Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Kid~Brady, Dec 26, 2012.
Minimum Wage Increase Hits 10 States, Boosting Pay For An Estimated One Million Workers
If only company's paid a fair wage, we wouldn't need FS or SS or welfare....People could afford healthcare,food,housing,insurance,school supplies, etc,etc.
As it is, people like to pay slave wage and expect the government to take care of the rest, then ***** and moan because they have to pay taxes to help out the problem they themselves have created.:bricks:
I think there should be 2 minimum wages, one for minors and one for over 18.
I would also ban any union contract that tied raises to raise in minimum wage.
Posted from Patsfans.com App for Android
You think people who make subs at Subway or burgers at McDonald's should be paid enough to afford "healthcare, food, housing, insurance, school supplies, etc,etc"?
What kind of fantasy world do you live in?
People need SKILLS to get jobs good enough to actually earn a living. No one is guaranteed anything in this country regarding how we earn our living. If one is motivated enough to do whatever they need to do to be successful, then they'll reap the rewards.
Little opportunity awaits all who have little motivation.
Sounds all nicey nice, and reminds me of the mantra that "would rather give a hand up than a hand out".. inow it means nothing..
Ability and opportunity are overlooked factors that trump motivation. Not everyone will have the opportunity to attain skills..
When is the last time you were in a public high school aka "public testing facility"???.. standards and testing are more important then helping students achieve their potential.. they are factories designed to meet standards not the needs of students.
I do not recall any teacher I had in public school helping me to achieve my potential. However, I do recall my high school guidance councelor telling me my grades did not reflect my IQ.
Opportunity never came knocking at my door. Either I was in the right place at the right time or I seeked out opportunity. I also consider myself to have been blessed with good fortune. But somone far above my means might even laugh at that. But from where I'm sitting, I feel very blessed.
Life isn't supposed to be equally challenging for all of us. Some need to work harder to get to the same place others achieve through privilege and birth.
There's a reason for one of our most famous quotes..."Life isn't fair"...nor is it supposed to be.
You seek to personalize your experience, and somehow what you experiences applies to youth today..
The typical "pull em up by the bootstraps" response, as tired as that is.
All experience is personal Darryl....
We're becoming a nation of wussies
That is the problem, trying to extropolate what your personal experience was 20+ years ago to today's youth is folly..
Thought you understood this stuff.. things have changed in america's standards factories..
But what you're not recognizing is that it still takes personal responsibility and hard work to carve out a decent living. And we should all pray that's the way it always be. Last thing we need is "Guaranteed jobs for everyone!". Work is not a right.
My sister is a 6th grade math teacher, so you don't need to lecture me on today's educational system.
What she does tell me is how today's parents like to blame teachers for their kids lack of success. Back in our day, teachers were never wrong, so we didn't try blaming them for our own faults.
She also tells me about how every little "issue" a kid has needs to be addressed. Which takes away from the quality of education all the other kids receive.
Like I said, we've become a nation of wussies.
Teach for the majority, not for the minority. If we want to get the maximum benefit for our tax dollars, we need to stop catering to the few and focus on TEACHING.
"No child left behind" is the worst thing that ever happened to our public educational system. Maybe we need to bring back the little blue busses.
We do teach for the majority, that is the problem..
Compare schools in the most prestigious towns and cities to those in poor cities or town, the difference is obvious..
I know the response will be that of course, because the parents care more or are more involved... which is BS, in poor areas people have to scratch to get by.
The minority are ignored.. and they will all have children, and they will be the minority and they will be ignored..
Despite what your sister says, there are terrific cracks in this system and most LEA's do not want to identify those with needs, as it triggers an expensive response.. it is not about need or desire, it is about money.
You seem to fancy yourself an expert on all topics....so why would anyone here want to have a discussion with you?
I'll piss off both sides, as I think we should not have a minimum wage and have universal health care.
I don't believe any opinion is wrong...that's what makes our country what it is.
Opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one..
I guess the difference is when the opinions are backed up by years of experience in a field, research, and expertise. Too many times this is overlooked, politicians will spend money on research, not like the results and do as they please.
In the case of minimum wage, I can not get by the supply and demand graph. Increase wages and there will be less jobs. There can be no argument on that premise, supply and demand is one of the foundation of economics. Thus, the minimum wage hurts more people then it helps as it reduces employment.
Could not get to the graphs as my ten free articles for the month of December ran out..
I probably need another cup of coffee to get your reference.
Anyway, picture the simple graph illustrating wages on the vertical bar and labor on the horizontal. If one increases wages, it will shrink the pool of labor, lower wages and labor increases (Supply and Demand). I get the widening gap of the have's and have nots, but putting restrictions on the free market is not the way to go.
Henry Ford, nobody's commie, decreed that his workers had to be able to afford his model T. That means two things: 1, The model T had to be a consumer-affordable car, and 2, there had to be a big enough consumer class that it would sell like hotcakes. Ford knew he needed mass production, yes, but he also knew that it was in his enlightened self-interest to pay a living wage. That was good competitive business, but not only that. It's also how you get people to sell your goods to in the first place.
Higher minimum wage would kill Walmart, where some huge percentage of workers are working poor on government assistance. On the other hand, at Cosco, the theory is that you need to retain your good people -- so they pay well and have decent benefits.
Cosco would do better business, Walmart would be hurt - and more Cosco hires would be the result.
You might complain that the labor cost would have to total the same number of dollars for fewer hour, and therefore higher unemployment. But you'd be missing that money in pockets at the low end means more demand all the way around.
So you're not really plotting supply and demand, you're pretty much just postulating a static pie, and doing the division by different amounts per hour, yielding fewer jobs. Not the same thing. And it gets you the wrong answer.
I see this as two separate entities. Cosco is smart by wanting a better employee and will have to pay to achieve that asset. As a consumer, I would probably end up purchasing at Cosco over Walmart due to all the variables that the more productive worker is providing Cosco (I am assuming that Cosco is training the higher priced employee as well as that employee being more motivated as a result of pay).
That does not take away from my contention, that minimum wage increases unemployment, works against the population segment that it is supposed to help, and increases consumer products. Actually, Cosco is using the free enterprise system of giving a higher wage to reap those rewards whether there is a minimum wage or not.
Separate names with a comma.