Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Thank A Taxpayer For That Happy Meal.  
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8842 posts, RR: 10
Posted (9 months 3 hours ago) and read 4975 times:

http://www.providencejournal.com/opi...a-taxpayer-for-that-happy-meal.ece



This article is written by a member of the newspapers editorial board. I point this out, because this newspaper is not know for advocating anything anti-business. I could not agree more with this article. These people are being screwed over, but of course as mentioned, not the CEO. Almost 14 mill for him, zip for the workers. As is mentioned, the pay is good enough to live on fast food, nothing else. We are subsidizing this, which does not surprise me. How come the Republican's, and the advocates of lower spending, smaller government, cannot see this? Maybe they do not want to see this. Everything runs on government subsidies, especially the fast food industry, also many others too numerous to mention.


It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
257 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5330 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (9 months 1 hour ago) and read 4913 times:

Come on War, it's just the minimum wage argument wrapped up in a different package. Yes, these folks get paid minimum wage. Yes, a bunch of these folks have to dip into the public dole to 'get by'. But, where is that the employers' fault?

A business is not in business to employ people. It is in business to make money. Money to pay salaries with and money to pay taxes with. Money to expend on the community and on itself. Money to pay the shareholders.

It is not the responsibility of the business to pay a 'living' wage...it is the responsibility of the business to pay a wage commensurate with the contribution the employee makes to that business.

A business, absent government intervention, will pay an employee what that employee's labor is worth that business. When the government enters the market, via a minimum wage, the wage market is skewed, up and down.

My congressman's family owned a bunch of fast food restaurants down south. I remember when my congressman was running for his seat, he was asked about the minimum wage and he responded that he would like to have it raised. When asked why his family did not raise the wage of their employees, he replied that it would not be competitive for his family to raise wages, if others were not also 'forced' to raise wages.

Quoting WarRI1 (Thread starter):
Everything runs on government subsidies, especially the fast food industry, also many others too numerous to mention.

I'd like to see every subsidy eliminated and the tax code returned to what it should be, and not used as a tool for social engineering.

But, you're right, every time we try to kill a subsidy; someone screams bloody murder and claims we will:
-hurt the poor
-hurt the minorities
-hurt women
-hurt farmers
-hurt oil
-hurt solar
-hurt pharma
-hurt (insert industry here)
-hurt (insert special interest group here)
-hurt employment



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2752 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (9 months ago) and read 4862 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting WarRI1 (Thread starter):
hese people are being screwed over, but of course as mentioned, not the CEO. Almost 14 mill for him, zip for the workers

What did that CEO do to get to that point though? He didn't just go to the classified section paper of the newspaper and apply. He got to that position by what he has done. I know a guy who worked at McDonalds in college and eventually became the manager. You know what his job is now? He's the CFO of a 20 billion dollar aerospace firm. You don't get handed the CEO job, you work for it. Just as you work for any level.

Quoting WarRI1 (Thread starter):
As is mentioned, the pay is good enough to live on fast food, nothing else. We are subsidizing this, which does not surprise me. How come the Republican's, and the advocates of lower spending, smaller government, cannot see this? Maybe they do not want to see this. Everything runs on government subsidies, especially the fast food industry, also many others too numerous to mention.

If everything runs on subsidies why is this an issue? Should only McDonalds be punished? Why not every other company that operates in the US.

Fast food jobs are not supposed to be careers. They are just that, jobs.
Pat



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 959 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (9 months ago) and read 4845 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Thread starter):
These people are being screwed over, but of course as mentioned, not the CEO. Almost 14 mill for him, zip for the workers.

Fast food workers have been the butt of jokes for generations as the absolute lowest skill work available. A successful CEO of a multi-billion dollar corporation takes about the highest skill level you can find. Is Lebron James screwing over the minimum wage concession workers at an NBA game, or is he giving them a job opportunity by putting a demanded product on the court?

Quoting WarRI1 (Thread starter):
As is mentioned, the pay is good enough to live on fast food, nothing else.

And what is wrong with that? Not every job should pay "a living wage" because not every job produces something with enough value to merit one.

Quoting WarRI1 (Thread starter):
We are subsidizing this, which does not surprise me. How come the Republican's, and the advocates of lower spending, smaller government, cannot see this?

The solution is to just stop "subsidizing" the workers. Stop enforcing a minimum wage. Let the market shake things out.

It sounds like your solution is to pay the workers a middle class wage for low/no-skill labor. Here's the obvious consequence: the price of burgers will skyrocket or McDonalds will find a way to use less labor. If you have to pay high school drop-outs $20 an hour to flip burgers, suddenly a BurgerTron2000 is a great investment. Next thing you know, the restaurant employs no one and we all order our food at an automated kiosk.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 months ago) and read 4830 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 4):
And what is wrong with that? Not every job should pay "a living wage" because not every job produces something with enough value to merit one.

If the job require long term corporate subsidy to exist it should go away.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 4):
It sounds like your solution is to pay the workers a middle class wage for low/no-skill labor. Here's the obvious consequence: the price of burgers will skyrocket or McDonalds will find a way to use less labor.

So what if the price of burgers skyrocket? Let's stop the subsidy and move people to productive jobs instead of locking them into bad jobs just because it looks good in some statistics.


User currently onlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1419 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (9 months ago) and read 4826 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 5):
If the job require long term corporate subsidy

What subsidy is this you speak of?


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4774 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 6):
What subsidy is this you speak of?

The one mentioned in the OP article


User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5330 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4768 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 5):
If the job require long term corporate subsidy to exist it should go away.

The job does not require a subsidy. Nobody is paying McDonald's et al. to employ these folks (unlike, say Amtrak). The person working the job takes a subsidy from the government because that person 'chooses' to remain in that job. By the way, some of those 'choices' were made long before that person got that job. And, yes...there are exceptions and those are the people we should be looking to help. Not the people that choose the easy way out.

Quoting cmf (Reply 5):
So what if the price of burgers skyrocket?

Well, the most immediate affect will be that folks will stop eating at fast-food joints. Not really a bad thing except for all the folks that will lose their jobs. The next set of folks affected will be the vendors that supply everything from food to buildings to these fast-food companies. Yup, those folks are probably a little better paid and they will lose their jobs. Of course, this wave of socially conscious remuneration will move into the restaurant and retail industry and reduce that a shadow of itself.

We'll get to a point where only the rich will be able to eat out and shop for some of the finer things because they will be the only ones that can afford to do so.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlinekric777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 279 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4663 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Fine......when a Quarter-Pounder is US$12 because of mandatory worker benefits have risen to what the Left requires, how long until the Mickey Ds franchisees go out of business because nobody is willing to pay $12 for that crap, and their employees' jobs go away? No problem with it until the lefties are willing to foot that bill with their paychecks.

But then, I guess that will be the fault of the "Corporate Fat Cats" that the Left loves to target, but can never really identify.

Naturally, Babs Streisand, Alec Baldwin et. al. could send ALL of their earnings for the year to Washington, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for them and the rest of those Lefty Hollywood hypocrites to fulfill their useless blathering....


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7799 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4639 times:

Quoting kric777 (Reply 8):
Fine......when a Quarter-Pounder is US$12 because of mandatory worker benefits have risen to what the Left requires, how long until the Mickey Ds franchisees go out of business because nobody is willing to pay $12 for that crap, and their employees' jobs go away?

Have you been to a McDonald's in Europe by any chance?



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4632 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 7):
The job does not require a subsidy.

Great. Then McD will have no problem paying enough.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 7):
The person working the job takes a subsidy from the government because that person 'chooses' to remain in that job.

No, it is McD who is the beneficiary of the subsidy as they are able to employ people at lower rates.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 7):
By the way, some of those 'choices' were made long before that person got that job.

Where they?

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 7):
ell, the most immediate affect will be that folks will stop eating at fast-food joints.

Unlikely but if they are not able to exist without long term subsidies then so be it.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 7):
Not really a bad thing except for all the folks that will lose their jobs.

People still need to eat. Those jobs will transfer to better companies.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 7):
Yup, those folks are probably a little better paid and they will lose their jobs.

They are in their new jobs.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 7):
Of course, this wave of socially conscious remuneration will move into the restaurant and retail industry and reduce that a shadow of itself.

Always the doom and gloom. Restaurants and retail is doing fine in countries where fast food restaurants, etc. don't receive preferential subsidies. B.t.w. do you remember the doom and gloom when they were about to ban smoking? Turned out pretty good for restaurants and bars. It will be the same here.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 7):
We'll get to a point where only the rich will be able to eat out and shop for some of the finer things because they will be the only ones that can afford to do so.

No, we get to a point where more people are able to eat out because they make more than minimum salary. What you're talking about is happening because of the income disparity.


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8842 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4632 times:

Quoting kric777 (Reply 8):
Fine......when a Quarter-Pounder is US$12 because of mandatory worker benefits have risen to what the Left requires, how long until the Mickey Ds franchisees go out of business because nobody is willing to pay $12 for that crap, and their employees' jobs go away? No problem with it until the lefties are willing to foot that bill with their paychecks.

Well if I remember correctly, many on here say that is competition, capitalism at it's best. No customers, fold the business, someone else will fill the vacuum. Maybe the next guy will pay 15 bucks an hour, and stay in business. If Mickey D's goes, Burger King, Wendy's will love it and make enough to pay good wages. You can't cut it, be gone. I seriously do not think 15 bucks an hour will break them, do you really?    



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8842 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4628 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 10):
Always the doom and gloom. Restaurants and retail is doing fine in countries where fast food restaurants, etc. don't receive preferential subsidies. B.t.w. do you remember the doom and gloom when they were about to ban smoking? Turned out pretty good for restaurants and bars. It will be the same here.

  

Quoting cmf (Reply 10):
No, we get to a point where more people are able to eat out because they make more than minimum salary. What you're talking about is happening because of the income disparity.

  


Exactly, amazing how some can see it, and some cannot. Doom and gloom is the weapon of choice from the wealthy. Chicken Little said it best. The sky is falling, the sky is falling



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13028 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4626 times:

The point of this article and others like them is that fast food and retail jobs have shifted from teen and college aged workers, living at home with parents under their medical, housing and food needs, to adults as the number of jobs has shrunk and more needing any job, their healthcare and basic welfare is being subsidized by government and taxpayers instead of their once middle class jobs did.

User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8842 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4623 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 13):
The point of this article and others like them is that fast food and retail jobs have shifted from teen and college aged workers, living at home with parents under their medical, housing and food needs, to adults as the number of jobs has shrunk and more needing any job, their healthcare and basic welfare is being subsidized by government and taxpayers instead of their once middle class jobs did.

I will put you on my list of those who get it from a human point of view. Well said, after thorough reading.   



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3917 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4585 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

If McDonald's had a minimum wage of $15, the cost of a Big Mac would go up by $0.68 at corporate locations (source: University Of Kansas) and $1.28 at franchise locations (source: Employment Policies Institute). Certainly not enough to kill McDonald's, but it might mean the end of the franchise model and the vast expansion of corporate locations, also known in capitalistic free markets as "creative destruction" (surely that can't be bad if this is part of the free market, right?).

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 7):
The person working the job takes a subsidy from the government because that person 'chooses' to remain in that job.

You seriously believe it is a freely-made choice???

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 7):
The job does not require a subsidy.

When more than half of full-time employees require government assistance to survive, when the employer has a hotline to instruct their employees how to get that assistance, there is no doubt the employer is getting an indirect government subsidy because there wouldn't be enough employees, ergo no business, without public assistance. Of course we absolutely cannot call it that because subsidies distort markets and are a form of protectionism.

Except when they benefit corporations...



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlineual747den From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2392 posts, RR: 11
Reply 16, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4562 times:

This problem is much larger than most of you understand by the comments you write. First the CEO pay really has nothing to do with the real problem. A CEO of a very successful corporation should be and must be paid very well or he/she will just move on to a business that will pay this person what they are worth and that corporation won't be very successful anymore.

The problem is if you pay more you have to charge more therefore you get less business and price the lower class out of the market and that has a domino effect throughout the entire economy. If you believe in less government and a free market how can you be for forcing a business to pay their employees anything other than what the market demands? This is why I say that the problem is more complex than people seem to understand, there is no easy answer to this question. This is exactly why we elect representives who are charged with working with the "other side" to solve the big problems in our country, government, and economy. The idea is if both sides work together we end up with a solution to the problem that is somewhere in the middle and is something that both sides can work with but that idea doesn't work very well when a party is hijacked by far leaning representives who refuse to negotiate and work with the other side.

Welcome to American politics!!!



/// UNITED AIRLINES
User currently onlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1419 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4538 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 10):
No, it is McD who is the beneficiary of the subsidy as they are able to employ people at lower rates.

They would be able to employ people at low wages even if there were no subsidies to the unproductive. Or look at it another way, if there were no McDonald's the unproductive would still get low wages.

The idea that McDonald's are getting subsidised makes no logical sense.


User currently offlineLittleFokker From United States of America, joined Sep 2013, 261 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4506 times:

Quoting airportugal310 (Reply 16):
Another liberal thread brought to you by known union & liberal cheerleaders
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23kFiqFiOlA

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 1):
A business, absent government intervention, will pay an employee what that employee's labor is worth that business. When the government enters the market, via a minimum wage, the wage market is skewed, up and down.

I think what you mean to say is that absent any guidelines for pay, a company will pay it's workers nothing if it can get away with it. Honestly, the whole concept of free market is farscical, because I'm not sure a perfect "free" market has ever existed. The value of currency, amount of taxes paid, conditions that must be satisfied in making the product or providing the service, all these things are government admnisitered, and influence the market. Let's stop pretending we'll ever see a free market and start working towards ending poverty in this country.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 15):
If McDonald's had a minimum wage of $15, the cost of a Big Mac would go up by $0.68 at corporate locations (source: University Of Kansas) and $1.28 at franchise locations (source: Employment Policies Institute).

Damn facts getting in the way of a good ol' fashioned conservative argument!

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 3):
Is Lebron James screwing over the minimum wage concession workers at an NBA game, or is he giving them a job opportunity by putting a demanded product on the court?

Not a great analogy, because the services are not necessarily complimentary. No one is forced to eat and drink at a sporting event, and many choose not to due to the exhorbent prices that are charged. Talent only compels people to buy the ticket, not necessarily eat and drink. I'd say the concession prices are far more influential on the decision to purchase than anything the talent on the court/field will do.



"Toughest wind I ever played in....straight down!" - W. C. Fields
User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5678 posts, RR: 45
Reply 19, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4492 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 15):
the cost of a Big Mac would go up by $0.68 at corporate locations (source: University Of Kansas) and $1.28 at franchise locations

Just curious.. and there may be a good explanation .. but why would the price increase be almost double at a franchise location.

Oh and by the way, in this country where there are min wage laws.. a Quarter Pounder does NOT cost $12.00.



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4487 times:

Quoting stealthz (Reply 19):
Just curious.. and there may be a good explanation .. but why would the price increase be almost double at a franchise location.

The method they used was based on maintaining everything else equal and because the franchise cost structure is different this would be the result.

Problem is the entire calculation is full with problems. The biggest being that price is not a direct multiple of cost.

Quoting stealthz (Reply 19):
Oh and by the way, in this country where there are min wage laws.. a Quarter Pounder does NOT cost $12.00.

Nor does it anywhere else  


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12331 posts, RR: 25
Reply 21, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4436 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Thread starter):
As is mentioned, the pay is good enough to live on fast food, nothing else.

I'm with you on the rest of your post, but not this part. If you have access to a quite basic kitchen it's easy to eat food that's better for you than is fast food and is cheaper than fast food. The real problem is the lack of education both by the public schools and by parents.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 13):
The point of this article and others like them is that fast food and retail jobs have shifted from teen and college aged workers, living at home with parents under their medical, housing and food needs, to adults as the number of jobs has shrunk and more needing any job, their healthcare and basic welfare is being subsidized by government and taxpayers instead of their once middle class jobs did.

  

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 15):
If McDonald's had a minimum wage of $15, the cost of a Big Mac would go up by $0.68 at corporate locations (source: University Of Kansas) and $1.28 at franchise locations (source: Employment Policies Institute).

And what if the CEO decided he could make do with $1.5M instead of $15.0M?

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 15):
Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 7):
The person working the job takes a subsidy from the government because that person 'chooses' to remain in that job.

You seriously believe it is a freely-made choice???

  

Quoting ual747den (Reply 16):
This problem is much larger than most of you understand by the comments you write. First the CEO pay really has nothing to do with the real problem. A CEO of a very successful corporation should be and must be paid very well or he/she will just move on to a business that will pay this person what they are worth and that corporation won't be very successful anymore.

The problem is simple to solve. Simply come up with a formula based on the ratio of the pay of the entry level workers (contract as well as direct) to the CEO based on traditional/world norms and make it illegal for a CEO to earn more than that ratio upon pain of jail time. CEOs hate jail more than the love money. If that means these CEOs choose to move their companies outside of the US, that's fine too. What is far worse is them staying in the US and continuing to live high off the hog whilst the middle class disappears. It's clear to me that far more would chose to stay here than would leave, because these people already have the means to leave. Say goodbye to all of them and let's have a new generation of corporate leaders who realize the least among us have to succeed for them to succeed.

Note how the issue of executive pay and pay equity just never shows up in the press, sigh. Now I'm awaiting posts from right wingers calling me a communist, but so be it. What we are doing now is simply NOT WORKING!



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11516 posts, RR: 15
Reply 22, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4430 times:

I find it interesting that people are screaming about subsidies for the workers but only one line was devoted to the MASSIVE subsidies for agri-business. Corn, soybean, meat, chicken, potato.... they are living off the government dole at a much higher rate than the workers! Cut welfare for the rich and let's see what that does to the debt and deficit!


Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8182 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4430 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 1):
But, where is that the employers' fault?

When you are pulling in $13+ Million a year there is a strong motivation to keep lower level employees below the poverty line.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 1):
A business is not in business to employ people. It is in business to make money.

And a business operates in an economic environment that allows for profitable operations, even when they pay a living wage.

The problem is that we've established a level of corporate greed that makes it difficult to have a responsible minimum wage. Other countries can manage to both pay a living wage AND generate plump profits.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 1):
It is not the responsibility of the business to pay a 'living' wage...it is the responsibility of the business to pay a wage commensurate with the contribution the employee makes to that business.

If a company wants to operate in a company's economic environment then they need to operate within the legal framework of that country. That is their responsibility. If those laws include a minimum wage above the poverty line then that is their responsibility. Just because Corporate America can pour money into politicians "campaign funds" to keep the minimum at a poverty level doesn't mean it is what we need in this country. It generates a serf community when you get right down to it.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 1):
I'd like to see every subsidy eliminated and the tax code returned to what it should be, and not used as a tool for social engineering.

Not just "social engineering", the tax code has been effective (and properly) use to strengthen the economy. Start with some simple like accelerated depreciation.

"Social engineering" is simply a term that conservatives use as a crutch to complain about taxes. But you really don't hear complaints about cash handouts to companies, like the $40 Billion to the oil industry.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 2):
What did that CEO do to get to that point though? He didn't just go to the classified section paper of the newspaper and apply. He got to that position by what he has done.

Actually he competed for the job and was chosen among a group of equally qualified individuals. Colin Powell made it very clear in his book - talking about his introduction course when he was promoted to General. There were a handful of new stars in the room and a senior general waked in the room and told them a home truth: if the plane bring them to DC had crashed and they were all killed the Army could replace them within the day without any loss of performance.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 2):
Fast food jobs are not supposed to be careers.

But in the US today that is what it is for a lot of people - the serf community.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 3):
A successful CEO of a multi-billion dollar corporation takes about the highest skill level you can find.

Considering that they are far easier to replace than, say, a surgeon, I'd say you are a bit too much in love with the CEOs. A General or Admiral could easily have the same level of experience and knowledge, but is easily replaceable and General Powell was quickly told.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 3):
The solution is to just stop "subsidizing" the workers. Stop enforcing a minimum wage. Let the market shake things out.

It's the corporations getting the subsidy. It minimum wage was above the poverty line then a LOT of government spending wouldn't be needed. Shaking things out would cause more harm to the market and economy than even Bush & Cheney caused.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 3):
Here's the obvious consequence: the price of burgers will skyrocket or McDonalds will find a way to use less labor.

Not really. Companies that pay poverty level wages make a good chunk of money off of those serfs. The $13+ Million to McDonalds is evidence of that . Basically the percentage of sales those poverty wages represents can be pretty small, with in increase not impacting prices that much. Maybe 10¢ more for a Big Mac.

Another factor is competition. McDonalds over prices their products and competitors can come in and eat their lunch. So the CEO only gets $12+ million a year. I'll shed a tear over that.

And, of course, if that big, dead albatross of employer nanny care is taken out of the cost factor then company profits would be taken crd of, as would be the poor working at the bottom.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 3):
If you have to pay high school drop-outs $20 an hour to flip burgers, suddenly a BurgerTron2000 is a great investment

You think? Why spend money on the BurgerTron2000 if your sales are heading south?

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 3):
Next thing you know, the restaurant employs no one and we all order our food at an automated kiosk.

Not a chance. Look around the restaurant areas in you town and try to find a parking space. There was a lot of business rowing and the revenues could easily cover responsible wages for all the staff that were running full speed. You tend to forget the very high volumes involved: people dropping $100+ for a meal for 4 could easily cover living wages - especially when drinks are involved.

Quoting cmf (Reply 4):
If the job require long term corporate subsidy to exist it should go away.

No, a legal poverty wage should go away. Then you can start looking at lowering spending on services for the poor.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 7):
The person working the job takes a subsidy from the government because that person 'chooses' to remain in that job.

The person chooses to work instead of laying around the house. What is available to them are poverty wages because the government allows it (read big time political contributions) and that person will hopefully keep working there until they can find a better job. Unfortunately employers prefer the serf level wages, especially since they can bully those employees so easily.

Maybe those adults trying to make what ever they can would be better off laying around their homes, or selling drugs to our kids.


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4424 times:

Quoting Providence Journal (Thread starter):
A full-bore stimulus (rather than the timid one we got) would have spurred a more robust recovery by lifting consumer demand. More jobs, including better-paying ones, would have been created.

Nonsense. A lift in consumer demand will create more jobs, but those jobs will continue to pay the going rate. Companies aren't just going to pay people more because the business is doing more volume.

Quoting WarRI1 (Thread starter):
These people are being screwed over, but of course as mentioned, not the CEO. Almost 14 mill for him, zip for the workers.

Do you think the CEO was just handed that job right out of business school? Obviously he worked his way up to where he is by being the best and brightest in the field, and he should be compensated handsomely for it.

The current CEO of McDonalds Canada started his career as a teenaged fry cook making minimum wage in a McDonalds restaurant in upstate New York. He worked his way up under conditions not that different from what we see today. If that doesn't poke a hole in the whole "workers are stuck at the bottom" story then I don't know what does.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 3):
If you have to pay high school drop-outs $20 an hour to flip burgers, suddenly a BurgerTron2000 is a great investment. Next thing you know, the restaurant employs no one and we all order our food at an automated kiosk.

   Spot on. If the labour becomes substantially more expensive, you'll quickly see the company making more capital investments in technology and processes that make the labour redundant. The only reason it hasn't happened is because the lifetime value of labour is less costly and more sustainable than the technology to replace them.

Quoting cmf (Reply 6):
Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 6):
What subsidy is this you speak of?

The one mentioned in the OP article

Nowhere in the article does it mention that McDonalds receives a subsidy. McDonalds indirectly benefits from subsidies that exist upstream in the supply chain, but the corporation itself is not subsidized. Every company on the continent that uses corn or soy-based products will benefit from these subsidies.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 15):
You seriously believe it is a freely-made choice???

Yes. The employee is free to seek employment elsewhere. McDonalds isn't in the game of indentured servitude.

Quoting stealthz (Reply 19):
Oh and by the way, in this country where there are min wage laws.. a Quarter Pounder does NOT cost $12.00.

But the price difference is relative to the wage difference, is it not?



Flying refined.
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 959 posts, RR: 51
Reply 25, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4403 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 4):
So what if the price of burgers skyrocket?

Then people won't buy them.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 23):
Considering that they are far easier to replace than, say, a surgeon, I'd say you are a bit too much in love with the CEOs. A General or Admiral could easily have the same level of experience and knowledge, but is easily replaceable and General Powell was quickly told.

I respect the skills required of major CEOs because I've worked one-on-one with Fortune 500 CEOs. Their talents are in the league of professional athletes and other high-performing careers.

But to say they are more interchangeable than a surgeon? With the exception of a handful of word-class specialist, no way. If I need my appendix removed tomorrow, there are a line of surgeons that can be scheduled. There may only be a handful of people in the world who can integrate and lead a given organization of thousands of people.

Lastly, do not confuse fast with easy. Generals and CEOs are sometimes replaced quickly, but usually only when someone is being dismissed. Planned leadership transitions take months to years precisely because they are difficult.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 23):
You think? Why spend money on the BurgerTron2000 if your sales are heading south?

Because it will allow you to reduce your costs of sales and change the value proposition of your product. For example, eliminating labor costs could allow lower prices, higher quality, more profit, or some combination thereof.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 23):
No, a legal poverty wage should go away. Then you can start looking at lowering spending on services for the poor.

You are effectively arguing for a "minimum price law" of every product that requires labor. You can't make things more or less valuable, but you can make them higher price. If something costs more for the same value, people will buy less of it.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 23):
Not a chance. Look around the restaurant areas in you town and try to find a parking space. There was a lot of business rowing and the revenues could easily cover responsible wages for all the staff that were running full speed. You tend to forget the very high volumes involved: people dropping $100+ for a meal for 4 could easily cover living wages - especially when drinks are involved.

You say "not a chance," but it has already happened.

President Obama seemed to think he was making some profound observation, but it has happened throughout our economy. High volume customer service is becoming automated self-service more and more. At airports, check-in counters are a skeleton crew with automated kiosks. ATMs have displaced thousands of tellers and more and more people bank entirely online.

Yes, people will still crowd to restaurants and spend money. There just won't be many employees at those restaurants if you insist on pricing labor more than its worth.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 959 posts, RR: 51
Reply 26, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4389 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 21):
The problem is simple to solve. Simply come up with a formula based on the ratio of the pay of the entry level workers (contract as well as direct) to the CEO based on traditional/world norms and make it illegal for a CEO to earn more than that ratio upon pain of jail time.

Actually, the solution is even easier: what a business pays its employees isn't your business.


User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5330 posts, RR: 14
Reply 27, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4357 times:

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 15):
You seriously believe it is a freely-made choice???

Ask yourself what led up to this person being "forced" to work for minimum wage. What decisions did that person make that put him in a position where the only thing he can do is "flip burgers"? We all make choices in life...even if we start from crap...the choices are there. Some are just harder to make than others.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 23):
If a company wants to operate in a company's economic environment then they need to operate within the legal framework of that country.

And, the fast-food industry is doing just that.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 23):
If those laws include a minimum wage above the poverty line then that is their responsibility.

Again, is anyone not paying the minimum wage?

It is the responsibility of an organization to operate within the laws. It is not the responsibility of that organization to provide its employees anything more than what they contribute to the organization.

Look at it this way...an entire Burger King staff can walk out today and they can be replaced in less than a week and the store would barely miss a beat and you wouldn't notice a bit difference.

Now, look at an airline...if every mechanic walked out, it would take the airline months to replace the people and years to replace the experience.

That is why Burger King 'burger flippers' make minimum wage and aircraft mechanics make a whole bunch more.

It is not

Quoting cmf (Reply 10):
No, we get to a point where more people are able to eat out because they make more than minimum salary.

You assume that the price of the food and service will remain the same. It will necessarily go up if the organization is to meet it financial obligations and profit goals.

I know a local restaurateur. He runs a high end restaurant. He pays well in excess of the minimum wage and his employees are able to keep their tips. I can't afford to eat there more than once or twice a year.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12331 posts, RR: 25
Reply 28, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4317 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 28):
Actually, the solution is even easier: what a business pays its employees isn't your business.

Which I suppose is your way of saying there isn't a problem here needing to be solved.

I feel differently.

The problem to be solved is obvious: companies are paying their employees so little that they qualify for public assistance, at the same time they are paying their CEO $15,000,000 per year.

What they pay IS my business when I end up supporting their employees via MY taxes at the same time they are SO profitable they can pay $15M to their CEO.

Get your head out of the sand!



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5678 posts, RR: 45
Reply 29, posted (8 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4293 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 24):
But the price difference is relative to the wage difference, is it not?

Doesn't appear so, "the Economist" publishes it's "big Mac index" a measure of how many Big Macs one can buy around the world for US$50, in 2012 that $50 would buy 11 in the USA and 10 in Australia, doesn't seem so different considering the differeing wage regimes.
incidentally that $50 would get you 30 burgers in India and 7 in Norway!!



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlinecptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 12
Reply 30, posted (8 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4259 times:

Quoting ual747den (Reply 16):
First the CEO pay really has nothing to do with the real problem. A CEO of a very successful corporation should be and must be paid very well or he/she will just move on to a business that will pay this person what they are worth and that corporation won't be very successful anymore.

Got that. For those who opine that really accomplished CEOs are finger-switch replaceable like a linebacker or a high ranking military officer probably doesn't understand. Only one case in point: the entire Ford family couldn't get FoMoCo out of its doldrums, so they hired an accomplished man, Allen Mullalwy (sp?) from Boeing to run FoMoCo. It's working, and I'm sure he didn't come cheap. Money well spent, I'd say. I know that my Ford stock has zoomed a bit from the $3.60/share I bought it for, anyway. Thank you, Mr. knowledgeable CEO, and I think your new products are pretty damn good too (altho I am a GM guy).

Quoting Revelation (Reply 21):

The problem is simple to solve. Simply come up with a formula based on the ratio of the pay of the entry level workers (contract as well as direct) to the CEO based on traditional/world norms and make it illegal for a CEO to earn more than that ratio upon pain of jail time

Naaaah...way too complex (would get yet ANOTHER freshly-minted government agency involved in the marketplace). And furthermore, if the CEO makes 10 mil a year and the sweeper makes 10 dollars an hour, the sweeper can leave to get a 10.50 dollar/hour job at another company just like the CEO can leave for a 10.5 mil/year job at another company. Who's going to decide? You or some scamming congressman?

I am not in favor of minimum wage laws. I understand there is a problem that many of you have pointed out in this thread, however, But, I am still am a "marketplace" guy. One should be compensated for one's performance, and in many cases, this is clearly not the case. I also firmly believe that without government interference, all markets would eventually tend to be better which would not only NOT screw the "little" guy but help him/her.

Will all things be better tomorrow or next year? Of course not. But with common sense, which is uncommon nowadays, things could make substantial leaps to the positive strata. As far as government subsidies go, the most positive step would be to eliminate the "legal" government subsidies that the folks in Washington, DC vote in for themselves whilst all the rest of us are asleep. best regards...jack



all best; jack
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8842 posts, RR: 10
Reply 31, posted (8 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4228 times:

http://go.bloomberg.com/multimedia/ceo-pay-ratio/



It was said earlier that the CEO should be paid handsomely for his work. There is a difference between handsomely and obscene. We have entered the era of obscene. Nobody will argue about an Executive being paid fairly. The difference is when wages are being depressed by these same people, and they use those figures to boast earnings along with layoffs, and then they arrange a hefty wage increase/bonus, that is obscene. Anyone who defends or denies this happens is being a little naïve, or obtuse.

[Edited 2013-10-26 19:20:21]


It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 32, posted (8 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4206 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 24):
Nowhere in the article does it mention that McDonalds receives a subsidy. McDonalds indirectly benefits from subsidies that exist upstream in the supply chain, but the corporation itself is not subsidized. Every company on the continent that uses corn or soy-based products will benefit from these subsidies.

"That’s because Big Macs, Whoppers and their ilk are heavily subsidized fare.
Low wages may help to keep fast food cheap. But because of them, most fast-food workers rely on public assistance just to get by."
Straight from the article. The money isn't handed directly to McD but they are the beneficiary.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 27):
Then people won't buy them.

So what?

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 30):
Ask yourself what led up to this person being "forced" to work for minimum wage. What decisions did that person make that put him in a position where the only thing he can do is "flip burgers"? We all make choices in life...even if we start from crap...the choices are there. Some are just harder to make than others.

Those jobs do not go away because everyone has a Ph.D.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 30):
That is why Burger King 'burger flippers' make minimum wage and aircraft mechanics make a whole bunch more.

Of course a well trained mechanic makes more, that isn't an issue. The issue is that the difference between low paid and well paid is unreasonably big.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 30):
You assume that the price of the food and service will remain the same. It will necessarily go up if the organization is to meet it financial obligations and profit goals

No I don't.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 30):
I know a local restaurateur. He runs a high end restaurant. He pays well in excess of the minimum wage and his employees are able to keep their tips. I can't afford to eat there more than once or twice a year.

Being from a restaurateur family I can guarantee you it isn't the waiters salary that makes the difference between you being able to afford it once or twice per year versus once or twice per month or week.

Quoting stealthz (Reply 33):
Doesn't appear so, "the Economist" publishes it's "big Mac index" a measure of how many Big Macs one can buy around the world for US$50, in 2012 that $50 would buy 11 in the USA and 10 in Australia, doesn't seem so different considering the differeing wage regimes.
incidentally that $50 would get you 30 burgers in India and 7 in Norway!!

  

Pretty amazing people are so adamant it can't work yet there are examples of it working all around the world.


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8842 posts, RR: 10
Reply 33, posted (8 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4195 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 40):
Pretty amazing people are so adamant it can't work yet there are examples of it working all around the world.

It does amaze, the outright denial when in the face of evidence around the world, it does not make that much difference as regards minimum wages affecting prices. It seems strange that on this forum, where statistics are used and used, when it does not fit their agenda, they choose to completely disregard the evidence. Why does this not surprise me?



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13028 posts, RR: 12
Reply 34, posted (8 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4170 times:

There are also other forms of subsidies many big retailers and fast food outlets their owners get.
There are property and corporate tax breaks given by some communities and states to get them to put up a store there for a few desperately needed jobs or to get some badly needed tax revenue to replace long gone factories that used to pay good wages. This leads to companies putting town vs. town for these subsidies to put their store in them and bigger tax breaks done.
Towns who lose downtown businesses, owned by locals who's income and profits stayed in the area.
Walmart and McD's rarely sponsor local youth sports teams and activities like locally owned one do.
Towns and states having to spend maybe millions in roads, traffic lights, additional police, fire and EMT's for these businesses due to the additional traffic.
Those corporate jets, despite some good business reasons for them is loaded with all kind of tax deals on the purchase, operation and tax subsides to the airports they operate to/from, Federal ATC ops costs to taxpayers and so on.
Numerous other tax benefits from depreciation to general 'operational' costs on a much grander scale.


User currently offlineMSPNWA From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1903 posts, RR: 2
Reply 35, posted (8 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4160 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 40):
Pretty amazing people are so adamant it can't work yet there are examples of it working all around the world.
Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 41):
It does amaze, the outright denial when in the face of evidence around the world, it does not make that much difference as regards minimum wages affecting prices. It seems strange that on this forum, where statistics are used and used, when it does not fit their agenda, they choose to completely disregard the evidence. Why does this not surprise me?

It's also amazing to see the complete lack of economic knowledge being displayed in this thread. I'm still at the undergraduate level in my economics studies, but even principles courses are enough to see the socialist fallacies emerge. The Big Mac comparisons are no surprise to me. In fact, I just went through that example in a class when looking at exchange rates. It's good to look at the numbers, but we all have to acknowledge that the Big Mac is only one tiny piece of the entire economic puzzle. It's just one morsel that makes up a quality of life comparison between nations. All it can tell us is that on a relative basis Big Macs are about the same price in different economies.

The bottom line is that McDonald's labor force is not subsidized. Not even a hint. What we have today is the result of a mostly free market and people's free choice. If that market was more free, the models say they'd be better off, not the other way around.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 36, posted (8 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 4122 times:

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 44):
but even principles courses are enough to see the socialist fallacies emerge

None of the -isms work.

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 44):
The bottom line is that McDonald's labor force is not subsidized. Not even a hint.

When someone must provide extra money to your workforce for them to be able to work at your place, then they are subsidised. Failing to acknowledge that is wearing tinted glasses.


User currently offlinedarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1342 posts, RR: 3
Reply 37, posted (8 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4055 times:

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 30):


Now, look at an airline...if every mechanic walked out, it would take the airline months to replace the people and years to replace the experience.

A few things about that example.

Firstly, you can be replaced, and quickly if need be. Contract MX is showing up all over the place in spots previously believed to be untouchable. How many airlines did their own HMVs 20 years ago vs now? Line MX is almost never in house anymore at stations smaller than a focus city. And it's a pretty safe bet that they're not paying what 5X is.

For now, things look ok(ish) if you're still on that side, but a generation down the line and it could easily not be the case. There really isn't a point, for example, to do D & C checks in house when we can send it overseas for a third the cost (strictly speaking about labor; other costs are a bit more fixed, and some, like transport, actually increase).

But as it pertains to this discussion, just because you have a skilled trade (though the Dep of Labor disagrees, unfortunately), doesn't mean you can't be downsized away the same as some when some Burger Joint buys the latest JobKiller5000 or whatever they're calling those kiosks now...

And what's of concern is that none of that has anything to do with your skill or job performance.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 30):

You assume that the price of the food and service will remain the same. It will necessarily go up if the organization is to meet it financial obligations and profit goals.

I for one am not assuming that it would remain the same. But I do know that tall tales of $12 Big Macs happening over this are just that. By way of reference, when I managed a restaurant during my school days, labor ran anywhere between 11 & 16%. 11 being awesome, and 16 being atrocious. That's actually not much of a cost spread to begin with, but let's say for the sake of discussion that a new law doubles the cost of your labor. So now you're looking at between 22 & 32% of revenue going to labor. I do think that the establishment will pass as much of that onto the customer as they can, so let's say they're able to do all of that.

A Big Mac meal is what, $7? I have to guess since it's been a minute since my last McD's visit. That meal is now between $8.54 & $9.24. Personally, I think it would end up closer to the former as again, the higher figure is based on the kind of numbers that would get mgmt in a lot of hot water with ownership or corporate. But we can average, since this a.net and call it $8.89. So from $7, we get to $8.89. While these back of napkin figures do not include sales tax, they also assume that either there is no competition, or that the competition is behaving in exactly the same fashion and not trying any effort to undercut. And again, it's also based on a doubling of labor costs, not limited to staff that weren't min wagers to begin with.

So you're right. That is an increase. Is it so awful that it's not worth doing? I can't for the life of me see how. You could make the argument that their labor isn't worth it and that it shouldn't be raised for that reason alone. But honestly, that's a dangerous row to hoe. As I said above, even you're not safe from that type of thinking.


I said this in another thread, and I think it's worth repeating here. Why is it that when a fuel spike, caused by rampant speculation and currency hedging, resulting in very real cost increases across the board (since pretty much nothing we have isn't transported at some point) is perfectly ok, because capitalism... but when labor cost increases that would not likely increase the final cost of a given product beyond 12 - 15% or so the forebearer or apocolypse?

The cost of doing business is the cost of doing business; it doesn't matter if some of that's labor or some of it is for making speculators filthy rich. Just sayin...



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently onlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1419 posts, RR: 3
Reply 38, posted (8 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4045 times:

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 47):
So you're right. That is an increase. Is it so awful that it's not worth doing? I can't for the life of me see how.

Here's what will happen if that where to be the case. As alluded to already in this thread. McDonald's will reduce the amount of staff at their restaurant - getting rid of the weakest performers first. They'll probably replace most of the till people with a machine that your order from and staff will simply make your burgers for you and exchange it for a receipt. Where possible they'll try to automate most of the burger making processes (i'm not an expert so i can't tell you how much scope there is here). In general you'll probably face longer queues at Maccas, because they will have calculated that customers will value lower priced burgers slightly more than queuing time, on top of that there will be less customers anyway because they're slightly more expensive so they're now having to compete with higher quality restaurants.

So yeah some people will get a payrise, and others will be laid off and will never be able to find a job or gain any skills - which is utterly utterly cruel.

The key thing though, is that none of this would happen overnight. At first advocates would probably claim victory as the fast food chains take the hike on the chin in the short term. The issues would creep in subtly and be hard to identify.

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 47):
Why is it that when a fuel spike, caused by rampant speculation and currency hedging, resulting in very real cost increases across the board (since pretty much nothing we have isn't transported at some point) is perfectly ok, because capitalism... but when labor cost increases that would not likely increase the final cost of a given product beyond 12 - 15% or so the forebearer or apocolypse?


Hedging serves a purpose. It mediates the supply of something over time and helps to efficiently distribute resources. Artificial wage caps cause inefficient use of resources.

[Edited 2013-10-27 09:00:17]

User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8785 posts, RR: 24
Reply 39, posted (8 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4026 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Thread starter):
This article is written by a member of the newspapers editorial board. I point this out, because this newspaper is not know for advocating anything anti-business.

I see it as being more anti-Income Support Programs. I've been making the same argument on this board for years. Companies who hire at or near minimum wage, and who do not restrict such hires to students and such just looking for a supplementary income to buy gas and go on dates, but hire people who must earn a living, are effectively getting massive subsidies from the government. THIS is the real corporate welfare scandal.

When someone is hired to work, it is a mutual agreement. I agree to perform work for you in return for an amount of money that must serve my needs. If the money is not enough, I have to go look elsewhere. If your offered salary is not enough for me (or anyone else) to serve their needs, you need to increase the offered wage. Would you take a job that only pays $1 per hour? Certainly not. How about $5? $10? $15? Where is your cut-off point?

Forget any food stamps or any income assistance for the moment. They don't exist. You live alone, and your rock-bottom subsistence needs is around $2000 per month. Any full-time job that doesn't pay you $13/hour (net, after all deductions) just won't cut it, and you have to keep looking until you find it.

If McDonalds offers you $8 per hour gross (roughly half of your needs), and income assistance programs chip in to make up the difference, that will factor into your decision on whether or not to take the job. Now, with the wage + food stamps, you have met your threshold, and you take the job.

If those income assistance programs did not exist at all, McDonalds, Walmart etc would be FORCED to increase their offered wage, regardless of any minimum wage law, simply in order to get enough people to fill the jobs. Yes, your burger or goods from Walmart might get a little more expensive, but the price would then reflect the real market value - and what's wrong with that? The fact of the matter is that every time you buy a Big Mac, the government is subsidizing a buck or two of the price.

The unintended side-effect of these income assistance programs, which I grant were probably passed for the most noble reasons (although the cynic in me says that this was in fact the intended outcome), has been to artificially pad the demand side of the equation, allowing companies to offer wages much lower than their true market value. And the minimum wage law legitimizes such low wages even further.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 1):
Come on War, it's just the minimum wage argument wrapped up in a different package. Yes, these folks get paid minimum wage. Yes, a bunch of these folks have to dip into the public dole to 'get by'. But, where is that the employers' fault?

Except if a two-stage minimum wage law is introduced. Let's say, minimum wage of $15 per hour (indexed for inflation - that would be today's minimum) for any job over 20 hours per week and where the employee is not a full-time student, and a second-tier minimum wage of $7.50, but only for full-time students under 21 working less than 30 hours per week. The fact is that there IS a market for very cheap labor that students can meet - they are simply looking for enough money to buy gas and condoms.

Let's assume that the employment effects are minimal (particularly if the law was phased in gradually). I bet that a lot of liberals here would support such a change in the minimum wage law. It would get millions of people off of food stamps and other programs, helping the budget, debt, and not the least, their own self-esteem.

But I'll bet you that the Democratic Congressional Caucus would not support it, unless they include a massive increase in the poverty threshold that ensures that even at the new minimum wage level, current recipients would continue to get a substantial portion of their income from assistance programs. Those programs are a source of power - they are the political nicotine base - once hooked, they will keep voting for the people that give them freebies. The Democratic Party (I'm not talking about most liberals in general, who I do believe truly want to help those at the bottom of the economic ladder - I'm talking about the Democrats in power) is highly dependent on having millions of voters believing that Democrats give them goodies, and the GOP wants to take those goodies away.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8397 posts, RR: 3
Reply 40, posted (8 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4020 times:

These days, taxpayers pay for a lot of things. Over 100 million people are on means-tested government benefit programs.

McDonald's isn't unique in that regard. They may actually reduce government benefits by actually getting people to work instead of the alternative, which is welfare and may involve getting pregnant.

McDonald's could save taxpayers 100s of billions compared to the alternative. We don't know.


User currently offlinedarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1342 posts, RR: 3
Reply 41, posted (8 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4022 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 48):

Here's what will happen if that where to be the case.

No, that's what you say will happen. Which is funny, because everywhere where wages have been raised to livable (I guess) standards, that has not happened, interestingly enough.

Even here in California, where living wage laws are more common than not, there are no shortages of McDs. In fact, many of them advertise later closings and earlier openings. Are these things that require more staff, or less?

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 48):
and others will be laid off and will never be able to find a job or gain any skills - which is utterly utterly cruel.

One time I lost a job to redundancy, about 16 years ago, and it was before I had any measurable skills. And that totally happened. Oh wait, nevermind...

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 48):

Hedging serves a purpose. It mediates the supply of something over time and helps to efficiently distribute resources.

Which is not the goal of any economy anywhere. And if it were, I'd say it's doing a pretty piss poor job. Efficient distribution of resources would mean no billionaires and indigents.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 48):
Artificial wage caps cause inefficient use of resources.

So do a lot of things. Like speculation. And since I'm not particularly interested in living in a place where poverty grows faster than an economy (for obvious and selfish reasons, let's be clear), it's better to spend more on labor and less on subsiding plutocrats. Really doesn't net me anything to have a society full of people who can't pay bills.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8397 posts, RR: 3
Reply 42, posted (8 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4014 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 49):
Forget any food stamps or any income assistance for the moment. They don't exist. You live alone, and your rock-bottom subsistence needs is around $2000 per month. Any full-time job that doesn't pay you $13/hour (net, after all deductions) just won't cut it, and you have to keep looking until you find it.

That's ridiculous. If you can't survive, buy a bus ticket to a place with prospects. See a loan shark and go into debt. Consider leaving the USA. Consider living in your friend's basement. Splitting an apartment, god forbid. Living on rice and beans. $2000 a month (in most of the USA) allows you to maintain your own home, car and retail groceries of your choice.

Those things are an achievement, not a right.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8785 posts, RR: 24
Reply 43, posted (8 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4012 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 52):
That's ridiculous. If you can't survive, buy a bus ticket to a place with prospects. See a loan shark and go into debt. Consider leaving the USA. Consider living in your friend's basement. Splitting an apartment, god forbid. Living on rice and beans. $2000 a month (in most of the USA) allows you to maintain your own home, car and retail groceries of your choice.

I was just giving an example - the minimum income you are willing to live on is up to you to decide, whether you live in someone's basement or want to maintain your mansion in Malibu. You set the number - but it must be all-inclusive.

I used $2000 because, at least around here, that's about the cheapest you can live with halfway-decent apartment, food, utilities etc.

[Edited 2013-10-27 09:38:24]


Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently onlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1419 posts, RR: 3
Reply 44, posted (8 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4001 times:

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 51):
No, that's what you say will happen. Which is funny, because everywhere where wages have been raised to livable (I guess) standards, that has not happened, interestingly enough.

Ok, so can you explain to my why youth unemployment is at historical highs in the UK, even though overall unemployment, though high, is not at historic levels? On top of that, why is it that every time i go to a supermarket these days i have to scan my own items on an automatic till myself. Finally, why is it that people who are out of work on a long term basis are working for free for work experience and then when that period is up, they don't get a job. Why can't they just work for a price that is less than the minimum wage but more than nothing?

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 51):
Which is not the goal of any economy anywhere.

Efficient distribution of resources is not the goal of an economy? Maybe it's not the goal of a bad economy, but it is the goal of a good economy.

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 51):
So do a lot of things. Like speculation.

Again, speculation causes efficient use of resources. Why do people speculate on things like oil? Because they anticipate the price being higher in the future than it is now. The price being higher in the future means that there will be a greater unmet demand in the future, so holding some oil back now will result in oil arriving on the market when there is the greatest demand for it.

It's similar in a way to how airlines sell seats. They don't sell the whole plane out straight away, they'll keep the price high on those last seats so the people who desperately need to travel at the last minute and are prepared to pay a lot for it are satisfied.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11516 posts, RR: 15
Reply 45, posted (8 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3985 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 48):
Hedging serves a purpose. It mediates the supply of something over time and helps to efficiently distribute resources.

Actually, it gives more money to the top. Look at what happened in 2008 with oil and housing.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 50):
They may actually reduce government benefits by actually getting people to work instead of the alternative, which is welfare and may involve getting pregnant.

McDonald's could save taxpayers 100s of billions compared to the alternative. We don't know.

The right does not want any of that to work. They want workers to stay on low wage jobs and complain people are on low wage jobs. If people were actually getting ahead or, at the very least breaking even, they would not have a reason to hate workers.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently onlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8941 posts, RR: 40
Reply 46, posted (8 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3980 times:

Take welfare away and those workers will still be working the same job at the same wage.

Quoting WarRI1 (Thread starter):
As is mentioned, the pay is good enough to live on fast food, nothing else.

Since when is fast food cheap?

You know what's cheap food? Buying fresh meats, fruits, vegetables and grains from super markets and cooking it yourself.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11516 posts, RR: 15
Reply 47, posted (8 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3976 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 56):
Take welfare away and those workers will still be working the same job at the same wage

Thank you. I was just coming back to make that point.

The right keeps complaining about things being "given" to the workers. Like "free" health care and "free" food and "free" shelter. What the right forgets is people have to pay for insurance, even if it is state/federal health care exchanges under ACA. People have to be employed and receive a pay check to get "free" food from food stamps. People have to work and pay rent to get "free" shelter through HUD.

Not only that, the whole solution the right has is: stop giving to workers. They say the have a great idea for replacing low cost health care with something, but they never say what that is. They say the workers will get food and shelter, so no need to worry about that.

When we went to Mexico two years ago, the number of women and children (under 10 years old) begging on the streets was heart wrenching. All I could think is "this is how the right wants workers in United States to live." Spend a week around the cathedral in Mazatlan and you will get it.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineLittleFokker From United States of America, joined Sep 2013, 261 posts, RR: 1
Reply 48, posted (8 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3946 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 49):
If those income assistance programs did not exist at all, McDonalds, Walmart etc would be FORCED to increase their offered wage, regardless of any minimum wage law, simply in order to get enough people to fill the jobs.

That's a backwards way of looking at it. People don't know what their minimum income needs are, regardless of whether or not government assistance is available. People agree to work for a certain salary, and they do their best to live within the means of that salary. That is why the minimum wage is necessary - companies won't voluntarily raise their wages, because they could easily collude to keep them low. The minimum wage needs to be above the poverty line to reduce poverty, period.

[Edited 2013-10-27 12:46:06]


"Toughest wind I ever played in....straight down!" - W. C. Fields
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11516 posts, RR: 15
Reply 49, posted (8 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3932 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 49):
If those income assistance programs did not exist at all, McDonalds, Walmart etc would be FORCED to increase their offered wage, regardless of any minimum wage law, simply in order to get enough people to fill the jobs.

Actually, the opposite is true. With all the jobs either simply vanishing or going overseas, workers now have to take low wage jobs. There are thousands fighting to fill a few positions at low wages. This does not force or compel companies to raise wages. On the contrary, they simply keep wages low with the attitude of "you need this more than we need you."



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12331 posts, RR: 25
Reply 50, posted (8 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3920 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 34):
I know you lefties think you're onto a winner here but you really really really aren't
Thanks for your very unfounded criticism of my motives...

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 35):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 21):
The problem is simple to solve. Simply come up with a formula based on the ratio of the pay of the entry level workers (contract as well as direct) to the CEO based on traditional/world norms and make it illegal for a CEO to earn more than that ratio upon pain of jail time

Naaaah...way too complex (would get yet ANOTHER freshly-minted government agency involved in the marketplace). And furthermore, if the CEO makes 10 mil a year and the sweeper makes 10 dollars an hour, the sweeper can leave to get a 10.50 dollar/hour job at another company just like the CEO can leave for a 10.5 mil/year job at another company. Who's going to decide? You or some scamming congressman?


It's not that complicated if there is a will to make it work. If one doesn't want it to work, one can come up with all kinds of ways to stumble on edge cases. If one wants it to work, one can come up with reasonable ways to deal with the edge cases.

The reality is that US the concentration of wealth and income disparity is at its highest level in a century, and somehow a substantial percentage of the people in this country seem to feel this is the natural order of things and don't want to do a thing to change it.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8785 posts, RR: 24
Reply 51, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3895 times:

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 59):
That's a backwards way of looking at it.
Quoting seb146 (Reply 60):
Actually, the opposite is true.


Really? Then explain why market forces dictate all other wage levels, and the the power of subsidy has no value. Your argument suggests that the Law of Gravity does not exist if you get close enough to the floor.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11516 posts, RR: 15
Reply 52, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3880 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 62):
market forces dictate all other wage levels, and the the power of subsidy has no value

Because wages and subsidies are two different things. Auto manufacturers left the United States because they found they could pay lower wages overseas. When those same manufacturing jobs came back, they came back at much, much lower wages with zero benefits.

The only subsides to be had were to the auto manufacturers. Not to employees.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 62):
Your argument suggests that the Law of Gravity does not exist if you get close enough to the floor

Once you are flat on the floor, you can not go any lower unless someone else starts digging. Wal-Mart and fast food have found a way to do just that.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineLittleFokker From United States of America, joined Sep 2013, 261 posts, RR: 1
Reply 53, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3877 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 62):
Then explain why market forces dictate all other wage levels

There are more examples of wage levels being independent of market forces than aren't. Minimum wage dictates the majority of wage levels (usually starts at min wage, then performance raises are given in amounts relative to the minimum wage). And executive level pay is not set by market forces, but rather behind closed door negotiations.

Again, people seeking low wage jobs don't know what their minium income needs to be to survive. They take what they can get, and try to make the best of it. Raising the minimum wage will go a long way to helping reduce poverty.



"Toughest wind I ever played in....straight down!" - W. C. Fields
User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2752 posts, RR: 4
Reply 54, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3826 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting ual747den (Reply 16):
A CEO of a very successful corporation should be and must be paid very well or he/she will just move on to a business that will pay this person what they are worth and that corporation won't be very successful anymore.

Absolutely agree. When you're talking about profits in the hundreds of millions that person deserves to be compensated well. Everybody likes to act like these guys show up, go to a couple meetings, and go to the country club before lunch. When it fact their work is their life.

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 18):
Damn facts getting in the way of a good ol' fashioned conservative argument!

 . I do love the idea that only the right is ever wrong. The left, never!

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 18):
I'd say the concession prices are far more influential on the decision to purchase than anything the talent on the court/field will do.

Boy then we go to sporting events for way different reasons. I have never sat down and said "Should we go to the Rangers game because the hot dog is 7 bucks or the Bruins because it is only 6?" I'll pick the team that is doing better or I am a fan of.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 21):
If you have access to a quite basic kitchen it's easy to eat food that's better for you than is fast food and is cheaper than fast food. The real problem is the lack of education both by the public schools and by parents.

It's actually very comparable unless you want to have spaghetti with every meal. Don't get me wrong, I'm a college student. I'm supposed to live off of ramen and pasta. But it isn't a myth that it can be cheaper. Take it from someone who lives on a limited income.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 21):
Simply come up with a formula based on the ratio of the pay of the entry level workers (contract as well as direct) to the CEO based on traditional/world norms and make it illegal for a CEO to earn more than that ratio upon pain of jail time. CEOs hate jail more than the love money. If that means these CEOs choose to move their companies outside of the US, that's fine too. What is far worse is them staying in the US and continuing to live high off the hog whilst the middle class disappears. It's clear to me that far more would chose to stay here than would leave, because these people already have the means to leave. Say goodbye to all of them and let's have a new generation of corporate leaders who realize the least among us have to succeed for them to succeed.

So what you're saying is the "least of us" who may not be putting in 100% should drag down someone who has worked to get to their position? Hardly an idea that would motivate someone to work hard. I don't understand the idea that we should hit these CEOs for being successful while rewarding those who may have not worked very hard.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 22):
Corn, soybean, meat, chicken, potato.... they are living off the government dole at a much higher rate than the workers! Cut welfare for the rich and let's see what that does to the debt and deficit!

The rich aren't the only ones benefiting from those subsidies. You eat everyday just like the rest of us. I'd be willing to bet you've bought all those ingredients in the store as well. You just benefited from a subsidy.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 23):
When you are pulling in $13+ Million a year there is a strong motivation to keep lower level employees below the poverty line.

Yes, because the CEO wakes up and says "How can I screw the little guy today?" Not quite.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 23):
Considering that they are far easier to replace than, say, a surgeon, I'd say you are a bit too much in love with the CEOs.

Just did a quick google search and in 2010 there were 135,834 surgeons in the US. There are far more surgeons that could replace someone than CEOs who could replace a Fortune 500 CEO.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 23):
Another factor is competition. McDonalds over prices their products and competitors can come in and eat their lunch. So the CEO only gets $12+ million a year. I'll shed a tear over that.

If McDonalds over prices their products they sure as heck know how to do it and still come out cheaper. Even an expensive meal at McDonalds is cheaper than it's next biggest competitor.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 37):
Anyone who defends or denies this happens is being a little naïve, or obtuse.

Or have a differing view.

Quoting cmf (Reply 40):
Straight from the article. The money isn't handed directly to McD but they are the beneficiary.

They are the beneficiary. But the question now becomes, Is what they are doing illegal? No. It isn't.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 49):
I agree to perform work for you in return for an amount of money that must serve my needs. If the money is not enough, I have to go look elsewhere. If your offered salary is not enough for me (or anyone else) to serve their needs, you need to increase the offered wage.

If they can't find someone to fill the position they increase their wage. But there isn't a shortage of workers looking to work these jobs.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 49):
The fact is that there IS a market for very cheap labor that students can meet - they are simply looking for enough money to buy gas and condoms.

And then there are some of us who are trying to pay their way through school. What you earn in life shouldn't be defined by your age. What you end up doing should determine your wage.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 57):
When we went to Mexico two years ago, the number of women and children (under 10 years old) begging on the streets was heart wrenching. All I could think is "this is how the right wants workers in United States to live." Spend a week around the cathedral in Mazatlan and you will get it.

That's a sad story, but way to twist it to make the right look bad....

Quoting seb146 (Reply 62):
The only subsides to be had were to the auto manufacturers. Not to employees

The subsidies ending up employing people, so just like McDonalds may be getting indirect subsidies those employees are as well.
Pat



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8842 posts, RR: 10
Reply 55, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3825 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 39):
I see it as being more anti-Income Support Programs. I've been making the same argument on this board for years. Companies who hire at or near minimum wage, and who do not restrict such hires to students and such just looking for a supplementary income to buy gas and go on dates, but hire people who must earn a living, are effectively getting massive subsidies from the government. THIS is the real corporate welfare scandal.

If I read you correctly, I agree with you on this 100%. They are getting massive subsidies from the government. They pay the minimum to anyone desperate enough to walk in and apply. They know this, the days of high school kids taking these jobs is long over. So now Mother's, Fathers, retired, broke, are taking these jobs. They could care less. They know how to milk the system. They counsel how to apply for help. by doing this, they know that the chances of some desperate soul staying are greatly enhanced, because they can survive with government help. Not without it. Let me tell you, 2K a month is dog wages here. You will live in poverty and you will live on fast food and the free food you might while get for working for dog wages.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8842 posts, RR: 10
Reply 56, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3817 times:

http://www.providencejournal.com/opi...ma-harrop-scandal-in-candyland.ece



Speaking of subsidies, which follows along with the theme of this thread. Fast food and sugar certainly go hand in hand. This article explains what is going on in the Sugar World, and how we are being screwed by subsidies, just as McDonalds and many more are screwing us and their workers by using government subsidies. Once again, right out of our pockets, and into the pockets of the wealthy.

[Edited 2013-10-27 18:38:03]


It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8785 posts, RR: 24
Reply 57, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3801 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 56):
This article explains what is going on in the Sugar World, and how we are being screwed by subsidies, just as McDonalds and many more are screwing us and their workers by using government subsidies. Once again, right out of our pockets, and into the pockets of the wealthy.

No argument about sugar (And corn, milk and other foods as well as well, via different mechanisms). But why are you blaming McDonalds and other such companies? I don't recall them ever promoting or lobbying for expansion of income supplement programs. They are simply responding to market pressures. Why should they pay $15 per hour when people are willing to do the work at to take half that? Especially when increasing their wages would mean having to significantly increase their prices in a very competitive market. So what exactly are you blaming them for? It's like blaming a poor person for all the income support programs he benefits from.

It sounds to me like you are seeking to assign blame to "evil big business", when the fact of the matter is that this is just another (probably unintended) consequence of those programs that Democrats pushed for, and that Conservatives warned you would happen.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently onlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8941 posts, RR: 40
Reply 58, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3791 times:

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 48):
People don't know what their minimum income needs are

False. Of all people, the poor will be the most aware of the cost of food, shelter, etc.

Don't assume poor equals completely ignorant and out of touch.

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 53):
And executive level pay is not set by market forces, but rather behind closed door negotiations.

And what do you think those negotiations are?

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 53):
Raising the minimum wage will go a long way to helping reduce poverty.

Minimum wage laws destroy jobs. Destroying jobs, no matter how marginal they are, will NEVER reduce poverty.

Stop killing jobs.

[Edited 2013-10-27 20:00:06]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8842 posts, RR: 10
Reply 59, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3782 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 57):
It sounds to me like you are seeking to assign blame to "evil big business", when the fact of the matter is that this is just another (probably unintended) consequence of those programs that Democrats pushed for, and that Conservatives warned you would happen.

I believe in a living, or livable wage. I support the worker, not the corporations in this matter. You and I both know that the corporations are using the government programs to subsidize workers wages. As I stated, the programs were not meant to allow corporations to offer a non-living wage. That is what they do. Now you and I know that the conservatives scream and holler about spending when the Dems are in office. That is the mantra, lower spending. Yet when I or anyone on the opposite side mention the use of a social program being used as a subsidy. You folks play deaf and dumb. Whether at a state or federal level, the systems are being bled dry. When you have any large corporation counseling their help to apply for welfare, food stamps or anything else, that increases the spending you folks are screaming about. I am appalled at the hypocrisy from the right. The figures are there. People should be paid enough to survive in the economy in which they live. You know it, you said it earlier. They are getting massive subsidies. They are bleeding the system. Now did I read it wrong, or did you admit they are?????



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8842 posts, RR: 10
Reply 60, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3776 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 39):
I see it as being more anti-Income Support Programs. I've been making the same argument on this board for years. Companies who hire at or near minimum wage, and who do not restrict such hires to students and such just looking for a supplementary income to buy gas and go on dates, but hire people who must earn a living, are effectively getting massive subsidies from the government. THIS is the real corporate welfare scandal

I read it again, it seems your agreeing about the subsidies has turned into a n accusatory rant about my hating, blaming corporations. I noticed also, not one comment about the pay ratio of the CEO's to workers that I put on earlier. The silence is telling, the hypocrisy is telling. After awhile there is no credibility to the conservatives words.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently onlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8941 posts, RR: 40
Reply 61, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3771 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 59):
You and I both know that the corporations are using the government programs to subsidize workers wages.

This idea makes no sense.

Just because a large number of people working for those wages also are welfare beneficiaries does not mean it has an impact on the market price for that type of labor.

In fact, no company will offer some college graduate a job for a lower salary because he still lives at home with his parents and thus has a cost of living advantage over one that is all on his own! That's just ludicrous!

It's just the latest attempt at an economic rationale for minimum wages from the left.

[Edited 2013-10-27 20:19:31]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7799 posts, RR: 52
Reply 62, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3765 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 59):
I believe in a living, or livable wage.

Here is where I get confused with the living wage theory--let's say we make living wage, IDK, $15/hr (I have no idea if this is in the ballpark or not but just for sake of argument we'll set it at that.) Min wage is about $7.50ish, so if raise $7.50.hr -> $15/hr and $14/hr -> $15, isn't that a bit unfair? You have people doing the most basic, low skill work making as much as someone that put a bit of time and effort into their job. I doubt employers will have much incentive to raise the $14/hr people to $20some/hr just to be fair. How does that get worked out?

Again, I'm not talking about the overall merits and fallbacks of living wage, just wondering about this specific aspect



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8842 posts, RR: 10
Reply 63, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3749 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 62):
Here is where I get confused with the living wage theory--let's say we make living wage, IDK, $15/hr (I have no idea if this is in the ballpark or not but just for sake of argument we'll set it at that.) Min wage is about $7.50ish, so if raise $7.50.hr -> $15/hr and $14/hr -> $15, isn't that a bit unfair? You have people doing the most basic, low skill work making as much as someone that put a bit of time and effort into their job. I doubt employers will have much incentive to raise the $14/hr people to $20some/hr just to be fair. How does that get worked out?

Again, I'm not talking about the overall merits and fallbacks of living wage, just wondering about this specific aspect

I understand. Let us look at the difference in living costs, say for instance, up North, and down South. In the city, and in the outskirts. Surely there is a difference in different areas. You cannot expect a single Mother in New York City to be able to support herself and her family on minimum wage. In my area. suburbs, she has a slightly better chance. Not much, but ever so slightly. The term living wage, means that you can work 40 hours, and expect to be able to survive, no matter what the area. 15 bucks an hour here, in my area, is still poverty wages, never mind in the city. After taxes, you will just scape by even at 15 bucks an hour. You will drive a shit box car if you can find one. You will live in an apartment, or lose your home if you had one in the beginning. You will be on food stamps, you will be on assistance of some kind, if you have no family to rely on. That is what 15 bucks gets you here, never mind 7.50 per hour.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8842 posts, RR: 10
Reply 64, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3742 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 61):
It's just the latest attempt at an economic rationale for minimum wages from the left.

Absurd, how about we couch it in human terms, the ability to support yourself, not to be exploited by greedy corporations, greedy anybody. The ability to give to your children, the ability to not have to take welfare after working two jobs. The ability to not have to read about someone making 50 million a year while you have just had your wages, or hours reduced. A funny thing, some scream and holler, and yet defend the greedy from the Right.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7799 posts, RR: 52
Reply 65, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3731 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 63):

I realize that, I was just pointing out that people making $7.50 an hour and someone making almost double, $14/hr, will both be raised to our hypothetical living wage of $15. You see how that is not fair and doesn't make much sense? That means you have a burger flipper and, IDK, an entry level job for a college student* all of the sudden making the same amount of money.

Would that entry level job go up? Why would employers raise it much more than the living wage already raised it? Is it fair to have these two jobs with much different skill sets/lack of skills make the same much?

I know other countries have done this and they haven't fallen off the face of Earth so I was just wondering what would happen and what the implications are

Bottom line is, I wouldn't call it corporate welfare, but it is annoying to have tax payers pay for someone that has a job and doesn't make much money. I know we get that money back in the form of cheaper burgers, but it's kind of convoluted. Have to think about this one...


*I don't know what average entry level wages are for college student, but we can agree that a person making $14/hr is more qualified/skilled than someone on minimum wage



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinedarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1342 posts, RR: 3
Reply 66, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3727 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 65):
I was just pointing out that people making $7.50 an hour and someone making almost double, $14/hr, will both be raised to our hypothetical living wage of $15. You see how that is not fair and doesn't make much sense? That means you have a burger flipper and, IDK, an entry level job for a college student* all of the sudden making the same amount of money.

Do you have any idea how common that already is?
Frequently shift supervisors and the like will be within a dollar of entry level.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 65):
Why would employers raise it much more than the living wage already raised it? Is it fair to have these two jobs with much different skill sets/lack of skills make the same much?

You'd have to ask the employers. You ought to know there's enough variety there to make asking something like that here an exercise in philosophy with little bearing on the real world.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 65):
I don't know what average entry level wages are for college student, but we can agree that a person making $14/hr is more qualified/skilled than someone on minimum wage

Not if $14 is the minimum. Here at LAX, minimum is already over $15. We have seen no loss in positions as a result of this. Or for any reason for that matter.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15713 posts, RR: 26
Reply 67, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3724 times:

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 53):
And executive level pay is not set by market forces, but rather behind closed door negotiations.

Of course it is. It's minimum wage that is not set by the market, because minimum wage is by its very nature a market distortion.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 54):
So what you're saying is the "least of us" who may not be putting in 100% should drag down someone who has worked to get to their position?

That's exactly what liberals are saying. I don't know about you, but I have no interest in living in a place where everyone is average.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 57):
Especially when increasing their wages would mean having to significantly increase their prices in a very competitive market.

Let's not forget who would really get nailed with a minimum wage increase. It's not people working at steakhouses who are making minimum wage, it's the folks at McDonald's. And who patronizes McDonald's and other fast food joints? The lower and middle class.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 57):
It sounds to me like you are seeking to assign blame to "evil big business", when the fact of the matter is that this is just another (probably unintended) consequence of those programs that Democrats pushed for, and that Conservatives warned you would happen.

There in fact are fast food places that do pay $15 per hour. The reason they have to do so is because 1) that's what the cost of living is and 2) it's the only way they can hope to retain workers and even then any other job pays more and the turnover is high.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 62):
Min wage is about $7.50ish, so if raise $7.50.hr -> $15/hr and $14/hr -> $15, isn't that a bit unfair?

Yes it is, and what's worse is that the person who got a $1 per hour raise probably buys many things made by people who just got their pay doubled. Think of all the places we do business where many employees make minimum wage and then consider if all those places had their employee costs nearly doubled (don't forget this would run all the way up the supply chain too) which we would have to absorb while getting little or no pay raise. Despite what liberals might tell you, it's a little bigger than an extra $0.50 on your hamburger once in a while.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 65):
You see how that is not fair and doesn't make much sense?

Liberal economics uses an odd definition of "fairness."

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 65):
Would that entry level job go up?

No, and effectively their pay would drop from having to pay more for everything.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7799 posts, RR: 52
Reply 68, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3721 times:

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 66):

You are taking my hypotheical numbers too seriously. Basically, I'm saying that absolute minimum wage jobs might be elevated to the same level as some college graduate level jobs. You can see the dilemma there

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 66):
You'd have to ask the employers. You ought to know there's enough variety there to make asking something like that here an exercise in philosophy with little bearing on the real world.

I figured some posters here would have better insight than just "ask employers"

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 66):
We have seen no loss in positions as a result of this.

I'm not saying it would. I was just wondering what the outcomes and implications would be. Does the raising of minimum wage increase all wages around that area to some extent? I find it hard to believe that different levels of skill all level out to a living wage.



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11516 posts, RR: 15
Reply 69, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3702 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 54):
The subsidies ending up employing people

At low wages and no benefits.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 54):
I'd be willing to bet you've bought all those ingredients in the store as well. You just benefited from a subsidy.

I shop at a locally owned market that sells local organic as well as mass produced crap. I can make my own decision and spend a little more so I don't put cancer causing chemicals in my body, thank you very much.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 54):
That's a sad story, but way to twist it to make the right look bad

I don't feel a bit sorry the truth hurts. If you don't like it, stop supporting it!



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2752 posts, RR: 4
Reply 70, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3693 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 63):
You cannot expect a single Mother in New York City to be able to support herself and her family on minimum wage

No, but that is when the states come in and hike the minimum wage for their state.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 64):
not to be exploited by greedy corporations, greedy anybody

What makes corporations greedy? Is it the fact that they do what they are designed to do, which is make money? Or is it because one industry screwed around and ended up having to be bailed out?

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 66):
Here at LAX, minimum is already over $15. We have seen no loss in positions as a result of this. Or for any reason for that matter.

Do you mean LAX airport, or the area? Because I've heard more about companies bailing for Texas and other low cost states than running towards CA.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 69):
At low wages and no benefits.

Again, these are jobs, not careers.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 69):
I shop at a locally owned market that sells local organic as well as mass produced crap. I can make my own decision and spend a little more so I don't put cancer causing chemicals in my body, thank you very much.

That's good for you, but not all of us can run to some organic market to buy food. Not to mention I'd be surprised if those small local growers you buy from don't receive subsidies.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 69):
I don't feel a bit sorry the truth hurts. If you don't like it, stop supporting it!

Oh please. Sometimes you need to take a step back and realize liberal ideology isn't 100% correct. It gets really old when you run around basically calling the right a bunch of jerks who kick the poor. Not all of us earn a million bucks a year. I'd be happy with 20,000 a year at this point.

Pat



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11516 posts, RR: 15
Reply 71, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3689 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 70):
Sometimes you need to take a step back and realize liberal ideology isn't 100% correct.

Neither is tea ideology.

Which is worse: The group that says "we need to help everyone because we are only as strong as the weakest among us" or the group that says "the Bible is our leader but greed is our God; screw the fake poor people!"?

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 70):
I'd be happy with 20,000 a year at this point.

Work for Wal-Mart. In a year, you might earn $25,000!

[Edited 2013-10-27 23:47:50]


Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12331 posts, RR: 25
Reply 72, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3657 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 54):

Quoting Revelation (Reply 21):
If you have access to a quite basic kitchen it's easy to eat food that's better for you than is fast food and is cheaper than fast food. The real problem is the lack of education both by the public schools and by parents.

It's actually very comparable unless you want to have spaghetti with every meal. Don't get me wrong, I'm a college student. I'm supposed to live off of ramen and pasta. But it isn't a myth that it can be cheaper. Take it from someone who lives on a limited income.

I value what you are saying but it is mostly about education. I note you didn't even mention rice, which is what a large percentage of the world gets by on, and is healthier and cheaper than processed foods such as ramen or pasta. Add some relatively cheap veggies and some soy etc for flavor and drink water instead of soda and I'm sure you can get several meals for the price of one trip to Mickey D's.

The food shelter I support typically has a budget of $0.40 per meal per guest. Yep, forty cents.

http://www.bhg.com/recipes/healthy/d.../cheap-heart-healthy-dinner-ideas/ etc has forty recipes for under $3 each, all of which look better to me than my rice and veggies suggestion, and google is of course loaded with countless other suggestions.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 54):
So what you're saying is the "least of us" who may not be putting in 100% should drag down someone who has worked to get to their position? Hardly an idea that would motivate someone to work hard. I don't understand the idea that we should hit these CEOs for being successful while rewarding those who may have not worked very hard.

Drag down? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. We're talking about someone who makes $15,000,000 per year! How much more than the average worker does this person need to have before you're worried about them being 'dragged down'?

The average US citizen's wages are (in round numbers) $40,000, so the McD CEO is making 375 times that amount!



Someone pulling down $1M is already earning 25 times the mean US income per wage earner. Note that mean includes the CEOs down to the street sweepers.

How much more do you think that person should need to drag his/her butt out of the bed each morning? Do you really think they'd just stay in bed if they were only making, oh, maybe just 100 times the average worker's wages?

Do you really think that the main difference between the CEO and a large percentage of the working poor is that the CEO worked harder?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinedarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1342 posts, RR: 3
Reply 73, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3632 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 44):
Again, speculation causes efficient use of resources.

Again, no, it does not. All it does is exchange inefficiencies from one point on a timeline to another, while trading purchasing power for commodities. In engineering, we call that "moving the problem somewhere else".

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 44):
Ok, so can you explain to my why youth unemployment is at historical highs in the UK, even though overall unemployment, though high, is not at historic levels?

Of course I can't. Taking that assertion at face value, which I really don't have a reason to by the way, there are any number of reasons that could be the case. And since I'm in the UK less than a month per year on average, I'm not going to speculate on that.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 44):
Why can't they just work for a price that is less than the minimum wage but more than nothing?

Or better yet, just keep working for nothing at all... The answer is there's no incentive to raise wages for any reason at all in that scenario. If you have trouble with that, take a good look at the early 20th/late 19th centuries.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 68):

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 66):
You'd have to ask the employers. You ought to know there's enough variety there to make asking something like that here an exercise in philosophy with little bearing on the real world.

I figured some posters here would have better insight than just "ask employers"

I very much doubt that's the case. And that's coming from someone who did work that industry for a few years.

The problem with your question is that you're using a very broad question to seek out very specific answers. Some companies may address the issue by raising the price of low-cost/high yield products (I would, given that is the least painful all-around solution to the issue). Some may raise the price on everything but at a lesser percentage. Some may reduce inventory (something I'd also do here). And yes, (since I get the feeling this is what you're really asking), some may cut hours and lay-off staff.

The main issue I'm seeing with a lot of the idealism here is that some of us are making the comically stupid assertions that all businesses will do this, or all businesses will do that, and that the world will divide by zero. In case it isn't obvious, I don't buy that. The reason is that there have been all manner of revenue shocks to attack domestic businesses pretty much since the revolution. Some have weathered such storms well, and some have failed abjectly. So in a nutshell, that's your answer.

I for one see a lot to be gained by having a much better paid labor sector. Whatever we lose from cheap labor we gain back from growing our economy (where we previously couldn't) by way of giving more purchasing power to more people. My job, for example, is directly tied to how many folks can afford to fly. I probably wouldn't be doing as well with 1980's enplanement numbers.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 68):
Does the raising of minimum wage increase all wages around that area to some extent?

Maybe, maybe not. The real question is why does it matter to you? If you're making $16/hr, and labor was in at $7.50, and now they're making $14, you still haven't lost anything.

If you were making $14/he and now they are too, you have an excellent case to ask for a raise. If you don't get one, you have two options. Tell your boss you're only willing to do your former reports' job going forward, or keep on trucking until you find something new/better. In neither case have you lost anything. I'm not seeing the concern there.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 70):

Do you mean LAX airport, or the area?

Good question. I did mean the Airport specifically, but a quick bit of googling shows it applies for much of the area (including any hotel, for example, that does business with or in the vacinity of LAX) as well.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 70):
Because I've heard more about companies bailing for Texas and other low cost states than running towards CA.


That's the narrative, isn't it? In truth, that really hasn't been the case for a while now, and the airport and the region of SoCal around it have grown consistantly over the last four years (during which time the living wage has been raised twice, by about $4 altogether).

By way of example, my company paid a goodly amount of money to move me from TX to here last year, along with four other folks. I'd like to think my bosses are really cool people (and pretty much they are) and wanted to me to enjoy life on the coast. But the truth is that our business was growing tremendously and we needed all hands on deck, post haste. That's not to say anything bad about our North TX ops, but out here is where we really needed people.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 72):

http://www.bhg.com/recipes/healthy/d.../cheap-heart-healthy-dinner-ideas/ etc has forty recipes for under $3 each, all of which look better to me than my rice and veggies suggestion, and google is of course loaded with countless other suggestions.

Had a quick look at your link. Thanks for posting it and I look forward to a more detailed look-over later.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 72):

Do you really think that the main difference between the CEO and a large percentage of the working poor is that the CEO worked harder?

I actually think, as a rule, that CEOs do work harder than the average Joe. And between that and the level of responsibility where the health of the company, value to shareholders, and continued employment of its labor are concerned, they do earn a lot.

But 100 times more than average?! No way! I think you're right. If it takes 100 times average to get someone out of bed to do a job, time to find a new leader.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13028 posts, RR: 12
Reply 74, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3625 times:

On the issue of CEO and other executives pay, part of that is a perverse system of consultants where if a peer in a similar business gets x amount, their guy must get x + x. Beyond the pay, there are the subsidized costs of private jets and security. In many countries high CEO pay is limited by cultural norms, extreme taxation, better worker protections and participation in big corporate boards.
Of course far too many CEO's have mal-incentives to cut costs by keeping pay low, sending jobs outside the USA and use connections with government officials for subsidies and lobby for laws that hold down labor and other costs including regulatory.
Far too many CEO's also get paid no matter if they screw up (look at the recent disaster of JCPenney), there needs to be a dominance of performance - i.e. making profits, but not at the expense of line workers or quality service.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 75, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3624 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 67):
It's minimum wage that is not set by the market, because minimum wage is by its very nature a market distortion.

It would be great if minimum wage wasn't required. Unfortunately it is necessary to avoid an even bigger distortion.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 70):
Is it the fact that they do what they are designed to do, which is make money?

It is great they make money. Problem is that they fail to compensate some participants fairly and overcompensate those who decide on that distortion.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 70):
Again, these are jobs, not careers.

A great soundbite. Why shouldn't a job pay a living wage?

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 70):
Oh please. Sometimes you need to take a step back and realize liberal ideology isn't 100% correct. It gets really old when you run around basically calling the right a bunch of jerks who kick the poor.

Oh please. Time to realize you're doing the exactly the same, just in the other direction.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12331 posts, RR: 25
Reply 76, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3573 times:

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 74):
I actually think, as a rule, that CEOs do work harder than the average Joe. And between that and the level of responsibility where the health of the company, value to shareholders, and continued employment of its labor are concerned, they do earn a lot.

But 100 times more than average?! No way! I think you're right. If it takes 100 times average to get someone out of bed to do a job, time to find a new leader.

I agree with both parts. CEOs are extremely talented people and should be well compensated, but the amount they are getting now is ridiculous.

Keep in mind I'm using mean wages. If I use the ratio of CEO wages to minimum wage it'd be even more absurd.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 77, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3550 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 32):
"That’s because Big Macs, Whoppers and their ilk are heavily subsidized fare.
Low wages may help to keep fast food cheap. But because of them, most fast-food workers rely on public assistance just to get by."
Straight from the article. The money isn't handed directly to McD but they are the beneficiary.

Talk about a serious case of cum hoc ergo propter hoc.   McDonald's shouldn't be the target of these attacks because their employees choose to make fast food into a career. McDonald's hires qualified labour, whether that be a teenager looking for part-time work or someone who mistakenly thinks they can raise kids on a cashier's salary. Sorry, but I'm not going to hold employees' private issues against their employer. If they have to receive assistance from the government, there was an issue long before they handed McDonald's a resume.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 34):
There are also other forms of subsidies many big retailers and fast food outlets their owners get.
There are property and corporate tax breaks given by some communities and states to get them to put up a store there for a few desperately needed jobs or to get some badly needed tax revenue to replace long gone factories that used to pay good wages. This leads to companies putting town vs. town for these subsidies to put their store in them and bigger tax breaks done.

Subsidies and tax breaks are not the same thing. They're both benefits, but they have vastly different implications on businesses.

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 37):
You could make the argument that their labor isn't worth it and that it shouldn't be raised for that reason alone.

That's exactly the argument many are making. Pay should always be directly correlated to skills/qualifications and the value the individual provides as determined by the market.

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 37):
I said this in another thread, and I think it's worth repeating here. Why is it that when a fuel spike, caused by rampant speculation and currency hedging, resulting in very real cost increases across the board (since pretty much nothing we have isn't transported at some point) is perfectly ok, because capitalism... but when labor cost increases that would not likely increase the final cost of a given product beyond 12 - 15% or so the forebearer or apocolypse?

Apples and oranges. If by "fuel" you mean gasoline and diesel, then that's because that fuel source has a near monopoly on that industry. McDonald's does not have a near monopoly in the labour market.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 45):
Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 48):
Hedging serves a purpose. It mediates the supply of something over time and helps to efficiently distribute resources.

Actually, it gives more money to the top. Look at what happened in 2008 with oil and housing.

No, no it doesn't. Hedging is a gamble. In every bet there is a winner and a loser. People "at the top" have an equal chance of coming out as losers when they hedge, which of course is mitigated by smart hedging.

Actually, I'm not sure exactly where you think people "at the bottom" would even come into the discussion of hedging?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 47):
The right keeps complaining about things being "given" to the workers. Like "free" health care and "free" food and "free" shelter.

No educated person on the right ever uses the word "free" in that context. Educated people on the left and the right know full well that all of that is paid by tax payers.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 47):
When we went to Mexico two years ago, the number of women and children (under 10 years old) begging on the streets was heart wrenching. All I could think is "this is how the right wants workers in United States to live." Spend a week around the cathedral in Mazatlan and you will get it.

Wow.

I challenge you to back up that statement. I'm predicting that you'll only be able to come up with a couple examples of extremist nutjobs that 99% of conservatives also disagree with.

I look forward to your prompt and insightful response.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 56):
Speaking of subsidies, which follows along with the theme of this thread. Fast food and sugar certainly go hand in hand. This article explains what is going on in the Sugar World, and how we are being screwed by subsidies

No disagreement there. The sugar industry in the US is a giant scam with which the government is a major player. It all started with the Cuba embargo in 1960, and the US used that as a quaint excuse to levy ridiculous tariffs on importing sugar from other countries, thereby artificially raising the price of domestically produced sugar.

People bitch and moan about the use of high fructose corn syrup in so many products in the US, but most of them don't realize it's because of government intervention.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 72):

Let's keep this in perspective and realize that the average CEO in the US does not make $1mil/year. Using the CEO of any blue chip Fortune 500 company for your example is not at all realistic.

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 75):
I'm sure a lot of jobs were "lost" when child labor was outlawed.

The void was filled by unemployed adult workers.

A little off-topic, but the US is one of only three countries (the others being Somalia and South Sudan) that have not ratified the UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child. It's pretty interesting to read about if you have the time. I only became aware of it very recently.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 72):
Do you really think that the main difference between the CEO and a large percentage of the working poor is that the CEO worked harder?

No, it's a combination of working hard and working smart.



Flying refined.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12331 posts, RR: 25
Reply 78, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3540 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 83):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 72):
Do you really think that the main difference between the CEO and a large percentage of the working poor is that the CEO worked harder?

No, it's a combination of working hard and working smart.

I'd also add 'opportunity'... Clearly some will have no issue at all with opportunity. Not to pick on one person, but, for instance, Mitt Romney whose father was CEO of AMC and Governor of Michigan. Mitt worked hard and worked smart but he also had far more opportunity than the average Joe/Jane on the street. Yes, this is an 'accident of birth', but as a society, do we want to have a future where almost the only ones to have an opportunity will be the children of the 'haves'? Yes, there are cases where the average Joe/Jane has gone on to become CEO, but is it best for society to continue to make it less and less possible for that to happen with each passing year?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinePhilby From France, joined Aug 2013, 600 posts, RR: 1
Reply 79, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3535 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 83):
Pay should always be directly correlated to skills/qualifications and the value the individual provides as determined by the market.

In general I would agree with this statement. However when the number of unemployed far exceeds the number of unfilled positions the market value of these individuals approaches zero. At this point there are several options. Some societies would notice that the option most appropriate to their market value is to let them starve on the streets (even the stray cats and dogs have value to some restaurants). Other societies would start to consider the concept of social responsibility. It's considered nicer for the neighbourhood to get them off the streets, and anyway, the bodies start to smell a bit ripe in summer.
This is generally done via minimum wages and social programs. Some societies have been known to use gulags and workhouses but they're rather out of favour at the moment.
The problem with social security is that it has to be paid for through increased taxation - not always a good vote winner. For this reason some countries try to link the minimum wage to a certain standard of living to reduce the social security costs. There will always need to be a balance of social security programs and wage control for this to work.

For this reason I can only agree with your statement to a point. Below that our responsibility to society requires a change in the rules.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11516 posts, RR: 15
Reply 80, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3531 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 83):
I challenge you to back up that statement.

Read comments on this thread alone. They are simply re-packaged talking points we have been listening to for years.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 83):
I'm not sure exactly where you think people "at the bottom" would even come into the discussion of hedging?

They have to pay into they system without getting anything out of it. In 2008 when the rich were gambling with oil prices, we, the workers, had to pay the price. Gas was near $5 a gallon in Oregon. People on Wall St. were getting rich. Not us workers. We didn't see any benefit. We still had to go to work, somehow. Thankfully, in Portland, we have options for getting to work. Unless, like my partner and I, at the time we were building fences. The recklessness of those on Wall. St. was killing us financially. What did we get out of their gain? Nothing.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 83):
No educated person on the right ever uses the word "free" in that context. Educated people on the left and the right know full well that all of that is paid by tax payers

Ah. See.... You used a word that followers of far right wing nutbags hate: education. People who write talking points for people to follow tell everyone that all the poor want is free stuff from the government. I am sure you know they type. They get all their information from FOX and AM Radio. I have seen those exact talking points used ad nauseum on this board, too.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 81, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3505 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 84):
I'd also add 'opportunity'... Clearly some will have no issue at all with opportunity. Not to pick on one person, but, for instance, Mitt Romney whose father was CEO of AMC and Governor of Michigan. Mitt worked hard and worked smart but he also had far more opportunity than the average Joe/Jane on the street. Yes, this is an 'accident of birth', but as a society, do we want to have a future where almost the only ones to have an opportunity will be the children of the 'haves'? Yes, there are cases where the average Joe/Jane has gone on to become CEO, but is it best for society to continue to make it less and less possible for that to happen with each passing year?

Yes, opportunity is indeed a factor, I give you that, but I think people point to that because it makes a better headline to accuse someone of getting where they are because of circumstance rather than an average fella who struggled and worked his way to the top. I have no way of proving this, but I suspect only a minority of CEOs were born into wealth and basically handed their good fortune in life. When I look at the executives I know, this is definitely the case.

Let's bring this back to McDonald's. I already mentioned the McDonald's Canada CEO earlier in this thread...but the current CEO of McDonald's, Don Thompson, grew up near the projects in Chicago. Same goes with the previous CEO, Jim Skinner; he grew up an average middle-class kid. People here will scream about them being elitist and taking advantage of low-level labour...but all these guys were there at some point in their lives.

Quoting Philby (Reply 85):
In general I would agree with this statement. However when the number of unemployed far exceeds the number of unfilled positions the market value of these individuals approaches zero.

That's a fair point, but I don't think it necessarily applies to the labour market because markets always attempt to bring themselves into equilibrium. The value of labour approaching zero is not sustainable because they won't be able to reinvest their earnings into the same products/services they're creating. Market forces shouldhave an impact there.

It reminds me of the story of a Ford executive walking through one of the Ford plants in the 1950s with the head of the union, Walter Reuther. The Ford executive was bragging about all the wonderful machines that have replaced human workers, to which Reuther responded: "How will you get robots to buy cars?". It's the same thing here. You will always eventually get to a point where you've depleted the labours' spending power to the point where the business itself suffers, and the market should correct itself before approaching that point.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 86):
Read comments on this thread alone. They are simply re-packaged talking points we have been listening to for years.

I've read every post in this thread. Which ones advocate women and children begging in the streets again?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 86):
In 2008 when the rich were gambling with oil prices, we, the workers, had to pay the price.

No, they gambled with assets (effectively cash) that they already owned. And again, in every hedge there is a winner and a loser. For all the rich that were winning, there were also rich that were losing.

Also, there's no criteria to engage in hedging. All you need is a few bucks and a low aversion to risk. Hedging isn't just a pastime for the wealthy.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 86):
What did we get out of their gain? Nothing.

Unless you put up the capital, why should you gain anything? If you want to benefit from a business's gains, then buy some shares.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 86):
Ah. See.... You used a word that followers of far right wing nutbags hate: education.

Thanks for making my point.



Flying refined.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12331 posts, RR: 25
Reply 82, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3486 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 88):
Yes, opportunity is indeed a factor, I give you that, but I think people point to that because it makes a better headline to accuse someone of getting where they are because of circumstance rather than an average fella who struggled and worked his way to the top. I have no way of proving this, but I suspect only a minority of CEOs were born into wealth and basically handed their good fortune in life. When I look at the executives I know, this is definitely the case.

I'm using the example of the extremely fortunate not to say they got things handed to them, but just to point out how little others get handed to them. I'm in my early 50s and I see how so many current kids are getting so little opportunity handed off to them and how little others seem to think this matters and it makes me shake my head.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 88):
Let's bring this back to McDonald's. I already mentioned the McDonald's Canada CEO earlier in this thread...but the current CEO of McDonald's, Don Thompson, grew up near the projects in Chicago. Same goes with the previous CEO, Jim Skinner; he grew up an average middle-class kid. People here will scream about them being elitist and taking advantage of low-level labour...but all these guys were there at some point in their lives.

Yes, they beat the odds and made it. The question I have is 'shouldn't we be working on making the odds better instead of worse'?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7799 posts, RR: 52
Reply 83, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3484 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 67):
Despite what liberals might tell you, it's a little bigger than an extra $0.50 on your hamburger once in a while.

I know. I've been to a few McDs in foreign countries (mainly to use the bathroom) and I've seen the prices. All prices seem to go up. The country doesn't collapse, it's just more socioeconomically equal and although you have more taken care of by the government, you have less disposable income. I'm just responding to the people that are preaching gloom and doom... it won't be the end of the world, it will just be a very different America if we go down that road completely

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 70):
What makes corporations greedy? Is it the fact that they do what they are designed to do, which is make money?

I often point this out. It's like getting mad at a dog for barking... it's what dogs do. We shouldn't get mad at corporations for doing what corporations do, we should just accept it and put forth reasonable regulations

Quoting seb146 (Reply 71):
Which is worse: The group that says "we need to help everyone because we are only as strong as the weakest among us" or the group that says "the Bible is our leader but greed is our God; screw the fake poor people!"?

OK, 1: the latter is NOT what conservatives are saying. They are more about personal responsibility and tend to put blame on the individual for not applying themselves. I know you completely disagree, but at least get their position right... NO ONE is saying greed is our God, screw the poor

2: Most people don't have a problem with the liberals' goal, just the way they go about doing it. I'm in this boat... I know that they only want the best but sometimes their ideas just seem very unrealistic and unfeasible. And no, that doesn't mean I'm firmly in the opposing camp

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 74):
The problem with your question is that you're using a very broad question to seek out very specific answers.

Not really, I just wanted a broad answer on what would probably happen to wages just under the living wage, on average. But I'll drop it since we aren't getting anywhere, unless someone else can answer it

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 74):
Maybe, maybe not. The real question is why does it matter to you? If you're making $16/hr, and labor was in at $7.50, and now they're making $14, you still haven't lost anything.

You mainly lose wage relative to the bottom. It would suck making twice as much as minimum wage and all of the sudden making only a buck or two more. You mention you'd be a good candidate for a raise and I agree, I was just wondering if that happened in other countries? I'd hate to see the most unskilled workers making as much as someone that is somewhat skilled. Maybe I'm not making my question clear enough, because your answers seem to skip around what I'm looking for



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 84, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3481 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 83):
McDonald's shouldn't be the target of these attacks because their employees choose to make fast food into a career.

It is an error to think this is why they are targeted.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 83):
If they have to receive assistance from the government, there was an issue long before they handed McDonald's a resume.

What issue would that be? I fail to see any issue that should remain after they work full time, at McD or by combining multiple jobs, and still make them employable by McD.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 83):
Subsidies and tax breaks are not the same thing. They're both benefits, but they have vastly different implications on businesses.

Tax breaks are often subsidies. Read the WTO definition all WTO members must follow"

" For the purpose of this Agreement, a subsidy shall be deemed to exist if:"
...
(ii) government revenue that is otherwise due is foregone or not collected (e.g. fiscal incentives such as tax credits)1;"
http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/24-scm.pdf

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 83):
Pay should always be directly correlated to skills/qualifications and the value the individual provides as determined by the market.

Problem is we do not have a perfect market. Thus we need to push it towards perfection.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 83):
Let's keep this in perspective and realize that the average CEO in the US does not make $1mil/year. Using the CEO of any blue chip Fortune 500 company for your example is not at all realistic.

Glad you bring up perspective. You should take a look at how income is distributed in this country. It certainly doesn't reflect the effort put into the product.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 83):
A little off-topic, but the US is one of only three countries (the others being Somalia and South Sudan) that have not ratified the UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child. It's pretty interesting to read about if you have the time. I only became aware of it very recently.

ot just that convention but a lot of others. Even when they have been ratified there are often exemptions meaning they are not really complying.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 83):
No, it's a combination of working hard and working smart.

Plus a lot more, greed, power, old boys network, and so on.


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 85, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3458 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 86):
The question I have is 'shouldn't we be working on making the odds better instead of worse'?

Of course! But I don't see how things are particularly worse for front-line workers now than they were before. Both my parents worked in McDonald's restaurants in the early 70s and made minimum wage...I worked for Dairy Queen when I was in high school and made minimum wage. Not much has changed on that front, so it's hard to say it got worse. McDonald's has scholarship programs for its employees now, so that's at least a step in the right direction.

Quoting cmf (Reply 88):
What issue would that be? I fail to see any issue that should remain after they work full time, at McD or by combining multiple jobs, and still make them employable by McD.

There can be a multitude of issues that cause someone to require social assistance, but their acquiring employment at a fast food restaurant is not one of them. I have sympathy for people who were put into a shitty situation at no doing of their own, but then going and getting a minimum wage job at the local fast food restaurant then complaining that you can't live on what they're paying you is simply blaming someone else for your pre-existing problems. There's a reason that so many municipalities/provinces/states/etc offer programs to help people train for more lucrative jobs in the trades and other fields. It's to get people away from their job at the fryer and into a good career. All they need to do is be proactive in seeking that valuable assistance which will get them out of welfare.

Quoting cmf (Reply 88):
Tax breaks are often subsidies. Read the WTO definition all WTO members must follow"

" For the purpose of this Agreement, a subsidy shall be deemed to exist if:"
...
(ii) government revenue that is otherwise due is foregone or not collected (e.g. fiscal incentives such as tax credits)1;"

Tell that to any of the NFPs that I work with. The generally accepted definition of "subsidy" as used by people/organizations that actually receive them is that they are receiving funding from the government by means of a payment. A tax break is referred as exactly that, a "tax break", and never referred to as a "subsidy". That's likely not the only area of WTO bylaws that cause confusion either.

Quoting cmf (Reply 88):
Problem is we do not have a perfect market. Thus we need to push it towards perfection.

Agreed that it's not a perfect market, and probably never will be...but I fail to see how imposing pay raises across the board through legislation will get it anywhere closer to perfection in the long term.

Quoting cmf (Reply 88):
Glad you bring up perspective. You should take a look at how income is distributed in this country. It certainly doesn't reflect the effort put into the product.

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I'll blame the government for that long before I blame a fast food chain.

Quoting cmf (Reply 88):
Plus a lot more, greed, power, old boys network, and so on.

You think that's how most CEO got to where they are? If so, I've got more than a few CEOs in contact book you should meet...



Flying refined.
User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2752 posts, RR: 4
Reply 86, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3447 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting seb146 (Reply 71):
Neither is tea ideology.

I don't expect you to know all my posts. But we seem to interact on political topics quite often. Just in case you've never noticed I'm firmly against the tea party.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 71):
Which is worse: The group that says "we need to help everyone because we are only as strong as the weakest among us" or the group that says "the Bible is our leader but greed is our God; screw the fake poor people!"?

You are the only person I've ever interacted with that seems to come to that conclusion.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 71):
Work for Wal-Mart. In a year, you might earn $25,000!

I'm a college student, I'd love to earn that much. But I also recognize my low paying job is a stepping stone to a better career.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 72):
I note you didn't even mention rice, which is what a large percentage of the world gets by on, and is healthier and cheaper than processed foods such as ramen or pasta. Add some relatively cheap veggies and some soy etc for flavor and drink water instead of soda and I'm sure you can get several meals for the price of one trip to Mickey D's.

You know I never really ever thought of eating more rice until a couple weeks ago when I made a wonderful jumbalaya. I have slowly started to introduce more into my diet. I only seem to drink soda with something salty so I avoid it.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 72):
has forty recipes for under $3 each, all of which look better to me than my rice and veggies suggestion, and google is of course loaded with countless other suggestions.

I'm bookmarking this to go over later. Thank you for sharing, I'm looking for some new ideas!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 72):
How much more than the average worker does this person need to have before you're worried about them being 'dragged down'?

Alright I'll throw it in different terms as I was a little vague. So lets say Joe Schmo takes over Airline X. His starting salary is 1 million. They lost 200 million last year and are on track for the same this year. Joe comes in and turns it around and 2 years later they post a 500 million dollar profit. Shouldn't he be given a higher salary to reward him for his success? Why should the fact that they pay a guy minimum wage to sweep the floor affect what he has done?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 72):
Do you really think that the main difference between the CEO and a large percentage of the working poor is that the CEO worked harder?

To a degree yes. Now I'm not talking physically. But to get to that point they put in a lot of time and energy. Lets put it this way. I show up to work at UPS at 5 PM. I empty package cars, load trailers, and fix address issues then at 10 PM I clock out. Meanwhile the CEO probably was up at 430 AM on his crackberry, in meetings all day, and probably had the meal with his family interrupted by an important phone call. My point is I clock out at 10 and my interaction and responsibility with UPS is done until the next day at 5. That guys constantly has the weight of the corporation and it's shareholders on his shoulders.

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 74):
The main issue I'm seeing with a lot of the idealism here is that some of us are making the comically stupid assertions that all businesses will do this, or all businesses will do that, and that the world will divide by zero. In case it isn't obvious, I don't buy that.

I don't buy the idea that companies wouldn't react to huge cost changes. They aren't going to eat huge wage gains.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 76):
Far too many CEO's also get paid no matter if they screw up (look at the recent disaster of JCPenney), there needs to be a dominance of performance - i.e. making profits, but not at the expense of line workers or quality service.

By far too many do you mean a half dozen? Or all of the Fortune 500 companies? Shareholders and board of directors don't usually let disaster CEOs last too long..

Quoting cmf (Reply 77):
Why shouldn't a job pay a living wage?

Why should they have to exceed what is legal for jobs that require little skill? The government is supposed to determine a living wage with minimum wage. It isn't the responsibility of McDonalds to exceed that.

Quoting cmf (Reply 77):
Oh please. Time to realize you're doing the exactly the same, just in the other direction.

I didn't come out with some story saying liberals are trying to take every penny from the rich and move the poor into Hollywood mansions. I don't need to drum up emotions to get my point across.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 84):
Not to pick on one person, but, for instance, Mitt Romney whose father was CEO of AMC and Governor of Michigan. Mitt worked hard and worked smart but he also had far more opportunity than the average Joe/Jane on the street. Yes, this is an 'accident of birth', but as a society, do we want to have a future where almost the only ones to have an opportunity will be the children of the 'haves'? Yes, there are cases where the average Joe/Jane has gone on to become CEO, but is it best for society to continue to make it less and less possible for that to happen with each passing year?

He did have quite the opportunity, there isn't a question of that. But he did do something with that opportunity. I'd be willing to bet there are far many more who don't appreciate the opportunity and end up throwing it away.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 86):
The recklessness of those on Wall. St. was killing us financially. What did we get out of their gain? Nothing.

Are you supposed to gain something that other people have done with their money?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 86):
You used a word that followers of far right wing nutbags hate: education. People who write talking points for people to follow tell everyone that all the poor want is free stuff from the government. I am sure you know they type. They get all their information from FOX and AM Radio. I have seen those exact talking points used ad nauseum on this board, too.

Far right nutbags eh? I hear more stuff from the left about these so called right wing crazies than I do from right wing media. Funny how that works.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 88):
Unless you put up the capital, why should you gain anything? If you want to benefit from a business's gains, then buy some shares.

Absolutely agree.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 89):
I'm in my early 50s and I see how so many current kids are getting so little opportunity handed off to them and how little others seem to think this matters and it makes me shake my head.

I obviously can't look back to when you were my age and compare it. But there are many opportunities that students these days can take advantage of. Laziness just comes into play though.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 90):
We shouldn't get mad at corporations for doing what corporations do, we should just accept it and put forth reasonable regulations

Very well put.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 90):
2: Most people don't have a problem with the liberals' goal, just the way they go about doing it. I'm in this boat... I know that they only want the best but sometimes their ideas just seem very unrealistic and unfeasible. And no, that doesn't mean I'm firmly in the opposing camp

You mean like calling one side nutjobs? I have no problem with many liberals' goals. I love discussing things and it has shaped my views. But too many on both sides state their opinion as if it is fact. When it can't be farther from the truth.
Pat



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 87, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3411 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 85):
There can be a multitude of issues that cause someone to require social assistance, but their acquiring employment at a fast food restaurant is not one of them. I have sympathy for people who were put into a shitty situation at no doing of their own, but then going and getting a minimum wage job at the local fast food restaurant then complaining that you can't live on what they're paying you is simply blaming someone else for your pre-existing problems.

Always easy to hide behind undefined issues. Their problem is that if they don't take that too low paying job, plus often one or two more too low paying jobs, then they get accused of being welfare queens spending the days on the sofa eating chips.

reality is that they try to make the best they can. get as much money they can by working as many jobs as they possibly can. Not every single one of them but the vast majority. And it is still not enough. That is the real problem.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 85):
There's a reason that so many municipalities/provinces/states/etc offer programs to help people train for more lucrative jobs in the trades and other fields.

This isn't a fix as we actually need most of those low-paying jobs performed. The problem is that we are undervaluing them.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 85):
Tell that to any of the NFPs that I work with. The generally accepted definition of "subsidy" as used by people/organizations that actually receive them is that they are receiving funding from the government by means of a payment. A tax break is referred as exactly that, a "tax break", and never referred to as a "subsidy". That's likely not the only area of WTO bylaws that cause confusion either.

That they don't understand the definition is their problem. The definition is what I posted.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 85):
Agreed that it's not a perfect market, and probably never will be.

It certainly isn't and I agree it never will be. For example few negotiations are between equals as required for the theory to work. The fundamental option of walking away just isn't there.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 85):
but I fail to see how imposing pay raises across the board through legislation will get it anywhere closer to perfection in the long term.

Do you agree laws punishing burglars and murderers are worth having? It is the same principle.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 85):
Maybe I'm just cynical, but I'll blame the government for that long before I blame a fast food chain.

I think you're cynical. Seems to me you think the government is an entity with its' own agenda. Not something influenced by everyone in the country, mainly based on how much attention they can get.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 85):
You think that's how most CEO got to where they are? If so, I've got more than a few CEOs in contact book you should meet...

No idea what point you think you made.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 86):
Why should they have to exceed what is legal for jobs that require little skill? The government is supposed to determine a living wage with minimum wage. It isn't the responsibility of McDonalds to exceed that.

Who has argued that it is McD's responsibility to exceed minimum wage? I think it has been very clear that the only way to get McD to pay it is by raising the minimum wage.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 86):
I don't need to drum up emotions to get my point across.

Then why are you doing just that? Your very first post includes "Should only McDonalds be punished? Why not every other company that operates in the US" and "Fast food jobs are not supposed to be careers. They are just that, jobs." Then you include emotions such as "I do love the idea that only the right is ever wrong. The left, never!", "while rewarding those who may have not worked very hard." and Yes, because the CEO wakes up and says "How can I screw the little guy today?" Not quite."Yes, because the CEO wakes up and says "How can I screw the little guy today?" Not quite." You should get the drift.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 86):
Very well put

Great, reasonable regulations is all we want  
Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 86):
You mean like calling one side nutjobs? I have no problem with many liberals' goals. I love discussing things and it has shaped my views. But too many on both sides state their opinion as if it is fact. When it can't be farther from the truth.

Don't you think you should start by cleaning your own house?


User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8397 posts, RR: 3
Reply 88, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3393 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 87):
get as much money they can by working as many jobs as they possibly can. Not every single one of them but the vast majority. And it is still not enough. That is the real problem.

It's never enough. By definition, the people at the lowest wage level are struggling. But, they are eating.

Right now, a lot of CEOs are gathering in Washington because there aren't enough American workers to keep their operations running. So, we need more foreign nationals working here. Really, they say that.

[Edited 2013-10-28 14:00:40]

User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8842 posts, RR: 10
Reply 89, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3388 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 65):
That means you have a burger flipper and, IDK, an entry level job for a college student* all of the sudden making the same amount of money.

I maybe out of touch to some degree, but where in the world are we if a college graduate starts at 15 bucks an hour? That seems ludicrous. My goodness have we sunk that low with wages? You see my point ? A burger flipper needs 15 bucks an hour to barely survive, and a college grad spends 100k for 15 bucks an hour. Something is wrong somewhere.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7799 posts, RR: 52
Reply 90, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3386 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 89):
I maybe out of touch to some degree, but where in the world are we if a college graduate starts at 15 bucks an hour? That seems ludicrous. My goodness have we sunk that low with wages? You see my point ? A burger flipper needs 15 bucks an hour to barely survive, and a college grad spends 100k for 15 bucks an hour. Something is wrong somewhere.

I threw the number out as a hypothetical. I get a salary so I don't work "by the hour" so I am not sure what a normal entry level amount per hour is.

I was just wondering about the equalizing of wages (making a living wage) for unequal amounts of work. Basically, you're gonna have someone who has the skill of $7/hr get paid the same amount as someone who has the skill of living wage minus $1 /hr if we put a living wage



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8842 posts, RR: 10
Reply 91, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3383 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 70):
What makes corporations greedy? Is it the fact that they do what they are designed to do, which is make money? Or is it because one industry screwed around and ended up having to be bailed out?

This is not a black and white situation, one cannot look at the corporation as not having a duty to the people who are at the bottom. The people who do the WORK should be afforded a wage that does not require state intervention to allow them to survive. This is not the age of the serfs serving the King. This is the supposed age of fairness, equality. We know that is bull, and with you folks being the apologists for corporate and management greed things are going to get worse if this continues. There will be a social upheaval eventually with this ever widening wealth gap. I have been run over by police horses during strikes to prevent this from happening, the return of servitude to the work place, the age of dog wages, at will dismissals, no benefits. I for the life of me have to wonder, do you folks have family, children, grandchildren? What are you folk thinking?



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8842 posts, RR: 10
Reply 92, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3368 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 90):
I threw the number out as a hypothetical. I get a salary so I don't work "by the hour" so I am not sure what a normal entry level amount per hour is.



This is one of the most difficult questions, what is a wage that is fair, livable, and what are the responsibilities of a corporation. As Mitt once said while running for President, Corporations are people. Well why do they shrink back in to the faceless corporation, the pure money machines when it comes to wages? Where is the humanity? Surely they know that humans are working for them, with children, families to feed and cloth. Surely they know that people will have to resort to welfare because of the costs of living. Surely they know that government programs cost taxpayers money. Surely they know that the result is more government spending. Hypocrisy is rampant these days.



I was just wondering about the equalizing of wages (making a living wage) for unequal amounts of work. Basically, you're gonna have someone who has the skill of $7/hr get paid the same amount as someone who has the skill of living wage minus $1 /hr if we put a living wage



7 dollars an hour is certainly far from a living wage in the US. 15 dollars an hour as I said earlier is still slave ages in a one wage earner household in the US. We have many millions of them . Let us look at the cost of living, and the dollar amount to survive. That is the key question, how much to survive basically, not to drive sports cars, not to live in mansions, not to afford vacations. To survive so you can pay your bills without government assistance. The Right rails on about this, yet they perpetuate the very system they rant on about. I call it for what it is, hypocrisy.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineLittleFokker From United States of America, joined Sep 2013, 261 posts, RR: 1
Reply 93, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3361 times:

Not sure why my earlier post was deleted - aren't I supposed to get some kind of explanation email when that happens?

Anyways.....

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 91):
The people who do the WORK should be afforded a wage that does not require state intervention to allow them to survive.

This is the most critical point. Conservatives cannot simultaneously complain about the number of people on welfare and be against raising the minimum wage - the two go hand in hand. The minimum wage has been raised how many times since the 1930s when it began? And how much did it hurt unemployment each time is was raised? Not really at all.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 90):
I was just wondering about the equalizing of wages (making a living wage) for unequal amounts of work.

That will only be a short term problem. Intially, businesses will be reluctant to give out raises until market adjustment to new prices occurs, but eventually, those who distinguish themselves as being worthy of more than the minimum will be rewarded as such.



"Toughest wind I ever played in....straight down!" - W. C. Fields
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 94, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3358 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 90):
I was just wondering about the equalizing of wages (making a living wage) for unequal amounts of work. Basically, you're gonna have someone who has the skill of $7/hr get paid the same amount as someone who has the skill of living wage minus $1 /hr if we put a living wage

It would be a lot better than today but it would not be a good solution. The problem really is that too much goes to the top and not enough to the bottom, middle or even the high. You keep yourself pretty up to day so I'm sure you have seen the Wealth Inequality Video that explains it pretty well.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11516 posts, RR: 15
Reply 95, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3359 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 86):
I'm a college student, I'd love to earn that much. But I also recognize my low paying job is a stepping stone to a better career.

I am also a college student and I work part time. However, there are college graduates who have a degree in a legitimate field like computer programming or engineering, who can not survive because they can not find jobs in their field of study AND they have to pay back massive student loans.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 86):
You are the only person I've ever interacted with that seems to come to that conclusion.

Then you are purposely not seeing what the rest of us are seeing. It is pointed out all the time, not only here but all over the media and web.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 86):
Are you supposed to gain something that other people have done with their money?

I wouldn't have had a problem if it had been with their money. But, they were using OUR money. The money we put into banks and 401Ks and at the gas pump. If they had taken their own money they off shored and used it to gamble on their own games, that is fine. But, using MY money to play THEIR game is not worth it. And, to top it all off, after they lost billions of OUR money, they had the nerve to ask US to pay THEM back! They took our money and want more of our money!

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 86):
I hear more stuff from the left about these so called right wing crazies than I do from right wing media. Funny how that works.

Again, you are blind when it comes to these things.

Name calling has been going on for a long, long time. It was the right who made "liberal" and "Democrat" four letter words. It was the right who decided anyone who disagreed with them should be looked down upon; that the only "true" Americans are the right wing Americans.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 90):
I was just wondering about the equalizing of wages (making a living wage) for unequal amounts of work. Basically, you're gonna have someone who has the skill of $7/hr get paid the same amount as someone who has the skill of living wage minus $1 /hr if we put a living wage

What about people who have skills and degrees but are forced to take low wage jobs because their job is either not available or they were fired so their job could be moved overseas? What about them? I get not paying lazy people as much. There are people who simply want to work just because they need something to fill their day or to show their parole officer or so they can buy beer. I think we need to focus the discussion on legitimate workers. People who have families and who are trying to work two or three jobs just to survive. Those who have skills and education but can do nothing about it because of corporations.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7799 posts, RR: 52
Reply 96, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3343 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 95):
I wouldn't have had a problem if it had been with their money. But, they were using OUR money. The money we put into banks and 401Ks and at the gas pump. If they had taken their own money they off shored and used it to gamble on their own games, that is fine. But, using MY money to play THEIR game is not worth it. And, to top it all off, after they lost billions of OUR money, they had the nerve to ask US to pay THEM back! They took our money and want more of our money!

I don't buy that argument. There are arguments for your position but yeah you give them money but they give you gas, for example. It's not like you give them free money (excluding bailouts and corporate subsidies but we aren't talking about that)

Quoting seb146 (Reply 95):
What about people who have skills and degrees but are forced to take low wage jobs because their job is either not available or they were fired so their job could be moved overseas? What about them?

What about them? I'm not talking about them at all



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15713 posts, RR: 26
Reply 97, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3296 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 81):
The Ford executive was bragging about all the wonderful machines that have replaced human workers, to which Reuther responded: "How will you get robots to buy cars?".

Well, the billions of Indians and Chinese take the sting out of that one.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 83):
I know. I've been to a few McDs in foreign countries (mainly to use the bathroom) and I've seen the prices. All prices seem to go up.

It's not just fast food. It's everything. Think about that: every employee making less than $15 per hour at everywhere you spend money gets a raise to $15 per hour. Think about how that will affect your budget, when you don't get a raise.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 83):
The country doesn't collapse, it's just more socioeconomically equal and although you have more taken care of by the government, you have less disposable income.

Well, that's the problem. I'm all about disposable income. There's no upside to that.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 90):
I was just wondering about the equalizing of wages (making a living wage) for unequal amounts of work.

Not just work, many people work hard. Productivity and skill are major factors.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 92):
15 dollars an hour as I said earlier is still slave ages in a one wage earner household in the US.

No. Slave wages would be $0 per hour. That's what a slave is.

Quoting cmf (Reply 94):
You keep yourself pretty up to day so I'm sure you have seen the Wealth Inequality Video that explains it pretty well.

Just another whiny liberal who thinks rich people owe him something for breathing.

There's only one lesson to be learned from this chart: save and invest.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 95):
And, to top it all off, after they lost billions of OUR money, they had the nerve to ask US to pay THEM back! They took our money and want more of our money!

No, you don't understand. Unless that money resides in an account with your name on it, IT IS NOT YOURS!



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7799 posts, RR: 52
Reply 98, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3284 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 98):
It's not just fast food. It's everything. Think about that: every employee making less than $15 per hour at everywhere you spend money gets a raise to $15 per hour. Think about how that will affect your budget, when you don't get a raise.

I have thought about it. People do just fine in the countries where a living wage has been established. Talk to the foreigners on this very board. I'm not telling you to embrace it but results aren't catastrophic

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 98):
Well, that's the problem. I'm all about disposable income. There's no upside to that.

They have more taken care of and their disposable income actually is disposable.

But you are right, there seems more of a chance to make the big bucks in America, won't deny that



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 99, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3281 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 98):
Just another whiny liberal who thinks rich people owe him something for breathing.

Then provide arguments against it instead of repeating whiny 20 for a dussin generic soundbites.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15713 posts, RR: 26
Reply 100, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3272 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 99):
They have more taken care of and their disposable income actually is disposable.

You misunderstand. Not their disposable income, it's my disposable income that I care about, of which I have not nearly enough.

Quoting cmf (Reply 100):
Then provide arguments against it instead of repeating whiny 20 for a dussin generic soundbites.

He doesn't make a case. He just thinks that it's bad that others have nicer toys than he does and that the wealthy should pay him for the privilege of sharing a planet with him.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 959 posts, RR: 51
Reply 101, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3270 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 28):
The problem to be solved is obvious: companies are paying their employees so little that they qualify for public assistance, at the same time they are paying their CEO $15,000,000 per year.

What they pay IS my business when I end up supporting their employees via MY taxes at the same time they are SO profitable they can pay $15M to their CEO.

You support their employees because voting blocks believe we have an obligation to support their standard of living since they cannot provide it themselves.

That doesn't mean minimum wage is unfair compensation for a role that requires minimal skills, minimal critical thinking, and minimal manual labor. Labor is worth the product or service it delivers, and fast food is not that valuable.

It also doesn't mean that $15 million is unfair compensation for the chief leader of an organization with 1.8 million employees, 34,000 storefronts, operations in 119 countries, growing revenues of $27 billion, and investment returns 4x the S&P 500 over the last ten years.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 59):
I believe in a living, or livable wage.

You believe in forcing companies to price their products more than they are worth to the vast majority of consumers. The result will inevitably be less consumption.

Why don't you try operating a food service business with "living wages" and tell us how it works for you?


User currently offlineLittleFokker From United States of America, joined Sep 2013, 261 posts, RR: 1
Reply 102, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3263 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 101):
He just thinks that it's bad that others have nicer toys than he does and that the wealthy should pay him for the privilege of sharing a planet with him.

Your nice toys won't be so nice if you don't contribute to maintaining an organized society around you.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 101):
it's my disposable income that I care about, of which I have not nearly enough.

How much disposable income do you need? Or do you see yourself as a C Montgomerie Burns or Scrooge McDuck type, hoarding as much money as you can, if for no other reason, than to prevent anyone else from having it?

BTW, did you ever find a job that met your impossibly high standards, or are you still working in that "menial" retail job?



"Toughest wind I ever played in....straight down!" - W. C. Fields
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7799 posts, RR: 52
Reply 103, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3261 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 101):
You misunderstand. Not their disposable income, it's my disposable income that I care about, of which I have not nearly enough.

I realize that. You just better hope a majority of the country feels the same way



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15713 posts, RR: 26
Reply 104, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3261 times:

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 103):
Your nice toys won't be so nice if you don't contribute to maintaining an organized society around you.

You seem to have stumbled on the difference between a conservative and an anarchist.

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 103):
How much disposable income do you need?

A hell of a lot more than I do now. It's an incredibly high bar, but I'd surmise eight figures.

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 103):
Or do you see yourself as a C Montgomerie Burns or Scrooge McDuck type, hoarding as much money as you can, if for no other reason, than to prevent anyone else from having it?

Wealth doesn't work that way.

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 103):
BTW, did you ever find a job that met your impossibly high standards,

I have a much better job now, good enough that I can pay the income tax of 1.6 people. Happy with my income, no, but I could make multiples of what I do now and not be happy with my income. But, putting that aside, being in the top half of the country income-wise at the age of 23 is not that bad.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 104):
You just better hope a majority of the country feels the same way

The problem with tyranny of the majority is that it allows people to decide that they are entitled to some of your money.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 959 posts, RR: 51
Reply 105, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3261 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 95):
However, there are college graduates who have a degree in a legitimate field like computer programming or engineering, who can not survive because they can not find jobs in their field of study AND they have to pay back massive student loans.

I have one of those degrees. The salary for entry-level positions in computer science and engineering will instantly put a twenty-something well above the median income for the entire country. You have to have seriously odd circumstances to not comfortably service student loan debt with those degrees.

The young engineers I know who had/have trouble with their student loans came down to one thing: priorities. It's way more fun to get an F150 with your signing bonus than paydown a full semester's worth of debt.


User currently onlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8941 posts, RR: 40
Reply 106, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3260 times:

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 73):
I actually think, as a rule, that CEOs do work harder than the average Joe. And between that and the level of responsibility where the health of the company, value to shareholders, and continued employment of its labor are concerned, they do earn a lot.

But 100 times more than average?! No way! I think you're right. If it takes 100 times average to get someone out of bed to do a job, time to find a new leader.

Labor prices have absolutely nothing to do with how much people work. Rather, it's set by the demand for that level of skill and the supply of that level of skill.

There are few highly skilled CEOs and they are in high demand. That results in very large salaries.

The average factory worker skill level is in large supply. Thanks to numerous regulations which drive the cost of manufacturing in the U.S. up, there is reduced demand for that type of skill level. This pushes wages down.

And yes, it's absolutely desirable to have such a system. You want the highly skilled CEO (or any other type of worker, for that matter) to go to the company that values that skill the most.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently onlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8941 posts, RR: 40
Reply 107, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3256 times:

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 93):
This is the most critical point. Conservatives cannot simultaneously complain about the number of people on welfare and be against raising the minimum wage - the two go hand in hand.

Minimum wage kills jobs, which increases the number of people on welfare.

Also, it's not just the minimum wage that kills jobs - it's a large number of regulations that *artificially* increase the cost of production and consumption. Those things make people poorer all around.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7799 posts, RR: 52
Reply 108, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3251 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 102):
You believe in forcing companies to price their products more than they are worth to the vast majority of consumers. The result will inevitably be less consumption.

Other countries seem to do just fine. Both are working models, it just depends which model the voters decide

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 105):
The problem with tyranny of the majority is that it allows people to decide that they are entitled to some of your money.

You belong to society, you benefit from society, you pay into society



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8941 posts, RR: 40
Reply 109, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3251 times:

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 103):
Or do you see yourself as a C Montgomerie Burns or Scrooge McDuck type, hoarding as much money as you can, if for no other reason, than to prevent anyone else from having it?

A scenario that is literally impossible.

Save as much money as you can. Spend none of it, and society will still benefit.

Yes, society can still benefit from a Scrooge McDuck. Money sitting in a bank account doesn't actually sit there. That money is being used by millions of people to build themselves businesses that will hopefully afford them a better life. And it's not just the business owners whose lives are improved, because they hire employees who choose to work in this new company because they were offered a better deal than their last employer. Everybody wins.

[Edited 2013-10-28 18:29:53]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 959 posts, RR: 51
Reply 110, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3248 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 109):
Other countries seem to do just fine. Both are working models, it just depends which model the voters decide

Which other countries? The European ones? They are virtually stuck in a no-growth mode and unemployment is as high as 25% in some countries, particularly for young people. The U.S. is vastly outperforming the Eurozone post-recession.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15713 posts, RR: 26
Reply 111, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3245 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 106):
The salary for entry-level positions in computer science and engineering will instantly put a twenty-something well above the median income for the entire country. You have to have seriously odd circumstances to not comfortably service student loan debt with those degrees.

The young engineers I know who had/have trouble with their student loans came down to one thing: priorities. It's way more fun to get an F150 with your signing bonus than paydown a full semester's worth of debt.

Precisely. I could have a nicer car parked in front of a nicer apartment as we speak, but if I did that I couldn't pay off my loans and max out my 401(k) each month. I haven't even bothered to buy myself an Xbox. I don't have much sympathy for those who would rather buy a new sound system for their car and then cry poor.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 109):
You belong to society, you benefit from society, you pay into society

No, I don't belong to society. I pay taxes for a government to provide services: like an army, schools, and roads. I don't want to pay taxes for services that I don't use and don't benefit me. I don't work for society, the government is there to work for me. Taxes are just like the cable bill or the cell phone bill.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 959 posts, RR: 51
Reply 112, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3247 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 107):
Labor prices have absolutely nothing to do with how much people work. Rather, it's set by the demand for that level of skill and the supply of that level of skill.

  

To prove this point, look what McDonalds workers are making in North Dakota. There is such a shortage of labor due to the Bakken shale activity that traditional minimum wage jobs are paying $15-20 per hour.


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8842 posts, RR: 10
Reply 113, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3249 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 102):
You believe in forcing companies to price their products more than they are worth to the vast majority of consumers. The result will inevitably be less consumption.


Of course I do, all it takes is a fair wage law. One has to force change, the law is the easiest way to do that.
Are you that naïve to think that products are fairly priced? I'll just bet you do not when you are purchasing them. I can hear the whining, just like everybody else.



Why don't you try operating a food service business with "living wages" and tell us how it works for you?

It works in Australia, have you not been reading the replies from our friends there? It seems that McDonalds has been doing alright in Australia, else why would they open there? Why would someone buy the franchise, to lose money? Of course they do not intend to lose anything. They intend to pay the wages prescribed by law there and make a ton of money. They are forced, just as I am advocating here. Greed only knows one thing, laws to force them, or force to force them to pay fairly.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7799 posts, RR: 52
Reply 114, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3234 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 111):
Which other countries? The European ones? They are virtually stuck in a no-growth mode and unemployment is as high as 25% in some countries, particularly for young people. The U.S. is vastly outperforming the Eurozone post-recession.

Is that due to minimum wage laws or from a world wide recession?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 112):
No, I don't belong to society. I pay taxes for a government to provide services: like an army, schools, and roads. I don't want to pay taxes for services that I don't use and don't benefit me. I don't work for society, the government is there to work for me. Taxes are just like the cable bill or the cell phone bill.

Whaa there are plenty of taxes I don't want to pay for. It's called being an adult



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 959 posts, RR: 51
Reply 115, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3237 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 102):
You believe in forcing
Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 114):
They are forced
Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 114):
force them
Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 114):
force to force them

So your answer to my point is an emphatic "yes," you do believe in an economy where transactions are based on force and not mutual agreement. That is called coercion, not trade. Your ideas are so good, they only require stripping people of their economic freedom to work.


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8842 posts, RR: 10
Reply 116, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3231 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 113):
To prove this point, look what McDonalds workers are making in North Dakota. There is such a shortage of labor due to the Bakken shale activity that traditional minimum wage jobs are paying $15-20 per hour.

Baloney again. All that proves is when the fat cats are desperate for labor, and there is money to be made, no matter the cost of labor, they will violate their own principles to make that money, such as paying average wages for labor. 15 to 20 dollars, big deal, that is barely enough to survive when there is a boom, all the other prices skyrocket also. The hotel, restaurants, bars, food, cigarettes etc. all go up in price. You are not going to come back home after the boom with a buck in your pocket. All eaten up by (fairly) priced products. Sure!!!!



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 959 posts, RR: 51
Reply 117, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3230 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 115):
Is that due to minimum wage laws or from a world wide recession?

The world isn't in a recession. Global GDP growth was 2.2% last year. The U.S. GDP is 3% higher than pre-recession. The Eurozone GDP is -2% lower than pre-recession.

I think the Eurozone stagnation can be attributed to stiff business regulations, bad energy policy, bad fiscal policy, and yes, high cost and inflexible labor.


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8842 posts, RR: 10
Reply 118, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3229 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 116):
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 102):You believe in forcing Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 114):They are forcedQuoting WarRI1 (Reply 114):force themQuoting WarRI1 (Reply 114):force to force them

Pleas read, I thought I made myself clear. Page down.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 114):
Of course I do, all it takes is a fair wage law. One has to force change, the law is the easiest way to do that.
Are you that naïve to think that products are fairly priced? I'll just bet you do not when you are purchasing them. I can hear the whining, just like everybody else.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 959 posts, RR: 51
Reply 119, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3227 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 119):
Pleas read, I thought I made myself clear. Page down.

Yes, we are in complete understanding. You believe in forcing people into economic transactions that one party would not willingly agree to. When sex is involved, that's called rape. You believe in removing the "free" component from economic freedom.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7799 posts, RR: 52
Reply 120, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3219 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 118):

Fair enough, I will look into it more



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8842 posts, RR: 10
Reply 121, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3220 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 118):
I think the Eurozone stagnation can be attributed to stiff business regulations, bad energy policy, bad fiscal policy, and yes, high cost and inflexible labor.

Ask the German's, ask the Norwegians, ask most of Europe, see how unhappy they are. Ask them if they think we have a workers Utopia. Are they beating down our doors now to get in? It seems to me that has changed, now we get the desperate unwashed, uneducated masses, yearning to be free. They think 5 bucks an hour is Utopia.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8842 posts, RR: 10
Reply 122, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3220 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 120):
When sex is involved, that's called rape

Whoa, we the workers are getting screwed, and it is the wealthy who are committing the rape. I do not find it enjoyable either. I have had better sex, much better.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently onlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8941 posts, RR: 40
Reply 123, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3209 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 123):
Whoa, we the workers are getting screwed, and it is the wealthy who are committing the rape. I do not find it enjoyable either. I have had better sex, much better.

You're getting screwed by your own ideology. Much like the workers under communism got screwed in the end.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11516 posts, RR: 15
Reply 124, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3198 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 112):
I don't work for society, the government is there to work for me.

And me. And MD90. And Michelle Bachmann. And Harry Ried. And.... That is why we pay taxes. For better or worse. We pay taxes so we don't have to have people dying in the street from starvation and so we don't have to have bridges crumble. Don't like it? Don't pay taxes!

I have noticed something: Those who are blindly following right-wing media and have been for years have one thing in common: They don't understand the million shades of grey. They believe there are only two absolutes: Their way and the evil "liberal" way. They do not see the millions of opinions in between. I have changed my way of thinking and understanding. Right wing followers, sadly, are told they are to never ever do this and I don't know why. We were such a better nation when we all recognized the million shades of grey.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8842 posts, RR: 10
Reply 125, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3192 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 124):
You're getting screwed by your own ideology. Much like the workers under communism got screwed in the end.

Who me, or my country? If you are talking to me about getting screwed. I am sorry, I am comfortably retired 16 years Jan 2014. I had a successful career, my wife also. We were well paid, have defined pension plans, had 401 k's, matching funds from the company. We are on SS, Medicare, a prescription plan from my employer. You are barking up the wrong tree, nobody is screwing me. I am an advocate for those who follow me. I am an advocate for the workers who did not have it as good as me. I am an advocate for the poor, the sick, and the weak. I am someone who has been very fortunate in life, and I try to pass it on to my children, grandchildren, my friends, and family. I advocate for the people who are being screwed over by the advocates of greed and selfishness. That is my Ideology. May I ask what yours is ? I will understand if you do not answer. I am proud of my Ideology. I screw over nobody, but I will not let anyone screw me over either.

[Edited 2013-10-28 20:11:34]


It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8842 posts, RR: 10
Reply 126, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3192 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 125):
And me. And MD90. And Michelle Bachmann. And Harry Ried. And.... That is why we pay taxes. For better or worse. We pay taxes so we don't have to have people dying in the street from starvation and so we don't have to have bridges crumble. Don't like it? Don't pay taxes!

I have noticed something: Those who are blindly following right-wing media and have been for years have one thing in common: They don't understand the million shades of grey. They believe there are only two absolutes: Their way and the evil "liberal" way. They do not see the millions of opinions in between. I have changed my way of thinking and understanding. Right wing followers, sadly, are told they are to never ever do this and I don't know why. We were such a better nation when we all recognized the million shades of grey.

I must say, I understand your frustration, and I cannot agree with you more about the blind leading the blind. Right Wing media is so out there, it is amazing how this distorted news is swallowed by so many, so blindly.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2752 posts, RR: 4
Reply 127, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3184 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting seb146 (Reply 95):
However, there are college graduates who have a degree in a legitimate field like computer programming or engineering, who can not survive because they can not find jobs in their field of study AND they have to pay back massive student loans.

That's unfortunate but there are safeguards to make sure you don't end up in that situation. Like getting a good minor or finding a field you have interest in that is in demand.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 95):
Then you are purposely not seeing what the rest of us are seeing. It is pointed out all the time, not only here but all over the media and web.

I'm not purposely avoiding anything. I just think we have a difference in idea.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 95):
The money we put into banks and 401Ks and at the gas pump. If they had taken their own money they off shored and used it to gamble on their own games, that is fine. But, using MY money to play THEIR game is not worth it. And, to top it all off, after they lost billions of OUR money, they had the nerve to ask US to pay THEM back! They took our money and want more of our money!

So the money you put in the hands of the banks? You get interest every month in your bank account because they are essentially borrowing your money. If you don't like that and think they are taking advantage of you I suggest you do every transaction in cash.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 95):
Again, you are blind when it comes to these things.

And you are all knowing?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 95):
Name calling has been going on for a long, long time. It was the right who made "liberal" and "Democrat" four letter words. It was the right who decided anyone who disagreed with them should be looked down upon; that the only "true" Americans are the right wing Americans.

Name calling and it is from the right? Do we really have to go further back in the thread where you called the right "nutjobs" or are we just ignoring that? Because it appears to me you are doing the same thing that you accuse the other side of doing.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 95):
What about people who have skills and degrees but are forced to take low wage jobs because their job is either not available or they were fired so their job could be moved overseas? What about them? I get not paying lazy people as much.

Then they go back to school and gain new skills. It isn't a new thing. My mother did so 5 years ago while still working full time and raising two kids.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 113):
To prove this point, look what McDonalds workers are making in North Dakota. There is such a shortage of labor due to the Bakken shale activity that traditional minimum wage jobs are paying $15-20 per hour.

It's amazing the growth going on in that side of the state.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 114):
It seems that McDonalds has been doing alright in Australia, else why would they open there? Why would someone buy the franchise, to lose money? Of course they do not intend to lose anything. They intend to pay the wages prescribed by law there and make a ton of money. They are forced, just as I am advocating here. Greed only knows one thing, laws to force them, or force to force them to pay fairly.

They also have a higher cost of living since so much has to be imported. I couldn't believe it when the gas station attendant outside of Cairns told me a soda and a small bag of chips was 5 bucks.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 117):
All that proves is when the fat cats are desperate for labor, and there is money to be made, no matter the cost of labor, they will violate their own principles to make that money, such as paying average wages for labor.

And average wages for McDonalds labor is minimum wage in most places.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 125):
Those who are blindly following right-wing media and have been for years have one thing in common: They don't understand the million shades of grey. They believe there are only two absolutes: Their way and the evil "liberal" way. They do not see the millions of opinions in between. I have changed my way of thinking and understanding. Right wing followers, sadly, are told they are to never ever do this and I don't know why. We were such a better nation when we all recognized the million shades of grey.

So blindly following left wing media is okay? You say we don't ever change our ways of thinking and generalize us all, without basis. You constantly act as if the far right represents all of us. Yet complain when the right generalizes all of the left as extreme left. It goes both ways.
Pat



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11516 posts, RR: 15
Reply 128, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3175 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 127):
So blindly following left wing media is okay?

This is not about left wing media. The one channel that is not, nor has ever professed to be, news and the dozen or so radio stations around the country. My comment was about right wing media which is found in all corners of the nation on multiple channels and frequencies around the radio dial. Look at "liberal" San Francisco. One "liberal" radio station that is only "liberal" part time. Three right-wing stations. FOX everywhere. I know there is fewer choices for alternate information in other cities. I just spent a week in Salt Lake City over the summer. Being a radio geek, I get it.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 127):
Like getting a good minor or finding a field you have interest in that is in demand.

Like engineering or anything computer related? Those people who work at Wal-Mart with those degrees? The ones I mentioned? Even some teachers have to take a second job just to make ends meet.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15713 posts, RR: 26
Reply 129, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3176 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 110):
Which other countries? The European ones? They are virtually stuck in a no-growth mode and unemployment is as high as 25% in some countries, particularly for young people.

Maybe they're happy being unemployed.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 124):
We pay taxes so we don't have to have people dying in the street from starvation

I buy food so I don't die in the street from starvation. How everyone else wants to manage their money is up to them.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 124):
I have noticed something: Those who are blindly following right-wing media and have been for years have one thing in common: They don't understand the million shades of grey.

That's funny coming from you, since you are literally my only exposure to right wing media. There are plenty of shades of grey, but you are among the worst of them who want some of my money to get better cheese.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 127):
Then they go back to school and gain new skills. It isn't a new thing. My mother did so 5 years ago while still working full time and raising two kids.

Now, let's not get crazy and suggest people do something for themselves.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 127):
So blindly following left wing media is okay?

According to Seb there is no such thing as the left wing media.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7799 posts, RR: 52
Reply 130, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3166 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 128):
This is not about left wing media. The one channel that is not, nor has ever professed to be, news and the dozen or so radio stations around the country. My comment was about right wing media which is found in all corners of the nation on multiple channels and frequencies around the radio dial. Look at "liberal" San Francisco. One "liberal" radio station that is only "liberal" part time. Three right-wing stations. FOX everywhere. I know there is fewer choices for alternate information in other cities. I just spent a week in Salt Lake City over the summer. Being a radio geek, I get it.

There is absolutely no where in America where there isn't multiple right wing sources and multiple left wing sources. You are sounding like the opposite of the people claiming some giant liberal media conspiracy... stahp...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11516 posts, RR: 15
Reply 131, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3154 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 130):
There is absolutely no where in America where there isn't multiple right wing sources and multiple left wing sources.

I would beg to differ. Not because the sources are not out there but because people are too lazy to fact check. People listen to (just as an example) Rush and think "Well, he fact checked, so I don't have to" but they are wrong. They are lazy. They don't get that they are SUPPOSED to, as humans and as Americans, look stuff up on their own. They just believe whatever "facts" are given to them.

Case in point: I do not agree with banning ALL guns. I understand and agree that some guns are necessary. For food, for example. Some people I follow on the left, want ALL guns to be banned. We can find common ground. However, to "conservatives", I am a Constitution hating "liberal" because I don't want people to have access to assault weapons.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 132, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3145 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
He doesn't make a case. He just thinks that it's bad that others have nicer toys than he does and that the wealthy should pay him for the privilege of sharing a planet with him.

Still just sound bites. You argue him and not the issue. It is what you generally do. Because of this I will just ignore your posts from now on. Fully expect some snide remark because of this.   

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 101):
You believe in forcing companies to price their products more than they are worth to the vast majority of consumers.

I believe they should not be underpriced because part of the supply chain is under duress.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 101):
Why don't you try operating a food service business with "living wages" and tell us how it works for you?

That is what my family does. No problem. Of course it is in countries where fast food restaurants are also required to provide a living wage.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 112):
There is such a shortage of labor due to the Bakken shale activity that traditional minimum wage jobs are paying $15-20 per hour.

And McD is still making money hand over fist.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 115):
you do believe in an economy where transactions are based on force and not mutual agreement.

Why we need minimum wage.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 127):
I couldn't believe it when the gas station attendant outside of Cairns told me a soda and a small bag of chips was 5 bucks.

Don't know where you are but the price here in south Florida isn't that far from it.


User currently offlinemad99 From Spain, joined Mar 2012, 527 posts, RR: 0
Reply 133, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3138 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 129):
Maybe they're happy being unemployed.

That's funny!

Next time i see a unemployment protest that's what i'm going to tell them.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12331 posts, RR: 25
Reply 134, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3117 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 101):
You support their employees because voting blocks believe we have an obligation to support their standard of living since they cannot provide it themselves.

These voting blocks believe it's better to provide people an opportunity to improve themselves rather than to forever be in the circle of poverty.

The same voting blocks see the historically high concentration of wealth and historically high income disparities and wonder why the rich continue to get tax breaks and corporate welfare that assures they are paying historically low levels of tax.

Again I'm amazed on the laser focus on what the poor are doing, compared to next to none on what the rich are doing.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8842 posts, RR: 10
Reply 135, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3084 times:

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/cae6...5/Article_2013-10-29-Iran-Nuclear/

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 117):
I think the Eurozone stagnation can be attributed to stiff business regulations, bad energy policy, bad fiscal policy, and yes, high cost and inflexible labor.




This article seems to disagree with your assessment of Europe's woes. It seems to be getting better, I guess labor has capitulated, given up making trouble. What other explanation could there be? According to you labors costs cause all the problems, along with regulations. Hmmmn!!! Maybe you are wrong?



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7799 posts, RR: 52
Reply 136, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3067 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 131):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 130):
There is absolutely no where in America where there isn't multiple right wing sources and multiple left wing sources.

I would beg to differ. Not because the sources are not out there but because people are too lazy to fact check.

So you disagree with my statement and in your explanation you agree with what I said initially then insert a totally different statement that I also agree with?

Again, there is no where in the US where you can't get multiple right and multiple left sources. Whether or not people fact check is a different story



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11516 posts, RR: 15
Reply 137, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3064 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 136):
there is no where in the US where you can't get multiple right and multiple left sources. Whether or not people fact check is a different story

The best place for that would be the internet. However, the right is content to let people tell them things. The left is more likely to say "That could be right but I'll check anyway."

Granted, there are those on the left who are lazy and those on the right who check, but, more often than not, the right is willing to accept what they are told by their own media.

Left-wing talk host Randi Rhodes always always always tells people: never believe what any pundit tells you ever. She includes herself. Sage advice. I wonder what would happen if Rush or FOX started trumpeting that?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7799 posts, RR: 52
Reply 138, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3058 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 137):
The left is more likely to say "That could be right but I'll check anyway."

Be careful making claims like this you cannot back up

Quoting seb146 (Reply 137):
I wonder what would happen if Rush or FOX started trumpeting that?

To be fair, I have heard Rush say this, multiple times. He's very strong with his opinion and I think people just take his word for it, but he is not an advocate of people just blindly believing him (or at least that's what he says, and I can believe him, even if I disagree with much/most of what he says)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8397 posts, RR: 3
Reply 139, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3049 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 138):
but he is not an advocate of people just blindly believing him

That's just part of his hypnotism schtick. He's a hypnotist.

[Edited 2013-10-29 09:34:04]