Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Government intervention did more than anything else to lift people out of poverty and into the middle class.
Pure BS. Inventiveness and innovation that led to factories, coupled with union activity in those factories; and fertile land, good weather (when it happened), and a lack of government interference in the farm belt, did that.
Two different scenarios. A century or so ago when employers were getting together and conspiring to lower wages, government didn't respond in any useful way. So people formed unions, which means THEY got together and conspired to withhold labor from those employers, until the employers cried "uncle". It frequently got bloody, again with government doing little except to take reports afterward and help clean up the blood. Once the unions finally got concessions from the employers, then government stepped in afterward and made laws to make mandatory, what the unions had achieved by either cooperation or coercion. Would have been nice if govt had done that earlier. It would have saved a lot of death and destruction.
(Now that those laws are in place, unions are no longer needed. But some of them hang on, now concentrating their efforts on coercing employers and union members alike, into paying them baksheesh and conceding labor agreements that go far beyond the "fair" ones they were formed to secure.)
While this was going on in cities, private farmers owning and farming their own land in rural areas, worked their tails off and produced so much abundance that they became prosperous on their own, with no help from either government or unions, or anybody else. That lasted until long periods of bad weather and drought killed most of them off, and they had to sell out to large corporate farms.
Study some history before you try to make such silly claims as "government lifted people out of poverty". Government merely moved in afterward and tried to take the credit.
Last edited by Little-Acorn; 02-14-2013 at 11:12 AM..
If you can only get a minimum wage you shouldn't be starting a family.
Someone yesterday posted on this or another similar thread that "children are a luxury". I agreed with this. Most people probably don't. It goes against the whole " be fruitful and multipy thing".
Cost of living in all three of these states is above the national average, so even though their minimum wage is higher, between unemployment and cost of living, I wouldn't think their workers are too happy with the economy.
Washington state's unemployment rate is 7.6%...exactly the same as the national average, despite minimum wage being nearly $2 above federal. Not such a good example.
Vermont's minimum wage is $8.60 and their unemployment rate is 5.1%. There are a whole hell of lot of factors that go into unemployment rate beyond the minimum wage rate.
Someone yesterday posted on this or another similar thread that "children are a luxury". I agreed with this. Most people probably don't. It goes against the whole " be fruitful and multipy thing".
Cell phones for everyone in the family are a luxury.
A separate bedroom for each child is a luxury.
Satellite/cable TV is a luxury.
Granite countertops are a luxury.
Two bathrooms are a luxury.
More than 400 square feet of living space is a luxury.
Air conditioning is a luxury.
Sodas are a luxury.
Chips are a luxury.
Eating out is a luxury.
Coffee is a luxury.
That third set of underwear is a luxury.
Video games are a luxury.
A wedding band is a luxury.
I could go on but you get my point (not that I think you are disagreeing with it).
Of course people should be financially able to support children before they bring them into the world, but I would say that if a person is prepared to do without many luxuries that people take for granted, or expect as the bare minimum in today's society, more people could afford to raise their children in a perfectly healthy environment that may or may not include any or all of the above.
Washington state's unemployment rate is 7.6%...exactly the same as the national average, despite minimum wage being nearly $2 above federal. Not such a good example.
Vermont's minimum wage is $8.60 and their unemployment rate is 5.1%. There are a whole hell of lot of factors that go into unemployment rate beyond the minimum wage rate.
Actually, Washington is ranked #30 out of 50 states when it comes to unemployment rate, so I think it's a good example - especially since many of the states with the lowest unemployment rates also have the lowest minimum wage rates.
Oregon is ranked #39 out of fifty.
Vermont - ranked #49 out of 50 when it comes to population, is to be saluted for it's 5.1 unemployment rate.
I like the way you framed this, Bill. I think many who advocate for increased minimums think, for example, the Walton family is going to take it out of their pocket, instead of increasing prices.
Actually, they might take it out of the profit margin, at least some of it. Wal-mart's profit margin is twice that of Costco, and Costco's employees get paid significantly more. If an increase in minimum wage bumps Wal-mart wages up closer to those of Costco employees then Wal-mart either has to raise their prices, putting them at a disadvantage compared to Costco, or decrease profit margin. Costco's employees already make way more than minimum wage so they would like not have to decrease profits or raise prices. Costco would probably like to see the minimum wage increased.
Last edited by EugeneOnegin; 02-14-2013 at 11:55 AM..
Yeah, 3-4 families packed into a 1 BR apt. Just what we need. A return to tenement living.
Minimum wage should not make a comfortable living. If having multiple families sharing a small apartment is what they need to do to support themselves, then that is what they should do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
WhereTF did you get the idea I don't show up to work on time??????????????????????????????????????
WhereTF did you get the idea that I leave early? I have a freaking SHIFT job. I literally cannot leave until my relief (the employee working the next shift) shows up. That person is often late and sometimes I have to work a double shift (next employee doesn't show up at all).
I wasn't responding to you. Follow the conversation.
Quote:
Of course I *CAN* work more than 40 hours, but HowTF do I get from home to Job 1 to Job 2 and back home (with maybe a medical appointment the same day) without a car? As it is now it takes me over an hour to get to my job.
And what do I do when I'm scheduled to work two jobs at the same time on the same day? This has actually happened to me.
You pay off your outstanding parking tickets, get a license and get a car. It is ridiculous that you think minimum wage should be raised because you are too irresponsible to pay off outstanding tickets and actually get a drivers license again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EugeneOnegin
It should work that way, but it doesn't. Information and skills you teach yourself are not admissible in the court of job interviews. It doesn't matter what you know, it matters who you can get to sign off on your claim of knowing something.
Sure you can. If you learn skills on your own and spend 10-15 hours per week volunteering to use them for free for a few months, you can absolutely put that work on a resume as real experience.
Actually, they might take it out of the profit margin, at least some of it. Wal-mart's profit margin is twice that of Cosco, and Cosco's employees get paid significantly more. If an increase in minimum wage bumps Wal-mart wages up closer to those of Cosco employees then Wal-mart either has to raise their prices, putting them at a disadvantage compared to Cosco, or decrease profit margin. Cosco's employees already make way more than minimum wage so they would like not have to decrease profits or raise prices. Cosco would probably like to see the minimum wage increased.
You're right--they won't raise prices if the market won't bear it, especially if it hurts them with competitors. Costco vs. Sams or Walmart is a GREAT example.
Costco is doing great, and they pay their people a living wage. It's part of their business model to attract and retain quality employees. You're right--I'm sure Costco WOULD LOVE to see the minimum wage increase--after four years, a Costco cashier can be making as much as $43K a year, but they waste almost no money in staff retraining and reduced productivity for new hires because they keep and retain their employees. Their employees are LOYAL and experienced. I know a lot of small business owners who pay decent wages who feel the same way--they pay people decent wages because it helps them grow their business. Staff turnover is expensive and it reduces productivity. Better wages attract harder workers and more qualified staff. Why should Costco carry the weight for the real cost of their workers while Walmart has the government subsidize salaries through foodstamps, etc. because their wages are so low? It's CORPORATE welfare.
Study some history before you try to make such silly claims as "government lifted people out of poverty". Government merely moved in afterward and tried to take the credit.
Well of course unions have been around since the 1800's. Back then, government conspired with the
"robber barrons" to make union activities illegal. Despite the bilateral violence their impact on living wages was marginal at best, given the never ending new supply of new immigrants willing to work in any enviornment for less. Things began to change around WW1 and culminated in 1935, when Government enacted the National Labor Relations Act which covered public sector unions and the Post Office.
Government created the GI bill which allowed the masses to enter college.
Private sector unions peaked in the 50's due to an acute labor shortage. The union toll was passed on to Europe, given the U.S. was the only game in town.
Government recognized the right of the public sector to organize and collective bargain in the early 60's.
If you've been working in your career for 5 or 6 years (whether flipping burgers or answering phones) and your still making minimum wage, you've got a problem that 9 bucks an hour isn't going to fix.
Minimum wage is for high school students and people who are too stupid to do anything productive.
I have no college degree, and I haven't earned minimum wage since my first job sacking groceries. I found a valuble skill that I'm good at, I've gotten better at it and it pays me reasonably well, and it's plenty to raise my family on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Government merely moved in afterward and tried to take the credit.
