Democratic Nominee in 2020

Quote: AZDuffman

Maybe they would still have it at $3.35. But who would be working for that low an amount. No employer outside of the state prison could find people to work at that rate.

Again, that's not correct. I have seen people who have effectively worked for basically that amount. I'm not saying that supposition is never correct, if labor demand greatly exceeded labor supply, for example, then you wouldn't see something like that happen. However, I think you're not considering the prospect of low employment. Many employers will pay the lowest amount they can possibly get away with out of desperation or sheer greed, sometimes they will find ways to pay less than that.

I just can't figure out what world you're living in where making something is not better than making nothing, but it's not the same world that I live in.

Quote:

Of course not all are. But any job on a political campaign pretty much is. Lots of work-study jobs are. My point is plenty are, but people take them for various reasons. I am sure I could find a person being paid $20 per hour who would prefer to be paid more money. Who would not prefer to be paid more money? If you want to be paid more money you look for a better job, you do not wait for the feds to force someone to pay you more.

I don't know the ins and outs of political campaign jobs, though I don't quite understand why it should be a paying position in the first place. I agree that some minimum wage jobs are, 'Jokes,' in the sense that no real work, skill or knowledge is required...I'm just saying that doesn't apply to all jobs that pay minimum wage. I also agree that many people take the jobs who, strictly speaking, do not need the jobs. That doesn't mean that the same applies to everyone.

Quote:

Uh, no. Get out and talk to some people in the employment field. I interviewed at a place last year for a factory job. I did not have the electronics background and the other stuff they had paid too low for me. But I got to talking with the recruiter. They said their phone started ringing off the hook literally days after the election. They said and this is a quote with their emphasis.

"TRUMP DID THIS!"

They said they were no longer taking clients because they could not fill the orders they had and their biggest problem was too many people would rather collect a government check than work. This was a place that filled factory manufacturing jobs. They are not the only ones I talked to that said business turned on a dime that way. No, it is not "paper wealth." It is full employment.

Wait a minute...why can you present anecdotal empirical accounts and those are valid, but when I do it, you just counter with the same points that you originally attempted to make?

AZ: Nobody would work for $X.xx

Mission: I have personally seen people work for less than $X.xx

AZ: Nobody would work for $X.xx

I mean, we can either discuss anecdotal empirical things or not, I'm fine either way. Your call. It just doesn't make for a balanced discussion if one person can present anecdotes into the argument and the other person cannot.

Okay, now you present that many people would rather collect a check from the Government than work. What's the logical conclusion to make, here? Assuming that people generally act in their own self-interest, my conclusion is that the perceived standard of living provided by the wages of the job in question is not enough of an improvement (for some people) as compared to simply not working at all. Answer: If you need more employees to satisfy demand, and you are presumably profitable, then consider paying more.

Quote: Mission146

Again, that's not correct. I have seen people who have effectively worked for basically that amount. I'm not saying that supposition is never correct, if labor demand greatly exceeded labor supply, for example, then you wouldn't see something like that happen. However, I think you're not considering the prospect of low employment. Many employers will pay the lowest amount they can possibly get away with out of desperation or sheer greed, sometimes they will find ways to pay less than that.

I just can't figure out what world you're living in where making something is not better than making nothing, but it's not the same world that I live in.

Why do you call it "greed" when employers want to pay as little as possible but do not call it "greed" when people want the MW increased for no extra work? It is not "greed" but simple business. As to the last sentence I do not understand what you are saying? It does not jive with the idea that raising MW will mean fewer jobs and some people will get nothing.

Quote:

I don't know the ins and outs of political campaign jobs, though I don't quite understand why it should be a paying position in the first place. I agree that some minimum wage jobs are, 'Jokes,' in the sense that no real work, skill or knowledge is required...I'm just saying that doesn't apply to all jobs that pay minimum wage. I also agree that many people take the jobs who, strictly speaking, do not need the jobs. That doesn't mean that the same applies to everyone.

We are speaking in general terms. You can always find an exception. Generally speaking, anyone can find a job $2-3 above MW at a minimum with little effort as they are everywhere. As to political campaigns, what I do know is I have read how Bernie and others pay staffers less than they call for in a MW. Seen more than one news story, so there is paid work. You probably need juice to get many of the gigs.

Quote:

Wait a minute...why can you present anecdotal empirical accounts and those are valid, but when I do it, you just counter with the same points that you originally attempted to make?

AZ: Nobody would work for $X.xx

Mission: I have personally seen people work for less than $X.xx

AZ: Nobody would work for $X.xx

I mean, we can either discuss anecdotal empirical things or not, I'm fine either way. Your call. It just doesn't make for a balanced discussion if one person can present anecdotes into the argument and the other person cannot.

Okay, now you present that many people would rather collect a check from the Government than work. What's the logical conclusion to make, here? Assuming that people generally act in their own self-interest, my conclusion is that the perceived standard of living provided by the wages of the job in question is not enough of an improvement (for some people) as compared to simply not working at all. Answer: If you need more employees to satisfy demand, and you are presumably profitable, then consider paying more.

Well, my anecdotal evidence is backed up by unemployment figures and GDP figures. Your stating that you know a person who will work on the cheap is refuted by the fact that employers are paying more because they cannot get workers at large by paying $7.50.

The issue is you are saying the same thing the UBI supporters here are saying. That you want living standards raised by government fiat. This cannot happen. Living standards get raised by wealth being created. And many employers do pay more when the are able to. Remember all the bonuses paid when Trump cut taxes?

In broad terms, lower skill work must produce about 10Xs in revenue what the wage rate is. So if a MCD employee wants $15 an hour then need to be producing $150 per hour in revenue. While this can vary, I have found it to be a safe and consistent number to use.

A Chick-Fil-A produces about twice what a MCD store does. They can thus afford to pay more, and will as CFA has and needs the best people. Costco employees produce about twice what a WMT employee does, this is based on their business models.

Now, those employees can live better because the market made them live better. But say we pass a higher MW. This means MCD will raise prices, along with everyone else. The MCD employee is back where they started in real terms, you just made them think they are doing better.

I have to leave on business now, so no replies does not mean I am ignoring ya.

Racist old bag gets punked!

Quote: AZDuffman

Why do you call it "greed" when employers want to pay as little as possible but do not call it "greed" when people want the MW increased for no extra work? It is not "greed" but simple business. As to the last sentence I do not understand what you are saying? It does not jive with the idea that raising MW will mean fewer jobs and some people will get nothing.

It's not always greed in the case of employers. I would say that they are usually not greedy. I have worked for employers who have been greedy. I have worked for ones who have not been greedy, at least, in my view.

Why is it not greed in the case of the workers? I never said it wasn't greed, it could be greed, but it isn't always.

As to the last part of what I said...okay, so one of your previous positions was that, effectively, nobody works for minimum wage anyway except for people who don't necessarily really need the job. Now you're saying an increase to the minimum wage would cause a loss of jobs, but how could it cause a loss of jobs (absent a big increase) when almost nobody (according to you) was making the amount of minimum wage in the first place?

Quote:

We are speaking in general terms. You can always find an exception. Generally speaking, anyone can find a job $2-3 above MW at a minimum with little effort as they are everywhere. As to political campaigns, what I do know is I have read how Bernie and others pay staffers less than they call for in a MW. Seen more than one news story, so there is paid work. You probably need juice to get many of the gigs.

That's exactly why minimum wage is the MINIMUM, because we want to make sure that the people and employers who are, "Exceptions," have a playing field that is not unfairly skewed in the favor of the employer. It's simply a question of what is the lowest amount that the federal government deems it, 'fair,' to pay someone. I do agree with you that most people work for an amount that is more than $0.00 above minimum wage.

Quote:

Well, my anecdotal evidence is backed up by unemployment figures and GDP figures. Your stating that you know a person who will work on the cheap is refuted by the fact that employers are paying more because they cannot get workers at large by paying $7.50.

The issue is you are saying the same thing the UBI supporters here are saying. That you want living standards raised by government fiat. This cannot happen. Living standards get raised by wealth being created. And many employers do pay more when the are able to. Remember all the bonuses paid when Trump cut taxes?

In broad terms, lower skill work must produce about 10Xs in revenue what the wage rate is. So if a MCD employee wants $15 an hour then need to be producing $150 per hour in revenue. While this can vary, I have found it to be a safe and consistent number to use.

A Chick-Fil-A produces about twice what a MCD store does. They can thus afford to pay more, and will as CFA has and needs the best people. Costco employees produce about twice what a WMT employee does, this is based on their business models.

Now, those employees can live better because the market made them live better. But say we pass a higher MW. This means MCD will raise prices, along with everyone else. The MCD employee is back where they started in real terms, you just made them think they are doing better.

I have to leave on business now, so no replies does not mean I am ignoring ya.

Something that actually happened can't be refuted by anything. How do you refute reality? I don't think you have much experience with the hotel industry at all.

I don't support UBI, I've already told you what I do support. I support setting a minimum wage higher than the current amount and then indexing said minimum wage to inflation henceforward. After a deflationary year, minimum wage could be reduced for the following year. If wealth is created, minimum wage goes up, if wealth is lost, minimum wage goes down. Anyway, debate against that or debate against nothing, UBI is completely irrelevant to anything I have said.

Literally all minimum wage does is propose the lowest amount that you can possibly pay someone if you want to employ them by legal means in any fashion aside from them being an independent contractor. I stipulate that amount should be $10.00 after a gradual increase for 3-4 years until hitting that point and then should thereafter be indexed to inflation.

I agree completely with the last thing that you said, but I really think it would pertain to a dramatic and immediate increase in MW something akin to the $15/hour proposed by some candidates. I think that a gradual increase to MW will enable the employers to find a new price point that will enable the margins and net profits to remain about the same as they are now. Honestly, with a dramatic increase, I think the McD employee could well end up worse than where he started.

Quote: rxwine

Many conservatives have a conniption fit over tax rates on the wealthy, whose basic needs are always meant under any proposed rate, and often much more.

But try to pay the bottom a decent wage...well, boggles the mind all the excuses they make.

16 year old me..... Got on a bus to get to the subway, then had to switch trains to get to my minimum wage job at the WTC. $2.65 an hour. 3 hours of commuting each day. No way someone could live on $106 a week then in NYC. It was a job for a kid. I knew it was a stop on the way to a better job in life. If they were required to pay me $5 I probably would not have had a job.

I have worked more than 40 hours a week for 35 years so that more than my basic needs can be met. But you think a no stress no skill no risk job for 40 hours a week is meant to support a family? I'm not going to quote all of AZ's rebuttals, but I don't think cookie bagger (what my wife's daughter is now doing at a bakery) should support a family.

The 'tax rate' argument is even weaker. I don't know anyone on this board who is against the rich paying more in taxes. My point has always been if my rate goes from paying what 40 families of 4 making $50k pay to paying what 38 families of 4 making $50k pay, please don't accuse me of not paying my fair share.

In summary, I didn't go to college for 4 years, medical school for 4 years, residency for 4 years.... to have my basic needs met. Heck, how about after your 40 hour MW job... go AP at your local casino! (I think there is a 'side hustle' thread on this very forum....)

Quote: AZDuffman

No. Minimum wage in 1950 was .75 per hour. About $8.00 today.

Please check your facts before you post. Minimum wage was NEVER about more than the lowest wage. A floor to index federal and other wages by.

If you want to spew that kind of exaggeration at a Bernie rally go ahead. Here we know better.

Damn, the police ought to make a chalk outline around his body after this ass whooping lol 😂😂

This is why I don't even bother arguing with libbies. They just make sh-- up as they go along. Like his ridiculous claim about minimum wage in 1950. Watch, he'll just completely ignore the fact that he made that up. He'll act like he never even said that. 🙄

Damn, SOOPOO and AZDuffman are both on their game today!! 👍
Libbie casualties are everywhere. 😂😂

Quote: SOOPOO

but I don't think cookie bagger (what my wife's daughter is now doing at a bakery) should support a family.

Libbies are incapable of understanding this. It's total insanity that he thinks washing dishes or flipping burgers for 40 hours a week should support a family. That's gotta be the dumbest argument in the world. 🙄

Quote: SOOPOO

if my rate goes from paying what 40 families of 4 making $50k pay to paying what 38 families of 4 making $50k pay, please don't accuse me of not paying my fair share.

Oh, he will. I can guarantee that! Like I said in another post, libbies don't acknowledge good arguments. They just ignore them! Just watch, he'll act like you never even said this. 🙄

Quote: SOOPOO

Heck, how about after your 40 hour MW job... go AP at your local casino!

Nah, that requires too much effort by the lazy ass grown adults who can't do better than a minimum wage job like burger flipper. 😂😂

Quote: SOOPOO

16 year old me..... Got on a bus to get to the subway, then had to switch trains to get to my minimum wage job at the WTC. $2.65 an hour. 3 hours of commuting each day. No way someone could live on $106 a week then in NYC. It was a job for a kid. I knew it was a stop on the way to a better job in life. If they were required to pay me $5 I probably would not have had a job.

I have worked more than 40 hours a week for 35 years so that more than my basic needs can be met. But you think a no stress no skill no risk job for 40 hours a week is meant to support a family? I'm not going to quote all of AZ's rebuttals, but I don't think cookie bagger (what my wife's daughter is now doing at a bakery) should support a family.

The 'tax rate' argument is even weaker. I don't know anyone on this board who is against the rich paying more in taxes. My point has always been if my rate goes from paying what 40 families of 4 making $50k pay to paying what 38 families of 4 making $50k pay, please don't accuse me of not paying my fair share.

In summary, I didn't go to college for 4 years, medical school for 4 years, residency for 4 years.... to have my basic needs met. Heck, how about after your 40 hour MW job... go AP at your local casino! (I think there is a 'side hustle' thread on this very forum....)

C'mon Soopoo, they find money to pay a CEO hundred times or more average wage, but can't make sure their janitor has a living wage for a 40 hr week?

I am not sure what you are implying by your last couple sentences. That I want doctors to make only minimum wage? Wrong.

Quote: rxwine

but can't make sure their janitor has a living wage for a 40 hr week?
.

People get paid by what their job
is worth. You want janitors to be
paid as if they were as important
as executives. They're not. Admit
it, you love the concept of
communism. It never works,
sounds nice on paper though.

Quote: Evenbob

People get paid by what their job
is worth. You want janitors to be
paid as if they were as important
as executives. They're not. Admit
it, you love the concept of
communism. It never works,
sounds nice on paper though.

Having janitors being as important as executives? Go ahead and explain that stupid statement that you made up.