# Goverment Mandated Minimum Wage - I changed my mind



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

No person working full time should get goverment assistance. 

The cost of all full time employees should be born by their employer.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

I think you are confused. If you have a Government mandated minimum wage The employer pays it all. The only thing is If it is fare wouldn't it be more fare to raise it to $25 per hour or $50. Where do we stop at $100 or more.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

HDRider said:


> No person working full time should get goverment assistance.
> 
> The cost of all full time employees should be born by their employer.


Here's a train wreck in the making. I'll play though, how about no one gets assistance. No SS, Medicade, Medicare, food, housing, transportation, education, subsidies of any kind for starters. And a flat tax, no deductions whatsoever.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

If you truly believe in free markets and capitalism you wouldn't need to change your views. I would take it one step further. Employers should be responsible for the entire cost of all their employees. It would then be incumbent on job seekers to find jobs that support them without government assistance and employers to realistically redefine their business models to compete for those employees.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Old Vet said:


> I think you are confused. If you have a Government mandated minimum wage The employer pays it all. The only thing is If it is fare wouldn't it be more fare to raise it to $25 per hour or $50. Where do we stop at $100 or more.


I am saying the employer pays for the employee, in full. 

I don't know what the correct minimum wage should be. I am simply saying stop giving goverment assistance to working employees. Make employers pay for their employees. 

I will pay for the employee either way. I trust the efficiencies of an competitive business more than the inefficiencies of a uncompetitive government to pay a living amount.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

bowdonkey said:


> Here's a train wreck in the making. I'll play though, how about no one gets assistance. No SS, Medicade, Medicare, food, housing, transportation, education, subsidies of any kind for starters. And a flat tax, no deductions whatsoever.


I'd go for that. But, it is a bridge too far for most people.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

HDRider said:


> I'd go for that. But, it is a bridge too far for most people.


AMEN to that!


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> If you truly believe in free markets and capitalism you wouldn't need to change your views. I would take it one step further. Employers should be responsible for the entire cost of all their employees. It would then be incumbent on job seekers to find jobs that support them without government assistance and employers to realistically redefine their business models to compete for those employees.


Agreed. I'd go for that too, but again too big a leap for most Americans. 

A solution takes compromise. A foul word for too many, so are stuck in low gear on this and everything else.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

bowdonkey said:


> Here's a train wreck in the making. I'll play though, how about no one gets assistance. No SS, Medicade, Medicare, food, housing, transportation, education, subsidies of any kind for starters. And a flat tax, no deductions whatsoever.


The problem with that is that there are people in this country who truly cannot support themselves through work at gainful employment. They are far fewer than the number who currently get assistance but they exist and as a society we should provide for the least among us. Reworking all of these programs, including SS and Medicare to reflect our modern existence is necessary, just not easy or palatable to the many on all sides feeding at the public trough.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

HDRider said:


> I am saying the employer pays for the employee, in full.
> 
> I don't know what the correct minimum wage should be. I am simply saying stop giving goverment assistance to working employees. Make employers pay for their employees.
> 
> I will pay for the employee either way. I trust the efficiencies of an competitive business more than the inefficiencies of a uncompetitive government to pay a living amount.


In other words stop all benefits for those that work for a living and give it to those that don't work? 
The benefits are given by the federal government to who ever they want by means tested. If the employer wants to pay for it let them but the federal government will raise it each time to be fare until everybody is equal.  That is how Communist works.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

HDRider said:


> No person working full time should get goverment assistance.
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of all full time employees should be born by their employer.



Do you mean no more subsidies to employers to ?
How will we stop immigration ?
And we eliminate right to work laws ?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Do you mean no more subsidies to employers to ?
> How will we stop immigration ?
> And we eliminate right to work laws ?


Yes. 
Secure the borders. Deport criminals. 10 year path to citizenship, report to your "parol officer" or whatever you want to call it every six months during the 10 years or go home via a deportation bus. 
Yes.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Old Vet said:


> In other words stop all benefits for those that work for a living and give it to those that don't work?
> The benefits are given by the federal government to who ever they want by means tested. If the employer wants to pay for it let them but the federal government will raise it each time to be fare until everybody is equal. That is how Communist works.


Bring solutions, not problems. I do not know how to fairly takÃ¨ care of those that CAN'T work. 

Any idea or program is riddled with unintended consequences.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> The problem with that is that there are people in this country who truly cannot support themselves through work at gainful employment. They are far fewer than the number who currently get assistance but they exist and as a society we should provide for the least among us. Reworking all of these programs, including SS and Medicare to reflect our modern existence is necessary, just not easy or palatable to the many on all sides feeding at the public trough.


The solution in days gone by was to let the church and charities take care of them. Maybe we should go back to that, less government expense, less taxes, everyone happy. Or am I being nieve.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

bowdonkey said:


> The solution in days gone by was to let the church and charities take care of them. Maybe we should go back to that, less government expense, less taxes, everyone happy. Or am I being nieve.


Not naive. 

But most people don't go to church. Their families can't or will not help each other and people's false sense of worth prevents them from seeking charity. 

BUT, it is a giant but, people will take a ride on the goverment mule all day every day. 

If the goverment offers it, most will take it.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

HDRider said:


> I am saying the employer pays for the employee, in full.
> 
> I don't know what the correct minimum wage should be. I am simply saying stop giving goverment assistance to working employees. Make employers pay for their employees.
> 
> I will pay for the employee either way. I trust the efficiencies of an competitive business more than the inefficiencies of a uncompetitive government to pay a living amount.


So how far does that go? 
cheap apartment? rental house? purchase a house?
Bus/train fare? used car? new car? luxury car?
land line? flip phone? smart phone? unlimited calls/text/data?
Cable or Satellite TV? or a cheap pair of rabbit ears?
Computer and internet service?
Food basics or convenience foods? or restaurant meals?
second hand clothes, discount store clothes, name brand clothes?

Do you see how your statement can not possibly happen?
If someone were to try defining all this they would have to create rigid classes, the 'cure' would be worse than the disease.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mnn2501 said:


> So how far does that go?
> cheap apartment? rental house? purchase a house?
> Bus/train fare? used car? new car? luxury car?
> land line? flip phone? smart phone? unlimited calls/text/data?
> ...


Are you arguing for the status quo?

Are you saying that the goverment should continue to subsidize low wage workers with SNAP, earned income credit, section 8 and everything else?

What do you propose that has a snow ball's chance?

All I am saying is that I'd rather people earn a living than living on goverment giving.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

HDRider said:


> All I am saying is that I'd rather people earn a living than living on goverment giving.


Define 'earn a living' and I might or might not agree with you. 
Until you can do that, your statement is just wishes with no substance.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mnn2501 said:


> Define 'earn a living' and I might or might not agree with you.
> Until you can do that, your statement is just wishes with no substance.


No matter what say it is all wishes and no substance. Everything on HT is of little consequences. 

That said, earning a living to me means supporting yourself and your dependents to your personal satisfaction or means without goverment assistance. I thought everyone knew that.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Let me give you a couple of real life examples"
I used to manage restaurants, had a couple of women working for me, one (We'll call her woman A) in her late 20's single, no kids. The other (We'll call her woman B) in her mid 30's 2 kids in middle school, never married. Woman A was making about $2 more than minimum wage (this is 20 years ago) an hour and woman B about $4 more than minimum wage. These were 2 of my Monday - Friday day time workers

Woman A would spend $60 on a very specialized hair do every week (looked ridiculous to me, had fake painted nails put on every Friday so she could go out to the bars on the weekend, she owned at least a couple of nice outfits to do so. She was always complaining about how much she made, wanted a raise, even though she did the bare minimum to get by - I worked with her - a lot, trying to get her to improve and she would for a day or so and then fall back into her old habits.

Woman B. Drove a car she could barely afford and came up with a new tattoo about once a month, she was willing to work hard and was one of my leads but still she had her wants and needs confused so was always wanting more money.

Both woman made enough to live life frugally. So did you want me to support the lifestyle they wanted or a more reasonable (to me ) lifestyle - and who decides what is reasonable?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mnn2501 said:


> Let me give you a couple of real life examples"
> I used to manage restaurants, had a couple of women working for me, one (We'll call her woman A) in her late 20's single, no kids. The other (We'll call her woman B) in her mid 30's 2 kids in middle school, never married. Woman A was making about $2 more than minimum wage (this is 20 years ago) an hour and woman B about $4 more than minimum wage. These were 2 of my Monday - Friday day time workers
> 
> Woman A would spend $60 on a very specialized hair do every week (looked ridiculous to me, had fake painted nails put on every Friday so she could go out to the bars on the weekend, she owned at least a couple of nice outfits to do so. She was always complaining about how much she made, wanted a raise, even though she did the bare minimum to get by - I worked with her - a lot, trying to get her to improve and she would for a day or so and then fall back into her old habits.
> ...


I don't know why you are making this so hard. 

Again, all I am saying is the goverment should not fund employees. They do it now and I have no idea how most of them fix their hair or what car they drive.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

HDRider said:


> No matter what say it is all wishes and no substance. Everything on HT is of little consequences.
> 
> That said, earning a living to me means supporting yourself and your dependents to your personal satisfaction or means without goverment assistance. I thought everyone knew that.


"supporting yourself and your dependents to your personal satisfaction"

Well then myself, making exceedingly more than minimum wage, do not meet those standards either. I would love to be able to do something or have somethings that I would never be able to afford. I have my eye on a $2 million property in Florida and I'd like to retire today - that would personally satisfy me quite nicely.

Whats the difference? -- The difference is that I know the difference between a want and a need.

I am not making it hard, I am asking you to define how far you want to force employers to go. You're avoiding it.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mnn2501 said:


> "supporting yourself and your dependents to your personal satisfaction"
> 
> Well then myself, making exceedingly more than minimum wage, do not meet those standards either. I would love to be able to do something or have somethings that I would never be able to afford. I have my eye on a $2 million property in Florida and I'd like to retire today - that would personally satisfy me quite nicely.
> 
> Whats the difference? -- The difference is that I know the difference between a want and a need.


You failed to included "means" when you quoted me. To live within your means. I get the feeling you don't read what I write or you read parts and miss parts. Stop wasting my time if you can't be bothered to read what I say in its entirety.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

HDRider said:


> You failed to included "means" when you quoted me. To live within your means. I get the feeling you don't read what I write or you read parts and miss parts. Stop wasting my time if you can't be bothered to read what I say in its entirety.


Because you won't define what 'living with your means' are - both women in my example made enough to live within their means (as defined by me; a middle aged male homesteader type) yet they always wanted me to pay them more money so they could live the lifestyle they want to live.

Again I ask you to define exactly what you mean.


----------



## TnAndy (Sep 15, 2005)

HDRider said:


> Again, all I am saying is the goverment should not fund employees. They do it now and I have no idea how most of them fix their hair or what car they drive.


The only way to grow govt is to find more and more needs to serve. That was the problem initially....if you were a GS11 and wanted to be a GS13, you had to have a bigger department, more folks to supervise, more 'clients' to serve.

NOW, the need is more about borrowing more and more to keep our debt based money system afloat.

The people getting the benefits, and taxpayers, are way down the list of importance in the process.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

bowdonkey said:


> Here's a train wreck in the making. I'll play though, how about no one gets assistance. No SS, Medicade, Medicare, food, housing, transportation, education, subsidies of any kind for starters. And a flat tax, no deductions whatsoever.


I agree, as long as it is a flat _sales_ tax, not income tax.
THEN you will have what was written into the Constitution prior to 1913.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

farmrbrown said:


> I agree, as long as it is a flat _sales_ tax, not income tax.
> THEN you will have what was written into the Constitution prior to 1913.


Very good, thanks for catching that.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Are you arguing for the status quo?
> 
> Are you saying that the goverment should continue to subsidize low wage workers with SNAP, earned income credit, section 8 and everything else?
> 
> ...





HDRider said:


> No matter what say it is all wishes and no substance. Everything on HT is of little consequences.
> 
> That said, earning a living to me means supporting yourself and your dependents to your personal satisfaction or means without goverment assistance. I thought everyone knew that.


When everybody is a billionaire you may get close for a while. How do you make that happen? Every time you find rich people the Government had eyes on them and try to get more money from them. But is your solutions to this only a pipe dream.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Old Vet said:


> When everybody is a billionaire you may get close for a while. How do you make that happen? Every time you find rich people the Government had eyes on them and try to get more money from them. But *is your solutions to this only a pipe dream.*


Of course..,, But I was rather proud of "people earning a living rather than living on government giving"

I did mistype on my phone, but that is what I meant to say.


----------



## ajaxlucy (Jul 18, 2004)

I think I know what you mean, HDRider. I've seen those statistics about the average US household paying $400 a year to help support McDonalds and other low wage fulltime workers.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

ajaxlucy said:


> I think I know what you mean, HDRider. I've seen those statistics about the average US household paying $400 a year to help support McDonalds and other low wage fulltime workers.


Maybe people don't know this. I thought everyone did..

Walmartâs low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published to coincide with Tax Day, April 15.

Yum Brands came in at a distant number two, with its Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and KFC subsidiaries costing $648 million in benefits programs for workers each year.

McDonald's alone accounted for $1.2 billion of that outlay.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoc...t-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Really?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

HDRider said:


> No person working full time should get goverment assistance.
> 
> The cost of all full time employees should be born by their employer.


Good point.

Wasn't this what Unions used to accomplish?


----------



## fixitguy (Nov 2, 2010)

It don't matter much to me on hand outs.
I worked with a guy (making the same wage) He was broke on Monday morning every week. Drove a junker car etc,etc
I had higher house payments, car payments etc and still had money to put away in the savings account.

Until something gives, low wages and part time work is going to be the norm. 
A large company in my town got some nice tax and other back door deals to add -on to the business. The selling point was job creation, good paying ($18) jobs. Well, the place is all done. The "jobs" created are PT high school kids, ($8), the other full time jobs never happened. People are getting hired FT, work 900 hrs, and layed off. And the cycle repeats.


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

HDRider said:


> Maybe people don't know this. I thought everyone did..
> 
> Walmartâs low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published to coincide with Tax Day, April 15.
> 
> ...


Once upon a time people started with low paying jobs, lived at home, and worked their way into a better paying, full time job.

Now, people want the entry level, low value job - and just rot there, never improving, never making anything of themselves.

If you try to make a hamburger flipper an $18 an hour job, something else is going to give.

If you want to make a checkout person into an $18 an hour career, something else will give.

There will only be 1/2 as many jobs for flipping burgers - it can be mechanized.

There will only be 1/2 as many jobs at checkouts - they already are installing the self-help checkouts, with scales and cameras and machines.

At $18 an hour, the machines with a couple supervisors become -much- cheaper than the $8 or $9 jobs.

So, how will you have the employer fully support anyone? When you are saying about 1/2 the entry level workforce is going to be laid off.

We have the lower level workers wanting to come in at mid level wages for low level jobs, and making those a career. It doesn't work that way.

The other problem is student loans - those are a game that inflated college costs as dizzy rates, putting higher level jobs out of reach for kids that used to get them. The loans are a sham, they are not at all good for the kids or the job market or the country. We were sold bad goods there.

Yes there are problems. We are in a bad spiral. That happens every 20 years or so.

But everything has to adjust some to get back closer to parity.

Just a $15 or $18 minimum wage will -not- solve anything, it will result in more unemployment, less starter jobs, and no place for folks to turn. More people living entirely off the govt.

Sheez it seems like a bad idea to me?

Paul


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

WE are paying the flipper, stuffer and marter now through all these government programs.

McDonald's should pay the flipper.
Taco Bell should pay the taco stuffer.
Walmart should pay the marter.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Really?


See what I mean?

We, here on HT, could not agree on something as simple DST, and we just do this for fun.

How can we expect Congress to agree on the multitude of complex issue before them?

We are broken as a people. We dig our heals in and nothing happens.


----------



## Tobster (Feb 24, 2009)

plowjockey said:


> Wasn't this what Unions used to accomplish?


What is preventing the employees at Wal Mart from forming a union? If unions exist to serve a need, where are today's union organizers attempting to fill that need? 

I believe if given an opportunity to sign up for higher wages and benefits guaranteed by a union, the Wal Mart masses would sign up for union membership in a heat beat. 

Do you think the threat of a union would force WM to revamp their employee pay structure?

Too much of a hassle. Easier to just let the government handle everything. The OP of this thread is good example. Gotta a problem? See the government.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

mnn2501 said:


> Let me give you a couple of real life examples"
> I used to manage restaurants, had a couple of women working for me, one (We'll call her woman A) in her late 20's single, no kids. The other (We'll call her woman B) in her mid 30's 2 kids in middle school, never married. Woman A was making about $2 more than minimum wage (this is 20 years ago) an hour and woman B about $4 more than minimum wage. These were 2 of my Monday - Friday day time workers
> 
> Woman A would spend $60 on a very specialized hair do every week (looked ridiculous to me, had fake painted nails put on every Friday so she could go out to the bars on the weekend, she owned at least a couple of nice outfits to do so. She was always complaining about how much she made, wanted a raise, even though she did the bare minimum to get by - I worked with her - a lot, trying to get her to improve and she would for a day or so and then fall back into her old habits.
> ...


You fail to mention whether either of these women received any form of government aid. If they didn't you were doing exactly as the OP proposed. All negotiations on wages were between you and them. If they received SNAP, housing assistance or any other government subsidy tax payers were supplementing your income and supporting your business whether they stepped into it or not. This is what many, like me, really object to.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Tobster said:


> What is preventing the employees at Wal Mart from forming a union? If unions exist to serve a need, where are today's union organizers attempting to fill that need?
> 
> I believe if given an opportunity to sign up for higher wages and benefits guaranteed by a union, the Wal Mart masses would sign up for union membership in a heat beat.
> 
> ...


Why do you refuse to see that the goverment is involved with these Wally workers right now? The goverment, me and you, pay these workers billions today with existing goverment programs.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

HDRider said:


> WE are paying the flipper, stuffer and marter now through all these government programs.
> 
> McDonald's should pay the flipper.
> Taco Bell should pay the taco stuffer.
> Walmart should pay the marter.


Again I ask. What kind of lifestyle should employers have to pay for?
And what happens if people choose to spend the money they earn on wants and desires instead of needs?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> You fail to mention whether either of these women received any form of government aid. If they didn't you were doing exactly as the OP proposed. All negotiations on wages were between you and them. If they received SNAP, housing assistance or any other government subsidy tax payers were supplementing your income and supporting your business whether they stepped into it or not. This is what many, like me, really object to.


The one with kids was (the one making the higher wage), not sure about the other one
What difference does it make though? Both made enough had they lived frugally, they didn't, and they spent money foolishly in my opinion, so again I ask: What kind of lifestyle do y'all want employers to pay for?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> You fail to mention whether either of these women received any form of government aid. If they didn't you were doing exactly as the OP proposed. All negotiations on wages were between you and them. If they received SNAP, housing assistance or any other government subsidy tax payers were supplementing your income and supporting your business whether they stepped into it or not. This is what many, like me, really object to.


That's a valid point, and one that doesn't occur to us when we proudly proclaim our American way of life, its form of government and our free enterprise system.:huh:
Very few stop and think about how and where our money goes after the cash register rings or the checks are written and cashed.

The same goes when someone points out that business never actually pay taxes................:hrm:
Their _customers_ do, but since we know XYZ inc. wrote a check last quarter, that money came from a private account somewhere, completely unconnected from the ongoing business cash flow........:umno:

For every person that realizes these truths there are many more that don't or even worse, refuse to believe it because the thought of actually seeing the money trail from start to finish is to painful to admit.

Of course objecting, complaining and finger pointing at each other to see who is more at fault won't make it stop. The only way is eliminating all income taxes and letting the tax ax fall where it ultimately does anyway, on the consumer.
If you want a product or service, you seek it out, negotiate the price and buy it. When you do, you'll likely pay a sales tax that goes to the gov't budget to be allocated for the necessary functions of that gov't.
That's what is happening now through all transactions whether there be licenses, fees, regulatory, shipping or manufacturing and labor costs.
Every bit is ultimately paid by you at that cash register whether you know it or like it.......or not.

So........why pile on top of THAT, an *income tax* ?
Why in the world do we let the gov't take a large percentage off the top, before we get taxed at the check out counter, and let them take it interest free all year as a further loss to our hard earned money?:hair

It's no wonder we have out of control gov't spending, they can double dip into our wallets with care free abandon!
There's no need to ask permission from Dr. Jones, Mrs. Smith and Farmer Brown for a new expensive toy..........Uncle Sam can sign his name on our credit cards any time he wants!
It's like having a joint account with a drug addict!

The problem is clear and the solution is simple.
The only hard part is getting more than a handful of people together with the will to stop it.:bdh:


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

mnn2501 said:


> Again I ask. What kind of lifestyle should employers have to pay for?
> And what happens if people choose to spend the money they earn on wants and desires instead of needs?


The one negotiated between them and their employer, not the one subsidized by tax payers. If there were no support programs for workers supplementing their wages they would have to negotiate directly with employers to meet the needs of whatever lifestyle they wish to have. As long as the government meets any part of the needs of that lifestyle the employer benefits just as much as the employee.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

mnn2501 said:


> The one with kids was (the one making the higher wage), not sure about the other one
> What difference does it make though? Both made enough had they lived frugally, they didn't, and they spent money foolishly in my opinion, so again I ask: What kind of lifestyle do y'all want employers to pay for?


The difference is that I was paying for part of that lifestyle, not you. You benefitted from that, not me, who likely never stepped foot in your establishment. You're welcome.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mnn2501 said:


> Again I ask. What kind of lifestyle should employers have to pay for?
> And what happens if people choose to spend the money they earn on wants and desires instead of needs?


Everyone should rise and fall based on their personal choices. 

With few exceptions, I am not here to individually, nor collectively, subsidize anyone.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mnn2501 said:


> Again I ask. What kind of lifestyle should employers have to pay for?



I'll take a shot at it.
As a matter of law, none.
As a matter of practicality, Henry Ford figured if no one in the vicinity could afford his model T, he wouldn't be selling very many of them.:happy2:
As a matter of economics for the employer, it really isn't as relevant as much as his business expenses are. IOW, I may want everyone to be as wealthy as they want to be, but if I go bankrupt in 6 months, we'll all be looking for work anyway. 



mnn2501 said:


> And what happens if people choose to spend the money they earn on wants and desires instead of needs?


Usually they end up broke and unhappy, unless they are fortunate to have executive pay or a trust fund.


----------



## Tobster (Feb 24, 2009)

HDRider said:


> Why do you refuse to see that the goverment is involved with these Wally workers right now? The goverment, me and you, pay these workers billions today with existing goverment programs.


There have been several attempts by contributors to this thread to broaden the discussion and your repetitive response lies in the assumption that no one, except you is able to see and comprehend the role of taxpayers dollars subsidizing low wage earners.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> I'll take a shot at it.
> As a matter of law, none.
> As a matter of practicality, Henry Ford figured if no one in the vicinity could afford his model T, he wouldn't be selling very many of them.:happy2:
> As a matter of economics for the employer, it really isn't as relevant as much as his business expenses are. IOW, I may want everyone to be as wealthy as they want to be, but if I go bankrupt in 6 months, we'll all be looking for work anyway.
> ...


Mr Ford didn't raise wages to create more consumers for his goods. That was just a happy by product of his decision to lower his production costs by raising wages so he could reduce employee turnover and training costs. He didn't ask the government to subsidize his wages or train his workers, both standard business practice today.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Tobster said:


> There have been several attempts by contributors to this thread to broaden the discussion and your repetitive response lies in the assumption that no one, except you is able to see and comprehend the role of taxpayers dollars subsidizing low wage earners.


Maybe we need to focus on this narrow topic. 

So am I to take from you reply your prefer the current situation? I can't figure out what you stand for. Just saying the goverment should withdraw might feel good for you, but it a non starter. Dogma is not policy. 

So illuminate us my friend what answer are you smart enough to put forward?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Don't take what I have said as an attack on businesses. I do find irony in the attitude many have that low wage workers who cobble together an existence that combines their paycheck with a variety of government subsidies are the problem and employers who pay the low wages supported by those same subsidies are just good, smart businessmen. They are both doing the same thing and are just different sides of the same coin.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Tobster said:


> What is preventing the employees at Wal Mart from forming a union? If unions exist to serve a need, where are today's union organizers attempting to fill that need?
> 
> I believe if given an opportunity to sign up for higher wages and benefits guaranteed by a union, the Wal Mart masses would sign up for union membership in a heat beat.
> 
> ...


 And keep the government form setting ANY type of minimum wage is a good thing. Keep them out of things.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

arabian knight said:


> And keep the government form setting ANY type of minimum wage is a good thing. Keep them out of things.


Eliminating minimum wage without eliminating support payments won't make people less dependent on government. It will likely allow employers to decrease wages in some areas making people more dependent on things like SNAP, housing and energy assistance. Good for business, bad for tax payers.


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> Don't take what I have said as an attack on businesses. I do find irony in the attitude many have that low wage workers who cobble together an existence that combines their paycheck with a variety of government subsidies are the problem and employers who pay the low wages supported by those same subsidies are just good, smart businessmen. They are both doing the same thing and are just different sides of the same coin.


This is one of the most confusing threads.......

Its a chicken or egg conversation, isn't it?

So there are four problems I see discussed here?

1. Low wage earners want to live a better lifestyle than they are without getting a better job - if that takes education, work more hours, move to a better job market.

2. Businesses don't want to pay more than the very least they have to - if that means all your workers use govt subsidies to live so be it that is what all the other businesses are doing as well.

3. Consumers want to pay the least per thing they buy everyone is a bargain shopper.

4. Govt wants to redistribute wealth and will tax some and give to others.

All of these are interrelated, we can't address only one of those 4 issues. That is a nonstarter.

We need to 'fix' all 4 deals at the same time.

And how the heck do we do that?

-just- raising min wage to $15 or $20 and hour will not solve the other 3 inter related issues, and so it will only create job loss and inflation. And so the problem will come right back to where it is, as govt programs get bigger and inflation makes everything more costly to balance us right back into exactly the same 4 problems.

The worst is just looking at one issue and thinking there will be some solution narrowly looking at one thing.

A solution, perhaps the only one, is when more and more people start to feel responsible for themselves and their lives and their direction in life.

I can do my part, but we are in a period where I am swimming upstream to the majority?

Paul


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

rambler said:


> This is one of the most confusing threads.......
> 
> Its a chicken or egg conversation, isn't it?
> 
> ...


 The government has created this problem. They have lowered the limits on how you can qualify for many programs making it too easy to germ on them.
If they would Stay out of this and only make it possible for those TRUELY in need instead of the way it is now people would get off their lazy butts and find work, or at the very least like happened not that many years ago take Two jobs to make ends meet.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> The difference is that I was paying for part of that lifestyle, not you. You benefitted from that, not me, who likely never stepped foot in your establishment. You're welcome.


But again, had they not gotten tattoo's every month, hairdo's and fake nails weekly, drive cars they could not afford, etc. they wouldn't have had to get government assistance. As an employer did I need to pay for their basics AND their tattoo's/hairdo's/etc? 

Again, I want to know EXACTLY what kind of lifestyle I was supposed to support.

AND they did negotiate with me, when they were hired and every raise period (and a few times in-between) I paid them enough to live on but not to live an extravagant lifestyle.


----------



## Tobster (Feb 24, 2009)

HDRider said:


> Maybe we need to focus on this narrow topic.
> 
> So am I to take from you reply your prefer the current situation? I can't figure out what you stand for. Just saying the goverment should withdraw might feel good for you, but it a non starter. Dogma is not policy.
> 
> So illuminate us my friend what answer are you smart enough to put forward?


You seem to make a lot of assumptions which leads you to create faulty conclusions about other people. There is no need to become snarky and rude whenever you feel defensive.

As far as the current situation, if defined as individuals who work and also rely on government subsidies, that is not going to change. If Wal Mart suddenly increased their wages by 50% or more, the first thing WM would do is create a more efficient human resources department geared to seek out and train employees in an attempt to recoup the additional labor cost. Competition would exist just as it does now for good paying jobs. In competition there are winners and losers. If there are 1000 jobs at WM @ $17 an hour and 2000 applying then 1000 will miss out and end up taking a job for less money while remaining on government subsidies.

Your solution is simplistic and at best a short term solution. It ignores the causes of why so many rely on the government for their basic needs. The programs are in place, they are not going to get smaller. You can extract a $6.2 billion penalty from WM to compensate for the money given to their employees and it will not make a difference to the treasury. More money will be spent with each passing year. Go back and reread what TN Andy posted early on in this thread.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

mnn2501 said:


> But again, had they not gotten tattoo's every month, hairdo's and fake nails weekly, drive cars they could not afford, etc. they wouldn't have had to get government assistance. As an employer did I need to pay for their basics AND their tattoo's/hairdo's/etc?
> 
> Again, I want to know EXACTLY what kind of lifestyle I was supposed to support.
> 
> AND they did negotiate with me, when they were hired and every raise period (and a few times in-between) I paid them enough to live on but not to live an extravagant lifestyle.


Absent government supports you can choose to support any lifestyle you wish. You'll note I'm not demanding any increase in minimum wage or even arguing that minimum wage should exist. Absent both you can choose to pay what you wish. You might get by with paying the same or even less. You might have to pay more. But I won't have to pay anything to support your employees, or you, unless I shop at your establishment, a choice I also get to make.


----------



## michael ark (Dec 11, 2013)

I think it's only going to get worse with automation and the rise of smarter robots to remove the human from the jobs equation.I mean even driving a tractor has been took over by gps.The other thing that will bring it about quicker is the EPA,& OSHA.They are regulating jobs to death in the name of public safety.They are either be exported or automated to remove the person from the equation to keep cost down.The job force is changing and we are doing a lousy job of educating the workforce of tomorrow and made a collage education education cost a life of servitude.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

michael ark said:


> I think it's only going to get worse with automation and the rise of smarter robots to remove the human from the jobs equation.I mean even driving a tractor has been took over by gps.The other thing that will bring it about quicker is the EPA,& OSHA.They are regulating jobs to death in the name of public safety.They are either be exported or automated to remove the person from the equation to keep cost down.The job force is changing and we are doing a lousy job of educating the workforce of tomorrow and made a collage education education cost a life of servitude.


Agree. Will that drive more people into the loving arms of goverment assistance?


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

We at one time had a society with little or no government assistance. there was suffering among some people. The vast majority became hard working, independent, frugal people. They were people who took chances, they were people with vision, and they were people difficult to control.
Do you really think that the battle of Blair Mountain could happen today?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Tobster said:


> What is preventing the employees at Wal Mart from forming a union? If unions exist to serve a need, where are today's union organizers attempting to fill that need?
> 
> I believe if given an opportunity to sign up for higher wages and benefits guaranteed by a union, the Wal Mart masses would sign up for union membership in a heat beat.
> 
> ...


That's why it's called a UNION.

It only works when there is solidarity. Back in the day nearly everything was Unions, so it was much easier to organize and get the benefits and pay. A union was supported by other unions.

Too many people think _right to work_ is helpful, but it's only helpful at killing unions.

People try to organize Walmart but with *solidarity* gone for good, it;s nearly fruitless.



> Leaked internal documents show that Walmart&#8217;s strategy for fighting to keep its workers from forming unions includes instructing managers to report suspicious activity and warning workers that joining OUR Walmart could hurt them.


http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/01/16/3171251/walmart-leaked-powerpoint-unions/


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

If unions were so good and are good why are they not dropping to only 8% of the work force and going DOWN? LOL People WANT their Freedoms they want to Speak for themselves instead of some uppity up that wants to just put money in his pocket.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

arabian knight said:


> If unions were so good and are good why are they not dropping to only 8% of the work force and going DOWN? LOL People WANT their Freedoms they want to Speak for themselves instead of some uppity up that wants to just put money in his pocket.


the Unions are going away because industry is pushing them away - as they have always tried to do and there is NO pushback from the public, who don't care any more.

The threat of outsourcing does play into organized labor power also.

But here is the reality.

The Unions are gone.

Business is picking back up and Corporations are making record profits.

*So, where are the full time jobs, wages and benefits for workers, that once ruled the American **middle class?
*


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> *So, where are the full time jobs, wages and benefits for workers, that once ruled the American **middle class?
> *


ASK Obama and the rest of the liberals on the left......


----------



## Tobster (Feb 24, 2009)

plowjockey said:


> That's why it's called a UNION.
> 
> It only works when there is solidarity. Back in the day nearly everything was Unions, so it was much easier to organize and get the benefits and pay. A union was supported by other unions.
> 
> ...


Interesting story, thanks for posting the link. The labor union WalMart dynamic remains a mystery to me. 

I don't blame WalMart because the unions are unable to establish a workforce at WM. Any company facing the prospect of an uninvited outside entity becoming a major influence in their day to day business would pull out all the stops to prevent a change.

It is the job of a union to convince those who will vote to accept or reject the union. If a union organizer can not sell the idea of higher wages to a work force making $8.75 an hour, they are not trying very hard. Perhaps it says more about the worker than then the union organizer.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I think a union would have a hard time organizing in a right to work state. The company would simply replace striking workers. I have seen it happen.


----------



## Tobster (Feb 24, 2009)

HDRider said:


> I think a union would have a hard time organizing in a right to work state. The company would simply replace striking workers. I have seen it happen.


In today's climate union organizing appears to be a very difficult task and I wonder if union leaders are up for the challenge. I don't know if it is because the old guard retired or died or living fat and happy in sunny Florida. If a movement got underway, it would be interesting to see what involvement, if any by the Obama justice department. My guess is, little to none. Corporations fill the campaign war chests on both sides of the aisle, their influence is strong.

I too live in a right to work state. The only union members I see anymore are those in the pipefitters and musicians unions, neither employed by a company, both do contract work.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

HDRider said:


> WE are paying the flipper, stuffer and marter now through all these government programs.
> 
> McDonald's should pay the flipper.
> Taco Bell should pay the taco stuffer.
> Walmart should pay the marter.


We/gov't are paying only when you assume it is an adult with a rent payment, 2 kids, etc. The people I have known who worked at McDs did so while in high school and college or they did it in semi-retirement. Those folks were subsidized by their parents of retirement plan. Not every job is supposed to be a career job, there has to be entry level work somewhere or more and more people don't enter. 

In every country where they have mandated higher and higher min wages, entry level jobs are the first to disappear. Spain, Greece, Portugal, and a few other countries have something like 50+% unemployment for those under 24 yrs. 

You don't want the gov't paying 30 - 40% of the population because they don't have good paying jobs? The solution to too much gov't is not more gov't. You don't place yet another burden on employers to fix a gov't problem. You fix the gov't problem. 

You could start by means testing. SS should not be paid to Warren Buffet. Welfare should not be paid to a healthy working age adult. You could make it easier to start businesses. You could reduce regulations. I've just started another business and for me to pay min wage to my first employee, it is going to cost me $15/hour after I pay for minimal benefits and payroll costs. How much more do you want me to pay? 

The guy I've hired has SIX kids. He is a good worker but I stopped having kids after the first because I could only afford one. How much should I pay him so that he can keep the 5 minor kids in a proper home free of all gov't subsidy? Two of his kids are special needs kids so make sure you increase his wage a bit more. Or maybe to save money in your plan I should fire the good worker and replace him with a young man with no kids so that I can pay less?

What you are talking is pure Marxism. To each according to his needs.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> We/gov't are paying only when you assume it is an adult with a rent payment, 2 kids, etc. The people I have known who worked at McDs did so while in high school and college or they did it in semi-retirement. Those folks were subsidized by their parents of retirement plan. Not every job is supposed to be a career job, there has to be entry level work somewhere or more and more people don't enter.
> 
> In every country where they have mandated higher and higher min wages, entry level jobs are the first to disappear. Spain, Greece, Portugal, and a few other countries have something like 50+% unemployment for those under 24 yrs.
> 
> ...


What we're talking about is capitalism. Removing government subsidies and minimum wage laws. Putting the negotiation for what you pay that guy with six kids between you and him. Not including me in the mix so you can pay him less. I don't know what you can afford to pay him. I don't know your business model. I do know that if he's collecting government money he can afford to work for less. That benefits you. A little bit of socialist support for your business. 

Warren Buffet is certainly eligible to collect SS and he should. He and other high income earners should pay the SS tax on all of their earnings, though. 

The reality is that we'll never get totally rid of government support programs. Every one from SNAP to disability needs to be looked at and made as small and unobtrusive as possible. The people recieving these benefits are an obstacle to this. A bigger and more powerful obstacle are the businesses, large and small, who benefit from them.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

DEK
I agree with you. But again my pragmatic id keeps my idealist id in check. 

As I have repeated multiple times, I do not agree with an employer getting a free ride, and I don't agree with a full grown capable adult with dependents getting goverment subsidies. 

Thus the dilemma.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

The way I see it, the whole country has got it's handouts. And the right wing is the worse of the two. They are just in denial. I agree with means testing and only the truly disabled getting tax payer help. We are a civilized society after all. Who knows what this person contributed before the drunk ran over him! But I agree get rid of min wage, install a flat tax. Absolutely no exemptions, none. If an employer wants to offer bennies beyond wages that's there buisness. Our tax code is riddled with loopholes, and people especially the right wing milk it for all it's worth. I have more respect for the burger flippers, walmarrt workers getting their SNAP, section 8, etc etc than the good citizens who use a very skewed tax code to pay little or nothing.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Unlike some who have no pragmatic id.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> What we're talking about is capitalism. Removing government subsidies and minimum wage laws. Putting the negotiation for what you pay that guy with six kids between you and him. Not including me in the mix so you can pay him less. I don't know what you can afford to pay him. I don't know your business model. I do know that if he's collecting government money he can afford to work for less. That benefits you. A little bit of socialist support for your business.
> 
> Warren Buffet is certainly eligible to collect SS and he should. He and other high income earners should pay the SS tax on all of their earnings, though.
> 
> The reality is that we'll never get totally rid of government support programs. Every one from SNAP to disability needs to be looked at and made as small and unobtrusive as possible. The people recieving these benefits are an obstacle to this. A bigger and more powerful obstacle are the businesses, large and small, who benefit from them.


what i can afford to pay him is irrelevant. If I can afford to pay him $1000/hr (I can't) but the job has a market rate of min wage, what do you think his rate should be? If the market rate is higher than I can afford, that's a different story. 

I disagree that SS should remain without means testing. It is welfare, plain and simple. The fact that it is marketed as something other than welfare doesn't make Bud Light = Champagne. But if you want to insist he was promised something for his SS taxes, then let's go back to what he was promised. He paid in from probably somewhere around 1945 - 1985 as a guess. If we means test and roll the high rollers back to the specified benefit when they paid in, we would cut what he's getting by more than half. And to be clear, I'm not anti Buffett. I admire the man, but he shouldn't be getting a welfare check. 

I also disagree that it is the businesses that are the larger obstacle. Businesses don't vote.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

DEKE01 said:


> what i can afford to pay him is irrelevant. If I can afford to pay him $1000/hr (I can't) but the job has a market rate of min wage, what do you think his rate should be? If the market rate is higher than I can afford, that's a different story.
> 
> I disagree that SS should remain without means testing. It is welfare, plain and simple. The fact that it is marketed as something other than welfare doesn't make Bud Light = Champagne. But if you want to insist he was promised something for his SS taxes, then let's go back to what he was promised. He paid in from probably somewhere around 1945 - 1985 as a guess. If we means test and roll the high rollers back to the specified benefit when they paid in, we would cut what he's getting by more than half. And to be clear, I'm not anti Buffett. I admire the man, but he shouldn't be getting a welfare check.
> 
> I also disagree that it is the businesses that are the larger obstacle. Businesses don't vote.


When you earn over X amount in retirement, your taxes take back your SS. So you receive it but then they tax it back. That's not the most efficient way to do things, so yes - means testing to receive it in the first place would be better. 

The people who paid in for years but won't receive any SS are gonna scream. Let 'em. For one, they never get anything back on their car insurance, home insurance or any other insurance they paid for unless they needed to file a claim. Well, SS is the govt's version of "old age income insurance". You paid in, but you lucky dog, now you don't need it. Just like you were lucky not to wreck your car or burn down your house. 

And, it was "means tested" when they paid into it. There is a cap on wages subject to SS and Medicaire tax. A little gift to the high earners from the politicians they bought, I guess. If you earn over $113k per year, you don't have to pay SS and MC on the overage and neither does your employer. So they paid in a LOT less than they could have over the years, and got a special exemption that the lower earners didn't. 

Businesses might not vote...but they lobby. They band together into organizations with impressive sounding names and they lobby on behalf of their industry.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> The reality is that we'll never get totally rid of government support programs. Every one from SNAP to disability needs to be looked at and made as small and unobtrusive as possible. The people recieving these benefits are an obstacle to this. A bigger and more powerful obstacle are the businesses, large and small, who benefit from them.


It is called control and congress will never give it up. Once sined up on one of the programs the government has rules and you must follow them.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

MO_cows said:


> When you earn over X amount in retirement, your taxes take back your SS.


Only until age 70, after 70 you can earn any amount with no loss of SS benefits.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

mnn2501 said:


> Only until age 70, after 70 you can earn any amount with no loss of SS benefits.


Hmmmm, coinciding with those age 70 mandatory withdrawals from one's retirement accounts, so they get it that way????


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

arabian knight said:


> ASK Obama and the rest of the liberals on the left......


I'm asking you.

my question was simple. If Corporations are making money, where are the middle class wages and full work weeks, for their workers? This is the "free market" in action, everybody wanted.

Do you want Obama to raise the minimum wage to $15/hr and force companies to give workers 40 hours?

That will bring the middle class back.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

HDRider said:


> I think a union would have a hard time organizing in a right to work state. The company would simply replace striking workers. I have seen it happen.


They have a hard time organizing anywhere.

There is no longer any solidarity, from the public and any supporting Unions are gone too.

Plus, the Company will just threaten( and follow through), to just close the plant and outsource, to another location or another country.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> I'm asking you.
> 
> This is the "free market" in action, everybody wanted.


NOT by a long shot. This is a gov't and mega corp manipulated market. 

A case in point, banks. They keep getting bigger and bigger because of all the regs they face, the bigger banks can have a big legal staff and divide the costs0 by 1000+ branches and 10M customers so it is not a big deal to them. Little banks, start ups, have to do almost all the same legal stuff and on a per customer basis, it costs significantly more. Big banks and gov't have conspired to protect the big banks at the cost of middle class jobs.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

plowjockey said:


> Do you want Obama to raise the minimum wage to $15/hr and force companies to give workers 40 hours?
> 
> That will bring the middle class back.


No, it won't bring the middle class back, it will just raise the amount you can make and still be poor as all prices will have to raise.

When I started working minimum wage was $1.65 an hour. Its raised how many times since them and we have more people on public assistance now than we did back then.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> what i can afford to pay him is irrelevant. If I can afford to pay him $1000/hr (I can't) but the job has a market rate of min wage, what do you think his rate should be? If the market rate is higher than I can afford, that's a different story.
> 
> I disagree that SS should remain without means testing. It is welfare, plain and simple. The fact that it is marketed as something other than welfare doesn't make Bud Light = Champagne. But if you want to insist he was promised something for his SS taxes, then let's go back to what he was promised. He paid in from probably somewhere around 1945 - 1985 as a guess. If we means test and roll the high rollers back to the specified benefit when they paid in, we would cut what he's getting by more than half. And to be clear, I'm not anti Buffett. I admire the man, but he shouldn't be getting a welfare check.
> 
> I also disagree that it is the businesses that are the larger obstacle. Businesses don't vote.


What you can afford to pay him should be the only thing that is relevant. Let's eliminate the minimum wage laws. Would you still pay $7.25? Or would you pay less? As long as the government is picking up the tab it would make more sense to pass on as much of that labor cost to them as you could. Just as you are doing now. Nothing illegal, nothing unethical. But if benefits were also eliminated or even greatly curtailed do you think you'd get the same employee for that $7.25? What would that do to your business model? Who gains from the current system? I'd say it's both sides and I as a taxpayer lose something to both.

It's nice that you think of SS as welfare. It casts a different light on many Americans.

Companies don't vote, though since they are considered people with right a I'm not sure why they can't, but they can speak. Most of that speech in the pilitical arena takes the form of money, particularly monetary contributions to the candidates and organizations that support those candidates they approve of. The question is what speaks louder to a politician - a vote or the money that influences that vote? I'll point out that I haven't seen the bill from the new congress that rolls back benefits but I have seen a lot of opposition to any mention of raising the minimum wage. Even you seem attached to the current system.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> What you can afford to pay him should be the only thing that is relevant. Let's eliminate the minimum wage laws. Would you still pay $7.25? Or would you pay less? As long as the government is picking up the tab it would make more sense to pass on as much of that labor cost to them as you could. Just as you are doing now. Nothing illegal, nothing unethical. But if benefits were also eliminated or even greatly curtailed do you think you'd get the same employee for that $7.25? What would that do to your business model? Who gains from the current system? I'd say it's both sides and I as a taxpayer lose something to both.
> 
> It's nice that you think of SS as welfare. It casts a different light on many Americans.
> 
> Companies don't vote, though since they are considered people with right a I'm not sure why they can't, but they can speak. Most of that speech in the pilitical arena takes the form of money, particularly monetary contributions to the candidates and organizations that support those candidates they approve of. The question is what speaks louder to a politician - a vote or the money that influences that vote? I'll point out that I haven't seen the bill from the new congress that rolls back benefits but I have seen a lot of opposition to any mention of raising the minimum wage. Even you seem attached to the current system.


What I can afford is irrelevant as long as I can afford to pay him what he and I mutually agree will be the rate. And BTW - I pay him well more than min wage. However, there are certain jobs I would pay less than min wage for. There are some kids in the neighborhood I would give sub min wage jobs to until they learned enough to do more valuable work. As it stands now, some of the things I would like to get done, do not get done because I don't have the time or energy and I can't pay someone $5 / hour to do the job. See how the gov't kills jobs? 

I agree the gov't has hosed up the free market. Because of gov't imposed costs, my multiplier on an hour of manual labor is nearly 75%. As a very small operator, to pay worker's comp, FICA, FUTA, SUTA, and a few other payroll taxes and deal with collecting withholding and garnishments for child support, the extra accounting fees to calculate and file all the reports that go with that ends up costing me about $8/hr. If I had rocket engineers making $200K / year, I probably wouldn't notice it much. But with low wage labor, it makes it hard to expand and add employees. That probably hurts the guy with no job more than it hurts me. 

So don't tell me the gov't is subsidizing my labor costs, because they are not. It is a short sighted, liberal clouded obfuscation. If taxes were to go back to the original income tax system and each citizen paid his own taxes without the employer collecting them and if each worker were responsible for paying his own insurances (although I understand employer paid worker's comp) and each worker were responsible for his own retirement, then all the welfare benefits could be seen as a subsidy to me as an employer.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

BTW - I'm not anti min wage so I can pay lower wages, I'm anti min wage because it kills jobs and it is anti-freedom. It is another fine example of the gov't wanting to do something feel good but in the end, it creates tons and tons of more problems, agencies, laws, regs, and then fails in its mission of raising people up out of poverty.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> What I can afford is irrelevant as long as I can afford to pay him what he and I mutually agree will be the rate. And BTW - I pay him well more than min wage. However, there are certain jobs I would pay less than min wage for. There are some kids in the neighborhood I would give sub min wage jobs to until they learned enough to do more valuable work. As it stands now, some of the things I would like to get done, do not get done because I don't have the time or energy and I can't pay someone $5 / hour to do the job. See how the gov't kills jobs?
> 
> I agree the gov't has hosed up the free market. Because of gov't imposed costs, my multiplier on an hour of manual labor is nearly 75%. As a very small operator, to pay worker's comp, FICA, FUTA, SUTA, and a few other payroll taxes and deal with collecting withholding and garnishments for child support, the extra accounting fees to calculate and file all the reports that go with that ends up costing me about $8/hr. If I had rocket engineers making $200K / year, I probably wouldn't notice it much. But with low wage labor, it makes it hard to expand and add employees. That probably hurts the guy with no job more than it hurts me.
> 
> So don't tell me the gov't is subsidizing my labor costs, because they are not. It is a short sighted, liberal clouded obfuscation. If taxes were to go back to the original income tax system and each citizen paid his own taxes without the employer collecting them and if each worker were responsible for paying his own insurances (although I understand employer paid worker's comp) and each worker were responsible for his own retirement, then all the welfare benefits could be seen as a subsidy to me as an employer.


And part of the calculation on his side is the inclusion if those government benefits. It skews the calculation of his final needs in your favor. I haven't defended the minimum wage . I've argued it should go away, just as I've argued that supplements to wages should largely go away. True conservatism loving, free market capitalists would be in favor of eliminating all the things you do, including wage subsidies. I'm not sure why providing insurance or retirement subsidies are bad, but food, housing, transportation, etc are acceptable. Through things like the EITC taxpayers even give cash to low wage workers. Explain to me again how this doesn't help business and supression actual wages.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

For one thing a minimum wage eliminates the reality in a business. I can't make a modern car- simply almost no individual can smelt ore, cast parts, make computer chips etc that goes into making a car. However I can pretty easily make a hamburger- I can raise a cow, butcher it, grind meat, bake a bun, fry the meat and -tah tah- make a hamburger.
So the advantage of a hamburger producer is cost and convenience, without which I don't buy his product. Wages effect that cost. 
While a car manufacturer can force me to pay a large sum for his product, assuming modern life has mad email a car close to a necessity the hamburger maker can not.
Involving the government in setting costs of business separates the reality of that. It is not an immediate disadvantage for the gov't to ignore this but the business would constantly be trying to reinvent itself to keep selling product that is inconveniently expensive and sooner or later, between competition and rising costs, would fail. 
That said, a business that can't sell something that allows it to pay a wage high enough for some segment of the population to wants the work won't survive anyway. Without the government subsidizing it's labor.
But inserting government, either as a competitor though welfare payments or a mandate minimum wage, will cause problems because they get away with ignoring the real world. Minimum wage is welfare just as much as SNAP or earned income credits, etc.
Unfortunately the government has chosen the path of least resists as is usual for itself. It has shipped jobs that might be able to drive higher wages because of lack of political will. So it has been forced to pay ever increasing welfare and respond to demands to increase minimum wage to make up for having allowed so many productive jobs to go elsewhere. 
And so the stupidity and denial of reality spins the former middle class around the drain faster and faster as it head inevitably down it.
But minimum wage is just a welfare benefit where labor is a qualification. That I suppose has a good built in but not much of one. It does nothing to fix the root of the problem.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Good thought WIWT, but I see it as welfare for both employee and employer.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

bowdonkey said:


> Good thought WIWT, but I see it as welfare for both employee and employer.


And consumer and government worker and politician. That means it has lots of supporters no matter how ineffective or even damaging it is. Right til the point it has to be paid.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> And part of the calculation on his side is the inclusion if those government benefits. It skews the calculation of his final needs in your favor. I haven't defended the minimum wage . I've argued it should go away, just as I've argued that supplements to wages should largely go away. True conservatism loving, free market capitalists would be in favor of eliminating all the things you do, including wage subsidies. I'm not sure why providing insurance or retirement subsidies are bad, but food, housing, transportation, etc are acceptable. Through things like the EITC taxpayers even give cash to low wage workers. Explain to me again how this doesn't help business and supression actual wages.


count me as one of those and don't ask me to defend what I'm against. This isn't a debate club.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> count me as one of those and don't ask me to defend what I'm against. This isn't a debate club.


No, it's an interweb forum where ideas are debated. You don't have to defend anything. You can claim the other side is Marxist if you wish. You should be able to explain how government subsidies to workers fit in with free market capitalism any more or less than do wage floors. My business would be much more efficient and profitable if I could get the government to pay part of the rent, transportation and raw materials costs of my suppliers so they could sell goods to me cheaper. I can only assume you wouldn't object to that as I couldn't claim any benefit from it.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> No, it's an interweb forum where ideas are debated. You don't have to defend anything. You can claim the other side is Marxist if you wish. You should be able to explain how government subsidies to workers fit in with free market capitalism any more or less than do wage floors. My business would be much more efficient and profitable if I could get the government to pay part of the rent, transportation and raw materials costs of my suppliers so they could sell goods to me cheaper. I can only assume you wouldn't object to that as I couldn't claim any benefit from it.


You have confused and wrong again. HDR proposes that the rate I must pay is according to my ability to pay and the the individual worker's needs, that is Marxism. Much of my complaint is that the US gov't engages in a different sort of tyranny, one which it sounded like you say you are against but which you argue for, Fascism - gov't control of business. 

Why should I be able to explain gov't subsidies to workers? You lost yourself on that one. 

I'm a US constitutionalist, even when I think it is wrong, and I'm a capitalist, even when I see some folk get left behind. All other systems result in more tyranny and economic hardship. 

So your assumption, the only one you can make, is without merit because it violates at least 2 of my principles in that it is fascist leaning and not within the gov't's powers defined in the constitution. You might want to consult with someone who has the ability to make other assumptions before responding.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

DEK,
_"HDR proposes that the rate I must pay is according to my ability to pay and the the individual worker's needs"_

Please know I did not say any such thing. Never did, never will.

We have a gross misunderstanding if you interpreted what I wrote that way.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> You have confused and wrong again. HDR proposes that the rate I must pay is according to my ability to pay and the the individual worker's needs, that is Marxism. Much of my complaint is that the US gov't engages in a different sort of tyranny, one which it sounded like you say you are against but which you argue for, Fascism - gov't control of business.
> 
> Why should I be able to explain gov't subsidies to workers? You lost yourself on that one.
> 
> ...


I'll let HDR defend himself. I'm simply of the position that both subsidies and wage floors need to go. Why should you defend subsidies? You'll have to answer that question yourself as that is what you have been doing. You seem to advocate minimum wage disappearing but are content with subsidies staying while denying they benefit your business. Sounds like you're find with a little wealth redistribution as long as it flows your way.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> I'm simply of the position that both subsidies and wage floors need to go. .


This is why you are not supposed to participate in political discussions. No wonder it frustrates you. You can't tell when someone has agreed with you repeatedly. 

Having gone back to reread many of the msgs in this thread, I think HDR, you, and I are all in basic agreement. There are some semantic differences, but we all are arguing more or less, for no min wage and no welfare for those capable of working.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

HDRider said:


> DEK,
> _"HDR proposes that the rate I must pay is according to my ability to pay and the the individual worker's needs"_
> 
> Please know I did not say any such thing. Never did, never will.
> ...


Having gone back to reread you OP and a few other comments, I get what you are saying, and I spun your msg wrong...sort of. I retract that you are arguing for Marxist pay rates, but I do believe that sort of thing is where your argument takes the general public.

My employee, Worker X, with 6 kids, 2 with special needs, is terribly uneducated. At $13/hour, I'm paying him more than market rate for the manual labor/groundskeeper he performs and it doesn't appear to me he is capable of higher value work. I'm quite happy with what he does do and so are our customers. There is no way he can pay all his family expenses on what I pay him and no way (for the sake of discussion, let's not argue this part) that he can earn a higher hourly rate. 

What he could do is take a second job, which is what I've done in the past when I needed more than I could earn. He doesn't take that other job perhaps because he gets $1400 / month in benefits for his special needs kids, plus gov't health insurance and I don't know what else. I don't ask because I try to maintain a professional distance. 

So that I don't put words into your typing fingers, what do you propose we do with worker X? If all I cared about was the immediate effect on my bottom line, I would fire him and replace him with an $8.hour man and I many people willing to take the job at that rate. 

The hard core capitalist in me says if he and his family can't pay for food, they go hungry. The pragmatist in me says that won't fly in the US today so even though the current system is counter productive and unsustainable, something is going to be done to financially assist this guy.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

DEKE01 said:


> Having gone back to reread you OP and a few other comments, I get what you are saying, and I spun your msg wrong...sort of. I retract that you are arguing for Marxist pay rates, but I do believe that sort of thing is where your argument takes the general public.
> 
> My employee, Worker X, with 6 kids, 2 with special needs, is terribly uneducated. At $13/hour, I'm paying him more than market rate for the manual labor/groundskeeper he performs and it doesn't appear to me he is capable of higher value work. I'm quite happy with what he does do and so are our customers. There is no way he can pay all his family expenses on what I pay him and no way (for the sake of discussion, let's not argue this part) that he can earn a higher hourly rate.
> 
> ...


Market rate.

Further, I am saying that government subsidy is causing McD's and all to participate in a distorted market place.

And even further, if I were king I would do away with any minimum wage and I would do away with subsidy for able body workers. But the pragmatists in me, and not being king, says that will not fly in today's socialist climate.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

HDRider said:


> Market rate.
> 
> Further, I am saying that government subsidy is causing McD's and all to participate in a distorted market place.
> 
> And even further, if I were king I would do away with any minimum wage and I would do away with subsidy for able body workers. But the pragmatists in me, and not being king, says that will not fly in today's socialist climate.


Agreed. Do you also agree that it is ultimately unsustainable? If so, where does it end / unravel? Do we continue down the road to ever more socialism as we keep hearing complaints about how unfettered capitalism is causing so much pain or is there a collective ah-ha moment prior to a mega financial collapse and/or all freedom is lost?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

DEKE01 said:


> Agreed. Do you also agree that it is ultimately unsustainable? If so, where does it end / unravel? Do we continue down the road to ever more socialism as we keep hearing complaints about how unfettered capitalism is causing so much pain or is there a collective ah-ha moment prior to a mega financial collapse and/or all freedom is lost?


Yes, *I* do agree it is unsustainable. That said I don't know when, or even if it will end.

My original argument was; giving the choice between raising the minimum wage over continuing the subsidy of able bodies, I'd choose raising the mandated minimum wage to hasten the end to market corruption by government interference. 

My theory on that argument was that those that take advantage of subsidy today would be the same one's that hastened the end of both the subsidy and any mandated minimum wage. Because, the higher wage would negatively effect a smaller, but more vocal group than the sharing of the cost of the subsidy spread on a much larger population.

No way do I favor having both. I want which ever brings the quickest end to a corrupted market.

I hope I explained that in a way that you can follow it.


----------



## michael ark (Dec 11, 2013)

Well you could want to go straight marxism and believe eugenics is best for employe x like they have in the past .There is no right answer for that but to me life begins at a heartbeat and murder ends that.We half to look at our compassion for others as the job market shrinks every day with technology removing workers from the work force.I wonder how long it will be before their are no jobs because a robot does what you did?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

michael ark said:


> Well you could want to go straight marxism and believe eugenics is best for employe x like they have in the past .There is no right answer for that but to me life begins at a heartbeat and murder ends that.We half to look at our compassion for others as the job market shrinks every day with technology removing workers from the work force.I wonder how long it will be before their are no jobs because a robot does what you did?


You are free to be as compassionate as you want. 

Just don't use my money to do it.


----------



## michael ark (Dec 11, 2013)

So you're saying screw the veterans who fought and died for this country because they make less than minimum wage and that tax you pay for their care is another government benefit?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

HDRider said:


> Yes, *I* do agree it is unsustainable. That said I don't know when, or even if it will end.
> 
> My original argument was; giving the choice between raising the minimum wage over continuing the subsidy of able bodies, I'd choose raising the mandated minimum wage to hasten the end to market corruption by government interference.
> 
> ...


I follow it but don't agree with it. You're saying the train is heading for the cliff and you want to speed it up so that we can deal with the crash at the bottom of the cliff sooner. No thanks.


----------



## michael ark (Dec 11, 2013)

That was not a statement that was a question hope you understand the difference.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

DEKE01 said:


> I follow it but don't agree with it. You're saying the train is heading for the cliff and you want to speed it up so that we can deal with the crash at the bottom of the cliff sooner. No thanks.


Not looking for a crash. Looking for people to wake up. It would be an alarm clock, not a car crash. That is why I offered one or the other not both. I think wages going up is better than giving a check because of poverty is better.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

michael ark said:


> So you're saying screw the veterans who fought and died for this country because they make less than minimum wage and that tax you pay for their care is another government benefit?


Are they disabled? If so, take care of them.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

michael ark said:


> So you're saying screw the veterans who fought and died for this country because they make less than minimum wage and that tax you pay for their care is another government benefit?


How would they work if they are dead?

Where did I say that, or anything that even imply that? 

If you had read what I wrote, you would have seen I mentioned "able bodied" many times.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

HDRider said:


> Not looking for a crash. Looking for people to wake up. It would be an alarm clock, not a car crash. That is why I offered one or the other not both. I think wages going up is better than giving a check because of poverty is better.


And how does raising the min wage make those who don't care about the economic hardships it creates wake up those folks?


----------



## michael ark (Dec 11, 2013)

Sorry didn't see that.Someone has to see to the dead and see that they get the respect they deserve and that cost money .Too much money if you ask me . I think it all comes down to everyone would like to spent wisely and what what might be wise for one may be folly for others.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

HDRider said:


> Not looking for a crash. Looking for people to wake up. It would be an alarm clock, not a car crash. That is why I offered one or the other not both. I think wages going up is better than giving a check because of poverty is better.


How high does it need to go? What kind of lifestyle do we need to support? I've already shown by two real examples that people will spend their money on foolishness because there is always public assistance to fall back on.

Let me give you another real life example: (the short version) My brother made around $50K the last 15 years of his life. Had a home 100% paid for, had a car 100% paid for.
Retired at 62 on SS alone, his wife also retired and on SS died, meaning his family income (SS) dropped in half and he had never saved a dime towards his own retirement. He was a vet so never signed up for medicare. Got the gambling bug and lost everything. After depression set in he tried committing suicide and failed, he's now in a nursing home on Medicaid (ie the public dime.) Should he have been paid more and the required to save for his retirement? 

$50K a year = about $24 an hour - I guess thats just not enough.

Now thats 3 real life examples of people making more than minimum wage that due to there poor choices needed some sort of public assistance
Again I ask, how much is enough and what requirements need to be put in it, what kind of lifestyle do we support?


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

bowdonkey said:


> Here's a train wreck in the making. I'll play though, how about no one gets assistance. No SS, Medicade, Medicare, food, housing, transportation, education, subsidies of any kind for starters. And a flat tax, no deductions whatsoever.


SURE I'll play, just pay me back the 180k i've paid into social security insurance and i'll be on my merry way.


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

HDRider said:


> I am saying the employer pays for the employee, in full.
> 
> I don't know what the correct minimum wage should be. I am simply saying stop giving goverment assistance to working employees. Make employers pay for their employees.
> 
> I will pay for the employee either way. I trust the efficiencies of an competitive business more than the inefficiencies of a uncompetitive government to pay a living amount.


EMployers do pay for their employees. Its called a paycheck. NOW if your suggesting that you and the government get to set the amount a employer pays, then you would effectively collapse the economy and NO ONE would have a job. Just take seattle for a great example. Restaurants closing down all over the place before their mandated 15 dollar a hour min wage goes into effect.


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

HDRider said:


> Bring solutions, not problems. I do not know how to fairly takÃ¨ care of those that CAN'T work.
> 
> Any idea or program is riddled with unintended consequences.


Uhmm disability insurance might be a good idea while they are working. Even the employees are responsible for their own insurance needs. 

SS is paid for by the same employee so its off limits though if they wish to refund my money i'll never claim a dime off of SS


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

HDRider said:


> Not naive.
> 
> But most people don't go to church. Their families can't or will not help each other and people's false sense of worth prevents them from seeking charity.
> 
> ...


Might be good incentive to get them into the churchs and listen to some good teaching.


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

mnn2501 said:


> Define 'earn a living' and I might or might not agree with you.
> Until you can do that, your statement is just wishes with no substance.


Definition: Earn a living: doing what it takes to provide the funds that are needed to make one a productive citizen that does not suck off the taxpayer teat. 
In other words, if you can't make it on min wage, educate yourself and make more money or work 2 min wage jobs or work 3.


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

mnn2501 said:


> let me give you a couple of real life examples"
> i used to manage restaurants, had a couple of women working for me, one (we'll call her woman a) in her late 20's single, no kids. The other (we'll call her woman b) in her mid 30's 2 kids in middle school, never married. Woman a was making about $2 more than minimum wage (this is 20 years ago) an hour and woman b about $4 more than minimum wage. These were 2 of my monday - friday day time workers
> 
> woman a would spend $60 on a very specialized hair do every week (looked ridiculous to me, had fake painted nails put on every friday so she could go out to the bars on the weekend, she owned at least a couple of nice outfits to do so. She was always complaining about how much she made, wanted a raise, even though she did the bare minimum to get by - i worked with her - a lot, trying to get her to improve and she would for a day or so and then fall back into her old habits.
> ...


amen and pass the plate!


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

HDRider said:


> Why do you refuse to see that the goverment is involved with these Wally workers right now? The goverment, me and you, pay these workers billions today with existing goverment programs.


Just so you know, i worked wallyworld and no the government doesn't pay wallyworld employees anything. We made what we made. You also have the opportunity, note the word OPPORTUNITY, to get a higher paying job in the company if you suck it up and work the low wage job for a while and prove yourself. Seriously a cashier doesn't do much at all, just scans the product and bags it takes money and stands at the end of the isle because some manager thought it looks good to stand there and look bored and like a idiot. 

The job pays 7.65 a hour, and isn't worth anymore than 7.65 a hour. 
Now the stockers make up to 15 a hour and work from 10pm -7 am. Those folks make more cause their jobs require more. 

Now if you want to get some decent money, be a CSR up at the front, they get extra for handling the customers bs. I think they add like 2 or 3 bucks a hour to do that. 

Then you have your management which pays 40k -100k a year. I've watched them promote to management within 6 mo in some cases. 
I have not seen any worker though i am sure there are one or two maybe that actually can qualify for some reason use their foodstamp, welfare card at wallyworld.
Its not the norm


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

HDRider said:


> Maybe people don't know this. I thought everyone did..
> 
> Walmartâs low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published to coincide with Tax Day, April 15.
> 
> ...





barelahh said:


> Just so you know, i worked wallyworld and no the government doesn't pay wallyworld employees anything. We made what we made. You also have the opportunity, note the word OPPORTUNITY, to get a higher paying job in the company if you suck it up and work the low wage job for a while and prove yourself. Seriously a cashier doesn't do much at all, just scans the product and bags it takes money and stands at the end of the isle because some manager thought it looks good to stand there and look bored and like a idiot.
> 
> The job pays 7.65 a hour, and isn't worth anymore than 7.65 a hour.
> Now the stockers make up to 15 a hour and work from 10pm -7 am. Those folks make more cause their jobs require more.
> ...


Did you read any of this?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

HDRider said:


> Did you read any of this?


It sounds to you like we're picking on you, but to us it appears you want to do what liberals have been doing for decades which is to throw more money at the problem without actually having a solution.


Here's something for your consideration from a person I consider to be the ultimate source "The poor you will always have with you" Matt 26:11 NIV

I am not saying to purposely keep them poor, but I'm not going to pay them more than what the job is worth. If a job is worth $8 an hour, then I'll pay them $8 an hour. IF its worth more, then I'll pay them more, my criteria will be: How many people have this skill? How quickly can I train this skill to the average person, and how many people are available to do this job, and finally, how much is the (somewhat) free market paying for this job?

I just paid a guy $100 an hour for 4 hours - why? because he had a skill I needed that I didn't have (that he is also teaching me) I only personally know of 2 people in this country that have this particular skill (although there are probably others) and after the first hour, I can already tell, he's worth every penny of what I am paying him cause he's doing what I consider a miracle.

Does that mean I have to pay my burger maker that much? or even 1/10 of that, no, I already know how to make a burger and so does at least 75% of the population, further more I can train any halfway intelligent person in 15 -30 minutes how to make and serve a hamburger.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mnn2501 said:


> It sounds to you like we're picking on you, but to us it appears you want to do what liberals have been doing for decades which is to throw more money at the problem without actually having a solution.
> 
> 
> Here's something for your consideration from a person I consider to be the ultimate source "The poor you will always have with you" Matt 26:11 NIV
> ...


You can pick away. Won't hurt my feelings.

First,, you are wrong. What have you proposed that has any chance of working?? Take it all way? I think if you have both (MW & subsidy), then one might be better than the other, but you just want to scream LIBERAL, LIBERAL. To me that implies little thought by you, or you are denying reality, or you really did not read what I wrote, or you simply aren't understanding. Don't know, when all you do is throw up anecdotal stories from your life. That ain't policy, that is just you.

Second - I wasn't asking you. I was asking barelahh. What he said completely refuted the basis of the thread.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

HDRider said:


> but you just want to scream LIBERAL, LIBERAL. .


I said what you want to do is throw money at the problem (albeit the employers money this time) - this is what liberals have been doing for decades and now we have more people at or below the poverty line than any time in history - so how is that working?

What was that definition of insanity again?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mnn2501 said:


> I said what you want to do is throw money at the problem (albeit the employers money this time) - this is what liberals have been doing for decades and now we have more people at or below the poverty line than any time in history - so how is that working?
> 
> What was that definition of insanity again?


I like your intent, throwing money at the problem isn't going to fix it or make people wake up to the greater problem of job killing gov't law. 

But I have to point out that your poverty stat is way off. The US poverty rate has fallen from about 19% in 1964 to about 15% today. And if you are talking history, nearly everyone was poverty poor prior to the industrial revolution. Only a very small elite ruling class was rich and the middle class barely existed.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

mnn2501 said:


> How high does it need to go? What kind of lifestyle do we need to support? I've already shown by two real examples that people will spend their money on foolishness because there is always public assistance to fall back on.
> 
> Let me give you another real life example: (the short version) My brother made around $50K the last 15 years of his life. Had a home 100% paid for, had a car 100% paid for.
> Retired at 62 on SS alone, his wife also retired and on SS died, meaning his family income (SS) dropped in half and he had never saved a dime towards his own retirement. He was a vet so never signed up for medicare. Got the gambling bug and lost everything. After depression set in he tried committing suicide and failed, he's now in a nursing home on Medicaid (ie the public dime.) Should he have been paid more and the required to save for his retirement?
> ...


As to your brother, I'd say it should fall on you as his family, his church or some other private charity to provide for him. Isn't that the counter argument provided by the right in opposition to government aide?


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> As to your brother, I'd say it should fall on you as his family, his church or some other private charity to provide for him. Isn't that the counter argument provided by the right in opposition to government aide?


I believe that is the prevailing sentiment.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> Having gone back to reread you OP and a few other comments, I get what you are saying, and I spun your msg wrong...sort of. I retract that you are arguing for Marxist pay rates, but I do believe that sort of thing is where your argument takes the general public.
> 
> My employee, Worker X, with 6 kids, 2 with special needs, is terribly uneducated. At $13/hour, I'm paying him more than market rate for the manual labor/groundskeeper he performs and it doesn't appear to me he is capable of higher value work. I'm quite happy with what he does do and so are our customers. There is no way he can pay all his family expenses on what I pay him and no way (for the sake of discussion, let's not argue this part) that he can earn a higher hourly rate.
> 
> ...


Why can't he earn higher pay? I don't know the "going rate" for the work he does for you but I do know he brings at least the value of what you are paying him to the business. You might be able to replace him for less money but that would require you to recruit and train his replacement. Both of which add costs to your business. Your customers might be as happy or happier with your new employee. Or not. But these are things you don't have to deal with because of the money he receives from the tax payers. The decision to seek better work, more education, a second job or to have had fewer children were and continue to be influenced by those taxpayer dollars. Both sides, employer and employee, benefit.

Strictly limiting benefits will drive those costs somewhere on everyone's balance sheet, but the long term trend should be towards shifting wages higher. But don't expect entities like Walmart or the US Chamber of Commerce to advocate for such reductions nearly as actively as they have against any hint that minimum wage should be raised. An actual, real world compromise of minimum wage hikes and benefit caps and reductions should be attainable by rational people. But it won't be as long as people only argue against labels rather than ideas.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> As to your brother, I'd say it should fall on you as his family, his church or some other private charity to provide for him. Isn't that the counter argument provided by the right in opposition to government aide?


Yeah, and I did care for him for almost 2 years before he became totally unmanageable and he was ordered by a judge to be sent to the institution.

Or perhaps I and my wife should quit our jobs and give him the 24/7 care he needs - of course we'd have to go on public assistance and with no income we'd stop paying taxes.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

mnn2501 said:


> Yeah, and I did care for him for almost 2 years before he became totally unmanageable and he was ordered by a judge to be sent to the institution.
> 
> Or perhaps I and my wife should quit our jobs and give him the 24/7 care he needs - of course we'd have to go on public assistance and with no income we'd stop paying taxes.


It's interesting how simplistic solutions aren't quite so simple in the real world. My answer to your question was the same one that has been given numerous times on these pages when discussion has turned to who is responsible for caring for those who have made poor decisions in life. It's an answer that is usually met with numerous likes when presented in the abstract. Much like telling the working poor to just get more education or training and to find a better or second job. Easy when you're talking hypotheticals but not as easy or straightforward when someone is talking about an employee with six kids.

I'm glad there are government programs and supports to help your brother. I wish they weren't necessary but know they are.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> I'm glad there are government programs and supports to help your brother. I wish they weren't necessary but know they are.


Yeah, I never said I was against gov programs. in fact I was arguing against federally mandated minimum wage increases just so everyone could have a 'living wage' HDR is not willing to define what a living wage is but he wants an increase in federally mandated minimum wage to cover it.

My brother and the 2 other examples were my way of showing how foolish it is to think raising minimum wage is the solution to poverty.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

I think there should be a minimum wage to protect a person in a financial crisis. If there is a recession or if a large employer shuts down, there may be a sudden flood of people- well I was going to say desperate for work but who is really desperate these days- that would allow an unscrupulous employer to make wage cuts to a level that would drive an ever increasing downturn. I just think there is a level where it is unconscionable socially.
But then I am force to ask myself how that level should be to determined and I can't answer that. I know that it must reflect the ability of the business to survive and prosper. It certainly is not the level that is being talked about as a living wage. And not what the pandering social engineers say either.
There was a push for a local proposition to put a raise in place with a cost of living attached but it was soundly defeated. Which is good as that is all that is needed to push a business trying to survive a down turn into failure.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

where I want to said:


> I think there should be a minimum wage to protect a person in a financial crisis. If there is a recession or if a large employer shuts down, there may be a sudden flood of people- well I was going to say desperate for work but who is really desperate these days- that would allow an unscrupulous employer to make wage cuts to a level that would drive an ever increasing downturn.  I just think there is a level where it is unconscionable socially.
> But then I am force to ask myself how that level should be to determined and I can't answer that. I know that it must reflect the ability of the business to survive and prosper. It certainly is not the level that is being talked about as a living wage. And not what the pandering social engineers say either.
> There was a push for a local proposition to put a raise in place with a cost of living attached but it was soundly defeated. Which is good as that is all that is needed to push a business trying to survive a down turn into failure.


That is how capitalism works. That unscrupulous employer would go out of business and another would prosper. When prices go down it cost less to live. When you have a minimum price it will be higher. Labor is a big part of the cost of everything.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Old Vet said:


> That is how capitalism works. That unscrupulous employer would go out of business and another would prosper. When prices go down it cost less to live. When you have a minimum price it will be higher. Labor is a big part of the cost of everything.


The trouble is that historically the unscrupulous employer can actually prosper. It might be a natural dog eat dog version of capitalism but I think that there can be a better balance than devil take the hindmost.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

where I want to said:


> The trouble is that historically the unscrupulous employer can actually prosper. It might be a natural dog eat dog version of capitalism but I think that there can be a better balance than devil take the hindmost.


You can as much of a socialist as you want but for me I prefer capitalism. He may prosper for a short time but will go out of business in the long haul.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Going back to my original proposal. With few exceptions, shift the burden of supporting the working populace from the goverment to the private sector. 

Anything the goverment can do, the private sector can do better.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Going back to my original rebuttal. How much is enough and what kind of lifestyle must the employer support?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mnn2501 said:


> Going back to my original rebuttal. How much is enough and what kind of lifestyle must the employer support?


It is up to the employee or potential employee to decide if the wage offered is enough. 

The employer has no obligation to satisfy an employes wants or needs unless mandated by law to do so. 

The employer should be only goverened by market forces as to what they pay. 

Goverment subsidy has distorted market forces and potentially allowed employers to pay less than market wages. 

I am only offering you two choices in this debate. 
1. Goverment mandated minimum wage and do way with goverment subsidy for able bodies. 
2. Goverment mandated minimum wage with government subsidy for able bodies. 

I am not offering any other choice. 

I am not saying those are the best choices. I am saying they are the only choices available to you. Start another thread if you want to propose other choices.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Old Vet said:


> You can as much of a socialist as you want but for me I prefer capitalism. He may prosper for a short time but will go out of business in the long haul.


You would then be in seventh heaven during the golden age of the Carnegie, Rockefeller capitalism, where they went around with private armies, literally killing their successful competitors or simply stealing from the less successful. 
Of course there is no such thing as pure capitalism, or for that matter pure socialism. Neither functions successfully for long because human nature will use one or the other equally brutally if not checked. Both try to force humans into ideology that is not compatable to them.
So, while you say you prefer it, you simply can not have pure capitalism run by a species that's social by nature. Any more than you can have socialism in a species that has individuals in it too. It's not an option.
It can be argued however the appropriate balance between the two.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mnn2501 said:


> Going back to my original rebuttal. How much is enough and what kind of lifestyle must the employer support?


Btw - how is that a rebuttal? It is a question.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

As the economy gathers strength, there are serious shortages of skilled industrial workers, electricians, computer code writers, and plumbers â all areas where teaching is readily available for free or almost free in high schools and community colleges. These jobs often pay middle class wages, and certainly do if both husband and wife are employed. But, again, *the jobs are going begging. Too many Americans just will not work to learn those vital skills.*

President Obama is, I am sure, sincere in wanting to help Americans move into the middle class. And I applaud his raising the minimum wage where possible. The minimum wage is inexcusably low in most areas.


Read more at http://spectator.org/articles/62264/obama’s-ephemeral-middle-class


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

HDRider said:


> It is up to the employee or potential employee to decide if the wage offered is enough.
> 
> The employer has no obligation to satisfy an employes wants or needs unless mandated by law to do so.
> 
> ...


You offer no solution, the employer and employee already decide on a wage.
But then you go on a few posts later and call for the increase in minimum wage which has been proven to do only two things: raise prices and hurt the poor and those on fixed incomes.
You're a voice crying for change but offering nothing but the fact that you don't like how it is now. Politicians have been doing this for decades and we still have poor people, usually making poor decisions about how to spend the money they already get.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mnn2501 said:


> You offer no solution, *the employer and employee already decide on a wage.*
> But then you go on a few posts later and call for the increase in minimum wage which has been proven to do only two things: raise prices and hurt the poor and those on fixed incomes.
> You're a voice crying for change but offering nothing but the fact that you don't like how it is now. Politicians have been doing this for decades and we still have poor people, usually making poor decisions about how to spend the money they already get.


This is not true for minimum wage workers while they both still enjoy government subsidy. 

What truly baffles me is why you have such a hard time seeing that.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

HDRider said:


> This is not true for minimum wage workers while they both still enjoy government subsidy.
> 
> What truly baffles me is why you have such a hard time seeing that.


What baffles me is how you can be for a big gov't solution that does not undo the previous big gov't solution that you recognize is causing the problem.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

HDRider said:


> This is not true for minimum wage workers while they both still enjoy government subsidy.
> 
> What truly baffles me is why you have such a hard time seeing that.


It *is* true; nothing says you have to work for me at the wages I offered. 

You can ask for more, I've done it myself and I've had people do it to me, some successfully, some not.

I've also told another potential employer after a long interview process when he offered me a job at a wage way below my skill level that he just wasted both of our times.

What truly baffles me is how eager you are to spend someone else's money when you don't know how much they bring in.

The first few months I owned my first business, I paid my employees and my bills out of my savings account because the business was losing money. I finally turned it around but had wages been much higher I would have folded. 
When you risk your money/time/energy on a new business, you can pay however much you want to, but until you do so you have no claim on someone else's money.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mnn2501 said:


> It *is* true; nothing says you have to work for me at the wages I offered.
> 
> You can ask for more, I've done it myself and I've had people do it to me, some successfully, some not.
> 
> ...


And my business went SIX YEARS losing money before we became profitable. Every penny I had ever saved was invested in the company and many times employees would get paid and there would be nothing left for my family. For a long time I would take an IOU as a paycheck to myself, figuring that once we won a big contract I could pay myself back wages. But once we got big enough that the bank would loan us money against receivables, they said we had to write off all the debt to ourselves in order to improve the balance sheet before we could borrow against the line of credit. 

It was 2 more years before I was no longer the lowest paid employee in the company and that included a part time receptionist. Based on working up to 100 hours a week, I often made less than min wage. I took the worst office every time we moved so that I could offer good rooms to the talent I needed to hire. If people complained about their paycheck or office location I would offer to swap with them and that would shut them up because their check and office was so much better than mine. 

Even after we started making profits, it was several more years before I could be confident we were not 3 months away from bankruptcy. If I lost the company, I would have no savings, no home, no 401K, no IRA, and I would have still been responsible for all the debt of the company because partner and I had personally guaranteed the debt and rent. 

And after all that risk, all those hours, all that sweat, Obama said "you didn't build that." gre:

Yep, my company. I get to decide what I offer and you get to decide if it is good enough for you. The fascist gov't should stay the Heil Hitler out of it.


----------

