Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Obama Wants To Raise Minimum Wage Part 2  
User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2741 posts, RR: 4
Posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3446 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

The previous thread was getting quite long so a second thread is being started to continue the discussion. The previous thread can be found here Obama Wants To Raise Min Wage (by JoePatroni707 Feb 13 2013 in Non Aviation) .
Thanks
Pat


You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
248 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5438 posts, RR: 29
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3396 times:

DarkSnowyNight: "The thinking that business will close up and die off, or lay people off, or cut hours, etc, is far more based in panic, or worse, deliberately misleading greed, than actual fact. There's no doubt that increasing payroll on that scale will force changes, but that's what profit margins are for. If they can't handle this, they were likely poorly managed in the first place."

Hmmm....Well, all I can tell you is what I've seen dealing with a high increase in the minimum wage in Washington State, currently $9.19/hour. Businesses will absolutely look to raising prices in order to mitigate the cost increase. They will look to reduce other costs as well, such as managing utilties better, shortening hours open, using cheaper products or ingredients, etc. And, yes, they will also cut employee hours by increasing productivity and changing how they do things. And yes, they will offer raises that are fewer and farther between, saving them for the most valuable employees.

How any of that equates "greed" is beyond me. I know that many of these small/mid size business owners are doing pretty well financially, but even the ones doing really well are still not living some sort of lavish lifestyle. In fact, they work their butts off, are extremely intelligent, tenacious, talented people. They provide jobs, take their businesses seriously, and strive to reward their deserving employees in a variety of ways, financially and otherwise. But, by the very nature of their businesses, they are tapping unskilled, untrained, often uneducated people who would otherwise likely not have a job because they lack the skills necessary.

Calling someone like that "greedy" or suggesting that their businesses are "poorly managed" because the government says they should arbitrarily be paying their employees more seems really unfair. In fact, these businesses are often providing a lower cost product that people who don't have a lot of many can actually afford. Is it their fault that oil has skyrocketed, that the economy hit the skids, that THEIR suppliers have jacked up their prices, that the utility companies just keep increasing their rates, etc?

No, it's the greedy bastard of a small businessman that is leading to the destruction of our otherwise great nation. Right.

DSN: "A lot of the same objections were lofted to the creation of OSHA, the 40 work week, and just about every safety standard ever passed. And yes, financial changes and adaptations had to commence. But that's just the way things are, to put it simply."

I agree. As a conservative, I'm embarrassed that our representatives (conservative) are not leading the charge in more of these areas. In the end, though, it's the push and pull of the political system that creates checks and balances.

DSN: "Less so, I think 25% unemployment (be it from this or anything else) is a long-term unsustainable proposition. As one company collapses or cuts staff to the bone, another will invariably move in to take its place, for the simple reason that there was a reason the dying company existed in the first place. Markets change periodically anyway, and most companies adapt to this. There weren't massive scale unemployment as a result of fuel price increases, but there was some shifting involved. People still need and want things, and as long as this never changes, unemployment on that scale will not increase as a result of wage increases. Places that have unemployment at that level do so for a host of other reasons."

I don't think it's a zero sum game, so if someone thinks that it will balance itself out, I think they are sadly mistaken. Not just because of a big increase in the minimum wage, but because it's just one part of a big, growing increase that is hitting the bottom line of many small and mid sized businesses.

WestJet747: "I have no expectation of you or others to separate your faith from your daily life, but how does it in any way impact your economy-based political preferences?"

It's usually a package deal. Economic policies are shaped by politicians. Electing a politician is about more than just economics. There are a host of issues, including those that impact my personal and religious beliefs, that will guide my decision. It doesn't mean that I always vote for the best person. Anymore, I feel like I'm voting for the "least bad" person. But, yes, I think that it affects economic policy because it's all a package deal when electing politicians.

Ken777: "If tips don't take them past the minimum wage then they are making starvation wages. They get stiffed on some of their tables and it's a slow night and you've hit the starvation level without a problem."

Yes, and that's no different than anyone else. Some days are bad. You get sent home early. It's raining so the roofing company can't work that day. Etc. By and large, I'm doubting that most servers end the day making below minimum, but if you have a link stating the contrary I'm happy with that.

Ken777: "In a lot of companies (especially in the food business) the "entry level" tag is held onto like it's some religion. Actually it's simply greed."

I just have no respect for this out-of-hand label of greed being put on these businesses. It is "entry level" work. They don't need schooling. They don't need previous experience. They don't need a special skillset. Often they don't need to speak English. What ISN'T entry level about that?

If you think these businesses are earning some exhorbitant profit, then I'd like to know where it is, because by and large most of these restaurants are feeling the squeeze from all directions. And remember, many, many, many of these locations are privately owned. Many are single or small group locations, such as local chains or multi-unit owners. And if you check Craigslist, you'll see that numerous locations are failing all the time.

CMF: "If the only way for a company to survive is by exploiting employees then they are on life support anyway. Better let them go under. If the need is there people will pay the higher price needed to support the operation of the remaining company(s). That is capitalism."

Yes, because paying them the federally mandated minimum wage TO START is exploiting them.  

CMF: "I think your numbers are wrong but let's pretend they are right. I suggest if a company can't handle this very low minimum wage then the company will go under soon anyway and thus the real difference is that the problems are dealt with faster."

Well, my numbers are likely wrong because I was making them up for example.

I'm not trying to suggest that the businesses will go under right away. I'm suggesting, though, that the workers are going to carry the brunt of the financial impact through reduced hours (which ObamaCare is going to lead to anyways) and fewer and small raises. For some businesses, though, the impact of EVERYTHING being thrown at them is indeed going to cause them to fail, flounder, or stagnate. How that helps all of these people that want to work and are thrilled to have a job is beyond me, but oh well.

-Dave



Totes my goats!
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1401 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3364 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply LastThread):
I can give you a link covering this I am sure. To make it simple, a parent needs money, so they send their 10 year old son or daughter to work in a sweatshop or whatever term you want to use. The child is being exploited, by his parents and the workplace. The parent wants or needs money, the shop owner knows this, he uses this desperation to offer less money for the labor of a child. Both parties are guilty of exploitation. The child does not want to work in a shop, the child want to be a child, be with their family, play. The child is being exploited. The same if a child was sent to a house of Prostitution. The history of exploited children is as old as the history of labor. We now have laws that prevent that in the US, not perfect, but better than it was here and elsewhere

Aha, I notice that we have moved the goalposts and have started talking about children being forced to work by the parents. Well i would agree that is exploitation, it is exploitation by the parents as they are forcing the child to do something they don't want to do.

However, it is being assumed that the kid doesn't want to work, i think in a lot of situations he would, because, again, it's better than the alternative. Sweatshops might not look good to our decadent western tastes but the alternative is normally a lot worse.

Quoting cmf (Reply LastThread):
Your description is wrong. It is a ban on exploitation.

It isn't. It's a ban on negotiating a rate which pleases both parties. As i have stated you can't force employers to hire someone for more than they're worth. They just won't hire them because they're not stupid. Will you buy $5 off of me for $10?

Quoting cmf (Reply LastThread):
If a company has someone employed and can't get enough value out of them to pay minimum wage they have bigger problems than someone trying to slack.

They often can for the first 3, it's the 4th or 5th that can't. Why is that, because there's often diminishing marginal utility for each additional employee. By increasing the price of an employee, the optimal number of staff at a company might go from 4/5 to 3, so people are going to lose their jobs. Some, might get a payrise, but at the expense of others who lose their job completely.

Quoting cmf (Reply LastThread):
I absolutely think it would have been a lot worse without government intervention.

But the government caused this crisis by centrally planning the price of money in order to inflate an artificial boom. It wouldn't have been a lot worse because it wouldn't have existed.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3360 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 2):
It isn't. It's a ban on negotiating a rate which pleases both parties. As i have stated you can't force employers to hire someone for more than they're worth. They just won't hire them because they're not stupid. Will you buy $5 off of me for $10?

Ah, but paying people far less than they're worth is ok is it? Because in this wonderful free-market economy there are just hundreds of other jobs lying there in wait for people? Not always true, and it comes down to situations where people have no option but to accept near-criminally low wages or starve. There is a balance to be struck, and there are plenty of people out there willing to allow terrible working conditions and menial pay in the cause of their own personal enrichment. Some degree of regulation is totally necessary.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1401 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3356 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 3):
Ah, but paying people far less than they're worth is ok is it?

Paying people the market rate is what is fair. If someone's paying you far less than you're worth, all you need to do is throw in the towel and go and work for someone else.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 3):
Because in this wonderful free-market economy there are just hundreds of other jobs lying there in wait for people?

We do not have a wonderful free market economy. I certainly don't condone much of the current regime, however, i'm very keen to see movement in the right direct.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 3):
Not always true, and it comes down to situations where people have no option but to accept near-criminally low wages or starve. There is a balance to be struck, and there are plenty of people out there willing to allow terrible working conditions and menial pay in the cause of their own personal enrichment. Some degree of regulation is totally necessary.

You are basically speaking of this mythical race to the bottom, which in short doesn't exist. The only way companies could continually force progressively worse working conditions and pay on their staff is if that company had the monopoly on employing people.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3351 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 2):
Aha, I notice that we have moved the goalposts and have started talking about children being forced to work by the parents ... Sweatshops might not look good to our decadent western tastes but the alternative is normally a lot worse.

LOL! Go back to my Reply #131 and the argument you made to it in Reply #148 in the original thread. Changing the goalposts? Really. It was very clear what we were talking about, the foundation for the minimum wage law in the U.S., and the usual victims of sweatshop owners at the time.

Regardless, sweatshops have been considered an indignation by most of the respondents to the thread, no matter where sweatshops may be found, nor whom they may exploit, judging by the other replies in subsequent posts.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1401 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3343 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 5):
LOL! Go back to my Reply #131 and the argument you made to it in Reply #148 in the original thread. Changing the goalposts? Really. It was very clear what we were talking about, the foundation for the minimum wage law in the U.S., and the usual victims of sweatshop owners at the time.

I'm a little confused at what you're getting at here? But i will try and cover the potential bases.

I have always maintained that the use of force is immoral. But up until we started talking about parents forcing their children to work, force never came into it.

And yes we might have been talking about the US then, but are you really suggesting that depression-era US was a time of prosperity compared to today?


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3342 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 5):

Regardless, sweatshops have been considered an indignation by most of the respondents to the thread, no matter where sweatshops may be found, nor whom they may exploit, judging by the other replies in subsequent posts.

No, it's ok - they don't exist apparently:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 4):

You are basically speaking of this mythical race to the bottom, which in short doesn't exist. The only way companies could continually force progressively worse working conditions and pay on their staff is if that company had the monopoly on employing people.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1401 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3341 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 7):
No, it's ok - they don't exist apparently:

I must say, the tone of this post is very disrespectful. And it's not really clear what your point is.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3332 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 8):

I must say, the tone of this post is very disrespectful. And it's not really clear what your point is.

The point is that I find it pretty ridiculous to suggest that the circumstances in which people get exploited are 'mythical'. The fact is that in some places companies virtually do have a monopoly, in practical terms. Sorry if you think it came across as disrespectful, but for clarity - it is your arguments here that I am taking against, not you personally.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3323 times:

BMI727 in previous thread:
"So does the economy, since that's one more person unemployed. It's like saying that unless you can buy a Mercedes, you shouldn't buy a car."

No, minimum wage isn't like giving everyone a Mercedes. It is like requiring every car to have steering wheel, indicators, and brakes.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 1):
Yes, because paying them the federally mandated minimum wage TO START is exploiting them.

Never suggested that. However others did. I stated minimum wages are there to avoid exploitation.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 1):
I'm not trying to suggest that the businesses will go under right away. I'm suggesting, though, that the workers are going to carry the brunt of the financial impact through reduced hours (which ObamaCare is going to lead to anyways) and fewer and small raises. For some businesses, though, the impact of EVERYTHING being thrown at them is indeed going to cause them to fail, flounder, or stagnate. How that helps all of these people that want to work and are thrilled to have a job is beyond me, but oh well.

US companies are very good at making employees taking the brunt while managers and owners carry on like normal. One reason why income disparity is growing.

I'm not a fan of Obama care. I don't think healthcare should be connected to companies. This country has chosen an extremely costly way to handle health and Obama care doesn't make any real changes.

You are right in that the combination of higher salaries and health costs combined with everything else going up will cause some companies to go under. Most of them would even without minimum wage and Obama care. This just brings in the cleaning crew faster.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 2):
It isn't. It's a ban on negotiating a rate which pleases both parties.

No it isn't. As I mentioned above, it is the equivalent of requiring cars to have critical equipment.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 2):
They often can for the first 3, it's the 4th or 5th that can't. Why is that, because there's often diminishing marginal utility for each additional employee. By increasing the price of an employee, the optimal number of staff at a company might go from 4/5 to 3, so people are going to lose their jobs. Some, might get a payrise, but at the expense of others who lose their job completely.

If the job can be done with three employees then they should not employee the fourth and fifth person. Let the last two get jobs that are productive.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 2):
But the government caused this crisis by centrally planning the price of money in order to inflate an artificial boom. It wouldn't have been a lot worse because it wouldn't have existed.

???


User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1401 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3325 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 9):
The point is that I find it pretty ridiculous to suggest that the circumstances in which people get exploited are 'mythical'. The fact is that in some places companies virtually do have a monopoly, in practical terms. Sorry if you think it came across as disrespectful, but for clarity - it is your arguments here that I am taking against, not you personally.

First of all no company has a monopoly on work. And secondly even in places which currently have one provider of sweatshops (which is not the same thing as a monopoly) the standards aren't continually going down because at some point people would just quit and take local jobs or go back to farming.

Quoting cmf (Reply 10):
If the job can be done with three employees then they should not employee the fourth and fifth person. Let the last two get jobs that are productive.

But these jobs don't exist. Otherwise they'd already be in them.

Quoting cmf (Reply 10):
???

What's not to understand, the government distorted the most crucial price in the economy, the price of money, we all thought we were richer than we were, channelled our money into housing and stop being productive, and now we have gone bust.

[Edited 2013-02-18 03:42:08]

User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3320 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 11):
(which is not the same thing as a monopoly)

For practical purposes it can be. There is this lovely idea that everyone is completely mobile and free to drift wherever they want to find work, but for the most disadvantaged in the world this is often not the case.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 11):
the standards aren't continually going down because at some point people would just quit and take local jobs or go back to farming.

I haven't actually said that there is a constant lowering of standards. But, if your definition of acceptable wages is one step above subsistence farming then it explains your opinions well.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1401 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3315 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 12):
I haven't actually said that there is a constant lowering of standards. But, if your definition of acceptable wages is one step above subsistence farming then it explains your opinions well.

Acceptable is subjective. It is better than the alternatives, and therefore, it can not be seen as a bad thing. Over time of course there will be more and more alternatives. Unless, opinions such as the ones viewed in this thread result in the banning of outsourcing things to 3rd worlds countries.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3302 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 11):
But these jobs don't exist. Otherwise they'd already be in them.

If they don't exists there can't be a loss...

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 11):
What's not to understand, the government distorted the most crucial price in the economy, the price of money, we all thought we were richer than we were, channelled our money into housing and stop being productive, and now we have gone bust.

You simplify too much. But even so you clearly state we can't count on companies to be responsible.


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4431 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3286 times:

It's interesting that this wage raise always brings about such a debate .
This is not as if we are setting the average work rate for workers. We are setting the base working wage that a worker should earn. Most workers can and will earn more based on skills and experience. Those that make minimum are either entry workers (teenagers) , or extremely low skilled. Either way, there is a point where the minimum does not keep pace with inflation, and it becomes exploitive on the part of emloyers that can raise prices and reduce costs due to inflation and delationary pressures to force thos entry level and low skilled workers to accept a below value pay scale.


if you go by a goalpost analogy. the 2013 Mnimum wage worker is behind all of those that worked at minimum wage in the 1960's and 70's. I pay more in taxes than a current minimum wage employee can make in a year.



Yes there are costs to it, and I even think some companies , especially fast food, that depend on low labor rates will pass those costs onword. However that is the nature of inflation, and you need to raise the bar for the minimum as the maximum keeps going up. To not even want to vote on it , shows the current ignorance of certain members of Congress. They didn't hold up the minimum wage increases when I was getting furloughs and pay cuts in 2009 during the recession. So why not have a good healthy debate about raising the minimum wage and what rate seems fare?



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15695 posts, RR: 26
Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3247 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 3):
Ah, but paying people far less than they're worth is ok is it?

But "how much they're worth" in this case is just an arbitrary government decision, rather than anything based on the market.

Quoting cmf (Reply 10):
No, minimum wage isn't like giving everyone a Mercedes. It is like requiring every car to have steering wheel, indicators, and brakes.

And as a result, you'll sell fewer cars since some people can't afford all that while not allowing motorcycles or mopeds.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4431 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3243 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 19):
But "how much they're worth" in this case is just an arbitrary government decision, rather than anything based on the market.

But that is the point of the minimum wage. It is all about arbitrary. Either the worker is an unknown quantity in terms of skill set, or the job requires the bare minimum treatment. Either way, a floor has to be set to make sure the worker is not being underpaid or exploited. Those that have skills will find advancement, and those without will continue to muddle.

The very real minimum wage is always zero, people can choose not to work. Those that do work should be afforded a bit of protection from employers predatory habits.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8834 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3244 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 2):
Aha, I notice that we have moved the goalposts and have started talking about children being forced to work by the parents. Well i would agree that is exploitation, it is exploitation by the parents as they are forcing the child to do something they don't want to do.

However, it is being assumed that the kid doesn't want to work, i think in a lot of situations he would, because, again, it's better than the alternative. Sweatshops might not look good to our decadent western tastes but the alternative is normally a lot worse.




I am guilty of using my country as a barometer for all things good and evil. This is where I live after all. I know that we are very guilty of exploitation past and present. I feel for exploited from everywhere. It is no different even though local conditions may vary. A hungry stomach changes everything, In an impoverished country, even a child will do things out of desperation. In this country things have changed radically over the years, Thank the good Lord for that.

I am a fan of historical photographs. I suggest you may check some of them from the days of child labor here and elsewhere, poverty and exploitation has a face, none of them smiling, young or old. A hungry stomach make one forget that they are being exploited for awhile. I cite the French and American Revolutions as an example. I cite the coal miner. In England and the US and elsewhere. The diamond miner in Africa. They are not called blood diamonds for nothing. It does no good to use semantics, exploitation is exploitation



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8834 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3237 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 20):
The very real minimum wage is always zero, people can choose not to work. Those that do work should be afforded a bit of protection from employers predatory habits.

Amen brother. People need protection from predators of any kind. All are not equal for sure, some need more protection, that is why we have laws and rules because of predators, criminal and economic who take advantage of the weak and needy, or just down on their luck for any reason, such as an economic collapse as occurred here. I will not get into that.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1401 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3230 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 21):
*emotional rhetoric*

Their lives may have been bad by today's standards, but think about how much worse they'd been if they didn't have jobs at all. That is what you are arguing for, more starvation, more misery. It's an odd position to hold tbh. Strange that you can have such contempt for your fellow man.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6471 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3222 times:

RomeoBravo : I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve on a thread about raising the minimum wage, if you don't recognize the need for a minimum wage to begin with.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1401 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3216 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 24):

RomeoBravo : I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve on a thread about raising the minimum wage, if you don't recognize the need for a minimum wage to begin with.

If i can get 5 people to realise that the minimum wage is completely counter productive and will only hurt the poor, then those 5 people might tell 5 more people, and those 5 people might tell 5 more people etc. You never know, i might save somebody their job.

I think a lot of people are just refusing to hear it because Obama said it so it must be true. I know politics is extremely partisan over there, like it is here. But i don't really have a dog in that fight.

[Edited 2013-02-18 09:05:34]

User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4431 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3203 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 25):
If i can get 5 people to realise that the minimum wage is completely counter productive and will only hurt the poor, then those 5 people might tell 5 more people, and those 5 people might tell 5 more people etc. You never know, i might save somebody their job.

So here is the problem with your argument .

In the USA, it is called the Earned Income Tax Credit, and it is indexed for Inflation.

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


It would actually behoove the Government to drastically increase minumum wage in order to reduce the EITC.

As you can see based on the phaseouts, those in the 10% and 15% brackets loose 21% of their tax credit for every dollar over the maximum threshold .......which is currently above minimum wage. And this is a tax credit, which means that if the person has less taxes than the value, they get a refund and can actually pay negative taxes.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1401 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3196 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 26):
So here is the problem with your argument .

In the USA, it is called the Earned Income Tax Credit, and it is indexed for Inflation.

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


It would actually behoove the Government to drastically increase minumum wage in order to reduce the EITC.

As you can see based on the phaseouts, those in the 10% and 15% brackets loose 21% of their tax credit for every dollar over the maximum threshold .......which is currently above minimum wage. And this is a tax credit, which means that if the person has less taxes than the value, they get a refund and can actually pay negative taxes.

You might have noticed that i have been suggesting the Negative income tax in this very thread, multiple times, which sounds like a very similar thing to the EITC.

The NIT does not kill jobs, nor the incentives to earn more. It is still slightly distortionary, but is vastly superior to the minimum wage, which economically speaking is a car crash policy.

Again the flaw in your logic is you think that people will earn more due to the minimum wage. They won't, they'll just get sacked (or more realistically, not hired) and then you'll be spending even more in benefits, and the country will be even less productive and worse off.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8163 posts, RR: 8
Reply 25, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3214 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 1):
But, by the very nature of their businesses, they are tapping unskilled, untrained, often uneducated people who would otherwise likely not have a job because they lack the skills necessary.

Just because a job position doesn't need a higher education or years of training there is no reason why we need to push wages well below the poverty line. Employers in other countries, like Australia, seem to manage pretty well and I find it hard to believe that US business owners are incompetent in comparison.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 1):
Yes, and that's no different than anyone else.

During my time in retailing at a wage position I was never sent home because of a slow day. There was always work that could be done. When I went to salary positions I was never sent home early because it was a slow day.

To be blunt, sending home a worker making $2.75 an hour early because things are slow simply cuts that workers income, which few can afford. Maybe taking it to half that $2.75. Pretty easy to see why we need to spend so much on federal benefits.

It is also pretty difficult to say that the employer is not a total bum. Greed is pretty apparent at $2.75 an hour.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 1):
It is "entry level" work. They don't need schooling. They don't need previous experience. They don't need a special skillset. Often they don't need to speak English.

But they need to eat.
They need to pay rent.
They need to pay utilities
They need to pay for transportation
They need to pay a lot of other basics of living in the US
And at times they need to pay for health care.

Look at the range of your spending - and how it would be if you were at a minimum wage level.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 1):
What ISN'T entry level about that?

The cost of living that the poor have to endure.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 1):
If you think these businesses are earning some exhorbitant profit, then I'd like to know where it is, because by and large most of these restaurants are feeling the squeeze from all directions.

The failures I have seen were places that didn't deliver a good product. Bad food for the buck. A few places we didn't go back to because of bad service - which isn't a surprise at starvation wages.

I have been friends with the owners of a moderately priced cafe in Sydney. They pay good wages and a pretty stiff rent and they still manage to do well. Long hours, hard work and sufficient financial growth that they were able to open two other places.


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4431 posts, RR: 2
Reply 26, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3202 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 27):
Again the flaw in your logic is you think that people will earn more due to the minimum wage. They won't, they'll just get sacked (or more realistically, not hired) and then you'll be spending even more in benefits, and the country will be even less productive and worse off.

The flaw in your thinking is that you overthink what I think. My point about minimum wage revolves around keeping pace with the state of the economy.

The argument about who gets hired and fired is a decsion based on a micro level. However what good is the economy doing by hiring folks that due to regulations and tax code cost more than just letting them live on welfare?

The minimum wage should be raised as long as evidentiary inflation is present.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 27, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3202 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 16):
There is a loss because you have outlawed jobs that don't pay at a certain rate. Simple as that, the idea that higher paid jobs will appear elsewhere is false.

The loss of tying up people in low paying jobs that require supplement income from government or charities is much higher.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 19):
And as a result, you'll sell fewer cars since some people can't afford all that while not allowing motorcycles or mopeds.

I'm very happy brakes are required. I certainly do not want people without brakes to be out driving. They would too often use my car to stop them.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 25):
If i can get 5 people to realise that the minimum wage is completely counter productive and will only hurt the poor, then those 5 people might tell 5 more people, and those 5 people might tell 5 more people etc. You never know, i might save somebody their job.

I think this is backfiring for you.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15695 posts, RR: 26
Reply 28, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3201 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 28):
Just because a job position doesn't need a higher education or years of training there is no reason why we need to push wages well below the poverty line.

But it does. If I have a job that can be done by literally any adult with a pulse and a job that requires specific skills and education, guess which I'm going to have to pay more for. Being a buyer in a seller's market is rough, but that happens and it doesn't mean that it's a good idea to distort the market. It's like if in 2008 the government had mandated a minimum price per square foot for home sales.

Quoting cmf (Reply 30):
I'm very happy brakes are required. I certainly do not want people without brakes to be out driving. They would too often use my car to stop them

You're about to get rear ended by some illegal immigrants though.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1401 posts, RR: 3
Reply 29, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3204 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 29):
The flaw in your thinking is that you overthink what I think. My point about minimum wage revolves around keeping pace with the state of the economy.

You should be putting it down then    . The US economy is in dire straits and is going further and further down the toilet. Of course, you shouldn't need to do anything at all, the market does it all automatically for you.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 29):
The argument about who gets hired and fired is a decsion based on a micro level. However what good is the economy doing by hiring folks that due to regulations and tax code cost more than just letting them live on welfare?

Well that is the result of another flawed policy. With the negative income tax, you could have a level where you think benefits should kick in. And for every 2 cent you earn below that limit, the gov will give you 1 cent up to what you would get from benefits if you had no job (the exact maths will probably be different, just highlighting the theory).

Such a system is far better than the minimum wage.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 29):
The minimum wage should be raised as long as evidentiary inflation is present.

Well no, it shouldn't exist at all, because it kills jobs. Do you really think in a time of great unemployment in the US, the solution is to increase the price of Labour. If you were trying to sell your car and it wouldn't sell, is the solution to raise the price? If you ran a pub and you wanted to sell more beer, would you increase the cost of beers? If nobody is buying your plane tickets, do you charge more?


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8163 posts, RR: 8
Reply 30, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3193 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 25):
If i can get 5 people to realise that the minimum wage is completely counter productive and will only hurt the poor, then those 5 people might tell 5 more people, and those 5 people might tell 5 more people etc. You never know, i might save somebody their job.

The minimum wage is simply one cost factor for a business owner. To give it more weight than changing rates for, say, electricity, demonstrates a lack of understanding of business.

The other issue is the ability of companies to be successful when paying out a living wage. I used Australia as an example because I lived there long enough to see that business, large and small, are able to operate profitably. This "the sky is falling" mentality in the US when a small increase in poverty wages does nothing to improve either the functioning of business, or the living standards of people on welfare.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 31):
If I have a job that can be done by literally any adult with a pulse and a job that requires specific skills and education, guess which I'm going to have to pay more for.

That's not the issue. The issue is where the starting wages are set. The further down they are from the poverty level the more your taxes are going to pay in benefits - corporate welfare that you seem to love so much. Look around the world where living wages are set for the a minimum wage, where businesses are not burdened by giving out nanny care (a far greater burden than a living wage) and where living standards are equal to ours.

Reality is that we fail in comparison in many areas.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 31, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3190 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 25):
I think a lot of people are just refusing to hear it because Obama said it so it must be true.

That's all we needed to know, really. Someone who used to post here signs on again to show us the light, because he feels we are all mindless lapdogs. And he wonders why I won't engage his arguments. I smelled an agenda miles away!



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4431 posts, RR: 2
Reply 32, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3188 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 32):
Well no, it shouldn't exist at all, because it kills jobs.

It should exist to provide a floor for predatory employers. The natural market economy takes care of most workers as their value increases. The minimum wage is there to truly protect those that need protecting from those that could care less.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 32):
Do you really think in a time of great unemployment in the US,

Yet the economy is improving . Should we wait for the Apex of that trajectory? Especially in light of the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the impending budget cuts effect on Government jobs?

The time for the argument is ripe. Whether 9 dollars is trully what should be set is debatable. However it is time to have the debate.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 32):
you were trying to sell your car and it wouldn't sell, is the solution to raise the price?

A car is a depreciating asset. Not a good comparison.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 32):
If you ran a pub and you wanted to sell more beer, would you increase the cost of beers?

Is the beer in demand or cheap swill. And would the price you lowered it to wind up costing you money?

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 32):
If nobody is buying your plane tickets, do you charge more?

If the cost of Gas and labor goes up you do. And your reduce employment until demand ticks up.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8163 posts, RR: 8
Reply 33, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3179 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 35):
And your reduce employment until demand ticks up.

Business cut employee counts for a lot of reasons, sometimes they cut too deep.

Delta was the classic example of cutting too deep - their customer service took a nose dive, their premium flyers raised hell and Delta made a fast turn around, rehiring as fast as possible and apologizing to their customers.

Other companies have cut staff and have tried to figure out why sales have gone down. They can't seem to connect the dots.


User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1401 posts, RR: 3
Reply 34, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3177 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 35):
Yet the economy is improving

Err, no, it isn't. How's the deficit? How's the dollar? How's the trade balance?

The US (and my country just in case you think i'm picking) are in the terminal stages of a very noticeable decline in the standard of living. At the moment they are trying every last trick in the book to kick the can down the road, but we are running out of road.

We are repeating so many of the mistakes made during the Great Depression it's actually funny.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 35):
It should exist to provide a floor for predatory employers.

There's no such thing as predatory employers, there's the market rate, and the market rate is the market rate. You can't force people to pay above it through legislation. If working for someone is so predatory and so bad, you're free to quit.

As for the rest of your post. If you're so stubborn that you won't even admit that increasing the price of something reduces the demand, then i don't know why i even bother.


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4431 posts, RR: 2
Reply 35, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3171 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 36):
Business cut employee counts for a lot of reasons, sometimes they cut too deep.

Delta was the classic example of cutting too deep - their customer service took a nose dive, their premium flyers raised hell and Delta made a fast turn around, rehiring as fast as possible and apologizing to their customers.

Other companies have cut staff and have tried to figure out why sales have gone down. They can't seem to connect the dots.

No doubt about it. Competition can make decisions very difficult. My own industry saw the effects of it in 2000. Big companies like Lucent and Nortel layed off thousands of engineers. They helped create some of the companies that are now canibalizing their markets.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15695 posts, RR: 26
Reply 36, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3161 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 33):
The further down they are from the poverty level the more your taxes are going to pay in benefits - corporate welfare that you seem to love so much.

We don't have to pay welfare, minimum wage or not. Pull out the net, it's too expensive.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 35):
The minimum wage is there to truly protect those that need protecting from those that could care less.

They need protecting for a reason. Why ensure that people are overpaid if they offer nothing more than a warm body?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 36):
Other companies have cut staff and have tried to figure out why sales have gone down. They can't seem to connect the dots.

Other companies can cut staff and genuinely become more efficient and not see a hit at all.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4431 posts, RR: 2
Reply 37, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3153 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 37):
Err, no, it isn't. How's the deficit? How's the dollar? How's the trade balance?

Those items are what they are. But the economy is improving. You are posting items that are results of policy, not the economy.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 37):
noticeable decline in the standard of living. At the moment they are trying every last trick in the book to kick the can down the road, but we are running out of road.

Yeah, I don't quite believe the decline in the standard of living. But go ahead with your belief in that.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 37):
There's no such thing as predatory employers,

Yes there are. Just as there are predatory employees. A small percentage, but still a percentage.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 37):
If you're so stubborn that you won't even admit that increasing the price of something reduces the demand, then i don't know why i even bother.

I am not stubborn. Some things are Price Inelastic. A price increase may not have a linear or even noticable effect on demand to a certain point.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4431 posts, RR: 2
Reply 38, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3142 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 36):
They need protecting for a reason. Why ensure that people are overpaid if they offer nothing more than a warm body?

people that are a warm body are not working, earning zero dollars. Folks that due the bare minimum to stay employed should earn a minimum wage. Those that don't perfom at all should be shown the door.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1401 posts, RR: 3
Reply 39, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3141 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 37):
Those items are what they are. But the economy is improving. You are posting items that are results of policy, not the economy.

No, they are crucial indicators of a healthy economy. Though it does make me wonder what measure you're using that makes you think it's recovering. Nominal GDP no doubt.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8163 posts, RR: 8
Reply 40, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3137 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 36):
We don't have to pay welfare, minimum wage or not. Pull out the net, it's too expensive.

That is going to have a huge, positive impact on both the economy and the crime rate. With 300 million guns in this country you really want to push poor people to the wall?

Quoting casinterest (Reply 37):
Some things are Price Inelastic. A price increase may not have a linear or even noticable effect on demand to a certain point.

I think a lot of people also don't understand that even products that re semi price sensitive would take a pretty small price hit with such a small dollar increase in the minimum wage. That's the 5¢ increase of a Happy Meal - and even that increase could increase the owners profit margins.


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4431 posts, RR: 2
Reply 41, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3132 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 39):
Though it does make me wonder what measure you're using that makes you think it's recovering. Nominal GDP no doubt.
http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.us.htm

http://www.businessinsider.com/where...-us-economy-is-at-right-now-2013-2



Fair use excerpt

"What this means is that the U.S. is currently in slow expansion mode.

But impending partisan fiscal debates could cause short term volatility write Hofschire and Emsbo-Mattingly. From the report:

"While policy risks continue to populate the headlines, the overall trend during the past 18 months has been the gradual receding of systemic risk. In the U.S., the ongoing fiscal debate is still creating uncertainty—a headwind for business investment—and the potential for rancorous discussions may trigger headline and market volatility over the next three months."


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/where...t-right-now-2013-2#ixzz2LHYOuzud"



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 42, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3133 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 39):
No, they are crucial indicators of a healthy economy.

To use one item on your list, the dollar itself is a horrible example of an indicator of a healthy U.S. economy as a standalone item, as it is a global currency with a demand for use as a currency reserve, for use in foreign local economies, and for use in setting the price of commodities, such as oil.

For example, in 1985, the dollar began a shocking dive in value, somewhere around 15% or so in a short period of time, simply due to monetary policies set at the G7 that year, even while the U.S. economy was recovering well from the recession of the early Reagan years. The dollar had been on an upward trajectory in the years before, even in light of the bad economy in the early 80s, plus the country being in the grips of the S&L crisis.

Rather than calling other posters 'stubborn' for not buying your ideology, it would do you well to educate yourself on some of the topics you're attempting to coerce others into accepting your line of thinking about.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 43, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3113 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 22):
I think a lot of people are just refusing to hear it because Obama said it so it must be true.

Have you ever considered the tiny, remote possibility that they just *might* disagree with you and think that the principle of a minimum wage is actually a good thing? Unfortunately, by reducing the debate to the base level of assuming that anyone who disagrees with your stance is somehow doing so only because they are blinded by Obama's charisma, you show your real lack of understanding for the opinions of others. It is patronising in the extreme, and frankly just SO typical of any debate which has any remote connection to US politics. It's always just 'them and us' isn't it.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 44, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3112 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 43):
It is patronising in the extreme, and frankly just SO typical of any debate which has any remote connection to US politics. It's always just 'them and us' isn't it.

It does sniff of 'having lost the argument, lashing out in frustration,' doesn't it? 



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1340 posts, RR: 3
Reply 45, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3013 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 16):

But "how much they're worth" in this case is just an arbitrary government decision, rather than anything based on the market.

So are the percentages the feds use to calculate your income tax. Point?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 28):

But it does. If I have a job that can be done by literally any adult with a pulse and a job that requires specific skills and education, guess which I'm going to have to pay more for.

In your case, likely neither. The problem is that most companies would pay far below min wage if they could. And of course the effects across the economy would be devastating. Part of the problem with unregulated free-market is that like a machine running with oil or a speed governor, it will destroy itself along with everything else around it. Safeguards like min wages function to help business as much as anything else. People capable of seeing things only in the very shortest terms don't recognize this, of course, but that's their problem.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 29):
Of course, you shouldn't need to do anything at all, the market does it all automatically for you.

Yeah, that's been working great so far.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 29):
Well no, it shouldn't exist at all, because it kills jobs.

No, what kills jobs is having no customers. Which is what happens when folks aren't paid enough to do the jobs you're unwilling to do.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 34):
How's the deficit? How's the dollar? How's the trade balance?

How's your mother? You don't have to answer, I just thought I'd ask you something as related to this discussion as your questions above  
Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 34):

The US (and my country just in case you think i'm picking) are in the terminal stages of a very noticeable decline in the standard of living.

Don't bet on it. Nothing you're pointing to actually has anything to with people's living standards. In my case, income and standard of living have increased dramatically and reliably every year for the past five. Right when we were supposedly having the worst recession since the early 1970's. As you can see, there are a lot of reasons why I do not buy into cheap hype, but the fact remains that I do not wish to see a backslide here. And that is much more tied to having a strong customer base for my own customers than some etherial and debatable bunk about economic indicators.

And if raising the minimum wage supports that stability (and it obviously is), then that's what we need to do. I realize that some profit margins will be effected fractionally by this, but it won't be enough to hurt my own investments in long run. Again, it's only shortest term thinking that opposes lifting the minimum wage.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 34):
At the moment they are trying every last trick in the book to kick the can down the road, but we are running out of road.

Yes they are, aren't they? But in spite of what they want, the minimum wage will be raised (again) sooner or later. And as I said before, this has been done many times before, and the sky didn't come crashing down as a result.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 34):
There's no such thing as predatory employers,

Bullshit. Next.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 34):
there's the market rate, and the market rate is the market rate.

Sure. And as long as that's above a gov't enforced minimum, we're fine with that.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 34):
You can't force people to pay above it through legislation.

Lol, we can force anything we want that way. That's kind of how laws work.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 34):
If you're so stubborn that you won't even admit that increasing the price of something reduces the demand,

I think it's funny you call other people stubborn... Nevertheless, no, this is not true all the time. Or even a lot of it. I suggest you read up on a concept called "inelastic demand."

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 36):
We don't have to pay welfare, minimum wage or not. Pull out the net, it's too expensive.

And yet you still live in the united states instead somewhere you'd obviously prefer, like Somalia... What's holding you up? They don't do welfare there...

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 36):
Why ensure that people are overpaid if they offer nothing more than a warm body?

Why ensure companies make a minimum profit margin when the increase costs across their host societies by virtue of their existence?

Quoting casinterest (Reply 37):

Yeah, I don't quite believe the decline in the standard of living. But go ahead with your belief in that.

Same here. It's hard to find a time in my life when I've done better...

I think people look at debt and economic growth for this. They see those numbers and think something along the lines of "well, if the television and the internet say the economy's in trouble, we must all be going to hell"

There's obviously a lot more to it than that, but for some of us, I guess it's just hard to see the big picture. I don't know...

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 1):

How any of that equates "greed" is beyond me. I know that many of these small/mid size business owners are doing pretty well financially, but even the ones doing really well are still not living some sort of lavish lifestyle.

Because they are almost always maintaining their profit margins while making these cuts. If that's how they want to do it, that's their business, but if part of this comes from utilizing underpriced labor, that's a cheat that ultimately hurts the entire economy, and it needs to have a stop put to it.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 1):
In fact, they work their butts off, are extremely intelligent, tenacious, talented people.

That can also be said for a good deal of minimum wagers who are where they are because of circumstance. Which would be the same reason many successful people are where they are.

Hard work and talent, and all that crap is great and all, but much of life's success comes from placement and timing. While there's nothing wrong with that, there are dues to be paid. Part of this means paying your workers in accordance with the local economy, not the least you feel like.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 1):
But, by the very nature of their businesses, they are tapping unskilled, untrained, often uneducated people who would otherwise likely not have a job because they lack the skills necessary.

I know as well as anyone that that happens. But at that level, you would need to look at them as a commodity. Sometimes the cost of that goes up. Did you just stop driving anywhere at all when gas hit $4.15/gal?

Much ado is being made about nothing. This increase will go into effect sooner or later and when it does, you'll be fine.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 1):
I agree. As a conservative, I'm embarrassed that our representatives (conservative) are not leading the charge in more of these areas. In the end, though, it's the push and pull of the political system that creates checks and balances.

This is why I do not vote exclusively along party lines. Sometimes important things get left out.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 1):
Yes, because paying them the federally mandated minimum wage TO START is exploiting them.  

When it's not enough to get by on, yes, it is certainly exploitation. This is part of why a lot of people want to see this fixed.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1401 posts, RR: 3
Reply 46, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3001 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 58):
How's your mother? You don't have to answer, I just thought I'd ask you something as related to this discussion as your questions above

The US economy is consuming far more than it is producing and is living off of the last dregs of debt and inflation it can get away with, which is going to come back and bite it sternly in the arse. That is what these indicators say and that is not the sign of a healthy economy.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 47, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2984 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 62):
The US economy is consuming far more than it is producing and is living off of the last dregs of debt and inflation it can get away with, which is going to come back and bite it sternly in the arse.

What that opinion has to do with the minimum wage—the topic of this thread, and which has been with us through every boom and bust cycle since the 1930s—is anyone's guess.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15695 posts, RR: 26
Reply 48, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2985 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 40):
With 300 million guns in this country you really want to push poor people to the wall?

I think more of the lower classes than you do. They aren't savages.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 50):
Whenever I bring that topic up, I'm always taken to task by the right wingers for spending money on 'useless' projects,

Because they either have to be unnecessary or things that should have happened before.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 51):
Yes we should enact the very policies that caused the great depression. Great idea

They didn't cause the Depression, they just didn't end it. Some of Roosevelt's policies probably even extended it.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 58):
So are the percentages the feds use to calculate your income tax. Point?

This is probably the first time I've seen anyone hold up American tax policy as an example of governmental wisdom.

That said, it's a distortion in the market and therefore an inefficiency.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 58):
The problem is that most companies would pay far below min wage if they could.

Only if the market will bear it.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 58):
Why ensure companies make a minimum profit margin when the increase costs across their host societies by virtue of their existence?

Nobody ensures a minimum profit for companies, for the most part. Why do the same for people?



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1401 posts, RR: 3
Reply 49, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2980 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 61):
Precisely! You're catching on. ::whew:: A vibrant economy, where workers are treated fairly and remunerated in an equitable way is part and parcel of having such means. If you want a rice and beans economy, by all means pay your workers a rice and beans wage. If you want a caviar and champagne economy, you help put money into circulation so that you have a market to sell your goods into, which helps opens up the coffers of market liquidity via the confidence a robust economy gives business.

The most prosperous economy is that where the people are paid the market rate for their Labour, this means that people and resources are organised in the most productive way possible.

Productivity grows an economy, not spending. Giving people loads of money for no increase in productivity will just cause inflation.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 61):
You keep conflating price fixing into the argument instead of focussing on the issue at hand.

Well this IS a thread about price fixing.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 60):
I'm not talking about everyone having 'a lot' of purchasing power. I'm talking about them having 'enough' to basically live reasonably. I specified the kinds of criteria I have in mind for that, and things like adequate shelter, healthcare and decent food do not mean 'a lot' of purchasing power.

A lot, a little, a reasonable amount, all if it. The same thing applies, if you can't produce that level of productivity, nobody's going to pay you that much salary. Regardless of whether there's a minimum wage or not.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 60):
As for the nature of the programs you refer to, I am unsighted on the detail of what you have in the US.

I don't live in the US, i live in London thanks, hence the Union flag up there.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 60):
I can't seriously consider it sensible to have no organised help available to reduce unemployment and get people in to work if they struggle to do so themselves. There are people out there who, for whatever reason, are short on skills, experience, simply don't know so well how to go about getting employed. It is ridiculous to ignore that and just 'let the market sort it out'. The market won't sort out those issues, which are essentially socio-societal ones, and intervention and help are highly beneficial if done right.

Yes it will, the market will take a chance on them because it can pay them low wages and hope to build up their skills and gain experience. After a while this experience will result in higher wages and perks. This is the process that is curerntly being blocked by the minimum wage.

Anyway, i'm slightly tired of dispelling just about every economic fallacy in history now, so i'm going to retire for the night.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 64):
They didn't cause the Depression, they just didn't end it. Some of Roosevelt's policies probably even extended it.

I would argue that they caused it. Obviously they didn't cause the initial bust, but they put off the readjustment that needed to happen in order for the economy grow again. Whilst at the same time, they added to a deficit that would later have to be paid off anyway.

Edit again: When i say economy grow again, i am using my own/Austrian definition which is an increase in productivity and not an increase in gov spending.

[Edited 2013-02-18 15:08:00]

User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 50, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2972 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 65):
A lot, a little, a reasonable amount, all if it. The same thing applies, if you can't produce that level of productivity, nobody's going to pay you that much salary. Regardless of whether there's a minimum wage or not.

It's not all the same. Again, if you can't afford to pay people a living wage then you shouldn't be in business.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 65):
I don't live in the US, i live in London thanks, hence the Union flag up there.

Congrats on that.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 65):
Yes it will, the market will take a chance on them because it can pay them low wages and hope to build up their skills and gain experience. After a while this experience will result in higher wages and perks. This is the process that is curerntly being blocked by the minimum wage.

Either that, or you end up with people totally disenchanted and resigned to a life of dole bludgery. No, having both market factors and help together is eminently more sensible. One doesn't replace the other. If we didn't strive to get people back into work in a timely manner then you may as well wait your whole life to wait for market forces to prevail upon people, because for many it simply won't happen. There is absolutely nothing negative about better equipping people for meaningful work, other than the cost of doing so. In my book it's money well spent, and if it lifts only a small proportion of people off benefits or into higher paid work then I deem it a roaring success. It's not just about the money. Why is the human element so hopelessly lost in most of this debate?

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 65):
Anyway, i'm slightly tired of dispelling just about every economic fallacy in history now, so i'm going to retire for the night.

Tired of people disagreeing with you? Sorry, that's debating pal. Sleep well.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 51, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2972 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 65):
The most prosperous economy is that where the people are paid the market rate for their Labour, this means that people and resources are organised in the most productive way possible.

There is nothing counter-productive to prosperity to having a government-set minimum wage. The boom years, which will occur with or without a minimum wage floor, attest to that. You've not provided a lick of evidence to prove that having a minimum wage creates a bust in the economy. Not one shred.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 65):
Well this IS a thread about price fixing.

In a classic price control environment (see the Nixon years), wages are frozen to the UPside, not to the downside. That is why it is improper to conflate the two issues, and what makes minimum wages and price controls separate concerns.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5372 posts, RR: 8
Reply 52, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2952 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 65):
The most prosperous economy is that where the people are paid the market rate for their Labour, this means that people and resources are organised in the most productive way possible.

Please site a source for this. I cannot find any truth in this.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15695 posts, RR: 26
Reply 53, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2949 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 65):
Obviously they didn't cause the initial bust, but they put off the readjustment that needed to happen in order for the economy grow again.

That's a slightly different argument. Attempting to stop re-adjustment and market correction doesn't actively make the economy worse, but it does keep it from getting better.

The issue with debt from that time, wasn't the debt itself, which paled in comparison with that incurred by WWII. The problem is that it planted many of the seeds for the current budget problems.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1340 posts, RR: 3
Reply 54, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2937 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 64):


Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 50):
Whenever I bring that topic up, I'm always taken to task by the right wingers for spending money on 'useless' projects,

Because they either have to be unnecessary or things that should have happened before.

Oh, ok. So don't start a project because it should have been done already. That makes a lot of sense...

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 64):
Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 58):
So are the percentages the feds use to calculate your income tax. Point?

This is probably the first time I've seen anyone hold up American tax policy as an example of governmental wisdom.

Didn't say that. There are gov't enforced costs of doing business. Don't like it? Try to get away with not doing it and see what happens. Minimum wage didn't destroy the economy before, and it neither will raising it now. If a given business cannot handle something as simple as that, buh-bye.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 64):

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 58):
The problem is that most companies would pay far below min wage if they could.

Only if the market will bear it.

They'll make the market bear that. The points you keep bringing up illustrate nicely the sociopathic thinking that is necessary in the business world. The problem with that is that companies are completely incapable of checking this and will pay as little as they can get away with. Without a minimum wage, someone in your position would probably be worth right around $3.20/hr, and that's what you'd get, because no one will offer you more.

Because and only because there is a gov't to say "we're not going to let you do that", your employer has to by law, take a loss on you. This is ok, because there are enough of you that there is a consumer base that wouldn't be there at all, and the loss they take keeping BMI727 around is supernumerrated by a whole bunch of you having purchasing power that didn't exist in the economy before.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 64):


Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 58):
Why ensure companies make a minimum profit margin when the increase costs across their host societies by virtue of their existence?

Nobody ensures a minimum profit for companies, for the most part. Why do the same for people?

See above. It's not about being nice to workers, although I would say that is an end unto itself. People spend their surpluses, companies don't. A healthy economy is one that has the largest amount of money actually circulating. Making interest is nice and all, but it really doesn't do jack-shit in terms of social and technological progress. A healthy consumer base handles this a great deal better, while promoting economic stability. There's more to that than a minimum wage.

But just as there's more to a car than wheels, you can't get there without it.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 65):

The most prosperous economy is that where the people are paid the market rate for their Labour, this means that people and resources are organised in the most productive way possible.

And that doesn't happen when you try to pay folks below standard wages and with sup-par hours.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 65):

I don't live in the US, i live in London thanks, hence the Union flag up there.

How's the Weather? Also, do you know Charlene?

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 65):

Yes it will, the market will take a chance on them because it can pay them low wages and hope to build up their skills and gain experience.

Of course! Why didn't we all come to the conclusion that the market will pay unskilled laborers enough to live on? Probably because that's never happened at all anywhere!

If I can have you for $5./hr, and my buddies & I have forced you to work for it by creating a market where it's impossible to do better, why in the hell would I pay you a nickle* more?

I am trying to think of a good example of this.... Hmmmm... Ah yes, that time when people in your part of the world reverted to a system called Feudalism. Tell me RB, how did that end? Did Lords just decide to pay their Serfs what they were worth one day?

Did they tell their laborers "Hey guys, you know what? I realize you have no mobility whatsoever, and you'll probably starve without the pittance I punt your way (when I remember, that is, ha ha ha), but I just woke up one day and thought, gee whilickers, you all have some really awesome hay-bailing and Cow Milking skills. So even though I totally don't have to, and all the other Lords will probably tan my hide for destabilizing our little racket, I'm suddenly going to pay more, whaddya think?"

Or was the social progress brought about by the Industrial Revolution (I'm leaving out the Enlightenment & Renaissance because if you were a Serf, then those events aren't actually things, and life pretty much went right from medieval to industrial in one jump) characterized by violent unrest?


Human beings are not different now to what we were then. Take off enough of the safeguards and we'll get right back to where we were. Hell, we have one poster here advocating Serfdom as it is.

*this is an American type of coinage

[Edited 2013-02-18 15:54:56]


Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 55, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2932 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 54):
*this is an American type of coinage

   Something tells me he knows that.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15695 posts, RR: 26
Reply 56, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2917 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 54):
Oh, ok. So don't start a project because it should have been done already. That makes a lot of sense...

No, you should have been smart enough to do it before. Of course sometimes those decisions have to be made when the budget is being overrun by entitlements.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 54):
Minimum wage didn't destroy the economy before, and it neither will raising it now.

So just keep doing it until America prices themselves out of every market?

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 54):
If a given business cannot handle something as simple as that, buh-bye.

And what happens to their employees?

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 54):
They'll make the market bear that.

In that situation, it's zero sum except for money taken out of the pockets of those who already have more. Minimum wage workers get paid more, but they also have to pay more for virtually everything, especially since the businesses with the most low wage workers are those that cater to lower class people.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 54):
It's not about being nice to workers, although I would say that is an end unto itself.

Only if they're worth it.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 54):
Making interest is nice and all, but it really doesn't do jack-shit in terms of social and technological progress.

Where do you think that money goes? Interest doesn't magically appear on your account statements.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 57, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2905 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 56):
Only if they're worth it.

That logic assumes that all bosses are scrupulous to actually pay people what they're worth, when in many cases even if they can afford to they may not.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21420 posts, RR: 56
Reply 58, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2908 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 15):
However that is the nature of inflation, and you need to raise the bar for the minimum as the maximum keeps going up.

   That's the crux of the issue - we could tie the minimum wage to inflation and end all future discussions about raising it. This isn't a question of whether to raise the minimum wage as much as it is a question of whether to stop the minimum wage from dropping.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 29):
Well no, it shouldn't exist at all, because it kills jobs.

In principle, you'd think so. But in practice, there's evidence to suggest that it has no significant effect at all.

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1340 posts, RR: 3
Reply 59, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2898 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 50):
Why is the human element so hopelessly lost in most of this debate?

It shouldn't be. It's the most important part of this.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 56):

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 54):
It's not about being nice to workers, although I would say that is an end unto itself.

Only if they're worth it.

They're working citizens and this is the minimum wage. That means they're worth it by default. If you'd like, try opening a business with no employees and see where that gets you.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 56):

So just keep doing it until America prices themselves out of every market?

Never happen. You're conflating two completely different things, as has already been explained. I realize you probably don't have experience with export/import and all that that entails, but it's never cheaper to outsource over $1.75 or whatever they're asking.

In any case, the jobs that go for min. wage already cannot be exported anyway. They would already have been if that were possible.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 56):

And what happens to their employees?

They get new jobs. This is what people normally do when they're unemployed.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 56):
but they also have to pay more for virtually everything, especially since the businesses with the most low wage workers are those that cater to lower class people.

That happens. And nowhere near on the scale you're claiming. I don't know a person anywhere that wouldn't be ok with spending an extra $5 - $12 a month for discretionary items in return for a $1.75/hr raise. Next...



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15695 posts, RR: 26
Reply 60, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2895 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 57):
That logic assumes that all bosses are scrupulous to actually pay people what they're worth, when in many cases even if they can afford to they may not.

Only if there is exactly one potential employer. Otherwise the worker can find another employer who will pay them what they are worth. Of course, if the only person who thinks a worker is underpaid is the worker himself, then the problem is not with the employers.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 61, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2892 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 60):
Only if there is exactly one potential employer.

Not necessarily. And in any case, in some locations and where people are naturally not very mobile due to their limited means and circumstances, choice can be very limited. This wealth of better employers alluded to is not always readily accessible.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 62, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2888 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 28):
You're about to get rear ended by some illegal immigrants though.

I am?

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 29):
Well no, it shouldn't exist at all, because it kills jobs. Do you really think in a time of great unemployment in the US, the solution is to increase the price of Labour.

You are too focused on unemployment rate. Vompanies not paying enough to cover living costs are leaches.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 36):
We don't have to pay welfare, minimum wage or not. Pull out the net, it's too expensive.

You're suggesting the most expensive option there is. Stopping maintenance on a building is great for a short period but it doesn't take long before your costs are much higher than if you had done maintenance properly.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 36):
They need protecting for a reason. Why ensure that people are overpaid if they offer nothing more than a warm body?

They need protection because they are exploited. If they are not performing they should be fired, doesn't matter what salary they earn. A company not being able to identify that problem will be out of business soon enough anyway.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 36):
Other companies can cut staff and genuinely become more efficient and not see a hit at all.

Then they should do so. This is not a minimum wage issue.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 49):
The most prosperous economy is that where the people are paid the market rate for their Labour, this means that people and resources are organised in the most productive way possible.

That only work when all parties are strong enough to have the option of saying no. That is sadly utopia.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 49):
Productivity grows an economy, not spending.

No, spend is what grows an economy. Increasing productivity shrinks it unless people spend on buying the additional products and then some.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 49):
Well this IS a thread about price fixing.

It is not price fixing. It is setting a floor. you are free to go above it as much as you want.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 49):
Yes it will, the market will take a chance on them because it can pay them low wages and hope to build up their skills and gain experience. After a while this experience will result in higher wages and perks. This is the process that is curerntly being blocked by the minimum wage.

There is a snippet of truth in this. But the cost of exploitation is much higher than the advantages gained by this. There are better ways to handle this, e.g. internships.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15695 posts, RR: 26
Reply 63, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2887 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 59):
That means they're worth it by default.

By a completely arbitrary determination with no basis in the market.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 59):
I realize you probably don't have experience with export/import and all that that entails, but it's never cheaper to outsource over $1.75 or whatever they're asking.

It does if the foreign workers come to you.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 59):
They get new jobs. This is what people normally do when they're unemployed.

Because jobs just grow on trees, right? Company A can't afford to pay somebody but Company B can because the only reason why Company A can't must only be mismanagement, because everything is the fault of the people in charge, right?

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 59):
I don't know a person anywhere that wouldn't be ok with spending an extra $5 - $12 a month for discretionary items in return for a $1.75/hr raise. Next...

It's not just discretionary spending, it's everything. The guy at the gas station, Walmart employees, people working in warehouses, janitors, etc. You're not just paying more for the occasional hamburger, you're paying more for everything.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 61):
And in any case, in some locations and where people are naturally not very mobile due to their limited means and circumstances, choice can be very limited.

That's their problem and not one for the government to solve. Being a seller in a buyer's market sucks, but you can try and sell in a different market.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8834 posts, RR: 10
Reply 64, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2884 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 59):
In any case, the jobs that go for min. wage already cannot be exported anyway. They would already have been if that were possible.

As sure as the sun comes up everyday.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 59):
That happens. And nowhere near on the scale you're claiming. I don't know a person anywhere that wouldn't be ok with spending an extra $5 - $12 a month for discretionary items in return for a $1.75/hr raise. Next...

As someone said to me earlier, it is unbelievable that this has to be explained over and over. Who in this world does not want a raise in pay to allow them to live better and at the very least feed and cloth themselves. I have to wonder what these naysayers would say or do if they were treated the same as far as making a living, or keeping up with inflation. I smell hypocrisy. What else could it be?



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15695 posts, RR: 26
Reply 65, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2878 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 62):
Stopping maintenance on a building is great for a short period but it doesn't take long before your costs are much higher than if you had done maintenance properly.

Buildings don't maintain themselves. People can.

Or on a more basic level, who is responsible for building maintenance? The owner, of course. So, who is responsible for the maintenance of a person? It has to be that person, not the government.

Quoting cmf (Reply 62):
If they are not performing they should be fired, doesn't matter what salary they earn.

But raising minimum wage increases the window of un-employability. Somebody worth $8 per hour would have to be fired.

[Edited 2013-02-18 17:21:06]


Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15695 posts, RR: 26
Reply 66, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2871 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 64):
Who in this world does not want a raise in pay to allow them to live better and at the very least feed and cloth themselves.

It doesn't necessarily translate to the ability to better feed and cloth themselves. If budgets get squeezed and they lose their jobs the opposite happens. Even if one gets a raise, they have to pay more for everything to accommodate for the raises everyone else gets.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 64):
What else could it be?

Basic understanding of economics maybe?



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 67, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2867 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 63):
That's their problem and not one for the government to solve. Being a seller in a buyer's market sucks, but you can try and sell in a different market.

Are you seriously suggesting that the government should not strive to improve conditions and opportunities in the more underprivileged communities? It's a hopeless approach to just see problems like that develop and do nothing to assist. You won't see yourself slowly turning red and singing the Soviet national anthem just because you take a sensible approach towards improving lives across the country.

I am not in favour of a free ride for people that don't want to work. I favour of a benefits system that makes not working a viable choice, but provides essential support in periods of unexpected and temporary unemployment. I believe there should be strong social support for those that literally can't, and strict stipulations and conditions for receiving benefits during periods of supervised unemployment. But, for people that find it difficult to attain half-decent employment in their particular area there should be steps taken to improve that situation, be that in the form of education, improving skills, attracting business, improving infrastructure, or whatever else it takes. Simply washing your hands of the whole situation and saying it's their problem is not going to benefit your country in any way, shape or form. I fail to understand the futility of such a selfish approach.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 68, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2867 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 66):
Even if one gets a raise, they have to pay more for everything to accommodate for the raises everyone else gets.

You're looking at this too linearly. Far more than the price of labor goes into the cost of goods. The price of commodities, transportation, rents and properties to operate the businesses, the cost of capital, taxes, even foreign exchange all play a role. Simply giving someone a 50¢ or $1 raise doesn't translate into a linear rise in the inflation rate which continually cancels out the benefit of raises.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15695 posts, RR: 26
Reply 69, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2866 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 67):
Are you seriously suggesting that the government should not strive to improve conditions and opportunities in the more underprivileged communities?

It costs too much.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 67):
I believe there should be strong social support for those that literally can't, and strict stipulations and conditions for receiving benefits during periods of supervised unemployment.

How much costly bureaucracy is that going to take?

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 67):
But, for people that find it difficult to attain half-decent employment in their particular area there should be steps taken to improve that situation, be that in the form of education, improving skills, attracting business, improving infrastructure, or whatever else it takes.

Education and infrastructure is fine, but after that you're pretty much out of the government realm.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 68):
Far more than the price of labor goes into the cost of goods. The price of commodities, transportation, rents and properties to operate the businesses, the cost of capital, taxes, even foreign exchange all play a role.

There's no getting around the fact that the money comes from somewhere, and it won't be company profits. If all of this is a free way to print money for everybody, let's just jack the minimum wage up to $50 per hour.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 70, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2855 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 69):
If all of this is a free way to print money for everybody, let's just jack the minimum wage up to $50 per hour.

Sure it comes from somewhere, but it doesn't always come from the final price at the register. Accumulating wealth at a slower pace can also play a factor. Not everything in life, nor economics, is on a fixed linear trajectory with a fixed rate of return.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 71, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2851 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 69):
It costs too much.

In the short term potentially costly, yes. In the long term, a sensible investment for the country.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 69):
How much costly bureaucracy is that going to take?

Not much, assuming you have an established benefits system. The main changes would need to be in the form of legislation and policy. Throwing that problem up smacks of excuses. Seeing as you're in favour of value for money, why are you against a more targeted benefits system focused on getting everyone productive?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 69):
Education and infrastructure is fine, but after that you're pretty much out of the government realm.

In your extremely limited definition of government responsibility, yes.

[Edited 2013-02-18 17:55:04]


✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8834 posts, RR: 10
Reply 72, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2848 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 66):
It doesn't necessarily translate to the ability to better feed and cloth themselves. If budgets get squeezed and they lose their jobs the opposite happens. Even if one gets a raise, they have to pay more for everything to accommodate for the raises everyone else gets.

If this is true about minimum wage, it only stands to reason that this principle applies to any raise that anyone receives. Every raise across the board in our economy raises the price of everything.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 66):
Basic understanding of economics maybe?

Please explain where my words above are not true. It is amazing how raises for the poorest of the poor will ruin our economy, cause layoffs, raise prices, and a million more things. Raises for many millions more does not ? Ridiculous.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 73, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2844 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 72):
Please explain where my words above are not true. It is amazing how raises for the poorest of the poor will ruin our economy, cause layoffs, raise prices, and a million more things. Raises for many millions more does not ? Ridiculous.

  
Also, the effect of raising minimum wage on the cost of everything is exaggerated. It is not a raise for everybody, it is a raise for only the very lowest earners.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1340 posts, RR: 3
Reply 74, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2834 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 72):

If this is true about minimum wage, it only stands to reason that this principle applies to any raise that anyone receives. Every raise across the board in our economy raises the price of everything.

Very good point. Can't believe I missed that until now, thanks for bringing it up!

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 73):

  
Also, the effect of raising minimum wage on the cost of everything is exaggerated. It is not a raise for everybody, it is a raise for only the very lowest earners.

To say the least, yes! I'll be a funkey's muncle if that translates to more than another one of those nickle's per item in the upward direction...



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15695 posts, RR: 26
Reply 75, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2835 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 71):
In the short term potentially costly, yes. In the long term, a sensible investment for the country.

Unless you aren't underprivileged, in which case you're basically tossing away money.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 71):
Seeing as you're in favour of value for money, why are you against a more targeted benefits system focused on getting everyone productive?

Getting someone productive isn't a governmental problem unless they make it a governmental problem, which they shouldn't. That's a personal problem.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 72):
If this is true about minimum wage, it only stands to reason that this principle applies to any raise that anyone receives.

It does in large part. However, it is here that the distinction between a voluntary increase in compensation determined to be necessary by an employer and a government mandated increase in compensation that may not be justified by any business case must be made.

In short, if companies want to raise their pay rates, that's their business. If the government is going to force them to, it's a different story. It's not a matter of giving people raises is bad, it's a matter of having it be bad when the government forces it on employers when there is no business reason to provide the raise.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8834 posts, RR: 10
Reply 76, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2833 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 73):
Also, the effect of raising minimum wage on the cost of everything is exaggerated. It is not a raise for everybody, it is a raise for only the very lowest earners.

I am beginning to doubt my limited knowledge of economics. How in the hell did I survive, support my family, end up fairly well off, put my children through school, college and retire at an early age. I am beginning to believe it was all an accident. I never knew until I entered this discussion, how lacking in knowledge I am. Really! I removed the word dumb, I did not want to shock anyone.  Smile

[Edited 2013-02-18 18:12:18]


It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 77, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2840 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 75):
Unless you aren't underprivileged, in which case you're basically tossing away money.

Wow. So you'd be happy to see some parts of your nation turn into Somalia so long as you're alright Jack? Do you really care so little about the state of your country as a whole and welfare of the greater population? That I just really can't get.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 75):
Getting someone productive isn't a governmental problem unless they make it a governmental problem, which they shouldn't. That's a personal problem.

I disagree. If there are issues preventing significant amounts of people getting into work in certain areas then it certainly is a governmental problem. It affects the country. We all need as many people as possible in work and paying tax, being productive members of society.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8834 posts, RR: 10
Reply 78, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2833 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 75):
It does in large part. However, it is here that the distinction between a voluntary increase in compensation determined to be necessary by an employer and a government mandated increase in compensation that may not be justified by any business case must be made

There is an old saying "spitting hairs" A raise is a raise is a raise. Price increases from any source, minimum wages, regular raises is the exact same thing. It is all business expense. Employee compensation I believe is the term. What has a government mandated minimum wage have to do with it? Is that any different than any other expense. I do not see any.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8834 posts, RR: 10
Reply 79, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2825 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 77):
Wow. So you'd be happy to see some parts of your nation turn into Somalia so long as you're alright Jack? Do you really care so little about the state of your country as a whole and welfare of the greater population? That I just really can't get.

   I am as puzzled as you are. What are the values being displayed on here? I will take yours and mine and some others any day of the week. I live well, but you cannot seems to be it. I disagree with that for sure.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 80, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2817 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 79):
   I am as puzzled as you are. What are the values being displayed on here? I will take yours and mine and some others any day of the week. I live well, but you cannot seems to be it. I disagree with that for sure.

Me as well. Not trying to call you out, BMI, but you (and I) were basically born with a silver spoon. I know you got your Aero Engineering degree, I can list my accomplishments and yada ya, but as far as real struggles, we have not seen them in our lives. You speak as if you started from nothing and built up a huge company by yourself... but no, you were born middle class (at least,) got good education, and did well in school (very much of that due to the LUCK of not being born in the hood and having to work jobs to support yourself in college.)

You really haven't seen struggle nor accomplished that much, and neither have I (based off where I started from.) I'm not telling you to go register as a Democrat or anything, just as I am not, but you could at least have a bit more empathy or not act like you've accomplished so much with absolutely no luck on where and when you were born



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8163 posts, RR: 8
Reply 81, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2819 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 50):
I've been a great proponent of WPA-type projects, where we use government funds to put the unemployed to work creating infrastructure, rather than using those same funds to pay people to sit and do nothing

People who hate government spending tend to forget that those bridges, roads and airports are actually built by private companies. So somehow there is a belief that significant cuttings in spending on infrastructure will be a boon for those companies. Maybe the economy could use some new private companies that handle unemployment benefits for the millions who won't be delivery

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 59):
No, what lifts an economy into prosperity is the means to invest and expand.

You forget the need for the product that you'll be selling. And the ability for production, be it infrastructure or the ability to obtain equipment, or the ability to hire employees.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 65):
So, who is responsible for the maintenance of a person? It has to be that person, not the government.

And when you continually push down the buying power of the minimum wage, year after year, you prostitute your concepts of individuals being responsible for their "maintenance".

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 65):
But raising minimum wage increases the window of un-employability. Somebody worth $8 per hour would have to be fired.

The fact is that someone on minimum wage has seen their pay shrink in buying power because of inflation. That is one of the obscene facts that people against minimum wages really don't want to address.

No one is asking that the minimum wage increase at the same explosive rate as CEO compensation But we need to move it to a level just above the poverty line. Other countries make it pretty clear that employees can be paid a living wage, employment can grow and companies can be successful. That pretty well makes the winging in the US against increasing the minimum wage less than responsible.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 66):
It doesn't necessarily translate to the ability to better feed and cloth themselves. If budgets get squeezed and they lose their jobs the opposite happens. Even if one gets a raise, they have to pay more for everything to accommodate for the raises everyone else gets.

That sounds like Jr. High School Economics. A course that forgets about the impact of competition and doesn't want to think about countries where sloppy economic comments are inaccurate.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 69):
It costs too much.

And failure to invests costs even more over the long term.


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8834 posts, RR: 10
Reply 82, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2811 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 80):
Me as well. Not trying to call you out, BMI, but you (and I) were basically born with a silver spoon. I know you got your Aero Engineering degree, I can list my accomplishments and yada ya, but as far as real struggles, we have not seen them in our lives. You speak as if you started from nothing and built up a huge company by yourself... but no, you were born middle class (at least,) got good education, and did well in school (very much of that due to the LUCK of not being born in the hood and having to work jobs to support yourself in college.)

You really haven't seen struggle nor accomplished that much, and neither have I (based off where I started from.) I'm not telling you to go register as a Democrat or anything, just as I am not, but you could at least have a bit more empathy or not act like you've accomplished so much with absolutely no luck on where and when you were born

Now that sums it up very well. I could not agree more with your statement. We are humans, dealing with fellow humans. This covers the frustration some of us are feeling about the unfeeling of replies on here. One cannot simply reduce it to expenses. It all has everything to do with quality of life, reward for hard unappreciated work in most cases of minimum wage earners. You work hard, you should be able to live, afford basic needs and enjoy your life such as it is. This is not too much to ask in this country, nor any other one.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 83, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2799 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 82):

I agree with what you said, but I can also understand why people can think the way BMI does, but I just find it kinda hypocritical that he is saying it... he is not getting government support but he is from his parents. I mean, free country and think what ya want, but I'd figure someone that has had a lot handed to him would be a bit more empathetic. Don't get me wrong, an AE degree is good stuff and no doubt you put in the hours, but had you been born in the ghetto, the road to an AE degree is a bit more complex than "I would have put in the extra time to learn what my terrible inner city schools taught me, ignored the pressures of all of society and most of my peers, and simply get past all the barriers put in front of me and got my degree." Easier said than done.

Now again, I'm not a socialist or whatever may be jumping in your mind, and I will disagree and argue with many on here (including my good friend WarRI1) on many a policy, but I try and possess some empathy and think of ways to at least give them opportunity (not a job and a bunch of money) even if it means it slightly inconveniences me in life.

You aren't a self made man... you are or will be near the top of society just as I am so fortunate to be, but don't forget where we started from... it wasn't in near poverty like my father. No, we started at the top



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 84, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2799 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 80):
Me as well. Not trying to call you out, BMI, but you (and I) were basically born with a silver spoon. I know you got your Aero Engineering degree, I can list my accomplishments and yada ya, but as far as real struggles, we have not seen them in our lives. You speak as if you started from nothing and built up a huge company by yourself... but no, you were born middle class (at least,) got good education, and did well in school (very much of that due to the LUCK of not being born in the hood and having to work jobs to support yourself in college.)

I grew up with one parent (my father having fled abroad and left us all with no warning, and my mum with the entire household to pay for) and with three siblings, in a relatively poor area having had to abandon the fairly comfortable circumstances we enjoyed for a very short time at the start of my life, in a house with no proper heating and a host of other issues. My mother, a well-educated individual, worked insane hours to keep our heads above water, but still it was necessary to take advantage of things such as child benefit just to survive. She couldn't have done more without killing herself in the process, but it still got very hairy at times. We got there in the end, not least because there was at least some degree of state help. I then paid and worked my own way through university (which I am still paying for now) and now have a good, stable job and a nice place. The point? Well, we partly got through mainly because of my mum's strong work ethic and will to survive and do the best for us she good, but also in no small part due to the availability of a degree of help. I am GLAD that we weren't just thrown to the dogs and told it was our problem. The end result is that we are all good, productive members of society, and I really can't for the life of me understand how that result is a bad investment.

The other thing to this is that the place I grew up in has seen significant help with infrastructure and business growth, not least due to government investment. I am nothing short of delighted to see the small town I used to live in now looking so much better and more comfortable, and it has helped improve the whole area.

Final conclusion: market forces on their own would have left us to rot, and there are plenty of people around who have it worse than we did. You NEED safeguards and a degree of help in a civilised society. At least, if you care one shred about other humans who might not be as fortunate as you.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8834 posts, RR: 10
Reply 85, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2784 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 83):
but I try and possess some empathy and think of ways to at least give them opportunity (not a job and a bunch of money) even if it means it slightly inconveniences me in life.

A very, very important trait, to have empathy for others not so fortunate. I will give you a passing grade in Humanity.   We all do not have to agree on everything for sure on here. That is what this is all about, discussion, learning. Sometimes some of us actually learns something on here. I know I do. Not always happy about what I learn, but I learn.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15695 posts, RR: 26
Reply 86, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2787 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 76):
How in the hell did I survive, support my family, end up fairly well off, put my children through school, college and retire at an early age.

Depends on who you ask. If you ask me, or most other conservatives, the answer would be something along the lines that you learned various things you were supposed to learn, gained a marketable skill at some point, demonstrated the necessary work ethic for extended periods of time, avoided damaging personal decisions (becoming addicted to drugs or morbidly obese for example), and made prudent financial decisions.

A liberal would probably just say that you're lucky enough to have been born American, rich, healthy, and not stupid; and as such that you didn't build it and owe what you've been given (and make no mistake, it's been given) to those who don't have the same. In other words, they'd say

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 76):
it was all an accident.
Quoting RussianJet (Reply 77):
So you'd be happy to see some parts of your nation turn into Somalia so long as you're alright Jack?

I like having police and a military, which I'm willing to pay for. But for a lot of the rest of it, sure.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 77):
Do you really care so little about the state of your country as a whole and welfare of the greater population?

The state of the country as a whole is based on the state of the people in it. If a people is to be successful it means each person must be successful, but that is a personal issue. Nobody can be dragged along by the government as that means dragging down those who are successful on their own.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 78):
It is all business expense.

Some business expenses justify themselves better than others.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 78):
What has a government mandated minimum wage have to do with it?

If someone earns more than minimum wage, there is something about their skills or work that the market (and by extension, the employee) feels justifies that cost. The government setting a minimum wage is the reward for being alive and showing up.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 80):
Not trying to call you out, BMI, but you (and I) were basically born with a silver spoon.

Sure, but there were plenty of advantages you and I didn't get. I'm not going to demand any of those and I'm not going to apologize or pay for any of the advantages I did get.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 80):
You speak as if you started from nothing and built up a huge company by yourself...

I didn't, so what right does that give me to any of the benefits reaped by those who have?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 81):
A course that forgets about the impact of competition and doesn't want to think about countries where sloppy economic comments are inaccurate.

Minimum wage doesn't really affect competition, since everyone must pay it. All companies will have to find a way to compensate.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 81):
And failure to invests costs even more over the long term.

Investment in oneself is a mostly personal matter. Government should provide for education but beyond that the responsibility for personal success should be just that: personal.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 82):
We are humans, dealing with fellow humans. This covers the frustration some of us are feeling about the unfeeling of replies on here. One cannot simply reduce it to expenses.

For most people it can.

There are the few people who I care for because of who they are. Family and friends for instance, and some professionals. It's fairly important to have a doctor you like.

Then there is the slightly larger people who I'm interested in because of what they are. These people I may or may not be in contract with personally, but I don't specifically need that person, just someone who can do what they do. I don't care who makes my burrito when I go to Chipotle, I just need someone there to do it.

Then there is the rest of humanity, which basically consists of expenses and statistics.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 83):
but had you been born in the ghetto, the road to an AE degree is a bit more complex than "I would have put in the extra time to learn what my terrible inner city schools taught me, ignored the pressures of all of society and most of my peers, and simply get past all the barriers put in front of me and got my degree." Easier said than done.

My school system was far, far from the best. Not ghetto, but small town which is basically the same with less shooting and fewer arrests. As far as effectiveness in education, it's no bargain. Pretty much all of my college classmates, as far as I could tell, had more economically and educationally than I did growing up. I know several paid less tuition for college than for high school.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 83):
You aren't a self made man... you are or will be near the top of society just as I am so fortunate to be, but don't forget where we started from... it wasn't in near poverty like my father.

Speak for yourself. I turned down a job that would have paid me more than my dad will probably ever make. That said, my parents were set up to send myself and my siblings to college, not without scholarships, but still. That's why I don't buy all this about people needing help to retire or that kids from less than middle class families won't go to college. It just isn't true. Maybe you can't do that if you buy giant TVs and a new car every two years, but my family never bothered with that.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 87, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2774 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
Sure, but there were plenty of advantages you and I didn't get. I'm not going to demand any of those and I'm not going to apologize or pay for any of the advantages I did get.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
I didn't, so what right does that give me to any of the benefits reaped by those who have?

Well, like I said, it's just empathy, you either have it or don't. I was mainly commenting that I found your mindset weird considering your upbringing. And I'm not talking anything near as crazy as what we see presented, I can guarantee you that. For healthcare, for example, I think the government should prevent death or loss of limb/eyesight etc (big, giant things.) But I agree with you in the not paying for condoms, despite the argument of costs in the long run. I'm talking basic, basic necessities (as opposed to nothing)

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
It just isn't true. Maybe you can't do that if you buy giant TVs and a new car every two years, but my family never bothered with that.

And again, I think you might not be fully getting where I'm coming from. I'm with you 100% regarding how lazy our peers can be. The sob story about the kids in the ghetto I told you about, I agree a lot of it is THEIR fault if they don't amount to anything. A lot of people need to stop crying about their troubles and suck it up and accomplish. That is very much what you say, but I don't go all the way, because there are indeed things completely out of their control.

I do think that to a small extent (more than what you think but less than what a typical left-winger would think) it is justifiable to take a bit from the rich to help the impoverished. Mainly keeping them alive, and creating a mostly level playing field... I'm not about dragging them down that field or jumping all the way to a job when they are 25 and giving the job at Lockheed to a minority instead of you because of affirmative action...

I hope that makes sense. Sorry I've been harsh, but I know that you at least listen and remain civil... I'll give you that, you are very good at that

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 84):

It's good to hear of a story of success from our very own ranks here on a.net, I'm sure there are many here. I guess the biggest point I can make that ties in with yours is that you started at a disadvantage, and you received a bit of help, just a bit (as opposed to taxing the rich to death and taking taking taking) and through your hard work, you made it out of the hole. That is my main goal... take the minimum from society but enough to create a rope long enough to reach those down in need... at that point, it is up to them to climb or sit in the hole, demanding more

People like BMI aren't for anarchy... he has stated he believes the government should provide the military and some other vital functions... I just include a bit more in the "vital" category



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 88, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2773 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
The state of the country as a whole is based on the state of the people in it. If a people is to be successful it means each person must be successful, but that is a personal issue. Nobody can be dragged along by the government as that means dragging down those who are successful on their own.

It is nothing to do with dragging people along. It's about giving people a fighting chance, and for the life of me I can't understand the selfishness that would deny this aim.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8834 posts, RR: 10
Reply 89, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2762 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
the answer would be something along the lines that you learned various things you were supposed to learn, gained a marketable skill at some point, demonstrated the necessary work ethic for extended periods of time, avoided damaging personal decisions (becoming addicted to drugs or morbidly obese for example), and made prudent financial decisions.

You have hit it right on the head.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
A liberal would probably just say that you're lucky enough to have been born American, rich, healthy, and not stupid; and as such that you didn't build it and owe what you've been given (and make no mistake, it's been given) to those who don't have the same. In other words, they'd say


I have a problem with this part. One of the reasons that I did so well was the fact that in my age bracket, opportunity was everywhere. I earned minimum wage in my day. I worked hard, I had many choices of employment for some one who literally had nothing, not enough food, nor cloths, nor heat. But there was opportunity. This has all changed thanks to our destruction of opportunity for the common man. The deck was not stacked as it is today. You could drag yourself up because we were the Kings of manufacturing. There were jobs, union and non-union, you started off on the bottom, you worked your way up, there was opportunity , through jobs. All given away now by our wonderful business owners, their so wise decision to seek profit elsewhere.

When you are on the bottom now, and cannot afford schools of higher learning such as you, or unable to function at that level you are so screwed. You are doomed to earn minimum wage in many cases. All the good jobs for non-college educated are mostly gone, and so is that opportunity that I had. These left behind people who cannot cut it need wage increases to survive. The people struggling to earn money for college through minimum wage jobs need more money. If they cannot survive, they go on welfare. I do not blame them. Just guess who pays for this. Conservatives hate welfare programs, but they support the very people who are the cause of this economic tragedy that we face today. The wealthy who hate to give raises, and pay for welfare through taxes have no problem with people working, but not earning enough to survive, so they need food stamps, welfare. The working poor. It is a despicable system. It costs us plenty.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 90, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2755 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 89):
Conservatives hate welfare programs, but they support the very people who are the cause of this economic tragedy that we face today. The wealthy who hate to give raises, and pay for welfare through taxes have no problem with people working, but not earning enough to survive, so they need food stamps, welfare. The working poor. It is a despicable system. It costs us plenty.

And that's it. Not giving people sufficient opportunity or motivation to work and earn properly COSTS. Even if you can't see the good in helping people, people should at least be able to see the greater harm and cost associated with sitting back and watching things get worse.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8163 posts, RR: 8
Reply 91, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2755 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 83):
he is not getting government support but he is from his parents

Actually, with an engineering degree my bet is that he received a lot of various levels of government support. Maybe a Pell Grant, or something at obvious as that.

But the probability is that he went to a university that has received a lot of federal funds. Might even be a land grant university. In terms of other federal funding, lots go for research, which attracts good profs. Lots of those tax dollars going to universities, and engineering (especially AE) would get a lot of those tax dollars.

That doesn't even include the gifts schools receive from alumnus and businesses that support various programs.

So for a conservative I'd bet that BMI727 has received a lot of socialist support in getting his degree, as well a tax payer dollars.

All that and he ends up in a retail job, probably making close to a minimum wage.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
If you ask me, or most other conservatives, the answer would be something along the lines that you learned various things you were supposed to learn, gained a marketable skill at some point, demonstrated the necessary work ethic for extended periods of time, avoided damaging personal decisions

And you are working where?

As I've mentioned before there is far more potential for your future with service as an officer in the military. The Navy is at the top of my list, with the USAF second. You might not qualify for flight training, but 3 years working in your field with opportunities for a lot of contact with potential employees sounds far better than retail. My preference for the Navy is simply because of the benefits of travel - especially if you get a Pacific Fleet carrier.

And the GI Bill might facilitate an MBA. And that same GI Bill could be a significant financial benefit when buying a house. Better than retail.  


User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1340 posts, RR: 3
Reply 92, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2739 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):

Speak for yourself. I turned down a job that would have paid me more than my dad will probably ever make.

No, they were right the first time. You're not self made, or even close to it. Turning down a job doesn't get you anywhere, and has the added bonus of not helping your CV one bit either. I'd leave that story out of any future interviews if I were you.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 88):

It is nothing to do with dragging people along. It's about giving people a fighting chance, and for the life of me I can't understand the selfishness that would deny this aim.

The worst part is that it's not just selfishness. While it's supremely important to give as many folks as possible a fair shot, keeping lots of people poor, deliberately, has very harmful effects on the economy as well. While it isn't necessarily true that Wealth breeds more Wealth in a society (though it doesn't hurt), the opposite is undeniably true. The more poor people we have, the more we will have. Poverty will on the scale these folks want to see can not support the economy the way they think it will.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15695 posts, RR: 26
Reply 93, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2730 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 87):
I agree a lot of it is THEIR fault if they don't amount to anything. A lot of people need to stop crying about their troubles and suck it up and accomplish.

It's insane that people expect government support for their whole lives after they spend the first two decades of it probably not going to school and having kids.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 88):
It's about giving people a fighting chance, and for the life of me I can't understand the selfishness that would deny this aim.

Then go to school.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 91):
Lots of those tax dollars going to universities, and engineering (especially AE) would get a lot of those tax dollars.

Might want to look at that, taxpayers are getting nothing for it.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 91):
That doesn't even include the gifts schools receive from alumnus and businesses that support various programs.

That's not relevant here. There's a big difference between helping because you want to help and helping because not doing so is tax evasion.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 91):
All that and he ends up in a retail job, probably making close to a minimum wage.

For the time being. It came down to turning down most of what I wanted in an effort to get all of what I want. In hindsight, it was a regrettable lapse of my generally cold and greedy nature. Lesson learned: take the money and run.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 91):
As I've mentioned before there is far more potential for your future with service as an officer in the military.

Which requires wasting significant time. Retail has no commitment. The managers might think it does, but as far as I'm concerned it doesn't.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 91):
You might not qualify for flight training,

Being a pilot might be the only job where you probably take a pay cut when you leave the military.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 94, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2731 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 93):
Then go to school.

???

If you're suggesting I go to school, then don't worry - I already did. I had a good education, in spite of our circumstances. If this was what you meant then it's frankly pretty rude. If on the other hand you're suggesting that school is the answer to the problem I allude to then that's great, but that needs to be accessible and affordable too. Either way, it's far from clear what you were really getting at, so please clarify.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15695 posts, RR: 26
Reply 95, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2727 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 94):
If you're suggesting I go to school, then don't worry - I already did. I had a good education, in spite of our circumstances.

So it worked. That's precisely the point. I'm all for government paid education. That's the safety net and the welfare system, use it or don't. But, if people choose not to, they shouldn't expect the government to pay for their upkeep for the rest of their lives.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 96, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks ago) and read 2715 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
There are the few people who I care for because of who they are. Family and friends for instance, and some professionals. It's fairly important to have a doctor you like.

Then there is the slightly larger people who I'm interested in because of what they are. These people I may or may not be in contract with personally, but I don't specifically need that person, just someone who can do what they do. I don't care who makes my burrito when I go to Chipotle, I just need someone there to do it.

Then there is the rest of humanity, which basically consists of expenses and statistics.

When I read this the first time, I thought perhaps I just hadn't understood the gist of what was trying to be expressed, but upon second reading, I think it's key to understanding what motivates some of the positions held in this forum. I can't say that I've ever viewed life as myself, some people who are useful to me for my needs, then the rest simply being statistics and a burden upon society.

When I go buy a burrito, I can't say I've ever viewed the people behind the counter as simply a number, a burden, and completely disposable. But holding that kind of attitude towards the rest of my fellow man would certainly explain taking a position where investing in society in any way would be a worthless pursuit. If that's what "conservative values" are all about, I wouldn't want to have a thing to do with it.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5438 posts, RR: 29
Reply 97, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2698 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 10):
You are right in that the combination of higher salaries and health costs combined with everything else going up will cause some companies to go under. Most of them would even without minimum wage and Obama care. This just brings in the cleaning crew faster.

i'm less concerned about the companies going under because they will naturally manage their businesses in a way that allows them to continue to exist. I'm more concerned about the people who are being led to believe that raising the minimum wage and introducing ObamaCare will make their lives better. For some, it will. For others, it won't. There will be many people who will find out the hard way that they will be getting reduced hours, fewer and smaller raises, or no job at all. That's my concern for them.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 25):
Just because a job position doesn't need a higher education or years of training there is no reason why we need to push wages well below the poverty line. Employers in other countries, like Australia, seem to manage pretty well and I find it hard to believe that US business owners are incompetent in comparison.

They're not, which is why I wonder how you think you are smarter than them in this issue? The fact of the matter is that some businesses simply will not thrive or even exist if you continue raising the minimum wage. I know that you're answer is "screw 'em" but the problem is that this also screws the employees.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 25):
During my time in retailing at a wage position I was never sent home because of a slow day. There was always work that could be done.

I find that incredibly odd, but I'm happy for you. Most hourly retail positions are naturally going to see some shifts where they work longer and some where they work less. I don't know of any retailer that I've come across that just works people whether there's a need or not. Some days you get busier than expected and ask someone to stay longer. Other days there's a snow event and people are called off or sent home. I think that's pretty common all around.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 25):
To be blunt, sending home a worker making $2.75 an hour early because things are slow simply cuts that workers income, which few can afford.

Sigh. Ok, how about you make that server stay even though it's dead. Now, instead of one server handling four tables, two servers are handling two tables. It is, afterall, a position where their primary income and goal is the tips. The more people working, the less tips per employee. In my experience with servers, they often preferred to just go home if the alternative was to work 6 hours for minimum and little else. It isn't worth their time. This helps out the remaining wait staff because they can earn more in tips by handling more of the tables.

And, again, while I haven't looked at each state, we already discussed that the first two examples used paid $9.19+tips and $7.75+tips respectively, and both were guaranteed to earn minimum regardless of tips.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 25):
It is also pretty difficult to say that the employer is not a total bum. Greed is pretty apparent at $2.75 an hour.

Fine, change the system. However, I guarantee you, the prices will go up, the hours will be cut, and in the end the business owner will more often than not come out of it fairly ok unless they already have a tenuous business operation. And the servers? If they earn a flat hourly rate versus earning tips, for example, you're going to have a bunch of unhappy servers.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 25):
But they need to eat.
They need to pay rent.
They need to pay utilities
They need to pay for transportation
They need to pay a lot of other basics of living in the US
And at times they need to pay for health care.

Ok, so EVERY person that gets a job needs to be able to pay all of the rent, all of the utilities, all of their transportatoin, and all of their basic living expenses - period? There's no provision in life for a two-income household, high school employment, working two jobs, etc.?

And I have yet to hear what you propose as a "living wage" system, including wage, hours worked, etc.? This would help me to understand if it's a doable goal or a utopian vision.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 25):
The failures I have seen were places that didn't deliver a good product. Bad food for the buck. A few places we didn't go back to because of bad service - which isn't a surprise at starvation wages.

Don't you mean "Starvation Wages"? Or is it the "Bush/Cheney Ego Starvation Wages"?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 25):
I have been friends with the owners of a moderately priced cafe in Sydney. They pay good wages and a pretty stiff rent and they still manage to do well. Long hours, hard work and sufficient financial growth that they were able to open two other places.

I'm so glad that everyone on this message board loves the Australia system. And of course, they are all great people who pay high rent and good wages and work their butts off and take home a decent income and have a unicorn parked in their garage.

Hello? Welcome to America, now.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 30):
The minimum wage is simply one cost factor for a business owner. To give it more weight than changing rates for, say, electricity, demonstrates a lack of understanding of business.

You are precisely correct. ALL expenses are increasing all of the time for businesses. Acting like the minimum wage jumping up will have no affect on them is somewhat missing the bigger picture.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 33):
Business cut employee counts for a lot of reasons, sometimes they cut too deep.

Delta was the classic example of cutting too deep - their customer service took a nose dive, their premium flyers raised hell and Delta made a fast turn around, rehiring as fast as possible and apologizing to their customers.

Other companies have cut staff and have tried to figure out why sales have gone down. They can't seem to connect the dots.

You've used this example repeatedly as if it illustrates some sort of broad, applicable analogy. My own experience of actually managing businesses with employees in the lower end of the wage bracket is that you do the best you can with your people, your physical resources, your product, your variable costs, etc. and manage it in such a way as to guarantee that you can continue to earn a fair and decent profit and also invest in your business's future.

That's actually a noble goal that my employees (and myself) have appreciated. When it all hit the fan in 2008, many companies were scrambling to figure out how to tighten their belts and somehow survive the mini-meltdown. By managing our business appropriately in all areas already, we didn't have to do that. Sure, the owner could choose to pay more than he does, but then we would have definitely have been either laying people off or reducing hours dramatically in order to remain in the black. Stability and predictability is very important to people as well.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 38):
Those that don't perfom at all should be shown the door.

Easier said than done. As said before, you can kick them out no problem - it's the unemployment premiums that kick you in the nuts. Nothing is free, and in Washington State, you are lucky to be able to fire anyone without at least some pushback in the claims process.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 40):
I think a lot of people also don't understand that even products that re semi price sensitive would take a pretty small price hit with such a small dollar increase in the minimum wage. That's the 5¢ increase of a Happy Meal - and even that increase could increase the owners profit margins.

Can you show us your computation for the 5 cent increase that you keep touting?

Average quick serve unit sales: $450,000. Average quick serve unit profit margin: 4.5%. So, that's an average profit of $20,250. If you run a 20% labor cost, that's $90,000 in labor dollars per year. If you increase the minimum wage by 24%, from $7.25 to $9.00, that's an additional $21,600 in labor dollars, putting you in the RED for the year.

Assuming your average check is say $7.00 (after tax), that's about 60,000 customers a year. To make up that increase, you are looking at $.30-$.40 per customer visit in extra costs, not a nickel. And that's before ObamaCare, which McDonald's estimates will cost them $500 million per year. Figure a few hundred bucks a month per full time employee. Regardless, just based on the minimum wage increase, you are now raising your prices just to cover the increase. That is separate from any raises, food cost increases, tax increases, ObamaCare, insurance, etc.

So, that Happy Meal won't go from $3.50 to $3.55, it'll go from $3.50 to $3.80-$3.90 on the minimum increase, and then probably over $4.00-$4.25 after adding in ObamaCare. And who buys Happy Meals? People with kids, often poor people who are too exhausted from working to make dinner. They worked 5.5 hours today because any more and they'd have to receive paid insurance (got their hours cut) so before that'd be $39.88 in earnings, but with the increase that's $49.5. They earned an extra $9.62 today, but $1.00 - $2.00 will go into the increase of the cost of the meal for their family, and that's just this meal. It doesn't include the toilet paper at WalMart or the gas at the gas station. Plus, had they gotten to stay at their old hours before ObamaCare, they might have actually worked 7 (or more) today and earned $50.75 at the old minimum pre-ObamaCare - more than they did today.

This is all just for example - every situation is different. However, I think it is based on more facts and real life experience than just spouting off Happy Meal Nickel's and Australian Friends.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 43):
Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 22):I think a lot of people are just refusing to hear it because Obama said it so it must be true.
Have you ever considered the tiny, remote possibility that they just *might* disagree with you and think that the principle of a minimum wage is actually a good thing?

I think the vast majority of those for or against a big change in the minimum wage are doing it based on their own beliefs and values and not on what the current President is saying.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 45):
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 1):
How any of that equates "greed" is beyond me. I know that many of these small/mid size business owners are doing pretty well financially, but even the ones doing really well are still not living some sort of lavish lifestyle.
Because they are almost always maintaining their profit margins while making these cuts. If that's how they want to do it, that's their business, but if part of this comes from utilizing underpriced labor, that's a cheat that ultimately hurts the entire economy, and it needs to have a stop put to it.

Without a profit margin, there is no job. Again - I'm not out-of-hand dismissing a raise in the minimum (we are at $9.19 in Washington today) but you can't just point at the business owners and say "Pay up!" as if it's a bottomless pit. At some point, if they aren't making money there is going to be a consequence for everyone: The customer through higher prices, the owner through lower profits (or a loss), and the employee through reduced/no hours and few/no increases.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 45):
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 1): In fact, they work their butts off, are extremely intelligent, tenacious, talented people.
That can also be said for a good deal of minimum wagers who are where they are because of circumstance. Which would be the same reason many successful people are where they are.

Hard work and talent, and all that crap is great and all, but much of life's success comes from placement and timing. While there's nothing wrong with that, there are dues to be paid. Part of this means paying your workers in accordance with the local economy, not the least you feel like.

Well, I think there's a strong argument for paying them in accordance with the local economy. If someone can propose a minimum wage system tied to county cost of living versus some sort of blanket wage, I'd be all for it. As it is, someone in downtown Seattle is paid a minimum of $9.19/hour and is probably struggling, while someone in Ephrata is also earning $9.19/hour and has a much lower cost of living. How is that fair to anyone?

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 45):
Much ado is being made about nothing. This increase will go into effect sooner or later and when it does, you'll be fine.

Sure. I'll be fine. It's those earning the minimum that will feel it more than anyone. Some for the better. Some not at all. And some for the worse.

Quoting Mir (Reply 58):
That's the crux of the issue - we could tie the minimum wage to inflation and end all future discussions about raising it. This isn't a question of whether to raise the minimum wage as much as it is a question of whether to stop the minimum wage from dropping.

It should be, provided there is no "minimum increase" or any such nonsense.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 59):
They get new jobs. This is what people normally do when they're unemployed.

Tell that to the millions out of work. Seriously, I know what you probably mean by this, but in practice it is absolutely utopian. We can't keep enough applications in stock to satisfy all of the people looking for work, and I'm in a fairly stable area.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 59):
I don't know a person anywhere that wouldn't be ok with spending an extra $5 - $12 a month for discretionary items in return for a $1.75/hr raise. Next...

I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with that premise. I don't know as though it'd only be $5-$12 per month more, though. It depends on what they are buying.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 80):
(very much of that due to the LUCK of not being born in the hood and having to work jobs to support yourself in college.)

I keep seeing the word "LUCK" thrown around. If my dad makes good choices in life and is rewarded for it and thus setting me up for a better life, is that "good luck"? If your dad does drugs, leaves your mom in a lurch, and she ends up leaving you home alone to fend for yourself, is that "bad luck"?

I only ask because it sort of smacks of the "You didn't build that" theme - if something bad happens to you, it's not your fault. If something good happens to you, you got lucky. I just think that it isn't luck - it's life. I feel badly for someone born into a bad situation, but that is why being a parent and making good choices is so important. I just feel like we have taken away all accountability from parents, to the detriment of our society. But there's no good answer because nobody wants to see someone suffer. But for a lot of us who have accepted our lot in life - good and bad - it's frustrating that you are supposed to also take responsibility for the bad choices of others.

(Long drawn out personal dissertation to follow - Feel free to ignore)

My parents divorced when I was four. We lived with my mom in a two room house the size of a matchbox. My sister and I shared a tiny room - with bunkbeds - until she was 17(!) and I was 13. We were on welfare for a short period where you ate things in silver cans called "Chocolate Pudding" or "Powdered Milk". We stood in line for free cheese. My moms new guy was a drunk, which made her a drunk. We got kicked out when I was in my late teens because he got drunk and violent. I lived in someone's closet for a few weeks until I ended up getting a small apartment with my sister (ugh). She never held a job steady, so my rent check would bounce, costing me money. We ended up getting a lot of help from our nearly-as-poor grandmother who would let us use her Mobil gas card to buy groceries (if you could call them that). I got a job in fast food making minimum wage. I dropped out of college because I was struggling finding direction and managing it all. My mom was with this guy for 18 years. He worked for the railroad his whole life. They finally decided when he was 61 to get married because then his retirement would be secure with her. Irony of ironies, he was killed by a drunk driver four months before the wedding. She lost everything - house, cars, retirement, etc. His loser kids from a previous marriage came after the funeral "to get some things to remember him by" (since they never chose to do so for the 18 years we were with him), and apparently that means vehicles, cameras, binoculars, and the like. lol And on and on.

I didn't have life handed to me. It pretty much sucked at times. I never asked for anything. I never expected anything. I accepted what I was able to achieve (or not) and have just worked my way through life the best that I can without blaming anyone else or expecting someone to treat me differently. There were safety nets along the way that certainly helped, but as an adult I've never accessed them. I'm not rich, I don't have everything I want, but we also don't go crazy either buying stuff. Just recently we were broken into while at church and they took over $6000 worth of items, including every piece of jewelry my wife owned that she wasn't wearing. Anything I'd ever bought her on a special occasion, etc. We managed to recover one of the laptops via the police and through logging on I discovered the identity of who had the computer. I turned the info over to the police but they have never followed up and who knows with all the drug-related crimes out there if they ever will. In fact, because only the one item was recovered and it was valued at less than $1000, I was told that the county won't even prosecute. And on and on.

I throw in all of this self-pity (or at least, that's I'm sure how it sounds) because I don't feel like I'm out of touch with life, or what people go through, or what you have to sometimes do to get by. I think that it probably gives me a little less compassion at times because i've seen and heard so many people intentionally abuse the system, whether as my employees, my friends, or just the common criminal. Even with the insurance claim recently there were a few acquaintances who suggested how easy it would be to embellish the claim. I mean, why not, right? Oye.

(Dissertation off)

I don't want anyone to earn Starvation Wages. But I don't want anyone to think that they can just show up and live life without putting some skin in the game. Since it will never be a perfect system, I just want to see it be as close to fair to EVERYONE as possible, including the employer. You don't want to make the effort? You'll stay at minimum wage or just be without a job. You don't have college or skills and can't seem to get ahead? I guess you get a roommate (like a deadbeat sister) or move in with someone (like in their closet) until you can get on your feet. And don't have babies on a whim like so many people do without any chance of raising them independently. And on and on....

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 94):
If on the other hand you're suggesting that school is the answer to the problem I allude to then that's great, but that needs to be accessible and affordable too. Either way, it's far from clear what you were really getting at, so please clarify.

Well, the people I know pay little or nothing for community college. In fact, one of my employees has fully paid schooling AND a large allowance for books and other expenses - about $500 per quarter. Of course, he buys the books new and then sells them back at the end of the quarter. lol

-Dave



Totes my goats!
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1401 posts, RR: 3
Reply 98, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2690 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 58):
In principle, you'd think so. But in practice, there's evidence to suggest that it has no significant effect at all.

http://www.cepr.net/documents/public...2.pdf

There are reports out there that both back it up and show little to no correlation.

Realistically though, empirical data is difficult because there are a lot of background currents. Especially if the minimum wage isn't high.

This is the UK employment figure and the minimum wage came in in 99.



As you can see, young unemployment came all the way down. And then gradually rose up, even though there was a boom during the period after it was introduced.

Additionally we currently have a ridiculous problem where people finding jobs are working at companies for free as part of their benefits, a clear problem of payment inflexibility imo.

A lot of people seem to be of the opinion that if it's removed suddenly wages would plummet. But this really isn't the case, because employers can only go down so low as the market will bear anyway. And if you currently have a minimum wage job then then chances are your pay is very close to that.

There's also a problem of regional cost of living too (much much higher in London than in say the North East).

Finally, i wouldn't actually want to see anyone living on the minimum wage anyway, jobs below or around the current minimum wage should really not be long term prospects and people should be looking to improve their skills beyond that. Jobs below or around the current wage should be foot-in-the door training and experience building jobs.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 99, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2662 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 95):

So it worked. That's precisely the point. I'm all for government paid education. That's the safety net and the welfare system, use it or don't. But, if people choose not to, they shouldn't expect the government to pay for their upkeep for the rest of their lives.

Indeed, so why the vitriol for any degree of meaningful help for communities and the disadvantaged displayed throughout the thread up to then? Nowhere, ever, did I suggest people should get a free ride for life. The focus of ALL my comments has been helping people to become productive citizens who will contribute to society. Your approach is confusing. And, the original 'go to school' comment still doesn't make sense. In the case of university by the way, I got NO free help at all. I got loans, big ones, and worked like hell to live. I was 'lucky' enough to fall into the cruel experiment time where means-tested grants were done away with for a few years, ending the year I started, coming back I believe literally the year after I graduated. Awesome luck there. The end result? I was still disadvantaged compared to others when I left, as I faced the choice of debt or education. I chose debt, and it proved to be the correct choice, but it's still a disgrace. Some people I knew chose not to saddle themselves with so much debt and just didn't go, even though they were great candidates. That is sad in the extreme, as they could have been making a much better contribution to society than they currently are now. Education should be fully accessible for all, and not solely by having a small mortgage amount to pay off when you leave. Iin fact, helping some of the brightest from more disadvantaged places is probably a pretty cost-effective way of helping those places get a leg up, even if only a small proportion return there.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2706 posts, RR: 8
Reply 100, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2651 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 59):
That happens. And nowhere near on the scale you're claiming. I don't know a person anywhere that wouldn't be ok with spending an extra $5 - $12 a month for discretionary items in return for a $1.75/hr raise. Next...

How about paying the extra money every month for the cost of item's if we removed the illegal aliens and placed unemployed citizens into those job's making minimum wage and some benefits. I would have no problem with that. Then we would have less unemployment and a lower amount of people on food stamps.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 101, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2637 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting windy95 (Reply 100):
How about paying the extra money every month for the cost of item's if we removed the illegal aliens and placed unemployed citizens into those job's making minimum wage and some benefits.

Making a super effort to deport illegal immigrants is definitely a very good way to improve things. Some people seem to just accept them as part of the make-up of the country, but the economic harm caused by them is not to be underestimated. It's all very well saying that there are jobs that citizens wouldn't do or want etc, but if that really proved to be the case when the illegal population had been meaningfully reduced then controlled immigration could be allowed to plug any necessary gaps in the workforce. Sure it would cost some money to come down hard on this, but is should be done. There is simply no excuse for not doing so, and that goes for the UK as much as for the US.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 102, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2643 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97):
I keep seeing the word "LUCK" thrown around. If my dad makes good choices in life and is rewarded for it and thus setting me up for a better life, is that "good luck"? If your dad does drugs, leaves your mom in a lurch, and she ends up leaving you home alone to fend for yourself, is that "bad luck"?

No, that is actually the complete opposite of what I am saying. Luck is me being born into an upper middle class family. Hard work is where I am today. Laziness is starting where I was and throwing it all away (barring some extreme circumstances.) Starting at the bottom and making your way up is unluckiness combined with extremely hard work to make what is commonly called "the American Dream."

I hope that makes sense, I'm not saying business owners are just lucky they are successful, but many of them are lucky they started (were born) into higher families. Basically, all I'm proposing is that just enough is done to allow anyone that wants to put in the blood, sweat, and tears can put it in. Many believe it is still possible but I think there are many who can't actually do it.

Not to sound harsh, but I'm not concerned with those who have the means but choose not to because it's too hard. Maybe others here will want to keep throwing money at them, but not me. So really, I may sound pretty liberal, but it's only slightly more liberal than many conservatives, although, I think a lot of liberals more or less agree with what I'm saying. I guess you could say I'm just a moderate



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 103, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2637 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 102):
I guess you could say I'm just a moderate

My goodness, that would be one of the first times I've seen a true opinion in a US political thread that doesn't reflect being either firmly in one camp or the other! The middle ground. Hats off to you sir!



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1401 posts, RR: 3
Reply 104, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2622 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 101):
Making a super effort to deport illegal immigrants is definitely a very good way to improve things. Some people seem to just accept them as part of the make-up of the country, but the economic harm caused by them is not to be underestimated.

There's only really negatives affect of immigration IF they sit on the welfare state. Otherwise, immigrants coming in working and adding to society is a positive thing for the economy.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 105, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2622 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 104):
There's only really negatives affect of immigration IF they sit on the welfare state. Otherwise, immigrants coming in working and adding to society is a positive thing for the economy.

That is blatantly untrue. It distorts the labour market, can result in extra policing and other public service costs, and encourages the black market in a wider sense. It is a massive crime source, and is all round bad news for all. In addition to that, it is the epitome of exploitation - bringing them over the border to work illegally for an absolute pittance. Totally indefensible.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5438 posts, RR: 29
Reply 106, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2613 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 102):
Not to sound harsh, but I'm not concerned with those who have the means but choose not to because it's too hard. Maybe others here will want to keep throwing money at them, but not me. So really, I may sound pretty liberal, but it's only slightly more liberal than many conservatives, although, I think a lot of liberals more or less agree with what I'm saying. I guess you could say I'm just a moderate

I don't think you sound "harsh" and I don't think you sound "liberal". There is a broad range of opinion here with people falling over the spectrum.

I actually enjoy threads like this because while there is clearly a "liberal" versus "conservative" or "Moderate" versus "extremist" point of view, people within a given category also disagree with certain elements of it. It shows just how different we all think and how divided we can be in the path forward. It actually makes the "You're a Liberal/Conservative Extremist/Wackjob" name-callers sound slightly moronic.

If we're going to raise the minimum wage, fine. Make it fair based on local cost of living's, index it in some format to inflation with no "minimum annual increase", and accept the consequences of whatever comes of it, good, bad, or otherwise.

-Dave



Totes my goats!
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1401 posts, RR: 3
Reply 107, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2610 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 105):
That is blatantly untrue. It distorts the labour market

Not really.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 105):
can result in extra policing and other public service costs, and encourages the black market in a wider sense. It is a massive crime source, and is all round bad news for all.

Well yeah i did assume that wouldn't sit on welfare and gave them the benefit of the doubt WRT criminality too.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 105):
In addition to that, it is the epitome of exploitation

Here we go again. Mexicans will risk it all to get a job in the US on the QT, so that they can be "exploited". And of course, forcing them to stay put and take a lower quality of life is not exploitation.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 105):
bringing them over the border to work illegally for an absolute pittance. Totally indefensible.

Well if they're being trafficked then yes (again the use of force == immoral). If they're coming of their own accord, ok they are breaking laws, however i don't think they're doing anything immoral.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 108, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2604 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 107):
Not really.

How not? Paying people less than the going rate gives unscrupulous employers the opportunity to gain an unfair advantage, and avoid paying legal workers a proper wage. If they can't do that then they should be stamped out of business.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 107):
Here we go again. Mexicans will risk it all to get a job in the US on the QT, so that they can be "exploited". And of course, forcing them to stay put and take a lower quality of life is not exploitation.

They risk all because it *might* be marginally better than their home conditions, but often the reality is different. Once someone is illegal, they are indeed ripe for exploitation as they will often accept crappy, illegal, often dangerous working conditions and low wages that no other type of worker should or could endure. If you think that's acceptable or more helpful for the economy than controlled, legal migration then I really don't know why. There is also the leverage that can be applied by 'outing' them as being illegal, thereby gaining an immoral control over them. Sure it's not necessarily the case with all, but it happens.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 107):
If they're coming of their own accord, ok they are breaking laws, however i don't think they're doing anything immoral.

Breaking laws isn't immoral? Wow. It does cause economic harm, and that is also immoral. It's understandble why they do it, but that doesn't equate to it being right.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 109, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2597 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 107):
Mexicans will risk it all to get a job in the US on the QT, so that they can be "exploited".

Curious someone from the UK would use an American reference such as this.   

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 108):
Once someone is illegal, they are indeed ripe for exploitation as they will often accept crappy, illegal, often dangerous working conditions and low wages that no other type of worker should or could endure.

        



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1401 posts, RR: 3
Reply 110, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2597 times:

People who work hard and expect little in return are good for the economy. Just like automation is good for the economy.

Voting with feet normally suggests its good for these people too.

It's funny that the immigration that built America is suddenly bad now. It's not exactly a country that is lacking living space.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 109):
Curious someone from the UK would use an American reference such as this.

I honestly don't have a clue what you are getting at. Are you now suggesting i'm not from the UK?

[Edited 2013-02-19 09:27:12]

User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 111, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2587 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 110):
It's funny that the immigration that built America is suddenly bad now.

Ever hear of Ellis Island? I'd like to see your stats on what percentage of the immigrants who built America were here illegally.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1401 posts, RR: 3
Reply 112, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2586 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 111):
Ever hear of Ellis Island? I'd like to see your stats on what percentage of the immigrants who built America were here illegally.

What difference does legality make?


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 113, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2575 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 112):
What difference does legality make?

The subtopic being discussed was the affect of illegal immigrants on the workforce. It appeared that you were stating the "immigration that built America" was mostly illegal. Did I misread what you wrote?



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 114, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2563 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 110):
People who work hard and expect little in return are good for the economy. Just like automation is good for the economy.

Absolutely not when they are basically replacing a proportion of genuinely legal workers, and their criminal employers are replacing a proportion of would-be good employers who can't get into certain areas of business because of the illegal distortion. How about the taxes? Do illegals pay tax? No. Do their criminal employers always pay tax? I highly doubt it. Basically, there is just no way they are a good thing. No benefit whatsoever.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 112):
What difference does legality make?

Erm, a massive one. Illegality breeds more illegality. Legality puts everyone on a level playing field and does away with the severe economic distortions caused by those doing business under the radar. Sheesh.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinedallasnewark From Estonia, joined Nov 2005, 495 posts, RR: 1
Reply 115, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2550 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 112):
What difference does legality make?

It makes all the difference in the world. What part of ILLEGAL do you have difficulty comprehending? If they are in the country illegally, they broke the laws regardless if you agree or disagree with the given set of laws.



B732/3/4/5/6/7/8/9, B742/4, B752/3,B762/3/4, B772/3, A306, A318/9/20/21, A332/3, A343/6, MD80/83/88, L1011, TU104/134, F
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 116, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2528 times:

There is a lot of banter and back and forth... can anyone help me break it down with me?

1. Minimum wage is not high enough for living, so the President wants it raised

2. It will affect businesses... no way around that. Some will just take it, most will pass cost to consumers, and some won't be able to take it and will go under (I don't think anyone can debate that.)

Now, if anyone agrees with raising the minimum wage, I think it's only responsible to help out the 1. consumers who are paying higher prices and 2. the companies that can potentially go under

And I think it can be done... on the flip side here, the people on minimum wage will need less dependence from the government (so they receive less money) so they only way I can support this is if the money saved by the government somehow alleviates the burden on the consumers and on the businesses.

Does this make sense and can it be done?

The conservative in me can definitely see prices going up and some businesses going under while the money the government doesn't have to spend on social programs due to higher minimum wage will be pissed away on some other government project instead of the people affected by higher minimum wage.

And the liberal in me does see that minimum wage might have been designed for part time jobs or whatever, but people actually live off it and from a greedy standpoint them not getting enough money = welfare checks that I pay for.

I think with the approach I outlined it raises minimum wage yet it doesn't affect businesses... maybe they'll get tax breaks because the government is now paying less in welfare. Thoughts?



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8163 posts, RR: 8
Reply 117, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2518 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 93):
Might want to look at that, taxpayers are getting nothing for it.

Actually the taxpayers get a lot for that investment - especially when you look at the long term returns. The most prominent example was, of course, all of the veterans going to university after WW II. In addition to the GI Bill (which funded living expenses) there was the investments in the universities themselves - starting with those investments long before WW II. My father received a BS & MS in Engineering from LSU in the late 20's & early 30's. The taxpayers investments in his education was more than repaid over his working lifetime.

So, yes, taxpayers are getting a lot for it.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 93):
That's not relevant here.

Just a nice socialist flavor to add to your degree.  
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 93):
Which requires wasting significant time.

You obviously don't understand how potential employers will view the experience you could gain from a few years of service and how that service could have a major impact on future promotions. Actually, the contacts you can make in the service might also be a major help in finding a job after your active duty time is over.

It sure beats the hell out of having retail experience. And, if you really like planes, it gets you around some pretty hot planes.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97):
They're not, which is why I wonder how you think you are smarter than them in this issue?

If the US employers of minimum wage people are as smart as, say, the Aussie employer then there should be no problems with setting a minimum wage just above the poverty line. I'm simply using comparisons I have seen outside the US. Nothing to be afraid of.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97):
The fact of the matter is that some businesses simply will not thrive or even exist if you continue raising the minimum wage

If you don't raise minimum wage then you are SHRINKING the real wave for people at the bottom of the scale. It is the impact of inflation and should not be that hard to understand. When other costs, such as utilities, increase we certainly don't hear the moaning and groaning and cries of corporate poverty we hear when the minimum wage is discussed. Amazing that it is only the minimum wage that attracts such an outcry.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97):
I know that you're answer is "screw 'em"

Nope. It's simple. Businesses survive other costs being increased without all the drama. They get on with it and are successful. But when it comes to increasing poverty level wages all hell breaks loose.

Well, maybe we should take a "screw them" attitude towards companies that profit by keeping workers in poverty.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97):
Most hourly retail positions are naturally going to see some shifts where they work longer and some where they work less.

It depends. A lot of retailers have a large part of their assets (their inventory) laying around within easy reach of customers. And shoplifters. Comparing stock loss with the benefits of reducing employees' hours is probably not done that often, but it should be.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97):
And, again, while I haven't looked at each state, we already discussed that the first two examples used paid $9.19+tips and $7.75+tips respectively, and both were guaranteed to earn minimum regardless of tips.

And I have no problems with that. Maybe we can simply eliminate the far lower "tip based wage" and have a single minimum wage. Works for me.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97):
However, I guarantee you,

You really can't guarantee it - not when it seems to be functioning well in other countries.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97):
This would help me to understand if it's a doable goal

I've used Australia as a viable, successful system for delivering a livable wage AND successful businesses. New Zealand seems to be doing OK from the times I was there on business.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97):
Don't you mean "Starvation Wages"? Or is it the "Bush/Cheney Ego Starvation Wages"?

LOL! Bush?Cheney only worried about the top tax brackets, even when they started their Ego War. That's why we went from a Guns & Butter economy to a Guns & Butter & Cake economy.

For me "starvation wages" are wages at a level below the poverty line. We pay on tax dollars for food stamps, health care, etc. to partially make up the difference. Those tax dollars going out in place of responsible wages is the corporate welfare the conservatives love so much. They actually believe it is OPM.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97):
I'm so glad that everyone on this message board loves the Australia system.

For me it is because I lived there long enough to get some understanding of the place, and then had a business down there for some years. Exposure is the origin of my comments.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97):
Hello? Welcome to America, now

And welcome to higher levels of poverty than countries with responsible minimum wages have.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97):
Acting like the minimum wage jumping up will have no affect on them is somewhat missing the bigger picture.

There are a lot of "bigger pictures" in business. I'm a strong believer in getting the burden of health insurance off the backs of all employers. Employer nanny care is an unnecessary burden

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97):
Without a profit margin, there is no job

I know you hate examples where there can be livable minimum wages and successful businesses providing them. But I've seen enough entry level jobs in profitable companies in "you know where" to know that your comment is more of a scare tactic than reality.

And, again, we don't see all the cries from employers when other costs go up. Only when the serf class might get a break. My preference is to pay a non-poverty wage and reduce federal tax dollars being needed to cover corporate welfare.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97):
I think the vast majority of those for or against a big change in the minimum wage are doing it based on their own beliefs and values and not on what the current President is saying.

The battle for a livable minimum wage is generations old, it just seems that these days there is far less concern for those on the bottom, with those at the top being the only important ones. If you don't file a 300+ page tax return you're just not that important.

I've mentioned it before, but the ratio between the top compensated and the lowest compensated in a company has changed dramatically in the past half century and, looking at the country as a whole, that change has not been for the best.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 98):
As you can see, young unemployment came all the way down. And then gradually rose up, even though there was a boom during the period after it was introduced.

And what were the changes (increases) in utility bills, rent, property taxes, insurance costs, fuel costs, etc.? How do they impact that unemployment chart?


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 118, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2491 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 117):
Of course it would be better and beneficial if they had a level playing filed, but it's not as if cash in hand and tax avoidance is exclusive to immigrants.

And that's not legal and is economically harmful too. What's your point?

As for who I'm trying to convince, certainly not myself. I am extremely well acquainted with the harm illegal migration causes, and the aims of border control in general to prevent this. You on the other hand seem to think that a flourishing black market is somehow a good thing for the economy, which is frankly just plain nuts.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8163 posts, RR: 8
Reply 119, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2467 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 119):
Now, if anyone agrees with raising the minimum wage, I think it's only responsible to help out the 1. consumers who are paying higher prices and 2. the companies that can potentially go under

When wages are increased the employer is going to have a larger tax deduction, meaning the IRS will pick up part of the tab for the increase. States that have a state income tax will also pick up part of the tab, as will cities that have a city income tax. Just like when businesses have increases in rent or utilities.

While consumers may face higher prices these increases are generally tampered down because of competition. And many of those customers will have had salary increases related to inflation.

What needs to be addressed honestly is the reality that the buying of an unchanged minimum wage will shrink because of inflation.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 120, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2465 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 122):
While consumers may face higher prices these increases are generally tampered down because of competition.

How so? If prices across the board go up, then they'll all rise... competition will only keep them close to each other

I'll add that I can see why many do not want higher minimum wage... that, among other things, adds up and you have much higher prices across the board in many European countries. I know a lot goes into it, don't get me wrong, but having the prices as low as they are in America is big to many people



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1340 posts, RR: 3
Reply 121, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2462 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 100):

How about paying the extra money every month for the cost of item's if we removed the illegal aliens and placed unemployed citizens into those job's making minimum wage and some benefits. I would have no problem with that. Then we would have less unemployment and a lower amount of people on food stamps.

That's fine. The problem with removing the illegal alien element isn't that it's insurmountable, but that people think it is.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97):
I'm more concerned about the people who are being led to believe that raising the minimum wage and introducing ObamaCare will make their lives better. For some, it will. For others, it won't. There will be many people who will find out the hard way that they will be getting reduced hours, fewer and smaller raises, or no job at all. That's my concern for them.

Part of the reason I'm sure there's nothing to worry about WRT min wage raises is that this hardly the first time that's happened. And as has been said before, the business world didn't divide by zero over it.

ObamaCare is another story and I'm genuinely not sure how that will work out. Part of why we need a Universal or Single Payer gov't option is that it really does take that burden off the backs of corporate america. I'm actually astonished that it's not conservatives leading the charge for that.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97):

Ok, so EVERY person that gets a job needs to be able to pay all of the rent, all of the utilities, all of their transportatoin, and all of their basic living expenses - period? There's no provision in life for a two-income household, high school employment, working two jobs, etc.?

I don't see anything wrong with that one. If we start making provisions for part time, or two income households, etc, companies will exploit that and do away with full time positions. While some of that is inevitable, there's no reason to build cheats into the system to make that even easier.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97):
Average quick serve unit sales: $450,000. Average quick serve unit profit margin: 4.5%. So, that's an average profit of $20,250. If you run a 20% labor cost, that's $90,000 in labor dollars per year. If you increase the minimum wage by 24%, from $7.25 to $9.00, that's an additional $21,600 in labor dollars, putting you in the RED for the year.

Assuming your average check is say $7.00 (after tax), that's about 60,000 customers a year. To make up that increase, you are looking at $.30-$.40 per customer visit in extra costs, not a nickel. And that's before ObamaCare, which McDonald's estimates will cost them $500 million per year. Figure a few hundred bucks a month per full time employee. Regardless, just based on the minimum wage increase, you are now raising your prices just to cover the increase. That is separate from any raises, food cost increases, tax increases, ObamaCare, insurance, etc.

So, that Happy Meal won't go from $3.50 to $3.55, it'll go from $3.50 to $3.80-$3.90 on the minimum increase, and then probably over $4.00-$4.25 after adding in ObamaCare. And who buys Happy Meals? People with kids, often poor people who are too exhausted from working to make dinner. They worked 5.5 hours today because any more and they'd have to receive paid insurance (got their hours cut) so before that'd be $39.88 in earnings, but with the increase that's $49.5. They earned an extra $9.62 today, but $1.00 - $2.00 will go into the increase of the cost of the meal for their family, and that's just this meal. It doesn't include the toilet paper at WalMart or the gas at the gas station. Plus, had they gotten to stay at their old hours before ObamaCare, they might have actually worked 7 (or more) today and earned $50.75 at the old minimum pre-ObamaCare - more than they did today.

This is all just for example - every situation is different. However, I think it is based on more facts and real life experience than just spouting off Happy Meal Nickel's and Australian Friends.

About eight years ago when I was managing a restaurant, we had similar numbers. Although our profit margins were closer to the industry standard, coming in around 20 - 22%. It was an airport location, so we certainly had a cyclical nature, with some months being used to pay for others, but by and large this is what we experienced. We had a very similar cost profile, although, being airport, we some other concerns as well.

Namely, a monthly royalty (in addition to space leases & utils) , of about 4% gross revenue, an "airport minimum wage" of about $11.50 (at the time). That's off the top of my head there, and I'm sure there were other additional costs to consider. The single "hardest" factor to deal with where break-even was concerned was the fact that we really couldn't stay open late. About PM10 was as late as our gates ever stayed open, being that there really wasn't a point to staying open after the last flights out.

I definitely sympathize that it can be hard to break even with loads like that, but part of the up-side of maintaining a higher wage set was that we could throw a lot more responsibility on individual employees, and reasonably expect a good deal more reliability. Ultimately, this did help with things like increasing overall revenue.

I'm not sure why you guys are stuck at 4.5% there (could be a whole different industry for all I know), but I would think that that's an issue solved by revenue more than expenses. Not saying you shouldn't watch costs, but at $20,000 a year, the only way that can be called successful is if you have multiple locations.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97):
Without a profit margin, there is no job. Again - I'm not out-of-hand dismissing a raise in the minimum (we are at $9.19 in Washington today) but you can't just point at the business owners and say "Pay up!" as if it's a bottomless pit. At some point, if they aren't making money there is going to be a consequence for everyone: The customer through higher prices, the owner through lower profits (or a loss), and the employee through reduced/no hours and few/no increases.

Sure you can. At some point, being socially responsible becomes more important than safeguarding profits. Profits aren't bad in and of themselves, but when clinging to this becomes more important than avoiding social upheaval, we have a pretty major problem on order.

The thing a lot of folks don't realize is that there will always be a market; as I said before, people will not stop needing and wanting things. If some non-performers have to collapse in the mean time, yes, that's unfortunate and stressful, but balanced against a nation-wide scale, then yes, it has to go that way.

The good news where you're concerned is that at $9.19/hr in WA, there will not be an effect, given that the standard already goes to the higher wage anyway.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97):

Well, I think there's a strong argument for paying them in accordance with the local economy. If someone can propose a minimum wage system tied to county cost of living versus some sort of blanket wage, I'd be all for it. As it is, someone in downtown Seattle is paid a minimum of $9.19/hour and is probably struggling, while someone in Ephrata is also earning $9.19/hour and has a much lower cost of living. How is that fair to anyone?

I'd be ok with that. A quick look at this map shows that not all counties are the same. I think hiring a commission to look at this is in order. A place like MI, for example might only require a min wage of $9/hr, whereas southern FL or MD would have a significantly higher need. But, as I understand this, The President made mention of his intention during the SOTU address. It may have been a lot easier for time mgmt just to say "$9/hr".

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97):
It's those earning the minimum that will feel it more than anyone. Some for the better. Some not at all. And some for the worse.

The problem is that that would happen anyway. More hours at less per hour doesn't do anyone any favors either. I'll agree that it's not a problem with a simple answer. Part of why I favor as I do is that increasing the min wage leaves the least amount of blood across the landscape.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97):

Tell that to the millions out of work. Seriously, I know what you probably mean by this, but in practice it is absolutely utopian. We can't keep enough applications in stock to satisfy all of the people looking for work, and I'm in a fairly stable area.

It's actually more dystopian than utopian. No one arguing for the increase is doing so because we think min wage is a great place to hang out for life.

I'm going to be a little harsh here for a second. But the truth is most who are out of work are so because there are things they are not willing to do.

I lost a great job in 2008 due to a system wide RIF. With only 9 months on the clock there, I knew it was not going to be easy to sell that "experience" anywhere. In the end, I took a job that paid a little more than min wage. The month or so that it took to get there was probably the longest in my life, but putting out three credible applications a day (and let's be honest, I could have done a better job at the time), and returning calls for interviews eventually did the trick. Ultimately, this is the path that lead to where I am now, although there was no accident in that. Anymuch more is off topic, so we'll leave it alone.


As harsh I sound about business themselves, and as unsympathetic as I am WRT their margins, I really do feel the same way about people who remain out of work any longer than they have to.

No one's saying there aren't a lot of "shit" jobs out there, but if I got laid off tomorrow, I'm not about to tell my kids "yeah there're a bunch of jobs out there, but we all have to eat less & turn off the heat because they're all beneath me."

For best results, it means employers being drug, forcibly if necessary, into the 21st century, and people not being too picky about what the word opportunity means.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97):
She lost everything - house, cars, retirement, etc. His loser kids from a previous marriage came after the funeral "to get some things to remember him by" (since they never chose to do so for the 18 years we were with him), and apparently that means vehicles, cameras, binoculars, and the like. lol And on and on.

That is really awful. But unfortunately correct. If the state can compel a man to pay child support for children he's never or barely met, then it's not unreasonable to assume they get 1st crack at his stuff when he dies.

Again, that doesn't help you out much at all, but in America, biology trumps everything in that regard*.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 97):
. I think that it probably gives me a little less compassion at times because i've seen and heard so many people intentionally abuse the system, whether as my employees, my friends, or just the common criminal.

People abuse the system because they're the kind of people who abuse systems, or things in general. I have no sympathy for folks who want to remove safety nets for that reason, and frankly, it's kind of a weak argument. I'm not saying I've seen you say that, just that we hear it a lot here.

The fact is that people abuse the system at every level. What's more offensive, in the strictest financial sense? Someone scamming $26,000 or welfare a year, or a guy like Romney, who need 300 pages of tax return list all the ways that he refuses to pay for the system that made him rich?

Even worse, we see companies like Exxon taking massive subsides from the federal gov't, while simultaneously receiving tax breaks and profit guarantees. We see farmers paid not to grow crops, again by the taxpayer, and Floridian sugar plantations getting to farm land they don't own or pay for.

Next to that, leaving out for a moment our massive and completely useless military industrial sector, welfare fraud barely blips the radar. No, no one likes it, and even the most purple blooded liberals I know look upon that kind of fraud with contempt and do not object to criminalizing the activity. But it hardly justifies removing the safety nets in place. People talk about all that, and what most of us hear is something along the lines of "well, you know, those seat belts kill more people than they save."

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 106):

If we're going to raise the minimum wage, fine. Make it fair based on local cost of living's, index it in some format to inflation with no "minimum annual increase", and accept the consequences of whatever comes of it, good, bad, or otherwise.

Absolutely. The consequences will be what they are, and as I've said, I don't think anyone really believes that we're going to get that omlette without some broken eggs.

I don't think we need a minimum guaranteed wage increase per se, but the legal assurance that it can't for any reason, be decreased.



* for some reason.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1401 posts, RR: 3
Reply 122, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2462 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 121):
As for who I'm trying to convince, certainly not myself. I am extremely well acquainted with the harm illegal migration causes, and the aims of border control in general to prevent this. You on the other hand seem to think that a flourishing black market is somehow a good thing for the economy, which is frankly just plain nuts.

No, you're not trying to convince yourself at all. You're extremely well acquainted with the harm.

What's interesting is that you started off by saying they get exploited, and now you're saying they're tax dodgers (implicating they're exploiting the US).

I guess you're just hedging your bets.


User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1340 posts, RR: 3
Reply 123, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2454 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 119):
I think it's only responsible to help out the 1. consumers who are paying higher prices and 2. the companies that can potentially go under

Of course not. You don't get to raise everything else right after you up the minimum wage just because you raised the minimum wage.

A. enough of that will happen naturally

B. it defeats the point of being responsible if you're just going to indulge the same bad habits right away.

That statement reminds me of that episode of the Simpsons, when Homer calls up his neighboor, and says "Hello Ned, remember that time I returned your leafblower? Well I'm calling in the favor!"

This is a correction, not an invitation for unhealthy companies to remain exploitive by nature. If they need to die out, even en masse, that's still better than perpetuating the problem.

Using your logic, you should be able to deduct traffic fines from your income for taxation purposes.

As for Consumers, I for one, have no trouble paying a little more. Setting all morality aside, it is always better to have to spend a little more as part of the whole not being poor or living in a poor country deal.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 123):
I know a lot goes into it, don't get me wrong, but having the prices as low as they are in America is big to many people

Because we have a disgracefully high percentage of folks below the poverty line. The market's been given a large number of subsidized chances to get with the program there, and we've seen the result.

People too frequently try to use conservative "logic" (if it can be called that...) to treat low prices as some sort of opiate to offset rank poverty. In the end, the wheels won't stay on that machine for long.

Using such reasoning, I should never change the oil on my car's engine again, since I would very obviously save $20 every four months!

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 125):

What's interesting is that you started off by saying they get exploited, and now you're saying they're tax dodgers (implicating they're exploiting the US).

In what universe, where, can both not be true?!

Part of why I have no disrespect for Illgals in the US is that most often they risk life and limb and live in appalling condition upon arrival to do jobs that we're "too good for". There's a lot to be said for that, and I often wonder where we as a country would be if we were all made that way.

Unfortunately they're breaking the law insodoing, and yes, there are socioeconomic consequences for that.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 124, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2449 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 125):
What's interesting is that you started off by saying they get exploited, and now you're saying they're tax dodgers (implicating they're exploiting the US).

I guess you're just hedging your bets.

I guess not, and that quite obviously the impact of the issue is diverse in its consequences. It is massively clutching at straws to pretend these things are mutually exclusive. They clearly are not, as the above poster eloquently concurs.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1401 posts, RR: 3
Reply 125, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2447 times:

Clearly there has to be a net level of "exploitation". Somebody has to be profiting from all this.

User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8163 posts, RR: 8
Reply 126, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2436 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 123):
that, among other things, adds up and you have much higher prices across the board in many European countries

Several factors impact European prices that we don't have in the US.

First is our use of a very low minimum wage (under $3) for jobs that can receive tips. That tip adds 20% to the price in a reasonable situation. European counterparts actually receive a livable wage which increases the costs of service, but eliminates the need for a tip. (Cruise ships seem to be the exception for this standard, allowing for poverty wage for the cruise lines. Pity)

Then there is the fact that we normally use a Sales Tax that is applied at the point of sale, where Europe uses a VAT and places like Australia uses a GST.

When looking at price variances it might also be helpful to consider the hours of work required to make purchases of various products or services. Affordable looks different when everything is considered.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 124):
I'm actually astonished that it's not conservatives leading the charge for that.

That has also amazed me - especially after living in a country where no business was burdened with nanny care expenses. Neither corporate execs nor the politicians (who receive all those political contributions from corporate execs) seem to understand the benefits of getting nanny care costs out of the budgeting process. Getting rid of that unnecessary cost allows for more funds for investments in the business. Queer Duh Factor there.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 127, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2432 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 128):
Clearly there has to be a net level of "exploitation". Somebody has to be profiting from all this.

Various people profit in different ways. Illegal migrant workers themselves can be said to profit from the very fact of securing illegal work, but I would say that the people who employ, particularly in a very organised and targeted way, could be said to be the biggest profiters in the equation. This is particularly true if all of their business is under the radar, paying no tax to the state etc. There may also be people traffickers involved, be it solely in terms of helping to cross the border for money, or making arrangements to directly supply illegal labour to a particular enterprise. As previously mentioned, the fact is that this issue is multi-faceted, causing harm to a range of people and entities in a range of ways. You may also wish to consider the fact that when there are huge problems with illegal migration from a given country, that this can hinder genuine, lawful migrants from that country in terms of the potential for legal work opportunities being curbed, or even just stricter conditions for entry for visits or other purposes of travel. It is simply not possible to say that illegal migration is harmful for one particular reason - there are many reasons, and none of them preclude the others. I'll say it again though - illegal migration and the black market associated with is generally very bad for an economy, and robs the country of valuable taxes and proper jobs. If you are going to have a minimum wage and certain minimum working conditions and standards, which I am clearly in favour of, one eminently sensible way to support these rights for all is to clamp down properly on people who seek to avoid doing things by the book, be it the illegals themselves or the people who employ or exploit them. Indeed, on the subject of exploitation, if a country has minimum wage levels and working conditions, and illegals are employed solely to circumvent those things, that is already by definition an exploitation. That may at first seem contradictory to the suggestion that they can be said to profit from their illegal work, but again the one does not preclude the other. It simply depends on which particular aspect of this very complex web you happen to focus on.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15695 posts, RR: 26
Reply 128, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2424 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 96):
I can't say that I've ever viewed life as myself, some people who are useful to me for my needs, then the rest simply being statistics and a burden upon society.

Not all of those people are a burden, not by a long shot. I'm simply not afraid to point out the reality that the vast majority of humanity (based on very rough estimates) doesn't matter to a given person. They all matter to someone, but not necessarily to me. And, in the same vein, the vast majority of humanity doesn't give a rat's ass about me either.

Don't confuse that with me having some disdain or ill will towards the faceless masses. There's no reason for it.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 99):
Education should be fully accessible for all,

I agree. But, should people not avail themselves of the opportunity, the government should not be saying "That's okay. Here are some food stamps instead."

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 108):
Once someone is illegal, they are indeed ripe for exploitation as they will often accept crappy, illegal, often dangerous working conditions and low wages that no other type of worker should or could endure

Yes, but they are filling the market void created by having a minimum wage. Illegal immigrants are the bootleg alcohol to the prohibition of sub-minimum wage jobs.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 120):
It sure beats the hell out of having retail experience.

Sure, but retail doesn't require several years' commitment. It doesn't even require several weeks' commitment.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 120):
And, if you really like planes, it gets you around some pretty hot planes.

I don't need to like what I do. I need to be paid well, and if it's doing something I like that's just a bonus. If I like something enough, I'll find a way to do it whether it's my job or not.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 124):
At some point, being socially responsible becomes more important than safeguarding profits.

I disagree.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 129, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2417 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 131):
the government should not be saying "That's okay. Here are some food stamps instead."

Quite so, and I think I've been very clear that I have no time for people who wish to resign themselves to a life of bludging off others.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 131):
Yes, but they are filling the market void created by having a minimum wage. Illegal immigrants are the bootleg alcohol to the prohibition of sub-minimum wage jobs.

I think that's a specious justification of an unacceptable problem. As said many times, if a business can't afford a basic living wage then it should not be in business. Further, you make no mention of the economic harms caused by black market employment, such as unpaid taxes. As I previously mentioned, if there prove to be gaps in the market then controlled migration can fill those, but this must be with the same safeguards as for all legal workers. I do not accept that illegal workers are in any way, shape or form a necessary evil. If anything, they are proof positive of the fact that it is necessary to legislate against unscrupulous employers, as there are clearly enough of them out there who are willing to break the law and skew the economy against honest people striving to build successful, law-abiding businesses.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8163 posts, RR: 8
Reply 130, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2418 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 131):
Sure, but retail doesn't require several years' commitment. It doesn't even require several weeks' commitment.

And brief (a month or so) experience in any industry means squat to recruiters. As are your chances of making solid, long term contacts.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 131):
I don't need to like what I do. I need to be paid well, and if it's doing something I like that's just a bonus.

Unfortunately if you are working next to people who actually enjoy their jobs your chances of being promoted ahead of them are significantly reduced.

And the more I think about it, how long do you believe you would last in groups where money is your only reason for showing up for work?


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15695 posts, RR: 26
Reply 131, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2416 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 132):
As said many times, if a business can't afford a basic living wage then it should not be in business.

I'm not sure consumers are willing to deal with the fallout from that. Seeing fruit and vegetable prices rise might not be pretty.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 132):
If anything, they are proof positive of the fact that it is necessary to legislate against unscrupulous employers,

They are proof positive that having a minimum wage distorts the market and some jobs will not support that.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 133):
And brief (a month or so) experience in any industry means squat to recruiters

The experience is useless to me. It's just a way to keep the gap on my resume from growing and I guess proving I can show up and not be hung over or whatever.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 133):
As are your chances of making solid, long term contacts.

I've found contacts to be pretty much useless.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 133):
Unfortunately if you are working next to people who actually enjoy their jobs your chances of being promoted ahead of them are significantly reduced.

Unless I manage to do the job better. It's how you work that counts, not what motivates you.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 133):
And the more I think about it, how long do you believe you would last in groups where money is your only reason for showing up for work?

Until I found something that pays better I guess.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 132, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2416 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 131):
I don't need to like what I do. I need to be paid well, and if it's doing something I like that's just a bonus.

Man oh man, are you ever going to have some big surprises ahead in life. But if you really believed that, down to your core, you would have taken the job you turned down because you didn't like the location.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 131):
Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 124):
At some point, being socially responsible becomes more important than safeguarding profits.

I disagree.

Which is how I guess folks who run sweatshops sleep at night. It's all about their profits, not considering the affect that pursuit may have on anyone, anything, or society in general.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 133, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2401 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 134):
I'm not sure consumers are willing to deal with the fallout from that. Seeing fruit and vegetable prices rise might not be pretty.

Seasonal agricultural work can be done with controlled work migration. We used to have similar schemes in the UK and they worked very well. The price rises you refer to are exaggerated, and also offset by other savings from fewer illegals and more tax revenue for all to benefit from. It is a total fallacy to pretend that illegal immigrants don't cost the country. It is far more economically beneficial to limit migration strictly to legal routes, focusing on where you need particular skills most, and turning migrants into fully-contributing members of society.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 134):
They are proof positive that having a minimum wage distorts the market and some jobs will not support that.

Specious reasoning again. There are many drivers and draw factors for illegal migration, but you are putting the cart before the horse there. Levels of illegal migration tend to be a reflection of two main factors: economic situations in source countries and laxity of border controls in the host countries. You seem to conveniently also ignore the fact that people who base their business on illegal workers are thieves and criminals. Nothing more, nothing less. They are no kind of economic saviour, or indeed any kind of reliable economic barometer.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 135):
Which is how I guess folks who run sweatshops sleep at night. It's all about their profits, not considering the affect that pursuit may have on anyone, anything, or society in general.

  



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15695 posts, RR: 26
Reply 134, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2402 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 135):
But if you really believed that, down to your core, you would have taken the job you turned down because you didn't like the location.

For what it's worth, there was a little more to it than just location, but that was the primary issue. But that's just the thing: I tried to care about more than money and now I see that it was a mistake. Probably the biggest screw up of my life was not being greedy and chasing the money. I don't plan on making that mistake again.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 135):
Which is how I guess folks who run sweatshops sleep at night. It's all about their profits, not considering the affect that pursuit may have on anyone, anything, or society in general.

Exactly.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 136):
It is a total fallacy to pretend that illegal immigrants don't cost the country.

They do have a cost. But plenty of people like to believe that the economy can exist without an economic underclass, when in fact having the so-called "serf class" is actually an important part of the economy.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 136):
You seem to conveniently also ignore the fact that people who base their business on illegal workers are thieves and criminals. Nothing more, nothing less. They are no kind of economic saviour, or indeed any kind of reliable economic barometer.

The underground economy is an economy too. Hell, probably half of Miami was built with drug money.

[Edited 2013-02-19 19:27:29]


Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5372 posts, RR: 8
Reply 135, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2387 times:

Probably the best and most important thing about raising the minimum wage is that it flows monies directly to those lowest on the economic ladder without going through the government. It will of course lead to an increase in tax revenues with employment and SS taxes.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 136, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2387 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 137):
They do have a cost. But plenty of people like to believe that the economy can exist without an economic underclass, when in fact having the so-called "serf class" is actually an important part of the economy

There are always going to be people at the bottom of the ladder, but they needn't be paid starvation wages. It's lazy to refuse to tackle the issues by throwing up your hands and saying 'oh well that's how it's always been'. The very use of 'serf class' here in the context of a supposedly civilised country is just awful. Have some standards man, stop aiming so low.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 137):
The underground economy is an economy too. Hell, probably half of Miami was built with drug money.

Well great, a load of criminals built mansions and opened dodgy businesses to launder the filthy drug money. Doesn't justify a damn thing.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈