Raise Minimum Wage to Stop Gov "Handouts" (unemployed, salary, health care)

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by aus10

I got a silly question.... Why can't Wal-mart help to bring our production back? Let me explain...

You don't really need to explain, they could. But since you did......

When you go to Wal-mart and you pick up the store brand "Home Goods" you see its made in China. If Wal-mart were to start promoting "Made in the USA" like it did years ago, wouldn't that in itself help our economy? Let's face it... if the Wal-mart executives would get on board, make an effort to promote, stock, sell, and yes purchase inventory from our American workers wouldn't we all benefit? The sheer number of Wal-mart stores, their distribution system and the fact that most American people shop regularly at their stores could help us couldn't it? Granted the price might be a few cents higher, but Wal-mart itself with its bulk buying power and it's ability for merchandising it correctly could "sell" it to the American people as the right thing to do... Buy American.

Slogans won't work. No, what we need to do is skew our tax system to make it less viable to move jobs overseas. This was something Obama said he would seek to do and I agreed with him. Unfortunately, he's forgot all about it.

I'm going to just make numbers up to provide the example. I do not know what the true numbers would be.

12% tax on profits sold on items made in the U.S. 23% tax on profits made from items made elsewhere. Now this is incredibly simplistic and the actual laws would be far more complicated than that but without incentives it's not going to happen.

I guess what I'm try to say badly I admit.. I for the life of me, can't understand why Wal-mart, who had as much to do with the loss of American Jobs as anyone, can't step up and help undo that mess that they helped to create. It seems that we all want solutions, but are unwilling to see that sometimes the one who created the problems are ultimately the only ones who can fix it. I would think, long-term, Wal-mart would benefit eventually gaining the trust of the American people, still make a profit for the shareholders and the Walton's, and help to bring back jobs to the US in the way of manufacturing goods-n-services, and yes eventually perhaps raising their employee wages. Maybe it's time we citizens start demanding they carry "Made in the US" again?

I don't disagree but rarely does a company stay in business when their number one concern is what is best for everyone else. If Wal-Mart quits selling chinese toaster, Bob-Mart can simply undercut them by selling chinese toasters.

[Slithytoves]

Originally Posted by lifeexplorer

No, they have no such moral responsibility even you think they do. We can't and shouldn't force our moral standards onto others. That is the immoral thing to do. Keep your moral standards to yourselves.

Competition is part of the nature. Should we give every student the same score? It's not fair for more talented students get higher score, is it?

I was responding to comments that referenced morality and compassion. I absolutely do think corporations should be held to a standard, though. Call it "ethical" if you don't like "moral".

I spent a lot of my childhood in the Binghamton area of NY, home of the former Endicott-Johnson shoe company and Fair Play Candy. These were large employers that cared very well for their workers. It was a source of pride for them, and for the community, and their example encouraged higher standards for other employers as well. Corporations now get away with murder, and that trickles down, too. If its better for the people, why isn't it correct to have moral and ethical expectations of business? Not my own standards...a universal one.

When I owned a small business, I paid my employees a living wage. I felt it was simply the right thing to do. These are ultimately individual people's lives we're talking about. Without holding companies to some sort of ethical standard, workers have no power at all. I would think we've all seen enough of the average person being rendered powerless.

[Fox Terrier]

Originally Posted by pknopp

Because he is so incompetent that he can do nothing on his own? (that's a rhetorical question)

That's right; what he can do is very limited without the consensus of congress. Didn't a bunch of those on the right wing state that their goal was to make Obama a one-term president? Haven't they vigorously attempt to shut down, stall, or otherwise sabotage anything that Obama wanted to do?

And posters here then have the nerve to proclaim 'where's the hope and change'????

LOL at you all.

[OICU812]

Originally Posted by Californian34

Bill just caused an "aha moment" for me. I've always been for a higher minimum wage. I'm also for the government helping people who need. But it is obviously very costly to tax payers. if we raise the minimum wage and companies like WalMart paid their employees a livable wage, their employees and millions of low wage workers wouldn't need our tax dollars for food stamps, healthcare, free school lunches, etc. Right now the American tax payer is picking up the slack. Bill Maher Takes On Minimum Wage: 'That Is Barely Enough To Gas Up The Car You're Living In' (VIDEO)

Tell me you are not still falling for this idiocy.

The minimum wage is paid to the unskilled, the unqualified, the entry level high school kid. It's not supposed to be a place to live out your life, doing nothing but sweeping floors and emptying trashcans, or greeting people at the door "Welcome to Walmart" for 40 years.

[residinghere2007]

Originally Posted by rbohm

yes lets raise the minimum wage, after all business wont raise their prices now will they? or lets raise taxes on tobacco products to raise money for education, never mind that we have seen a reduction in the number of smokers, so the tax revenue is down.

I actually do feel that we should raise the minimum wage substantially but in concert with that, we should institute a universal healthcare system in order to take the burden off of businesses and corporations in providing their workers healthcare coverage. The amount of money most employers pay to insurance companies on their employees behalf (us workers only pay a small premium amount monthly for our healthcare) would be more than enough to boost those workers out of the "poverty" category, which would free up additional funds due to those workers not qualifying for foodstamps and/or housing assistance.

That is actually my only true liberal belief - raise the minimum wage but remove the burden of healthcare from employers and institute a UHS - that I hold. I actually do think that the move by large corporations like Walgreens and Trader Joes is a good one - to push their employees onto Obamacare in order to take the burden of healthcare off their coffers. I think everyone should have to be in Obamacare or have the option of buying their own healthcare plan because that would be an excellent way for businesses to raise wages without having to raise their prices.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by Fox Terrier

That's right; what he can do is very limited without the consensus of congress.

He had no problem deciding to ignore the laws concerning Obamacare.

Didn't a bunch of those on the right wing state that their goal was to make Obama a one-term president? Haven't they vigorously attempt to shut down, stall, or otherwise sabotage anything that Obama wanted to do?

And posters here then have the nerve to proclaim 'where's the hope and change'????

LOL at you all.

I had hoped for change also. It was clear when he re-appointed Bernanke that where it comes to the little guy there was going to be no change.

[rbohm]

Originally Posted by bUU

Another parade of callous disregard for others. Y'all must be right-wingers.

While the idea doesn't have merit in a vacuum, there are elements of righteous truth underlying Maher's shtick, which right-wingers, afflicted by excessive avarice, assuredly deny: The problem is, in a nutshell, there are inadequate living wage jobs where Americans live, and that that's partially due to how many highly-profitable businesses exploit the ability to shift some of the legitimate costs of labor onto the American taxpayer by paying inadequate wages for their employees to live on.

and just who should be blamed for the fact that wages are depressed? those on the left blame those on the right, and vice versa. but few ever dig down to the real problem, and that is the loss of manufacturing jobs in this country. there was a time when the US was THE manufacturer for the world, not anymore, and we can blame government regulations, unions and their work rules, and the push for globalization.

Right-wingers afflicted by egoistic avarice often make the point that such jobs as Maher was referring to are meant to be teenagers' first jobs or provide a little fun-money for retirees. Fine. Then put your money where your mouth is and limit those jobs to those folks. Don't presume to claim that there are jobs to be had, for folks trying to pay their own way and support their family, if the jobs you're referring to are jobs that, out of the other side of your mouth, you're claiming aren't meant for folks trying to pay their own way and support their family.

minimum wage jobs are entry level jobs, entry level jobs are for those just starting out in the work place, not for those that have been around in the work place for a few years.

Stop trying to hide the abject selfishness of the right-wing claptrap in intricate mazes of logical fallacy, circular reasoning, and evasion of civic responsibility. You want people working to earn what they need to pay their own way? Me too. Let's make that happen. Don't make excuses. Don't equivocate. Don't whine about the cost to the taxpayer to make those jobs happen. Suck it up. Part of being a mature, conscientious adult is caring about something other than one's own comfort and luxury, and acknowledging the obligations to society that stem from being a beneficiary therefrom.

part of being a mature adult is recognizing the fact that entry level jobs are just that entry level, and that they are there for people to develop marketable job skills, and develop some maturity as well as learn how things really work, as well as learn about the business they are in so they can move up in the business, either with that particular employer or another.

The reality is that our economy is not quite so simple as right-wingers make it out to be. There are complexities that preclude the right-wing's deliberately simplistic view of how people - real, live, thinking, feeling, worthwhile (despite inanely self-centered right-wing claims to the contrary) human beings - should gain access to the ability to pay their own way. The gap is society's fault - comprehensively. And society's paramount economic responsibility is to bridge the gap. Without excuses. Without equivocations. Without whining.

actually it is the left that is suggesting that the economy is simple. you push for higher wages, bit forget that businesses are there to make money, not hire employees. and when you raise the cost of doing business, it doesnt happen in a vacuum. those higher expenses need to be covered one way or another, and business has options;

1: they can cut the number of employees

2: they can raise prices

3: they can cut portion size, essentially raising prices without actually doing it

4: they can cut expenses in other areas like moving the business to a space where they dont have to pay as much rent.

5: they can do a combination of all of the above

and you blame society for some kind of "gap" are you talking about the wealth gap? or what? either way why should someone who stepped up to the plate and took all the risks of starting a business, and took the time to make that business successful, have to "give back" to society? why should the rich have to pay for everything? its a rubbish point of view that just because one person made money doing what they do best has to now somehow give that money to those who didnt make money because they didnt want to take those risks. you want to talk about morality, where is the morality in giving stuff to people that didnt EARN those things?

Originally Posted by dsjj251

no, they wont. I am not sure why people keep perpetuating that argument. People argue now that higher wage jobs means better skilled workers and higher efficiency. Why is that argument not passed along to Wal Mart ?

yes its true, when an employer pays a higher wage, they usually demand higher levels of service and efficiency, and when they get that higher level, they dont NEED extra employees. os is this what you are really preaching? force companies to pay higher wages, so the entry level people have to work harder to make their money? and so business can ultimately cut the number of employees they have?

Originally Posted by Slithytoves

A few people on this thread have raised the issue of morality. Shouldn't employers feel a moral responsibility to pay their workers a living wage? Not at gunpoint...because it's the right thing to do?

Isn't it immorally exploitative when you are a major employer, like Wal-Mart, who comes into an area and competes against smaller businesses, often driving others out of business and further reducing the number of other options for service employment, then offers m

there is no morality in business, except those of business practices. business has no moral responsibility to do anything except what their contracts require. if i were to own a business, and i hire an employee, and they tell me they can work for lets say $1000 a month, and i hire them at that rate, then i have fulfilled my moral responsibility to that employee. we came to an agreement on wages, and if the employee made the wrong choice, then why should i have to pay for that choice?

as to your argument that wal mart kills jobs, that is rubbish. take luray virginia for instance. they tried to keep wal mart out of there, they claimed the town would lose jobs, etc. they also claimed that wal mar twould bring in outside contractors to build the store thus hurting the local contractors. the reality however was far different. yes its true wal mart did have to bring in an outside contractor to build the store, only because there was NO contractor big enough to handle the construction, but the outside contractor use local sub contractors, so they were put to work anyway. when the store opened, a few mom and pops went out of business, but the area GAINED 300 jobs, but they lost perhaps 25, which means a net gain of 275 jobs. and the jobs lost paid the same rate as the jobs gained, so again tell me how wal mart hurts a local economy? in fact in the years since wal mart opened there the are has in fact grown.

so before you bash a company, why not actually find out what happens when they do go in to an area, large or small.

[middle-aged mom]

Originally Posted by pknopp

So, if Wal-Mart buys 5 companies in China making cheap shoes, toaster, televisions, watches and computers and they make billions doing that they should get a tax break to be able to use that money to invest in new stores here?

Nothing precludes Walmart from building a new store once they determine there is a market for another store. They bargain for and receive tremendous state and municipal incentives to do so.

One of Walmart's recent battles was fought in DC.

The DC Council passed legislation to mandate big box stores to pay a minimum of $12.50 /hr. Walmart dug their heels in and made clear they would drop their plans. The mayor vetoed the legislation and the council backed off.

Within a week, 11,000 people applied for 1800 Walmart jobs.

Will this mayor be remembered for killing the $12.50 legislation that would have caused Walmart to abandon plans or for helping to create 1800 new jobs?

[OICU812]

Originally Posted by Fox Terrier

That's right; what he can do is very limited without the consensus of congress. Didn't a bunch of those on the right wing state that their goal was to make Obama a one-term president? Haven't they vigorously attempt to shut down, stall, or otherwise sabotage anything that Obama wanted to do?

And posters here then have the nerve to proclaim 'where's the hope and change'????

LOL at you all.

What hasn't Obama gotten, that he wanted?

The stimulus - failed.
Obamacare - failed.
Cash for Clunkers - failed.
Solyndra and all his other green energy crony capitalism - failed.
IRS scandals
NSA scandals
EPA scandals
ObamaCare is one giant scandal

BTW... What democrat politician doesn't want a Republican president fail in getting reelected???? Do you think Pelosi and Reid wanted Bush to win reelection?

[Slithytoves]

Originally Posted by pknopp

When a large segment of the area gets a large wage increase the cost of living in that area goes up. It then becomes something that feeds upon itself. Do you really not understand this?

These are nothing but vast generalizations. Very small mom and pop businesses are exempt from minimum wage laws and do indeed pay less than minimum wage in some cases.

When a large segment of the population can't make ends meet, the quality of life and the community itself crumbles, and then no company BUT the Wal-Marts of this world will move in. Costs of living increase regardless. Better to pay decent wages and at least keep the community from dipping below the point of no return. This I have seen happen for myself. Wal-Mart got big fat tax breaks to come into my family's town, in exchange for big fat campaign contributions. They wrecked local businesses and gouged the tax base from every angle. Cost of living continues to increase but with fewer and fewer people able to keep up. The town looks like it has aged 50 years in just over a decade. Not paying higher wages helps less than the alternative.

Or let's say it doesn't. Let's say the results even out. What's your solution? And who should be responsible?

Re your second statement...in some cases, but not so in many others. When I had my own business and was active in small business organizations, my peers showed concern about paying a decent wage. It was a source of frustration for those that couldn't afford to. People who run small businesses have good reason to want and keep good employees.