djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 18, 2013 14:40:57 GMT -5
Here's a question for you: is the value of someone working a cash register or stocking a shelf worth $37k a year?
this one is for jk.
jk- you got too far off the subject. i respectfully asked that if you wanted this question answered, to move it to another thread, and i would answer it there.
rather than doing that, you simply accused me of wanting to change the subject, even though i clearly stated that was not the case. i would appreciate it if, in the future, you would stop making ME the subject of your posts, and i will do that with you.
respectfully,
djp
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jul 18, 2013 14:45:03 GMT -5
But I notice you still didn't answer the question...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 18, 2013 14:51:20 GMT -5
the answer is:
if the employer is willing to pay the $37k, and it will not necessarily create a burden on society to pay that rate, and it is what the situation demands, then he should pay that rate.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 18, 2013 14:52:43 GMT -5
But I notice you still didn't answer the question... i know you will find this shocking, but i actually have a life, bro. i had the response half answered when my shop foreman came in here with a question. now, having done all of this work FOR YOU, can you go back to MY THREAD and answer the goddamn question, please? tyia
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 16, 2024 8:19:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2013 15:13:40 GMT -5
the answer is: if the employer is willing to pay the $37k, and it will not necessarily create a burden on society to pay that rate, and it is what the situation demands, then he should pay that rate. How would an employer paying any rate going to create a burden on society? Just because one business decides to pay someone way over market value, it in no way sets the market at that higher price One of two things will likely happen.... One...business paying higher rate sees that all his competitors are paying much less, and resets the wage two...employees at the competitors find out the higher wage is available at employer a, and all try to get into the job they throw stink at current position, employer doesnt budge on rate, and they leave he replaces them at exactly the same rates as before all that has happened, is the company that pays the higher wages, either is accepting lower margins, or selling at higher prices (and losing business to their competitors)
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Jul 18, 2013 15:20:50 GMT -5
: "How would an employer paying any rate going to create a burden on society?" :
==================================
Ask the clerks and cashiers at Walmart. They are paid so little many of them qualify for Medicaid and other government benefits.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 18, 2013 15:30:11 GMT -5
the answer is: if the employer is willing to pay the $37k, and it will not necessarily create a burden on society to pay that rate, and it is what the situation demands, then he should pay that rate. How would an employer paying any rate going to create a burden on society? think about it, please. it is really easy to answer that question. edit: kitten answered it most of the way. the other part of the question is: why is that important? and the answer is: because we live in a nation of individuals with basic needs. if corporations don't meet them, the state will have to. that is just a fact. so, you have two choices: you can either pay people enough to not be a burden on the state, or you can pay the taxes that are required for the state to do it. either way you pay. there is actually a third choice: you can have half of society living in utter squalor. you can have 50% infant mortality. you can have all sorts of horrible, medieval s(*t going on. that is the third choice. it is the choice that no SENSIBLE, REASONABLE, and MORAL person member of an industrial society would make.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 16, 2024 8:19:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2013 15:34:21 GMT -5
they get paid a federally mandated minimum wage
same pay as cashiers at mcdonalds, burger king, and wendy's, and kmarts
if the employee decides that is the career they choose, then they are stuck with the rate of pay that comes with the job
if the employee decides they want to earn more, there are thousands of jobs that pay more
most require a little education, and or a few skills
some just require you to clean bed pans, mop floors, and other assorted "dirty jobs"
you want to work in an air conditioned environment, and have little skills, minimum wage is what that job is worth because too many wont do the other dirty jobs
no one is forcing them to accept jobs at minimum wage.....but it is all they can get (whose fault is that)
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 18, 2013 15:38:30 GMT -5
they get paid a federally mandated minimum wage assume for a moment that there is no such thing. what then?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 16, 2024 8:19:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2013 15:47:33 GMT -5
How would an employer paying any rate going to create a burden on society? think about it, please. it is really easy to answer that question. edit: kitten answered it most of the way. the other part of the question is: why is that important? and the answer is: because we live in a nation of individuals with basic needs. if corporations don't meet them, the state will have to. that is just a fact. so, you have two choices: you can either pay people enough to not be a burden on the state, or you can pay the taxes that are required for the state to do it. either way you pay. there is actually a third choice: you can have half of society living in utter squalor. you can have 50% infant mortality. you can have all sorts of horrible, medieval s(*t going on. that is the third choice. it is the choice that no SENSIBLE, REASONABLE, and MORAL person member of an industrial society would make. nice change...from a 37k job to talking about Walmart wages..... i completely disagree with your premise minimum wage is enough to live on in most areas comfortably...hell no....nor should it be and it definitely isnt enough to raise a family on...but minimum wage jobs were originally designed as entry level teenager jobs...a so called stepping stone to the real working world minimum wage should be an impetus to get people to change...to want to better themselves sometimes that happens...sometimes it doesnt when the state or government starts to supplement pay, it takes away some of that "need" to better oneself do we let people starve in the streets....no but somehow we need to slowly take the "medicine" away....like detoxing a addict we need education to matter again.....we need to make sure our high school dropouts know that the system isnt going to take care of them always they have to make better decisions.....they will have to support themselves
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 16, 2024 8:19:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2013 15:50:20 GMT -5
they get paid a federally mandated minimum wage assume for a moment that there is no such thing. what then? i would love to assume such a thing i would love to get rid of it but...no thanks....not playing the pretend game we do have the law...and it isnt changing anytime soon that i can see
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Jul 18, 2013 16:06:19 GMT -5
First off, let me point out that individual needs are not the same as 'head of a family' needs.
Secondly, the state doesn't have to provide basic needs to able bodied adults who choose to put themselves in a position where they can't provide for themselves. It may choose to. But it isn't exactly something that is mandated by the constitution. Laws can be changed.
Thirdly, if you put laws on the books basically saying that a person can live indoors and have enough food to eat without actually earning it, there is a large subpopulation that will do the absolute bare minimum needed to get these things and do nothing more. This is why Walmart has no problem finding people. Welfare reform took away the option of collecting a check for life, so a lot of people who never would have worked a day in their lives under the old system are now working at Walmart. It wasn't that long after welfare reform that the wages at Walmart started to drop. You can blame it on the death of Sam Walton, but it could very well have been a supply and demand thing too.
If this country didn't have ways to keep children from paying for their parent's mistakes before our current welfare system was in place, two of my grandparents wouldn't have survived childhood.
There is also a moral implication in creating a welfare system that rewards the behaviors that lead to poverty and punishes behaviors that lead to prosperity.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jul 18, 2013 16:47:45 GMT -5
the answer is: if the employer is willing to pay the $37k, and it will not necessarily create a burden on society to pay that rate, and it is what the situation demands, then he should pay that rate. You still didn't answer it. The question was, are the value of those jobs worth $37k a year? (See how i can flip the non-answer thing back at you? Annoying, isn't it? I know you answered it, just like I answered your question. Now its up to you and me to accept the answer or ask another question to get a deeper answer.)
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Jul 18, 2013 16:57:10 GMT -5
I won't be paying that and they'll have to both work a cash register and stock shelves in addition to light cleaning. I'm not even open yet and I've already got multiple interested parties. Thank god for retired former housewives who have husbands that make good money and base their career decisions entirely on working with children in a fun environment.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jul 18, 2013 17:08:33 GMT -5
Here's a further discussion along the living wage argument: If minimum wage was changed to a living wage of $15/hr, what happens to those people that worked hard and made good choices to get that $15/hr on their own? Now the government just mandated that people that didn't make the same sacrifices and hard work to get the same pay as the harder worker. What kind of effect would that have on society? What would drive people to work hard and make those sacrifices in the future when they know the government could just wipe it all away in one fell swoop?
Why would someone do the extra work and pay for college when they will make a pittance more than the new living wage?
For some reason, the left thinks that by upping the minimum wage by large dollars that it will mean everyone's wages will increase the same, when that has never been the case at any point in history. Did anyone here receive a $2.10 raise to coincide with the last minimum wage bumps of $5.15 to $7.25? I didn't...no I worked with did...
So what they seem to want is to punish success and good choices (again) by devaluing everyone's wages and then reward poor choices and lack of success (again) by giving low-skilled, low work-ethic people a big boost in pay. Now I know not everyone making low wages has low work ethic, but the lower wages is where you'll find many people with such ethics.
So, again, this goes back to my argument that liberals just do not want personal responsibility in the general public...just more punishing of responsible people.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Jul 18, 2013 17:41:32 GMT -5
Here's a question for you: is the value of someone working a cash register or stocking a shelf worth $37k a year?
Is the statement: Would you like fries with that? Worth $711.53 per week?
: Thank You for shopping Wal-Mart! Worth $711.53 per week?
That is what 37k per year works out to.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Jul 18, 2013 17:44:06 GMT -5
If minimum wage was changed to a living wage of $15/hr
That is only $600 per week which only equates to 31200 per year far away from the 37k DJ Wants.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Jul 19, 2013 15:47:48 GMT -5
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jul 19, 2013 16:15:19 GMT -5
LOL! You beat me to it, I was just about to copy that in here This article still says the same thing they always do: that you can't support yourself (or a family) on minimum wage. RIGHT! You're not supposed to be able to. You're supposed to work minimum wage jobs in order to gain skills and prove work ethics, then move up the chain with more pay and more responsibility as your skills improve and ethics are shown. The problem is, people don't want to increase their skills, or don't want to take on more responsibility, but they still want to get paid more money every year. If someone mops floors all year at $x, and then mops those same floors the next year, why is the business expected to pay more than the same $x for it? If the business does pay the worker more year over year, at some point they're going to fire the employee because they still only value mopping floors at $x. Only government is stupid enough to continue to pay people more money for doing the same menial tasks every year, which is how we get six-figure bus drivers drawing six-figure pensions...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 19, 2013 16:15:57 GMT -5
If minimum wage was changed to a living wage of $15/hr
That is only $600 per week which only equates to 31200 per year far away from the 37k DJ Wants. wants? where on earth did you get that idea?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 19, 2013 16:16:43 GMT -5
assume for a moment that there is no such thing. what then? i would love to assume such a thing i would love to get rid of it why?but...no thanks....not playing the pretend game we do have the law...and it isnt changing anytime soon that i can see true.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 19, 2013 16:18:58 GMT -5
think about it, please. it is really easy to answer that question. edit: kitten answered it most of the way. the other part of the question is: why is that important? and the answer is: because we live in a nation of individuals with basic needs. if corporations don't meet them, the state will have to. that is just a fact. so, you have two choices: you can either pay people enough to not be a burden on the state, or you can pay the taxes that are required for the state to do it. either way you pay. there is actually a third choice: you can have half of society living in utter squalor. you can have 50% infant mortality. you can have all sorts of horrible, medieval s(*t going on. that is the third choice. it is the choice that no SENSIBLE, REASONABLE, and MORAL person member of an industrial society would make. nice change...from a 37k job to talking about Walmart wages..... i completely disagree with your premise what premise?minimum wage is enough to live on in most areas comfortably...hell no....nor should it be why not?and it definitely isnt enough to raise a family on...but minimum wage jobs were originally designed as entry level teenager jobs...a so called stepping stone to the real working world minimum wage should be an impetus to get people to change...to want to better themselves why?sometimes that happens...sometimes it doesnt when the state or government starts to supplement pay, it takes away some of that "need" to better oneself does it?do we let people starve in the streets....no but somehow we need to slowly take the "medicine" away....like detoxing a addict what are you claiming people are addicted to?we need education to matter again.....we need to make sure our high school dropouts know that the system isnt going to take care of them always they have to make better decisions.....they will have to support themselves the whole reason welfare was started is for those that can't.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 19, 2013 16:20:55 GMT -5
First off, let me point out that individual needs are not the same as 'head of a family' needs. Secondly, the state doesn't have to provide basic needs to able bodied adults who choose to put themselves in a position where they can't provide for themselves. nobody claimed that this was even desireable, let alone necessary. It may choose to. But it isn't exactly something that is mandated by the constitution. Laws can be changed. that is certainly a matter of opinion in terms of constitutionality. but yes, laws can be changed: either way.Thirdly, if you put laws on the books basically saying that a person can live indoors and have enough food to eat without actually earning it, there is a large subpopulation that will do the absolute bare minimum needed to get these things and do nothing more. . do you have any evidence that this is true, or are you speaking personally?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 16, 2024 8:19:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2013 16:23:28 GMT -5
the whole reason welfare was started is for those that can't.
but then it changed.....
now it is for those who cant.....
and for some who dont WANT TO
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 19, 2013 16:24:29 GMT -5
the answer is: if the employer is willing to pay the $37k, and it will not necessarily create a burden on society to pay that rate, and it is what the situation demands, then he should pay that rate. You still didn't answer it. yes i did. you just didn't like the answer. The question was, are the value of those jobs worth $37k a year? that was not the question. the question was "should an employer pay that much". i answered that question as truthfully as possible.(See how i can flip the non-answer thing back at you? aren't you clever.Annoying, isn't it? no. i am perfectly fine with it.I know you answered it, just like I answered your question. Now its up to you and me to accept the answer or ask another question to get a deeper answer.) what question are you positing now?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 19, 2013 16:26:17 GMT -5
t he whole reason welfare was started is for those that can't.
but then it changed..... not really.now it is for those who cant..... and for some who dont WANT TO no, it was always for that. just like our educational system is for some who want to and some who don't. the key to all support structures is to create opportunity. i think we have lost sight of that in this debate.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 19, 2013 16:31:30 GMT -5
Here's a further discussion along the living wage argument: If minimum wage was changed to a living wage of $15/hr, what happens to those people that worked hard and made good choices to get that $15/hr on their own? . that is not actually a very important question, imo. what is important is what is the right thing to do. if it is WRONG to pay people $8/hr, then you should not do it. this conversation doesn't really apply to the kind of wages we are talking about. however, if you have a minimum wage that is 1/3 of poverty wages, and no government assistance to pick up the slack, then you are really not doing anyone any favors, imo. you are sentencing them to a sort of living hell; especially if there is an overabundance of labor and very little opportunity to achieve anything of any significance. am i saying this is the situation in DC? no. but since your question is in the abstract, so is my response.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 19, 2013 16:33:37 GMT -5
LOL! You beat me to it, I was just about to copy that in here This article still says the same thing they always do: that you can't support yourself (or a family) on minimum wage. RIGHT! You're not supposed to be able to. i am not sure this is desirable, socially speaking.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jul 19, 2013 16:44:11 GMT -5
LOL! You beat me to it, I was just about to copy that in here This article still says the same thing they always do: that you can't support yourself (or a family) on minimum wage. RIGHT! You're not supposed to be able to. i am not sure this is desirable, socially speaking. Well, sure if all we want is a society of people who only do the bare minimum, then it's not desirable. If we want people who improve their skills and work ethics in order to move up the chain, then it is highly desirable.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 19, 2013 16:53:36 GMT -5
i am not sure this is desirable, socially speaking. Well, sure if all we want is a society of people who only do the bare minimum, then it's not desirable. that is not what i was suggesting. what i was suggesting is that it might not be desirable to pay poverty wages.If we want people who improve their skills and work ethics in order to move up the chain, then it is highly desirable. i am not sure that your idea correlates well with your goal. here, let me give you an example. let's say i was laid off from J Kapp's Slide Rule Manufacturing due to declining sales. since my skills are related to that industry, and there are no openings available, i need industrial retraining. so, i go on unemployment. let's say that unemployment is 1/10th of what i need to pay my mortgage. now, in addition to being unemployed, i am homeless. let's leave alone the issue of whether anyone is going to hire someone who is homeless for a second. answer me this: if i am struggling to keep a roof over my head, how on EARTH am i going to find the time to retrain myself to a better job?
|
|