login
MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? (Page 3)
-
No new posts
|
 2014-03-14 9:29 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion  6993      Chicago, Illinois |  Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL???Originally posted by tuwood To inject a little humor and a whole lot of truth, here's a window into the poor mindset. This article is almost 100% of what I went through and still struggle with today. I'm a very successful guy who would be considered "rich" in almost any category, but I struggle a LOT with the "poor mindset" because of growing up so poor. I showed this to my wife last night and there were several "oh my god" moments where we match this article exactly. I even ate bowls of ketchup as a kid for meals and my wife and I both only have two pairs of jeans today. lol The 5 Stupidest Habits You Develop Growing Up Poor Wow that is so me except for the gift giving to over compensate later. I am finally out of all non student loan debt. I have a small amount in the bank and I have to remind myself not to spent it all. Worse I am waiting for what else is going to go wrong because whenever I feel I am starting to get solid financially that is when sometimes always goes wrong. I still use the Fed government as a savings account. I pay higher taxes through the year because I know it will force me to save money. That "windfall" has saved me so many times. My girl lost EVERYTHING 20 year ago in a war. Money, house, everything she liked even down to the family photos. So she has a different mindset. She does not want to buy anything because as she says never know when you are going to lose it all. |
| 2014-03-14 9:58 AM in reply to: chirunner134 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? Originally posted by chirunner134 Originally posted by tuwood Wow that is so me except for the gift giving to over compensate later. I am finally out of all non student loan debt. I have a small amount in the bank and I have to remind myself not to spent it all. Worse I am waiting for what else is going to go wrong because whenever I feel I am starting to get solid financially that is when sometimes always goes wrong. I still use the Fed government as a savings account. I pay higher taxes through the year because I know it will force me to save money. That "windfall" has saved me so many times. My girl lost EVERYTHING 20 year ago in a war. Money, house, everything she liked even down to the family photos. So she has a different mindset. She does not want to buy anything because as she says never know when you are going to lose it all. To inject a little humor and a whole lot of truth, here's a window into the poor mindset. This article is almost 100% of what I went through and still struggle with today. I'm a very successful guy who would be considered "rich" in almost any category, but I struggle a LOT with the "poor mindset" because of growing up so poor. I showed this to my wife last night and there were several "oh my god" moments where we match this article exactly. I even ate bowls of ketchup as a kid for meals and my wife and I both only have two pairs of jeans today. lol When I got out of the Navy and got my first salary job my wife and I went WAY overboard with our gift giving to the kids and family. We seriously had our entire living room full of presents. We even bought several relatives very expensive gifts. There was some serious compensating going on. It wasn't until about 5 years ago that we finally broke our worst habit which was always living paycheck to paycheck. Over the years I went from 20k, 30k, 50k, 80k, 100k, 150k, 200k+ salary and we never had more than a couple thousand dollars in the bank. We simply spent every penny we made and it didn't matter how much money we made. Credit Cards were always our emergency fund. |
| 2014-03-14 12:37 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? Originally posted by tuwood To inject a little humor and a whole lot of truth, here's a window into the poor mindset. This article is almost 100% of what I went through and still struggle with today. I'm a very successful guy who would be considered "rich" in almost any category, but I struggle a LOT with the "poor mindset" because of growing up so poor. I showed this to my wife last night and there were several "oh my god" moments where we match this article exactly. I even ate bowls of ketchup as a kid for meals and my wife and I both only have two pairs of jeans today. lol The 5 Stupidest Habits You Develop Growing Up Poor That's brilliant. I see a lot of myself in that article too-- grew up in a single parent home, no car, no savings, etc. I never got the "lousy food" part, because I think that maybe when I was growing up it was still cheaper to eat fresh food than it was to eat fast food. Dollar Menus hasn't really come along yet, and a big mac probably cost the same as a sandwich at a real deli back then. Once my mom remarried, my stepfather was a contractor, so he didn't work steadily. I can remember that whenever he would get paid for a job, they would rent a car, go to the grocery store, and buy hundreds of dollars worth of food-- stuff that we'd never usally have. Then it would gradually dwindle away over the next few weeks until we were broke again and the fridge was empty except for milk and condiments. |
| 2014-03-14 12:48 PM in reply to: powerman |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by strykergt That makes no sense. The reason why people hire illegal immigrants over documented workers is because it's less expensive to do so. If the "legalized illegals" are subject to the same $10 minimum wage as other documented workers, there's no incentive to hire them over documented workers and the contractors will hire whoever the most qualified candidate is. Are you saying you'd rather that the federal government hire less-qualified candidates for the same money they could pay for better-qualified candidates? Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Theres alot contractors of government projects hire immigrants here in Texas . I bet ya the legalized illegals will be one of those start working with the contractors and be working in roads and bridges and they will get their share of $10.00/hr. Originally posted by strykergt i am going to stereotype here and i dont mean to sound like a racist: So Obama is about to give amnesty to Millions of illegals and he is already promising raises to them ??? You don't mean to, yet you do. How does raising the minumum wage for less than half a million government contracted workers have anything to do with illegals? No, that is absolutely not the reason. Most make decent wages. What the employer gets is to pay them under the table with no benefits and no legal recourse. The immigrant gets paid under the table. He gets prevailing wages in most cases, but earns more. Even accepting less money, they will still earn the same as an American on the books. At least in the construction industry here, many roofer are illegal, but get paid the prevailing wage for offers. I only know because I have a few friends that had companies here. This notion that illegals accept work at much lower wages is just nonsense. Even getting prevailing wages, both parties make out over hiring Americans. And this other notion that illegals do jobs Americans do not want... is absolutely 100% false. They have darn near taken over the construction industry. An industry Americans most certainly want to do. Regardless of whether the savings a company derives from hiring illegals is from paying them below-market wages or from not paying payroll taxes or benefits, the fact remains that the reason people hire illegals is that it's cheaper to do so. If you grant them amnesty, and require that businesses employing them be subject to the same requirements as employing citizens, it becomes no longer cheaper to hire the immigrant over the American, right? |
| 2014-03-14 7:08 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by powerman Regardless of whether the savings a company derives from hiring illegals is from paying them below-market wages or from not paying payroll taxes or benefits, the fact remains that the reason people hire illegals is that it's cheaper to do so. If you grant them amnesty, and require that businesses employing them be subject to the same requirements as employing citizens, it becomes no longer cheaper to hire the immigrant over the American, right? Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by strykergt That makes no sense. The reason why people hire illegal immigrants over documented workers is because it's less expensive to do so. If the "legalized illegals" are subject to the same $10 minimum wage as other documented workers, there's no incentive to hire them over documented workers and the contractors will hire whoever the most qualified candidate is. Are you saying you'd rather that the federal government hire less-qualified candidates for the same money they could pay for better-qualified candidates? Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Theres alot contractors of government projects hire immigrants here in Texas . I bet ya the legalized illegals will be one of those start working with the contractors and be working in roads and bridges and they will get their share of $10.00/hr. Originally posted by strykergt i am going to stereotype here and i dont mean to sound like a racist: So Obama is about to give amnesty to Millions of illegals and he is already promising raises to them ??? You don't mean to, yet you do. How does raising the minumum wage for less than half a million government contracted workers have anything to do with illegals? No, that is absolutely not the reason. Most make decent wages. What the employer gets is to pay them under the table with no benefits and no legal recourse. The immigrant gets paid under the table. He gets prevailing wages in most cases, but earns more. Even accepting less money, they will still earn the same as an American on the books. At least in the construction industry here, many roofer are illegal, but get paid the prevailing wage for offers. I only know because I have a few friends that had companies here. This notion that illegals accept work at much lower wages is just nonsense. Even getting prevailing wages, both parties make out over hiring Americans. And this other notion that illegals do jobs Americans do not want... is absolutely 100% false. They have darn near taken over the construction industry. An industry Americans most certainly want to do. Yes, you are correct. I went off on a tangent thinking in one line. Yes, they do hire them because overall it is cheaper, but not because lower wages. It is a argument that is made, even if I mistakenly thought you were making it.
As far as the $10/hr min wage.... pure American fantasy. the rest of the world kills us in labor costs and regulatory burdens, and we think we still have the luxury of being paid what ever we want to dream up. The middle class dream only works when you control the majority of the worlds goods and money is flowing into the country.... That money is starting to flow elsewhere. we can not continue to think we dictate our terms and can have an ever expanding economy and middle class with nothing to fuel it. |
| 2014-03-14 8:19 PM in reply to: strykergt |
Expert 1215 Austin, TX | Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? Originally posted by strykergt Theres alot contractors of government projects hire immigrants here in Texas . I bet ya the legalized illegals will be one of those start working with the contractors and be working in roads and bridges and they will get their share of $10.00/hr. The vast majority of contractors doing government work here in TX do not knowingly hire illegals. We have to have documentation from employees showing they are legal. Additionally, the wages they have to pay (even in heavy/civil which is the roads and bridges you refer to)and document to the government are higher than the minimum wage. The lowest classification is laborer and that classification makes more than minimum wage. Virtually all other classifications already make well above $10/hr, ranging from $12-30/hr depending on classification. |
| 2014-03-14 8:40 PM in reply to: powerman |
Expert 1215 Austin, TX | Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? Originally posted by powermanAnd this other notion that illegals do jobs Americans do not want... is absolutely 100% false. They have darn near taken over the construction industry. An industry Americans most certainly want to do. I wish you were correct, but you are not, depending on who you consider to be American. I own a construction company. I only hire legal citizens who can pass background checks. Most Americans (European decendants) do not want to do work where you might break a sweat. Ive found that most Hispanics in construction are willing to work hard so long as you pay and treat them fairly. "They" have darn near taken over construction because "they" work without throwing entitlement fits. As Jack White said, "you're an immigrant too". |
| 2014-03-14 10:11 PM in reply to: #4940459 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? Hummmm.... Grew up in Nevada, Arizona, Texas, and have lived in Colorado now for 20 years. I grew up painting in winter and plastering pools in the summer. Involved a bit in roofing here. Dad owned 3 companies and we worked out a$$ off. I didn't know many entitlement cases. What I knew was Mexican labor would undercut to get the job,because they were still making a ton more than anywhere else. Roofing crews here were true immigrant workers... Here in the summer, work from sun up to sun down, send all their money home and go home in the winter. There words not mine. Americans hire illegals because it benefits some Americans. Illegals work because it benefits illegals. Mexican labor is not lazy at all, but don't tell me all Americans are. |
| 2014-03-14 10:36 PM in reply to: #4965552 |
| Member 53 | Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? Minimum wage increases are wealth distribution. They are also economy boosters. People who make low incomes spend all their money because quite frankly they spend it all on necessities. Higher incomes do not spend all of their money, they save the excess. Economy is based on the movement of money. Those companies that reduce their workforce because of less profits are likely to not be picked up in further contracts because of crappy product or service. Competition willing to make less per widget will be picked since they offer better product for equal money. If we are interested in improving the economy, then more money to the less fortunate is the way to go. It is counter intuitive to the american culture, but that's how you do it. Plus, general inflation has increased, but wages are stifled because people are desperate. Don't forget these minimum wage people are not the same as lazy people. They are working. |
| 2014-03-14 10:43 PM in reply to: #4965560 |
| Member 53 | Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? With regards to illegal immigrants and government contracts, all require e-verify. To the general contractors and their subs. We've caught some trying to get a job too. They can infiltrate smaller companies, but for the bigger ones the penalties are too stiff. |
| 2014-03-17 9:48 AM in reply to: gatorcali21 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? Originally posted by gatorcali21 Minimum wage increases are wealth distribution. They are also economy boosters. People who make low incomes spend all their money because quite frankly they spend it all on necessities. Higher incomes do not spend all of their money, they save the excess. Economy is based on the movement of money. Those companies that reduce their workforce because of less profits are likely to not be picked up in further contracts because of crappy product or service. Competition willing to make less per widget will be picked since they offer better product for equal money. If we are interested in improving the economy, then more money to the less fortunate is the way to go. It is counter intuitive to the american culture, but that's how you do it. Plus, general inflation has increased, but wages are stifled because people are desperate. Don't forget these minimum wage people are not the same as lazy people. They are working. I'm sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree with you. Give money to the poor because they spend it and rich people don't as a way to grow the economy? really?
|
| 2014-10-02 12:41 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
| Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by crusevegas You used that "moving the middle class closer to the bottom" expression on another thread, and I'm not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't allow the poor to earn more because it's somehow detrimental to the middle class?Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Stuartap A lot of good points here but I think there is one that has not been mentioned. I read an article recently (if I can find it I will add a link) that said the lowest income areas are generally harder hit by the consequences of a raise in the minimum wage than other areas. The idea was that low income areas are generally supported by low income jobs. Therefore a raise in the minimum wage has a more detrimental effect on local businesses who either close or raise prices disproportionally to areas of more affluence. If area A has a large percentage of minimum wage workers and area B has relatively few, any raise in that wage hits area A much harder in terms of increased prices, lost jobs and lost businesses. This theory seems to make sense. What do you think? I guess so, but I would argue that, unlike people who live in affluent areas, people in low income areas are more likely to live and shop close to where they work, mostly because they can't afford to travel very far. So, while increasing the minimum wage would have a greater effect on businesses' expenses in low income areas which tend to employ more poor people, that same demographic also comprises a large share of those businesses' customer base. While they would be paying slightly more in terms of payroll, their customer base would have greater spending power as a result of the wage increase, and that could have a positive impact. Poor people don't generally save their money-- they spend it. The extra $20 people make as a result of the min-wage increase is probably going right back into the local economy. How long before the buying power of that $10 an hour is the same as the current $7.00 an hour? If the rest of the middle class workforce isn't receiving the same 35% increase aren't they being moved closer to the bottom?
What I mean is if you have a wage of 7 10 12 15 20 & 25 and you pass a law that says everyone gets at least $10 then the rest are closer to the bottom than they were before. See if you take the difference between say 20 & 7 you get a number of 13 which is greater than the difference between 20 & 10. one is farther from 20 and one is closer to it.
By your logic, the Koch brothers and Oprah are also being moved closer to the bottom as well, but I doubt they'll feel much of an effect, and I wouldn't expect the majority of Americans to feel it either. The fact that the poorest 2% of Americans would be making an additional $80-$100/week before taxes isn't going to affect the cost of tri-bikes and power meters much and I wouldn't expect to have a huge impact on the economy as a whole. It's just not that many people and not that much money, relatively speaking. Well, I was talking about the middle class, I don't really think Oprah and the Koch bros are in that category. While I agree the cost of high end good like tri bikes and other items costing multiple thousands of dollars will either, items like eggs, milk and many other lower priced items that are necessary to the middle class most definitely will. Items which are labor sensitive will be more expensive, grocery store items, restaurants and similar business's will have no choice but to raiser their price and or cuts labor if possible (cutting labor means fewer jobs). Another factor if the minimum wage goes up significantly the other employees will need to get a raise if they are worth more than the minimum or there will be a resentment for them doing more valuable work and not receiving any more than those doing less valuable work. Do you really expect that prices of everything will immdiately jump by 35% as soon as we raise the minimum wage? That's absurd, alarmist nonsense. If you're really worried about the middle class moving closer to the bottom, you should be paying more attention to the growth in income at the top of the income food chain rather than at the bottom. That's what's causing middle class earners to get priced out things they used to take for granted and causing the dissolution of the "American Dream". I know that doesn't really fit so well with the GOP's "The Enemy of the Working Class is the Poor" rhetoric, but that's a much greater threat to our economic stability than raising the minimum wage. Do I think that the prices across the board will immediately jump by 35% as soon as the raise occurs? Of course not, I don't think I said or implied that it would. I will say that if you increase the minimum wage by 35% prices on the goods that the middle class needs will go up a lot more than the price to Tri Bikes, Luxury cars, Boats and other expensive items (many of which are manufactured outside the USA due to the already high cost of doing business here). I am concerned about the middle class and the problem isn't so much to do with the wealthy people getting wealthier it's got a lot more to do with the the amount that the middle class is forced to give to the government. Let's take a quick look at just some of the regressive taxes or fees we pay. SS/Payroll taxes almost 15% now we have roughly 85 cents of the collar left, we go buy something, give the government another 8% reducing "our" money to about 78 cents, then we pay for gas, the government gets more money from a gallon of gas than the oil company gets profit from it. We haven't' even touched on income, property or vehicle tax. No, it's not a problem of the wealthy getting wealthier, it's a problem of the government taking entirely too much from the middle class, over regulation and 70,000 pages of tax code. Serious question and I'm just looking for your honest opinion, which will go up as a percentage more with the higher minimum wage, a Big Mac or a Cervelo Cannondale Slice? JMK, do the research on what all it takes to start up a simple restaurant in a 1,200 square foot mall in the town you live in. |
| 2014-10-03 8:41 AM in reply to: crusevegas |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? Originally posted by crusevegas Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by crusevegas You used that "moving the middle class closer to the bottom" expression on another thread, and I'm not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't allow the poor to earn more because it's somehow detrimental to the middle class?Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Stuartap A lot of good points here but I think there is one that has not been mentioned. I read an article recently (if I can find it I will add a link) that said the lowest income areas are generally harder hit by the consequences of a raise in the minimum wage than other areas. The idea was that low income areas are generally supported by low income jobs. Therefore a raise in the minimum wage has a more detrimental effect on local businesses who either close or raise prices disproportionally to areas of more affluence. If area A has a large percentage of minimum wage workers and area B has relatively few, any raise in that wage hits area A much harder in terms of increased prices, lost jobs and lost businesses. This theory seems to make sense. What do you think? I guess so, but I would argue that, unlike people who live in affluent areas, people in low income areas are more likely to live and shop close to where they work, mostly because they can't afford to travel very far. So, while increasing the minimum wage would have a greater effect on businesses' expenses in low income areas which tend to employ more poor people, that same demographic also comprises a large share of those businesses' customer base. While they would be paying slightly more in terms of payroll, their customer base would have greater spending power as a result of the wage increase, and that could have a positive impact. Poor people don't generally save their money-- they spend it. The extra $20 people make as a result of the min-wage increase is probably going right back into the local economy. How long before the buying power of that $10 an hour is the same as the current $7.00 an hour? If the rest of the middle class workforce isn't receiving the same 35% increase aren't they being moved closer to the bottom?
What I mean is if you have a wage of 7 10 12 15 20 & 25 and you pass a law that says everyone gets at least $10 then the rest are closer to the bottom than they were before. See if you take the difference between say 20 & 7 you get a number of 13 which is greater than the difference between 20 & 10. one is farther from 20 and one is closer to it.
By your logic, the Koch brothers and Oprah are also being moved closer to the bottom as well, but I doubt they'll feel much of an effect, and I wouldn't expect the majority of Americans to feel it either. The fact that the poorest 2% of Americans would be making an additional $80-$100/week before taxes isn't going to affect the cost of tri-bikes and power meters much and I wouldn't expect to have a huge impact on the economy as a whole. It's just not that many people and not that much money, relatively speaking. Well, I was talking about the middle class, I don't really think Oprah and the Koch bros are in that category. While I agree the cost of high end good like tri bikes and other items costing multiple thousands of dollars will either, items like eggs, milk and many other lower priced items that are necessary to the middle class most definitely will. Items which are labor sensitive will be more expensive, grocery store items, restaurants and similar business's will have no choice but to raiser their price and or cuts labor if possible (cutting labor means fewer jobs). Another factor if the minimum wage goes up significantly the other employees will need to get a raise if they are worth more than the minimum or there will be a resentment for them doing more valuable work and not receiving any more than those doing less valuable work. Do you really expect that prices of everything will immdiately jump by 35% as soon as we raise the minimum wage? That's absurd, alarmist nonsense. If you're really worried about the middle class moving closer to the bottom, you should be paying more attention to the growth in income at the top of the income food chain rather than at the bottom. That's what's causing middle class earners to get priced out things they used to take for granted and causing the dissolution of the "American Dream". I know that doesn't really fit so well with the GOP's "The Enemy of the Working Class is the Poor" rhetoric, but that's a much greater threat to our economic stability than raising the minimum wage. Do I think that the prices across the board will immediately jump by 35% as soon as the raise occurs? Of course not, I don't think I said or implied that it would. I will say that if you increase the minimum wage by 35% prices on the goods that the middle class needs will go up a lot more than the price to Tri Bikes, Luxury cars, Boats and other expensive items (many of which are manufactured outside the USA due to the already high cost of doing business here). I am concerned about the middle class and the problem isn't so much to do with the wealthy people getting wealthier it's got a lot more to do with the the amount that the middle class is forced to give to the government. Let's take a quick look at just some of the regressive taxes or fees we pay. SS/Payroll taxes almost 15% now we have roughly 85 cents of the collar left, we go buy something, give the government another 8% reducing "our" money to about 78 cents, then we pay for gas, the government gets more money from a gallon of gas than the oil company gets profit from it. We haven't' even touched on income, property or vehicle tax. No, it's not a problem of the wealthy getting wealthier, it's a problem of the government taking entirely too much from the middle class, over regulation and 70,000 pages of tax code. Serious question and I'm just looking for your honest opinion, which will go up as a percentage more with the higher minimum wage, a Big Mac or a Cervelo Cannondale Slice? JMK, do the research on what all it takes to start up a simple restaurant in a 1,200 square foot mall in the town you live in. If you did some reasearch, you'd see that there aren't a lot of malls in the "town" that I live in.  I agree with you that the governemnt is taking disproportionately more from the middle class than from the rich or the poor. That's because the rich control the poiticians and therefore the tax codes and because the poor don't have any money to take from. So who does the burden fall to? You got it-- you and me. My point is that you have to pay people a living wage. You have to. Even if you don't give a rat's butt about poor people, you still have to admit that it's absurd that hugely profitable companies like Wal-Mart and McDonalds pay their employees so little that they end up needing public assistance to make ends meet. Public assistance that we all pay for. Why is it unreasonable to expect a company to pay it's full time workers enough that they are at least above the line where they no longer qualify for public assistance and need to be partially subsidised by the rest of us? The reason that the middle class is shrinking in this country isn't because we're spending too much money to subsidize the also-ever-increasing rolls of the poor. It's because a tiny percentage of the population controls a vastly disproportionate amount of the wealth, and that control also allows them to stack the deck against the rest of us when it comes to just about everything that allows poor people to move to the middle class and middle class people to have any hope of increasing their lot in life as well. When I moved to NYC in the early 90's, my studio apartment cost $550/month. That same apartment probably goes for $2000/month today. That isn't because a bunch of welfare-subsidized fast food workers with their big-screen tv's and iPhones that they paid for by trading their food stamps moved in. It's because the number of people who can afford higher rents has increased, and it's made it virtually impossible to live in an increasing number of areas of NYC unless you have a six-figure salary or better. And to refer to your big mac/tri bike example, honestly, I doubt the increaed minimum wage will have much of an effect on either. Fast food prices have barely budged in years. But, I think it's fair to say that over the last 8 years that I've been doing tris, the price of bikes has skyrocketed. You used to be able to get a good entry level bike (Tiagra/105 mix, carbon fork, etc) for under $2000, and other than closeouts, that's almost impossible now. Entry level is now closer to $2500. It's another example of the bottom getting squeezed because of demand at the top. There are enough people who can easily afford $5000 bikes that it doesn't make sense to even manufacture bikes at $1750. No one's going to shed any tears because a triathlete has to suffer through with an aluminum frame and tiagra components, but it's another example of the middle getting squeezed by the top, not the bottom. |
| 2014-10-13 10:31 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
| Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by crusevegas If you did some reasearch, you'd see that there aren't a lot of malls in the "town" that I live in. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by crusevegas You used that "moving the middle class closer to the bottom" expression on another thread, and I'm not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't allow the poor to earn more because it's somehow detrimental to the middle class?Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Stuartap A lot of good points here but I think there is one that has not been mentioned. I read an article recently (if I can find it I will add a link) that said the lowest income areas are generally harder hit by the consequences of a raise in the minimum wage than other areas. The idea was that low income areas are generally supported by low income jobs. Therefore a raise in the minimum wage has a more detrimental effect on local businesses who either close or raise prices disproportionally to areas of more affluence. If area A has a large percentage of minimum wage workers and area B has relatively few, any raise in that wage hits area A much harder in terms of increased prices, lost jobs and lost businesses. This theory seems to make sense. What do you think? I guess so, but I would argue that, unlike people who live in affluent areas, people in low income areas are more likely to live and shop close to where they work, mostly because they can't afford to travel very far. So, while increasing the minimum wage would have a greater effect on businesses' expenses in low income areas which tend to employ more poor people, that same demographic also comprises a large share of those businesses' customer base. While they would be paying slightly more in terms of payroll, their customer base would have greater spending power as a result of the wage increase, and that could have a positive impact. Poor people don't generally save their money-- they spend it. The extra $20 people make as a result of the min-wage increase is probably going right back into the local economy. How long before the buying power of that $10 an hour is the same as the current $7.00 an hour? If the rest of the middle class workforce isn't receiving the same 35% increase aren't they being moved closer to the bottom?
What I mean is if you have a wage of 7 10 12 15 20 & 25 and you pass a law that says everyone gets at least $10 then the rest are closer to the bottom than they were before. See if you take the difference between say 20 & 7 you get a number of 13 which is greater than the difference between 20 & 10. one is farther from 20 and one is closer to it.
By your logic, the Koch brothers and Oprah are also being moved closer to the bottom as well, but I doubt they'll feel much of an effect, and I wouldn't expect the majority of Americans to feel it either. The fact that the poorest 2% of Americans would be making an additional $80-$100/week before taxes isn't going to affect the cost of tri-bikes and power meters much and I wouldn't expect to have a huge impact on the economy as a whole. It's just not that many people and not that much money, relatively speaking. Well, I was talking about the middle class, I don't really think Oprah and the Koch bros are in that category. While I agree the cost of high end good like tri bikes and other items costing multiple thousands of dollars will either, items like eggs, milk and many other lower priced items that are necessary to the middle class most definitely will. Items which are labor sensitive will be more expensive, grocery store items, restaurants and similar business's will have no choice but to raiser their price and or cuts labor if possible (cutting labor means fewer jobs). Another factor if the minimum wage goes up significantly the other employees will need to get a raise if they are worth more than the minimum or there will be a resentment for them doing more valuable work and not receiving any more than those doing less valuable work. Do you really expect that prices of everything will immdiately jump by 35% as soon as we raise the minimum wage? That's absurd, alarmist nonsense. If you're really worried about the middle class moving closer to the bottom, you should be paying more attention to the growth in income at the top of the income food chain rather than at the bottom. That's what's causing middle class earners to get priced out things they used to take for granted and causing the dissolution of the "American Dream". I know that doesn't really fit so well with the GOP's "The Enemy of the Working Class is the Poor" rhetoric, but that's a much greater threat to our economic stability than raising the minimum wage. Do I think that the prices across the board will immediately jump by 35% as soon as the raise occurs? Of course not, I don't think I said or implied that it would. I will say that if you increase the minimum wage by 35% prices on the goods that the middle class needs will go up a lot more than the price to Tri Bikes, Luxury cars, Boats and other expensive items (many of which are manufactured outside the USA due to the already high cost of doing business here). I am concerned about the middle class and the problem isn't so much to do with the wealthy people getting wealthier it's got a lot more to do with the the amount that the middle class is forced to give to the government. Let's take a quick look at just some of the regressive taxes or fees we pay. SS/Payroll taxes almost 15% now we have roughly 85 cents of the collar left, we go buy something, give the government another 8% reducing "our" money to about 78 cents, then we pay for gas, the government gets more money from a gallon of gas than the oil company gets profit from it. We haven't' even touched on income, property or vehicle tax. No, it's not a problem of the wealthy getting wealthier, it's a problem of the government taking entirely too much from the middle class, over regulation and 70,000 pages of tax code. Serious question and I'm just looking for your honest opinion, which will go up as a percentage more with the higher minimum wage, a Big Mac or a Cervelo Cannondale Slice? JMK, do the research on what all it takes to start up a simple restaurant in a 1,200 square foot mall in the town you live in. I agree with you that the governemnt is taking disproportionately more from the middle class than from the rich or the poor. That's because the rich control the poiticians and therefore the tax codes and because the poor don't have any money to take from. So who does the burden fall to? I think a big step would be dialing back our Federal spending, regulation and allowing people more opportunity rather than road blocks. A good start would be elimination about 69,999 pages of tax code.
You got it-- you and me. My point is that you have to pay people a living wage. You have to. Even if you don't give a rat's butt about poor people, you still have to admit that it's absurd that hugely profitable companies like Wal-Mart and McDonalds pay their employees so little that they end up needing public assistance to make ends meet. Public assistance that we all pay for. Why is it unreasonable to expect a company to pay it's full time workers enough that they are at least above the line where they no longer qualify for public assistance and need to be partially subsidised by the rest of us? The reason that the middle class is shrinking in this country isn't because we're spending too much money to subsidize the also-ever-increasing rolls of the poor. It's because a tiny percentage of the population controls a vastly disproportionate amount of the wealth, and that control also allows them to stack the deck against the rest of us when it comes to just about everything that allows poor people to move to the middle class and middle class people to have any hope of increasing their lot in life as well. When I moved to NYC in the early 90's, my studio apartment cost $550/month. That same apartment probably goes for $2000/month today. That isn't because a bunch of welfare-subsidized fast food workers with their big-screen tv's and iPhones that they paid for by trading their food stamps moved in. It's because the number of people who can afford higher rents has increased, and it's made it virtually impossible to live in an increasing number of areas of NYC unless you have a six-figure salary or better. And to refer to your big mac/tri bike example, honestly, I doubt the increaed minimum wage will have much of an effect on either. Fast food prices have barely budged in years. But, I think it's fair to say that over the last 8 years that I've been doing tris, the price of bikes has skyrocketed. You used to be able to get a good entry level bike (Tiagra/105 mix, carbon fork, etc) for under $2000, and other than closeouts, that's almost impossible now. Entry level is now closer to $2500. It's another example of the bottom getting squeezed because of demand at the top. There are enough people who can easily afford $5000 bikes that it doesn't make sense to even manufacture bikes at $1750. No one's going to shed any tears because a triathlete has to suffer through with an aluminum frame and tiagra components, but it's another example of the middle getting squeezed by the top, not the bottom. On the minimum wage, I take everything back I've said, Crazy Uncle Joe was out here and said that raising the minimum wage would have no negative consequences and would add billions of dollars to the economy. He's the second most powerful person in the world, near the highest elected office and if he says it how can anyone possibly disagree with a public servant with that sort of reputation. I can only assume my concerns of workers who are doing more difficult work than their counterparts who are now getting paid for doing less valuable work will want a raise. You and Crazy Uncle Joe both said everyone will be fine with getting paid the same amount even though one is doing more valuable work than the other. Who knew it would be all Unicorns and rainbows at the workplace after this? I apparently was wrong about all the small business people who are barely getting by will have be forced out of business because they can't meet the higher payroll, I guess the billion of extra dollars CUJ said are hitting the economy will propel them to greater wealth rather than run them out of business. Again I am apparently wrong. High School and College kids won't have fewer job opportunities because of the higher wage, why would you hire more qualified older people when you are paying a "living wage" that a more qualified person can get. Entry level and part time jobs be damned. CUJ says no worries, everyone gets Unicorn and can rent a rainbow. And last and least of all inflation will not occur because it's just a few people this will apply to so no inflation coming due to cost of business increasing. I can't believe I ever thought this would happen. CUJ rocks in the business acumen. Don't worry about the unintended consequences, inflation, the small business that will close. We need to regulate fairness for all. Regardless of who it hurts or the damage it causes. While you are concerned about Walmart and McDonald they employ a pretty small percentage of employees in the USA don't they? How many companies with under 50 employees comprise what percentage of the work force in the USA? In case you haven't heard, there is now another good reason to bash WallyWorld, with the new Federal regulation they are discontinuing health care benefits for the part time employees. Greedy B,,,,, oh I can't say that here. Do we need more Federal regulation to combat that? Take a look at what it takes cost wise and compliance wise to open a business this day and age. The American Dream, get a federal government job is a better bet today.
|
| 2014-10-13 10:38 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
| Subject: RE: MIN WAGE $10./HR. DO KIDS NEED TO FIN. SCHOOL??? " that hugely profitable companies like Wal-Mart" What are Walmart's assets? What are their sales? What are their profits?
You made the claim about their "absurd profits" while the # may be high what is their capital investment, risk, sales and profit as a percentage. That tells a lot more than what their net profit is doesn't it? |
|
|
|
|
| |||
| Protests for $15 an hour minimum wage Pages: 1 2 3 | ||
| Religion in schools again Pages: 1 2 | ||
| Prayer in School Pages: 1 2 | ||
|
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK