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.
And there is this as well: no matter what company you use, the lowest paid employees are usually the ones to greet you first. In other words, your first and most important impression of that particular company, one at which you're considering spending your hard earned dollars at, is given to you by people who likely make the minimum wage. These are people who have to give two weeks' notice to quit, but can be fired at any time. They need to be on call for any and every shift, and that shift and its hours change weekly and sometimes daily, making a second job or going to school hard to plan for. Most of them get no benefits, are threatened with the loss of their jobs if they call out sick, may be asked to work off the clock, and have unattainable goals they have to meet to keep their jobs.
These are the people who greet you when you walk in the door. They're the first ones you see when you meet the company. They're the intermediary between you and what it is you want to buy. It's the best opportunity for a first impression any company gives its regular customers and potential customers, and the company doesn't even care enough to pay these people a wage that will cover rent in the area they live in.
And you wonder why customer service has gone downhill?
Not only that, but be aware of what happened in the last small town I worked in, which was one of the richest zips in the nation at that point. We couldn't hire people to work for minimum wage. Adults didn't need it and the kids got more per week for an allowance. Those of us who did work had to listen to the constant complaints about having to wait in line and why couldn't we hire more help? It's just something else to consider when your minimum wage workers decide to move because it's cheaper to live on minimum wage somewhere else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo
A large percentage of minimum wage workers are on parent fare. Why not direct your government intervention to actions such as expanding the EITC instead?
A large percentage of a higher minimum wage will be realized by families making above the average income and much of it will be paid by those who are not.
That's like saying a large percentage of college students are just out of high school. Does that mean scholarships and grants should only be available to to them because older people have no need of education?
And if what you say is true, then why all the talk about people supporting their families on minimum wage, which is the reason people want it to be a living wage? Why all the snarky remarks here about people needing to better themselves if they can't make it on minimum wage? Come to that, I was working full time and supporting myself when I was 17, and I sure wasn't on any parentfare. It's just that rents were much, much lower than they are today. Maybe instead of raising minimum wage, we need to decrease rents and property values.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eeyore1954
Is that really you outlook? Woe is me I have no choice but to stay in a menial job and aspire to a $20,000 a year job in 20 years.
So look around for a better job or acquire a skill that pays more. For the time being work hard in your current job.
But remember, this used to be the norm not so many years ago. You were expected to stay in one job in your lifetime, and you could expect benefits and raises. You could also raise a family on that job with only one person working.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTRIDER AZ
No. Pay is based on productivity and position. Not because the guy shows up to push a broom.
I've see people making minimum wage working machinery the CEO of the company doesn't know how to use. What's your point?
That's arguable, which is actually an improvement over your previous stance of "everything I believe is just a perfect expression of natural law that I can't explain and you can't debate okay!"
You are a liar. Point to my post where I said that or admit you are a liar.
It's no different than Obama wanting to punish people who saved for their childrens' education because there are irresponsible parents who had children without being able to provide for them.
.
Obama hates the working class. He loves his rich buddies and his leeches. He thinks nothing of taking money from people who save for their children s education and giving it to the leeches.
And there is this as well: no matter what company you use, the lowest paid employees are usually the ones to greet you first. In other words, your first and most important impression of that particular company, one at which you're considering spending your hard earned dollars at, is given to you by people who likely make the minimum wage. These are people who have to give two weeks' notice to quit, but can be fired at any time. They need to be on call for any and every shift, and that shift and its hours change weekly and sometimes daily, making a second job or going to school hard to plan for. Most of them get no benefits, are threatened with the loss of their jobs if they call out sick, may be asked to work off the clock, and have unattainable goals they have to meet to keep their jobs.
Hogwash. You are just making crap up to suit your politics. No such thing happens. If it did in the modern day and age of partisan politics, lawsuits, and media sensationalism then it would have long since been major news with politicians, lawyers, and journalists making careers out of exploiting it.
Quote:
These are the people who greet you when you walk in the door. They're the first ones you see when you meet the company. They're the intermediary between you and what it is you want to buy. It's the best opportunity for a first impression any company gives its regular customers and potential customers, and the company doesn't even care enough to pay these people a wage that will cover rent in the area they live in.
And you wonder why customer service has gone downhill?
Or, we can dispense with your ideologically driven nonsense, and consider something far more realistic: these are the people who did not bother to develop the skills nor had the drive to better themselves, and so they are the most likely to not care about their jobs or the impression they are making on their customers.
Sorry if that doesn't fit your notions of the noble working poor.
Amen, kidkaos2, Contrary to popular belief, saying "hello" is not a high end skill. In addition, the customer chose to come to the store unaware of who would be there to say "hello", nor did he/she care who was doing it. He cared about the products being offered, and the price points of the establishment.
I've see people making minimum wage working machinery the CEO of the company doesn't know how to use. What's your point?
Um, people who can "work the machinery" are a dime a dozen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
It doesn't need substantiation. It's self evident. That's like asking someone to substantiate that 1+1=2. A thing's monetary worth is measured by what someone else is willing to pay for it. It's axiomatic. There can be no other way to measure something's worth that isn't subjective. Something's market value is the only way to objectively measure its economic worth.
That sums it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logical Paradox
Well I mean it is pretty much proven fact that Walmart encourages their employees to apply for food stamps, even providing training videos.
Uh-huh...and what does Turbo-Tax encourage people to do?
In fact, what does any income tax preparer encourage tax-payers to do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser
Do you even know what tests I'm talking about? From your response, it sure doesn't sound like it.
I'm guessing you're clueless about the PsychLit database.
The psychological tests to which you refer are designed to weed out slackers and liars and nutters and thieves and other undesirable people.
Naturally, slackers, liars, nutters, thieves and losers are offended by such tests.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser
I think we can all agree that people working is the BEST thing for our country and our economy.
I don't agree.
But then, I have a BA in Economics, so I sort of know something about it.
The number of people working does not a successful economy make.
A successful economy is stable and sustainable, immune to external shocks (save natural disasters) and which has constant growth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser
More people working means less people (hopefully) on welfare.
No, reducing or eliminating Welfare Benefits means less people on Welfare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser
More people working means more people paying into the tax system and circulating money.
No, taxes are not required to circulate money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser
Businesses that put a crimp in people trying to work are only screwing themselves and everyone else.
Not in an environment that is totally hostile to employers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser
And it's hard to understand how a governor can legislate things like credit checks to keep people from getting a job,....
People stop themselves from getting a job, not credit checks.
People who are indebted are constantly seeking higher wages, so it is not cost-effective to spend the money to hire and train an employee who will be leaving as soon as higher wagers are dangled in his face.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentraiser
By the way, if it is illegal to make a credit check on a person and if I find out that you went ahead and did a credit check on me without my approval, you will be sued. And I'd win.
Uh-huh...and, what, you think the employer is going to send you a singing telegram to announce the fact, or do you believe the employer will send you a text message?
I hope you're very different at job interviews, because you come across as an uneducated waif.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawaiian by heart
Production should be the true indicator of wages.
Is-Ought The is-ought fallacy occurs when a conclusion expressing what ought to be so is inferred from premises expressing only what is so, in which it is supposed that no implicit or explicit ought-premises are needed.
Show us the math to prove your point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawaiian by heart
But some how wages are stagnant or falling.
Because you cannot compete globally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Productivity was incredibly closely related until 1970...at which time productivity continued to gain, but rather then everyone being lifted up, median wages suddenly flatlined, and the gains from that productivity went to the top.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawaiian by heart
The last i checked storm our workers today production is the highest its been thru history.
Well, that's because prices are rising, due to the fact that costs are rising.
The growth of the output of goods is measured in unit volume, not dollars.
The reason liars and propaganda artists like use dollars is to artificially inflate productivity.
Compare:
200,000 labor-hours; 1 Million widgets produced; unit price is $10; gross revenues $10 Million
190,000 labor-hours; 950,000 widgets produced; unit price is $12; gross revenues $11.4 Million
Did Productivity increase?
No, you cannot make that claim, yet that is exactly what you are doing.
Hogwash. You are just making crap up to suit your politics. No such thing happens. If it did in the modern day and age of partisan politics, lawsuits, and media sensationalism then it would have long since been major news with politicians, lawyers, and journalists making careers out of exploiting it.
Or, we can dispense with your ideologically driven nonsense, and consider something far more realistic: these are the people who did not bother to develop the skills nor had the drive to better themselves, and so they are the most likely to not care about their jobs or the impression they are making on their customers.
Sorry if that doesn't fit your notions of the noble working poor.
Seriously? Boy, do you need a dose of the real world. I've experienced some of these things first hand and I know other people who have experienced some of the same things. Try
http//www.retailhellunderground.com
When the bank I was working at cut all the employees to 20 hours a week, I applied to another. I would be getting 30 hours a week and they told me I could work school around those hours. However, when I went to interview, I was told I would be expected to be available for any shift. If it interfered with my schooling, too bad (oh, by the way, that's the schooling I was using to "better myself").
Um, people who can "work the machinery" are a dime a dozen.
Yeah, right. I'd like to see you just waltz in and work some of these machines. Oversize digital color printer? Multi-functional copy machine that you can program? The point is, the machines have to be doing work while you're training on them. There isn't time to self train on them. So you better know what you're doing.
Quote:
I'm guessing you're clueless about the PsychLit database.
The psychological tests to which you refer are designed to weed out slackers and liars and nutters and thieves and other undesirable people.
Naturally, slackers, liars, nutters, thieves and losers are offended by such tests.
I'm talking about those little tests they have when you apply for Walmart, Home Depot, Petco, Petsmart, and a dozen other low wage companies. If that's part of the PsychLit, I can attest that it certainly DOESN'T weed out the slackers, liars, nutters, thieves, and other undesirables. I ought to know - I've worked with enough of those.
Quote:
I don't agree.
But then, I have a BA in Economics, so I sort of know something about it.
The number of people working does not a successful economy make.
A successful economy is stable and sustainable, immune to external shocks (save natural disasters) and which has constant growth.
And you achieve that how? By having people sitting on their butts? No, you get it by people working.
Quote:
No, reducing or eliminating Welfare Benefits means less people on Welfare.
And that helps who how? The only one it benefits is maybe you, until you need help. It still doesn't get people working and now you have people trying to make up the difference criminally - more drug dealing, more theft, more violent acts. And where in our crowded prisons are you going to put these people, who, by the way, will then be costing you to keep them incarcerated? What you want to do by kicking people off welfare is the same as putting out a forest fire by stamping on the match that started it. Incidentally, a number of people on food stamps are members of our military. Just in case you didn't know.
Quote:
No, taxes are not required to circulate money.
I said, "More people working means more people paying into the tax system and circulating money." Those are two different things. The money in our tax system is what allows our government to fund the military, fix our roads and bridges, etc, etc, etc. Having money circulate in our society instead of sit in cookie jars is what gives you your growing economy. The economy can't go anywhere if nobody's spending anything.
Quote:
Not in an environment that is totally hostile to employers.
So you would rather businesses know all your personal info, like whether you've had a heart attack, how much you weigh, how old you are, whether you're supporting a drug addicted daughter, and if you've had trouble repaying your bills in the past. You know, you want people to take responsibility for themselves, but when they try to do that by applying for a job that pays better or gives them a way to climb up the ladder, you're all in favor of business practices that kick them down and keep them on the bottom.
Quote:
People stop themselves from getting a job, not credit checks.
You mean, like the boss in one of my jobs who fired all employees making over $9/hr and hired in new employees at $8/hr ( I had worked there 8 years and was making $12/hr)? Or the employees who were laid off when their business went under? Or the people who can't afford a college education or even vocational training (if there is such a thing in their town)? And if credit checks don't stand in the way of getting a job, how about the job that says "Perfect Credit Required" on the ad? And that's one of the more honest ads. The rest of them simply take your application, run your credit, and tell you the position is already filled.
Quote:
People who are indebted are constantly seeking higher wages, so it is not cost-effective to spend the money to hire and train an employee who will be leaving as soon as higher wagers are dangled in his face.
Really? Tell Sprint. At the local call center for Sprint, they train on the average 20 to 30 people a class, 3 to 5 classes at a time, 2 to 3 times a year. Why? Because they treat their employees like dirt and the turnover is really that high. It costs them about $100,000 per class. A million to a million and a half per year to keep employees. And that's at just one call center. It's cost effective for them and you know why? Because they tack it on to your monthly cell phone bill. Ever wonder why that's so expensive? Now you know. This is a good case of a company whose treatment of their employees directly affects you. Enjoy.
And if you think only indebted people leave for greener pastures, again, you need a dose of the real world.
Quote:
Uh-huh...and, what, you think the employer is going to send you a singing telegram to announce the fact, or do you believe the employer will send you a text message?
I hope you're very different at job interviews, because you come across as an uneducated waif.
I'll remind you again, that unless you have the person's signed permission, it's illegal to run a credit check on that person. And those lawsuits you're so big on? A lot of them have been for just that reason. No reputable business will do a credit check without a signature. And it's easy to check. You just get your credit report. It will show who checked your credit and when. There's also programs you can sign up for that will notify you anytime your credit is checked or if someone has applied for credit in your name. And if someone has turned you down for a job because of bad credit, you're entitled to a free credit report.
This isn't something that's on the get-away-with-it-list. This is as serious as the bank filling out large cash transaction reports. Don't do it and you're gonna be looking for another job yourself.
I don't have to look for another job anymore. I've worked 35 years and paid my taxes like everyone else. I had a good working career starting when I was 17 and living on my own. As a "waif", I worked full time after leaving an abusive home, went to school full time so I could graduate from high school, and worked an extra 12 hours a week for the CETA program to get extra money, all the while paying rent on an apartment and supporting myself. And you come across as someone with zilch compassion and a seeming ignorance of how things work in the real world. And that's going to come back and bite you in the butt one day.
No, reducing or eliminating Welfare Benefits means less people on Welfare.
If only we eliminated welfare, those poors would get off their lazy butts and fill all those open jobs companies are dying to hire for!
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.
