Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-20-2015, 05:59 PM
 
9,694 posts, read 7,394,892 times
Reputation: 9931

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haakon View Post
So why do the vast majority of employers pay above minimum wage? By your "reasoning" the only reason they even pay the current minimum is because government forces them to pay it. Why would any business currently paying above minimum wage lower their wages just because the minimum dropped out? Reducing minimum wage doesn't make someone who can weld, or operate heavy equipment or program any less valuable.
by having a zero minimum wage it would force the labor to seek the best deal, soso paying dollar more, i go over there.

by having minimum wage, it give the employer the excuse, will pay what the government says. so by elimnation government it be a true capitalism system, beside there are some that not worth minimum wage

i agree with a zero minimum wage
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-20-2015, 06:08 PM
 
Location: Hoosierville
17,409 posts, read 14,650,567 times
Reputation: 11634
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky4life View Post
The free market is a joke.

If there was no minimum wage, the majority of employers would lower their salary expenses to increase their profits, while taxpayers picked up the tab for the increased amount of social welfare programs an employee making $5 an hour would require.

Personally, I would rather pay an extra nickel for a hamburger than see a company like McDonald's increase their profits by billions of dollars, while sending this country into further dept.

Honestly, I would like to see massive fast food chains like Burger King or Taco Bell forced to pay their employees $15 an hour, while smaller local business only pay the existing minimum wage while having the rest of their employees wages subsidized. This would allow restaurants that actually serve REAL food to compete with the giants, while combating this countries growing health epidemic that's partly caused by the poison that is produced by these mega corporations.
Do you understand that 80% of McDonald's (for example) restaurants are franchises and not corporate owned ... right?

My guess is that you didn't.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2015, 06:17 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
7,541 posts, read 10,261,826 times
Reputation: 3510
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky4life View Post

Honestly, I would like to see massive fast food chains like Burger King or Taco Bell forced to pay their employees $15 an hour, while smaller local business only pay the existing minimum wage while having the rest of their employees wages subsidized. This would allow restaurants that actually serve REAL food to compete with the giants, while combating this countries growing health epidemic that's partly caused by the poison that is produced by these mega corporations.
A large percentage of internationally branded restaurants are locally owned and operated.


Further, a lot of the food that is served by chain restaurants is grown or produced in the local areas.



If the government forced restaurants to double their wages, there would definitely be a lot few restaurants out there, people would find it more economical just to bring a braunschweiger sandwich or some hard boiled eggs from home instead of stopping at a Subway. Do you think that would necessarily raise the general health of the country?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2015, 07:11 PM
 
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,206,701 times
Reputation: 57821
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
If people cannot afford to give to charities, how can they afford to pay taxes to support others?

BTW, without government intervention, recessions would be quite short.
Giving to charities is voluntary, if one can't afford to, or doesn't want to, they don't have to. Taxes, on the other hand, for those that work, are withheld from the pay, there is no choice, whether they can afford to pay them or not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2015, 08:45 PM
 
1,198 posts, read 1,180,220 times
Reputation: 1530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuckity View Post
Do you understand that 80% of McDonald's (for example) restaurants are franchises and not corporate owned ... right?

My guess is that you didn't.

And that's completely irrelevant to anything I said. Think
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2015, 08:49 PM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,569,031 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
And what do you think that rent would do right about the same time as the minimum wage went up? What do you think basic food prices would do? In fact, what do you think just about all prices would do? And as soon as they did, you'd be moaning about needing higher wages again. It does no good, period. All it does is raise the price of everything and actually reduce spending power. The minimum wage should go down, not up.


Besides, the far left (aka government + members of their soporific collective) wants the higher minimum wage for... what again??? Well, it has nothing to do with people being able to achieve a higher standard of living. It has everything to do with the fact that a given Revenue Generation Device (that would be anyone who works for pay) will provide more revenue to the government if it is making $15 per hour rather than $7 per hour. Follow the money and government and you'll see the true motivation.

The trick is live on next to nothing (work just enough to support yourself, thus keeping yourself in a lower tax bracket). Then you can give the finger to the IRS each April AND you are not supporting those who could earn their keep, but refuse to work, letting everyone else pay their way. And you are not paying for a myriad of other things the government blows YOUR money on, but should have nothing to do with in the first place.
Actually it's more about getting votes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2015, 08:52 PM
 
1,198 posts, read 1,180,220 times
Reputation: 1530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
Not true at all. Employers don't consider welfare at all when determining wages.

Try again.
You have absolutely no Idea what I am talking about do you?

That's funny because it's a pretty simple concept.

Read it again. There is no way that goes over a grown man or woman's head lol

Last edited by lucky4life; 04-20-2015 at 09:13 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2015, 09:08 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
38,936 posts, read 23,903,106 times
Reputation: 14125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dooleys1300 View Post
So?

Who says you have any "right" to make more than 35k a year if the economy won't support more than that in the field you've chosen?

You only have the right to keep trying.

I never said that what I did was the smartest thing I could have done, and in hindsight if I had it to do over again there's definitely some things I would do differently. But that doesn't mean that the way I did it isn't possible anymore. My 22 yr old nephew is now doing the same thing I did, and he's damn good at it too.

All the choices I made and the resulting consequences are nobody's fault but mine....but so are all the achievements.
Ah the old "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" line. The problem is you keep having to pull yourself up by your bootstraps every time you bottom out, eventually you'll pull them so far they break from over use.

I don't exactly agree with your choices are your fault and achievements too, it maybe say 80/20, 80% is you and you alone, 20% outside factors (luck such as timing, connections, etc.) The 20% is sometimes more important than the 80% you control through marketable skills.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Workin_Hard View Post
Hint: Improve your skills beyond the hourly wage set. Learn a trade. A real one. If you chose the academic route, don't study art history or philosophy. Research a range of fields which interest you. Find one in which you could be happy and earn a good wage. Develop skills which are in demand, and will remain so, and you'll never have to look for the "Now Hiring" signs.

Where there's a will, there's a way.
The problem lies not everyone's interest and strong suits are what earn a good wage. For instance we always hear go into STEM, go into trades. Good ideas on paper, but not when someone doesn't have the ability, or the interest it can be a problem. For instance an engineering student needs calculus and if you are bad at algebra, you can likely forget about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
If people cannot afford to give to charities, how can they afford to pay taxes to support others?
Apples and oranges as covered by Hemlock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemlock140 View Post
Giving to charities is voluntary, if one can't afford to, or doesn't want to, they don't have to. Taxes, on the other hand, for those that work, are withheld from the pay, there is no choice, whether they can afford to pay them or not.
Taxes are also pre-accounted for each year and as of right (based on the tax system with deductions) now can be deducted from in various ways to give you a return and send you back money and is mandatory (even if they virtually pay no taxes.) Compare that to charity which depends if you have money left over from needs and other misc expenses through out the year. I could have money left over after needs and misc. expenses but I am not forced to give it to charity and instead could just save it or spend on wants.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
BTW, without government intervention, recessions would be quite short.
Unless you have proof, that's heresay and would depend on how bad the recession or depression truly is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2015, 09:13 PM
 
1,198 posts, read 1,180,220 times
Reputation: 1530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haakon View Post
So why do the vast majority of employers pay above minimum wage? By your "reasoning" the only reason they even pay the current minimum is because government forces them to pay it. Why would any business currently paying above minimum wage lower their wages just because the minimum dropped out? Reducing minimum wage doesn't make someone who can weld, or operate heavy equipment or program any less valuable.
Really? Come on guys................this is ridiculous

Obviously we're talking about minimum wage jobs and not skilled positions that dictate their own wages.

And yes, the only reason an employer pays someone collecting ticket stubs at the movie theater or someone working the drive through window minimum wage is because it's required by law. Without that law, they would pay the absolute least amount of money that they could get someone to do the job for. And yes, the government would pick up the tab through social welfare programs with your tax dollars lol

They already do this with low paying jobs. This is why companies like Walmart actually have programs to coach their employees on how to get the most out of social welfare programs to supplement their pathetic wages. Personally, I would rather have the cockroaches that own Walmart pick up the tab instead of pawning it off on big brother, which then trickles down to me for making a decent living.


There is so much ignorance in this thread that it's painful.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2015, 09:23 PM
 
Location: Hoosierville
17,409 posts, read 14,650,567 times
Reputation: 11634
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky4life View Post
And that's completely irrelevant to anything I said. Think
No it's not.

You think that the McDonald's or Taco Bell on your local corner is owned by a big international corporation.

Most likely, they're not.

So when you say that you'd like to see the corporate fast food giants forced to pay $15 and a smaller local business paid existing wages but have it subsidized you lack understanding. What you fail to comprehend, is that McDonald's on Main Street IS that small local business.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:22 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top