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.
So because something happened to you it will happen for everyone? That does not make sense at all and disregards that you may have had advantages other people did not.
Oh, you want to talk about the advantages I had? I had my second child while I was still making minimum wage. I painted houses on my time off and pushed my lawn more down the street mowing yards for people to keep clothes on their back. Don't get high and mighty with me and tell me about how I don't comprehend what the poor in this nation go through.
Oh, you want to talk about the advantages I had? I had my second child while I was still making minimum wage. I painted houses on my time off and pushed my lawn more down the street mowing yards for people to keep clothes on their back. Don't get high and mighty with me and tell me about how I don't comprehend what the poor in this nation go through.
Those sound like more your choices then not having an advantage. Like I said before because you can reach some level does not mean anyone can. My doctor became a doctor does not mean I can.
Compensation is bases on performance and what value a employee brings to the table. I went to McDonalds Monday AM Early and I found the woman who waited on me was clearly put off because I ordered #2 on the menu. Never ask for cream and sugar in my coffee.
15.00 dollars, I think not. I would of terminated her .
You couldn't have summed up the smug, arrogant, self righteous liberal mindset any better if you tried.
There is nothing smug, arrogant or self-righteous about being a mature adult and a contributing member of society. The fact that you cannot tell one from the other demonstrates the effect of the right-wing echo chamber in promulgating its self-centered corruption among its sycophants.
Compensation is bases on performance and what value a employee brings to the table. I went to McDonalds Monday AM Early and I found the woman who waited on me was clearly put off because I ordered #2 on the menu. Never ask for cream and sugar in my coffee.
15.00 dollars, I think not. I would of terminated her .
Do you think she would try harder if she was paid more?
At this point she's got nothing to lose. She gets fired from McDs, she'll go to BK and get a job for the same money. Lets say the minimum stays the same, but companies opt to pay more, say $12. All of a sudden she does a better job because if she losses this one at $12/hr, she goes to BK, but will only make $8 over there.
There is nothing to aspire to in these jobs. I don't see anything wrong with someone of less than average intelligence working as a cashier for a career. Start at $8 work way up to $15. I understand the argument is that at $15 the owner can hire two people, but this lady has experience and good track record and is worth it, I would think.
The fact is that employers just don't care and we as consumers do nothing to punish them. We need to shop the local mom & pop stores and buy American. But no one will do that because of how relatively expensive it is.
In fact that is exactly what has happened. Why do you think that food and fuel are no longer calculated into the inflation index?
This, this and some more of this.
People are ignorant of the fact the standard fixed weight, constant basket measure of CPI was being fudged in the 1970s, gained popularity in Congress in the 1980s, and became the Gingrich House tool of choice to lower the deficit in the 1990s. By changing how we measure the CPI to a floating, substitution, "measure of happiness" number, the Congress can essentially invent an inflation number that let's them invent how much SS and other cost-of-living chained programs need to be adjusted. You know the story about how "Clinton's/Gingrich's surplus was budget trickery" and all that? It was the changes to the CPI measurement...that was the trick.
Real, standard weight, fixed basket inflation has been higher than reported every year for the last 35 or so. The average person on the ground knows this, but the government does it different.
Here's an example for the folks who don't know all this:
The fixed basket says average strip steak costs $8 per pound, and flank steak costs $7.50. Next year, strip steak costs $8.80 and flank steak costs $8.25. You and I know that steak went up in price by 10%, and it's plainly obvious to a casual observer. Nope, that's not how the government sees it. The thing is, they figure you won't let your personal cost of living go up to much, so they calculate the cost increase after you SWITCH from strip to flank. Your "cost of satisfaction" (since you are still eating steak after all) only went up by 3.125%, not 10%. They then publish 3% as inflation and that is how they adjust SS and every other COL spending.
Essentially, they choose an inflation number, and adjust the basket to make that number work. That's what you see published, and it has nothing to do with your daily reality. BLS has been "updating" the substitution based weightings and measures in the CPI every 2 years instead of every 10. They gave us that "more responsive" CPI because it makes the numbers look a whole lot better than they really are.
They go to the fixed basket when they are demanding higher minimum wages, and stay with the substitution based CPI when they are doing their own budgeting. It's sleight of hand that allows them to overspend and hide from you how disastrous it really is, while making you think you're getting a good deal.
Minimum wage raises prices in the local economies who do it. No, you won't see a government report on how much, and as close to the truth as you'll get with them is "we cannot measure that given variability in the markets" or something like that. Most times, they pick goods in the CPI that either are global commodities or valued like them, because our local wage laws don't really change how much a globally traded thing costs. Again, more sleight of hand.
The only delusions are coming from you. You are not necessarily worth what your employer pays you you could be worth more then that or less then that. Employers will offer a wage which could be what the job is worth or not. This idea that all employers pay fair wages is bogus.
If you and your employer agree to a wage, it is by definition a fair wage. If you don't think the employer is paying enough, don't take the job.
Sooo when you go look at the history is that what has happened before? No? Then why exactly do you believe this time is different?
When you look at history, raising the minimum wage has never resulted in minimum wage earners being better off long term. So, why exactly do you believe this time is different?
Do you think she would try harder if she was paid more?
If she tried harder, she would be paid more. Everywhere people work, some folks try and do more than others. Almost all the time, you see those people getting ahead faster and farther than their less motivated peers. I've lived this in several jobs. When I was a pizza delivery driver, I would sweep the floors, clean the tables, and fold boxes while I was between deliveries. Every other driver would scold me and say "drivers aren't required to do that" and I would always reply with what else am I going to do? Because my boss saw me being the guy who always pitched in, above and beyond what my official duties called for, I got raises faster, I got more under the counter bennies, like free sandwiches/pizza, and I always got the choice deliveries. I also got paid more anytime I volunteered to work the prep line or do end of shift stuff like making the next day's dough or doing topping prep. And every driver griped about how good I had it, but not one ever did any of the extra stuff I did. Not once, not ever. All they did was gripe.
Same deal when I did tree work and landscaping. When everyone else took off after half-assing some job, I was the one cleaning the equipment, helping the owner close up, prepping for next day, doing the gasoline runs, etc. I'd be the one who stopped at Home Depot to get parts/equipment. I'd be the one to volunteer for the jobs that nobody wanted but had to get done. Example - we typically subcontracted log splitting to a guy with a hydraulic splitter, but he was on another job one weekend and we had two trees worth of splitting to do. Everyone was standing around kicking rocks, griping, and I was the only person to ask "got a splitting axe?" So I grabbed the splitting axe and got to splitting. I got a $1 an hour raise that night.
And every job I've worked in IT, same thing in the white collar world. My resume is 16 years of being the guy who is first/only person to say "sure, I'll give that a try, put me in Coach, I can do it." I make a really solid living as a result. Work ethic separates the wheat from the chaff, and I have seen it at every job, in every industry and every level I've ever worked in, going back to when I mowed lawns and delivered newspapers.
If people want to be paid more, they should do more and be more. Period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katestar
At this point she's got nothing to lose. She gets fired from McDs, she'll go to BK and get a job for the same money. Lets say the minimum stays the same, but companies opt to pay more, say $12. All of a sudden she does a better job because if she losses this one at $12/hr, she goes to BK, but will only make $8 over there.
Why would I hire her after I know she got fired somewhere else? Because she tells me as a prospective hire that the reason she got fired is because she wasn't going to perform for someone without what she thought was proper pay? Yeah, thanks for coming in...NEXT!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by katestar
There is nothing to aspire to in these jobs. I don't see anything wrong with someone of less than average intelligence working as a cashier for a career. Start at $8 work way up to $15. I understand the argument is that at $15 the owner can hire two people, but this lady has experience and good track record and is worth it, I would think.
Not if she got fired, she doesn't.
And there's plenty to aspire to. Every min wage fry cook has a shift supervisor and works in a building with an owner. Every day-1 employee works with people who've been there longer and are making more than them. The McDonalds closest to my house is owned by a guy who has never worked anywhere else. He started at that same McDonalds, in the 60s, when he was a teenager. He has a shift supervisor who has worked for him for 37 years. Two guys in my parish have worked there since they were 16, and one is now a shift supervisor at night, at age 20. Every single person in that example started on fries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katestar
The fact is that employers just don't care and we as consumers do nothing to punish them. We need to shop the local mom & pop stores and buy American. But no one will do that because of how relatively expensive it is.
Here's the real fact I've gleaned from 35 years of gainful employment - employers and employees all come in varying degrees of caring about each other. Neither is pure sinner nor pure saint. Some employers suck to work for, and end up having crappy employees and do poor business. At the same time, lots and lots of employees simply suck at being productive and valuable, most always because of their attitude and work ethic, and wind up working sucky jobs for sucky employers. I have always cared about my job, and I have worked for a few employers that were awesome, and a few that sucked mightily. The ones who were awesome only lost me because advancement wasn't possible or I was relocating. The sucky employers lost me because good employees don't need to work for sucky employers, we have choices.
That's the other element always left out of this whole minimum wage equation - where's the onus on the employee? We force employers to do all sorts of stuff, and we always default to the virgin-as-the-driven-snow innocence of the employees, but where is their part in all this? After all, 97% of the work force makes more than the minimum wage. What are those 97% doing that the remaining 3% are not? Can we legislate that? Like, we force employers to pay X wage, but we force employees to do X tasks as well? Why is force applied only on one party in the gig?
If she tried harder, she would be paid more. Everywhere people work, some folks try and do more than others. Almost all the time, you see those people getting ahead faster and farther than their less motivated peers. I've lived this in several jobs. When I was a pizza delivery driver, I would sweep the floors, clean the tables, and fold boxes while I was between deliveries. Every other driver would scold me and say "drivers aren't required to do that" and I would always reply with what else am I going to do? Because my boss saw me being the guy who always pitched in, above and beyond what my official duties called for, I got raises faster, I got more under the counter bennies, like free sandwiches/pizza, and I always got the choice deliveries. I also got paid more anytime I volunteered to work the prep line or do end of shift stuff like making the next day's dough or doing topping prep. And every driver griped about how good I had it, but not one ever did any of the extra stuff I did. Not once, not ever. All they did was gripe.
Same deal when I did tree work and landscaping. When everyone else took off after half-assing some job, I was the one cleaning the equipment, helping the owner close up, prepping for next day, doing the gasoline runs, etc. I'd be the one who stopped at Home Depot to get parts/equipment. I'd be the one to volunteer for the jobs that nobody wanted but had to get done. Example - we typically subcontracted log splitting to a guy with a hydraulic splitter, but he was on another job one weekend and we had two trees worth of splitting to do. Everyone was standing around kicking rocks, griping, and I was the only person to ask "got a splitting axe?" So I grabbed the splitting axe and got to splitting. I got a $1 an hour raise that night.
And every job I've worked in IT, same thing in the white collar world. My resume is 16 years of being the guy who is first/only person to say "sure, I'll give that a try, put me in Coach, I can do it." I make a really solid living as a result. Work ethic separates the wheat from the chaff, and I have seen it at every job, in every industry and every level I've ever worked in, going back to when I mowed lawns and delivered newspapers.
If people want to be paid more, they should do more and be more. Period.
Why would I hire her after I know she got fired somewhere else? Because she tells me as a prospective hire that the reason she got fired is because she wasn't going to perform for someone without what she thought was proper pay? Yeah, thanks for coming in...NEXT!!
Not if she got fired, she doesn't.
And there's plenty to aspire to. Every min wage fry cook has a shift supervisor and works in a building with an owner. Every day-1 employee works with people who've been there longer and are making more than them. The McDonalds closest to my house is owned by a guy who has never worked anywhere else. He started at that same McDonalds, in the 60s, when he was a teenager. He has a shift supervisor who has worked for him for 37 years. Two guys in my parish have worked there since they were 16, and one is now a shift supervisor at night, at age 20. Every single person in that example started on fries.
Here's the real fact I've gleaned from 35 years of gainful employment - employers and employees all come in varying degrees of caring about each other. Neither is pure sinner nor pure saint. Some employers suck to work for, and end up having crappy employees and do poor business. At the same time, lots and lots of employees simply suck at being productive and valuable, most always because of their attitude and work ethic, and wind up working sucky jobs for sucky employers. I have always cared about my job, and I have worked for a few employers that were awesome, and a few that sucked mightily. The ones who were awesome only lost me because advancement wasn't possible or I was relocating. The sucky employers lost me because good employees don't need to work for sucky employers, we have choices.
That's the other element always left out of this whole minimum wage equation - where's the onus on the employee? We force employers to do all sorts of stuff, and we always default to the virgin-as-the-driven-snow innocence of the employees, but where is their part in all this? After all, 97% of the work force makes more than the minimum wage. What are those 97% doing that the remaining 3% are not? Can we legislate that? Like, we force employers to pay X wage, but we force employees to do X tasks as well? Why is force applied only on one party in the gig?
*Tips hat*
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.
Still Remains.
