Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2004 8:25 pm Post subject: The Wages of Politics | |||
|
Another great article from the WSJ
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005263
|
|||
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 7077
Location: Central CA
| Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2004 9:22 pm Post subject: | |
|
I'm unable to access the full article. Won't accept my registration. Could you tell us who you're quoting there?
Thanks. |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2004 10:25 pm Post subject: | |
| How strange...it requires no registration....I just clicked on the link and it worked fine. It is from the Wall Street Journal website. opinionjournal.com | |
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 7077
Location: Central CA
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2004 2:10 am Post subject: | |||
Yeah. Maybe you had registered earlier or something. This is what I get when I click on it. Thanks anyway.
|
|||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2004 3:35 am Post subject: | |
|
Raising the minimum wage often ends up being another entitlement program that taxpayers end up paying for.
Almost assuredly a nearly $2/hr. increase in the minimum wage would put many already low wage earners out on the street as small businesses, already struggling to make ends meet simply couldn't afford to pay the additional wages which would force employers to lay off workers and possibly even force them to shut down altogether. I'm not against periodic increases in the minimum wage as inflation takes a bite out of spending power, but the 40% increase Mr. Kerry is proposing is irresponsible. "Footie" |
|
Moderator
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Posts: 121
Location: B.C. Canada
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2004 5:01 am Post subject: | |
|
Here's a link
Kerry proposing a $7 minimum wage is nothing more than a ploy to gain votes from desperate low wage earners while maintaining corporate support. If he was actually representing the working class he would be proposing a wage that would raise working people out of the depths of hell and poverty, but he is not. This farce is a kick in the face to working people and shows kerry for what he is, a willing puppet of big biz and eager to do and say what it takes to get into the right circle. |
|
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 7077
Location: Central CA
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2004 5:07 am Post subject: | |
|
Yeah, even I can agree that that's too big a slug at once and that Kerry is way out of line. But I'm still not sure that even smaller businesses are automatically doomed by any increase in the minimum wage. The minimum wage has never been adjusted to reflect a rise on the COL Index even for the single year in which the raise was enacted, let alone the multi year stretches that sometimes interpose between raises.
Campaigning against an raise in the minimum wage is basically telling people they need to accept a situation that you would never accept for yourself. The minimum wage earner hasn't had a raise in over 7 years, something else you would not tolerate for yourselves. Have you ever turned down a raise, even though your employer was in trouble and showing signs of struggling? Just said, "No thanks Sears, you just keep that raise and/or bonus this year. Sales are down and I want to do my part to help keep my job secure."? Yet you'll tell some guy that's making $5.15 an hour, obviously inadequate to support a family, that he's somehow greedy or disloyal for wanting a raise? Let's not pretend, that the concern of WalMart or any other large chain including Sears, is for the little guy and for the mom and pop business that Walmart and others, have been deliberately driving out of business for years, no matter what they paid their employees. People in your economic and wage position are going to go along with you, people that have had actual experience at trying to make it on minimum wage aren't. It's always been kind of a useless argument from either point of view in my opinion. Not disagreeing with you guys as to Kerry's position, just trying to point out that the idea of corporate altruism is kind of a wierd notion in this day and age. That's always been an advantage the Democrats have had, by the way. If you're the little guy, they at least know how to make you think they care about you. |
|
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2004 12:14 pm Post subject: | |||
So what is worse? Coming out and stating a clear position that happens to be against what "the little guy" wants or leading them along letting them think you care when you really couldn't care less? (The "YOU" I'm referring to is the "Democrat advantage" you spoke of) Bill Clinton was a master at this. He wrote the book on saying what the little guy wanted to hear. The fact is, some Democrats don't want things to get too good for people because they depend too heavily on votes from the downtrodden. I long for the day when that block of voters finally realize it's the liberal philosophy that is contributing to their condition, not the answer to it. Footie |
|||
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 7077
Location: Central CA
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2004 7:47 pm Post subject: | |
|
That's my fault for putting that bit in there about the Democrats, I guess. I was trying to be sarcastic and didn't intend for it to turn the entire direction of the thread.
Your answer fails to address the fact that there are people out here who work harder than you do for more hours a week and cannot keep up with the cost of living increases that these days could be be placed on a monthly index rather then annual. Don't ever try to tell me the working poor don't exist. I grew up among them and I've lived among them all my life. When these people fall behind it doesn't cost them a vacation or another year's wait on the new car. It makes for a choice between food versus gas to get to work or a choice between rent versus school clothes for the kids. They were behind when they started and they've fallen further behind for at least 7 straight years. My own cost of living has gone up more in the last five months than it had in the two years preceding. My income has gone up zero. That means cutting back on something and the only "discretionary" funds I have to play with are my food and shelter money. I've already parked my beat up 13 year old pickup truck because I can't afford fuel and insurance for it anymore. (And believe me, I'm already at rock bottom as far as shelter is concerned also and it still costs half my income.  ) Have you ever, in your life, had to deal with those kinds of decisions? Out here we do it on a 24/7 basis.
That's the same dilemma facing a federal minimum wage earner. His income hasn't gone up in 7 years so it might as well have been a fixed income, agreed? Now go figure the increase in the cost of living index over that same 7 years. Again, I'll bet all this altruistic concern for the little guy didn't stop you from taking your own raises and perks to cover those increased costs over that 7 years. I'm thinking WalMart has put more small businesses in the ground in that seven years than any raise in the minimum wage would have. And the people who lost their jobs in those small businesses now work for WalMart at...minimum wage? I have a friend who has worked at WM for nine years as a night service manager. She makes $8.57 an hour after three "promotions". Before WalMart? She had her own little shoe store just down the road and had been there 19 years. Again, supposedly altruistic concern for the little guy and small businesses, coming from corporatists... it just doesn't have that ring, you know? Oppose the minimum wage increases. That's your right and you have your reasons, probably good reasons as far as you're concerned. But don't pretend to oppose it out of concern for the small business or the minimum wage earner. It doesn't sound any better when you do it that it does when Kerry does it. |
|
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 7077
Location: Central CA
| Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2004 1:07 am Post subject: | |
Delete double post. Sorry. 
Last edited by Nofsdad on Sat Jun 26, 2004 1:10 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 7077
Location: Central CA
| Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2004 1:08 am Post subject: | |||||
FOOTSOLDIER WROTE:
You didn't state a "clear position that happens to be against the little guy". You stated:
This is simply pretending to be interested in the welfare of the little guy in order to advance your own agenda, same as Kerry. They only thing you're really interested in is keeping that gap between the "little guy" and you as wide as possible. It's pretty common. It's called self interest and we all have it in varying degrees. |
|||||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 762
| Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2004 1:19 am Post subject: | |||
Nofs wrote:
I am not quite sure how you surmise that Footie is trying to keep the gap between himself and the little guy as wide as possible. Seems to me he is making a point about the economy as a whole and the effect that a 2 dollar an hour increase would have on small businesses and their ability to operate. This would have a detrimental effect on the economy. |
|||
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 7077
Location: Central CA
| Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2004 1:36 am Post subject: | |
|
You could very well be right CCCs. Foots will set me straight if I'm wrong. We've been doing this ever since he came on the forums. Little guys have been getting stomped for a while now with Sears doing some of the stomping. Most of the defenders or supporters of that stomping on these forums have been Sears employees at the low-mid to mid income levels.
I'm not seeing a lot of support for, or even discussion of, the tentacles that are now reaching into those middle income levels and throwing people in the street and reducing incomes for those left, etc. If you're skillful and good enough at what you do, like Bodyguard, you might survive several rounds of this. If you're able to land on your feet and be OK, like Foots says he did, then you're good to go also. But a lot of those folks are going to BECOME the little guy if this keeps up and I'd like to discuss it from that aspect. Unfortunately...  (next post)
|
|
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 7077
Location: Central CA
| Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2004 1:42 am Post subject: | |
|
Sorry to post and run guys. I know I'm gonna get beat up for my minimum wage views and I'd like to be here to defend myself, but I just got a call and a room has come open at the hospital and they want me there tonight. (Wasn't due to go until Monday or I wouldn't have started this)
So don't think I've changed or abandoned my opinions if I don't answer any posts for an indefinite period, OK? 
|
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2004 4:33 am Post subject: | |||
I cannot say it better. 15% of 2.1 million people. |
|||
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 11
Location: North Carolina
| Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2004 12:03 am Post subject: | |
| Sears just came through and revamped their pay schedules. We all thought, the way they were saying it, that we were getting a raise. Instead, the dropped the starting pay from 8.00 to 6.00, and those of working were already maxed out and could get no more raises. Who can afford to work for 6.00 an hour? Not me!! | |
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2004 8:31 am Post subject: | |
| And? | |
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Posts: 4996
| Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:56 pm Post subject: Tax PAYERS pay in the end. | |
| A Berkley study showed how Walmart workers having an average lower wage amongst retail workers wound up having the taxpayers basically supplement the Walmart employee's pay for things like health care. On CNNMONEY.COM or Yahoo Finance(found under stock news for Walmart-sorry;trouble with links) | |
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Posts: 4996
| Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:03 pm Post subject: A living wage | |
| It should be called a living wage and not a minimum wage.One should be able to buy all the necessities in life with that wage;especially if fulltime;if I cannot buy food,pay rent and other necessities needed in today's society why should one work at that job.But here we go again with the 'someone else is paying for it' syndrome-as pointed out many 'minimum wage earners are living at home or have a second income or are earnig tips-all of this should be off the record or basis for pay-I love it when a potential employer says "how much do you need?"-what do you mean how much do I need-just tell much the job is worth to you and not how much YOU want to get away with. | |