few extra on payroll to ensure that new people are being transitioned to the job, and you guard against key man dependency. There are also employee morale issues to consider. If everyone gets a couple hours of fun/free time each week, attrition is reduced and you retain skilled employees.

 

Your comment shows me that you know nothing about running a business.

 

HTH.

 

I used to work at an aluminum insert sliding company (made walls and shelving for businesses plus the glass sliding doors at target the video games are found in)

 

It was a small business, and they often had a hard time finding enough hours for everyone. What they did was make a "piecework" system where you got paid by the amount of things you finished.

 

before this i used to make exactly $8 an hour. what i did was slide about 530 or so aluminum inserts into a large wooden crate that had slots... i used to make simply the $8 an hour doin that so i'd go at a semi slow/acceptable pace. at this pace it took me like an hour and a half/ two hoursto do one. And if i ran out of them to do i would simply hang around and do unimportant jobs to occupy my time til it was 5 pm.

 

During the summer they switched it to piece work, and they paid $14 dollars a box... at first i thought it was bullsh1t because i figured this was just a way to give me less hours (without technically giving me hours) at about the same wage. I found that after i started actually trying to do the work faster i could do it in far less time. Some fellow co workers and i thought of different ways to speed up the process also.

 

(Also... these dollar amounts are midwest wages)

 

The time to do each box got cut down to between 35-45 minutes... I found that i could make nearly $20 an hour, which isn't bad for grunt work. The business also made money, because they didn't have an obligation to give me 8 hours of work a day. On certain days there would only be like 4 boxes to do, but hell $64 dollars for like 3 hours of work is pretty sweet in the summer when you'd rather be outside golfing or something.

 

So i guess my solution would be to see if there is a way to get off of "hourly wages" and lean more towards piecework. It not only benifits the business by giving workers bonuses for hard work, often times it allows them to make more money in a shorter period of time. More work gets done.

 

Surprised nobody else commented on this, but I agree wholeheartedly. Anyone running a business who hasn't considered this shouldn't be running a business.

[Chronic Husker 85]

Yeah CH, you're probably right. I mean, it's not as if this country has any fiscally irresponsible people who would rather pay the cable bill so they can see the next episode of the Sopranos, rather than send their kids off to school w/things like school supplies.

 

It's not as if there are tons of people who drive around in phat cars and the newest trendy clothes, but then can't afford the rent.

 

It's not as if there are plenty of people in this country whose priorities are completely out of whack like that, right?

I'll agree with you that many people have their priorities out of whack (probably me being one of them). But that's not an excuse to keep the minimum wage at basically slave wages.

 

I guess my problem is the whole right-wing attitude towards minimum wage. You, cmh, and others seem to think, "Oh, they don't need any more money than they have." The minimum wage is ridiculously low compared to where it's been in the past (and yes, I'm going back four decades).

 

Not everyone came from a good Jewish family that could provide them opportunities for education, jobs, etc., dave. And it's definitely a trend that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer in this country. It's been trending that way for a long time.

 

Chris Matthews pointed out on election night that the poor in this country are starting to take an "us against them" attitude and you can hardly blame them. I'm not saying let's turn this into an entitlement country and start handing money to every bum on the streets, but the balance of wealth is currently completely out of whack, to borrow your phrase.

[parrot 789]

The problem is that all of the hourly employees would get a raise (in addition to their regular annual raise). The guys making 7.15 haven't been employed for even a year, yet. They did an expansion a few months ago, so money's pretty tight right now.

Even if you give every hourly worker $1 an hour that's only $40G and still doesn't pencil out to dumping five or six guys.

[davebg 0]

I'll agree with you that many people have their priorities out of whack (probably me being one of them). But that's not an excuse to keep the minimum wage at basically slave wages.

 

I guess my problem is the whole right-wing attitude towards minimum wage. You, cmh, and others seem to think, "Oh, they don't need any more money than they have." The minimum wage is ridiculously low compared to where it's been in the past (and yes, I'm going back four decades).

I just don't see how a national minimum wage will solve this problem. The cost of living in the NYC area is not the same as the cost of living in Florida. So, where do we stop w/raising the national minimum wage? At some point either some people will still not have enough or some people will have more than they deserve. Of course, if we tied the minimum wage to the cost of living in a particular area, then we would have the problem of certain parts of the country losing certain types of jobs, which would negatively effect the local economy in the form of fewer jobs as corporations relocate to those areas where they can generate higher profits.

 

Not everyone came from a good Jewish family that could provide them opportunities for education, jobs, etc., dave. And it's definitely a trend that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer in this country. It's been trending that way for a long time..

I'm not going to lie, I definitely could have had it worse growing up, but if you've followed any of my "My dad's a piece of crap" posts, you'd also know that I've had my share of obstacles to get around growing up. I got past them and people who are really in the know about my situation regard the fact that I turned out the way I did, despite dear ol' dad, as a testament to my determination. I could just as easily used those obstacles as an excuse to not achieve what I have in life.

 

Chris Matthews pointed out on election night that the poor in this country are starting to take an "us against them" attitude and you can hardly blame them. I'm not saying let's turn this into an entitlement country and start handing money to every bum on the streets, but the balance of wealth is currently completely out of whack, to borrow your phrase.

The problem w/the types of programs that are often used to more evenly distribute the balance of wealth is that they often create a false sense of entitlement. Just look at what's going on in some parts of Europe right now. You have these countries where the people have grown up w/all sorts of programs to help them, but instead, they've used them as a crutch. Now these people (b/c they've never known anything else) view these programs as an inalienable right...and they want more. More from the government while all along they should have been using these programs to prop themselves up on a temporary basis to improve themselves and their lot in life.

[supermike80 1,907]

You couldn't be more wrong. So let's say you need 20 people to meet production requirements (not even considering the fact that production requirements change daily/weekly). You hire 20. 2 quit at once. You're screwed. So, you keep a few extra on payroll to ensure that new people are being transitioned to the job, and you guard against key man dependency. There are also employee morale issues to consider. If everyone gets a couple hours of fun/free time each week, attrition is reduced and you retain skilled employees.

 

Your comment shows me that you know nothing about running a business.

 

Um, hate to disagree, but I totally disagree. I have managed a few P&L's and I there is no WAY you can afford an extra employee or two. That's actually quite laughable. At upwards of 100K all in with bennies it is cost prohibitive to have a few extras. I keep my crew tight and at the level I need. Hiring more just "cause" is a waste of $$ and a great way to have to be forced to lay some off in the near future.

[MDC 7,405]

You couldn't be more wrong. So let's say you need 20 people to meet production requirements (not even considering the fact that production requirements change daily/weekly). You hire 20. 2 quit at once. You're screwed. So, you keep a few extra on payroll to ensure that new people are being transitioned to the job, and you guard against key man dependency. There are also employee morale issues to consider. If everyone gets a couple hours of fun/free time each week, attrition is reduced and you retain skilled employees.

 

Your comment shows me that you know nothing about running a business.

 

This is some of the stupidest business advice I've read.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

You couldn't be more wrong. So let's say you need 20 people to meet production requirements (not even considering the fact that production requirements change daily/weekly). You hire 20. 2 quit at once. You're screwed. So, you keep a few extra on payroll to ensure that new people are being transitioned to the job, and you guard against key man dependency. There are also employee morale issues to consider. If everyone gets a couple hours of fun/free time each week, attrition is reduced and you retain skilled employees.

 

Your comment shows me that you know nothing about running a business.

 

HTH.

Surprised nobody else commented on this, but I agree wholeheartedly. Anyone running a business who hasn't considered this shouldn't be running a business.

 

 

Their is no way you run, or have ever run, or will ever run.... a successfull business. Worst advice ever.

[De Novo 0]

Um, hate to disagree, but I totally disagree. I have managed a few P&L's and I there is no WAY you can afford an extra employee or two. That's actually quite laughable. At upwards of 100K all in with bennies it is cost prohibitive to have a few extras. I keep my crew tight and at the level I need. Hiring more just "cause" is a waste of $$ and a great way to have to be forced to lay some off in the near future.

 

First off, I was responding to the assertion that you NEVER want extra employees. I was making the claim that there are situations where you would want additional employees. You can almost always cut 1 employee and everyone will learn to do their job more efficiently (and/or quit). So, nearly every business has additional employees.

 

Second off, your 100k with bennies is off since the employees referenced make $7.40 an hour. Unless benefits include company expensed tee times, the 100k is high. Second off, needing an extra employee or two and being able to afford an extra employee or two are two different things, dependent upon the revenue you generate, your growth, how predictable your production demands are, attrition, the skill level required to perform the job, the supply of skilled labor in your region, training costs of new employees, and a host of other things.

 

Lastly, you're likely speaking from the perspective of a small business where 1 or 2 additional employees means the owner either makes $150k or $0k. Organization size plays a part.

 

To say that you NEVER want an "extra" employee is indefensible. As is saying that you ALWAYS want an extra employee.

 

Their is no way you run, or have ever run, or will ever run.... a successfull business. Worst advice ever.

 

I wish I could get into details about what I do right now as well as my startup, but suffice it to say you're incorrect. Carrying an extra employee at a mom-n-pop company that makes peanuts is bad advice, agreed. But running a mom-n-pop company whose profitability changes by 100% based on whether they carry an extra employee isn't a situation I'll ever be in. HTH.

[Chronic Husker 85]

The problem w/the types of programs that are often used to more evenly distribute the balance of wealth is that they often create a false sense of entitlement. Just look at what's going on in some parts of Europe right now. You have these countries where the people have grown up w/all sorts of programs to help them, but instead, they've used them as a crutch. Now these people (b/c they've never known anything else) view these programs as an inalienable right...and they want more. More from the government while all along they should have been using these programs to prop themselves up on a temporary basis to improve themselves and their lot in life.

There is no false sense of entitlement by raising the minimum wage to $7.50. Like I pointed out, standard of living-wise, minimum wage is way below where it was 40 years ago. Even if (and almost definitely when) the minimum wage gets raised, it still comes nowhere near living wage.

 

Minimum wage is an issue I look forward to passing (along with embryonic stem cell research). In all likelihood, the new minimum wage will fly through Congress and land right in dubya's lap.....and if he vetos bills that are overwhelmingly popular with the general public like minimum wage and stem cell research, all I can say is good luck holding the White House in 08.

 

The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer and populist politics are back.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

:popcorn:

 

I love getting advice in how to run a business.

[MDC 7,405]

:popcorn:

 

I love getting advice in how to run a business.

 

Hire some extra workers and be sure to give them a few hours of on-the-clock happytime per week.

[De Novo 0]

Hire some extra workers and be sure to give them a few hours of on-the-clock happytime per week.

I just realized... aren't you the secretary on the bored? And you were criticizing my business advice. Wow

[itsbigmoni 1]

There is a minimum point where it just does not make sense to work. It costs you more to work than not. That would be the bare minimum and it would take an increase from that for people to accept the job. From there it's simple supply and demand that determine the actual wage paid.

 

 

How low is that bare minimum? It would be different from place to place but i'm sure it would get pretty damn low. If you have a wife and a kid, are you saying you would be better off at home making nothing than you would if you worked for $2 an hour?

[Strike 5,535]

How low is that bare minimum? It would be different from place to place but i'm sure it would get pretty damn low. If you have a wife and a kid, are you saying you would be better off at home making nothing than you would if you worked for $2 an hour?

 

If you have a wife and kid and are making minimum wage you're focked whether it's $2/hr or $7/hr. Noone who has to support a family should have allowed themselves to be in that position. They should have developed a skill set that would allow them to support their family before choosing to have that family.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

How low is that bare minimum? It would be different from place to place but i'm sure it would get pretty damn low. If you have a wife and a kid, are you saying you would be better off at home making nothing than you would if you worked for $2 an hour?

 

You assume that there is nothing like welfare, foodstamps, unemployment, etc. Think about it for a moment before you type this crap.

[MDC 7,405]

I just realized... aren't you the secretary on the bored? And you were criticizing my business advice. Wow

 

You're just sour because you said something dumb. Let it go man, happens to the best of us.

[De Novo 0]

You're just sour because you said something dumb. Let it go man, happens to the best of us.

 

Holy sh1t. You really are a male secretary... giving advice on how to run a business. Crassic

[MDC 7,405]

Holy sh1t. You really are a male secretary... giving advice on how to run a business. Crassic

 

I tried to be classy about it. Continue making a flaming assclown out of yourself I guess.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

If you have a wife and kid and are making minimum wage you're focked whether it's $2/hr or $7/hr. Noone who has to support a family should have allowed themselves to be in that position. They should have developed a skill set that would allow them to support their family before choosing to have that family.

 

No kids, huh?

 

You must realize that there is no exam for having kids. If it were, we would not have a population of 25% retards (South Park reference).

 

In all seriousness, many folks who are making minimum have no other alternatives. It is not like you can just pop into college and ask for a degree. Training and skills are not free.

[Strike 5,535]

No kids, huh?

 

You must realize that there is no exam for having kids. If it were, we would not have a population of 25% retards (South Park reference).

 

In all seriousness, many folks who are making minimum have no other alternatives. It is not like you can just pop into college and ask for a degree. Training and skills are not free.

 

Bull. You can certainly improve your lot in life without a degree. You're not destined to a life of minimum wage if you don't have a degree - ask Bill Gates. Or my friend Dan, who I've posted about before. He worked his way through college at UPS.