US Government Shutdown

[Falvlun]

If you knew what you were talking about and the facts supported your gross generalization I would agree. You're placing blame on the student/person without understanding the plight of the individual who has to take a job making less. I didn't even mention "McDonald's" but the fact that you brought up fast food only shows that you lack an understanding of the entire picture. My comment wasn't just about fast food. It was about the current labour market and income disparity.

This I found interesting and presents some perspective on the matter. As a public school worker dealing with high school students and talking with HS graduates that have returned to visit us over time we see how they fair in today's market. The article below is indicative to a huge population of college graduates...

College Degree = $10-Hour Job - Forbes

Good article. There is a serious disconnect between the job market our parents, or grandparents, had access to, and what our generation has to work with.

 

[Revoltingest]

This deserved a separate reply.
The workers are producing those profits, just like the owner and top dogs. I see no reason to consider the fruits of the company to be solely earned, and therefore the sole, and rightful property of, the owner.

You don't, but this isn't our system.
If the workers want to share in the profits, then do as I do.....buy stock.
Otherwise, the workers are paid in wages & bennies.

 

[Revoltingest]

There have been multiple stories about businesses sitting on money, and not investing.

This is not true of all.
But sitting on cash does not make it become property of employees.

Also importantly, over the last two decades, business profits have skyrocketed. Why hasn't this "trickled down" to the workers?

Several reasons:
- Because the workers are willing to work at the current wage levels, & there is an excess of workers relative to jobs.

It is a fair point that not every business is doing as well as other businesses, but as already mentioned, isn't that called "capitalism"?

It is.
But your point & question seem unrelated to the thread.

 

[YmirGF]

If you knew what you were talking about and the facts supported your gross generalization I would agree. You're placing blame on the student/person without understanding the plight of the individual who has to take a job making less. I didn't even mention "McDonald's" but the fact that you brought up fast food only shows that you lack an understanding of the entire picture. My comment wasn't just about fast food. It was about the current labour market and income disparity.

This I found interesting and presents some perspective on the matter. As a public school worker dealing with high school students and talking with HS graduates that have returned to visit us over time we see how they fair in today's market. The article below is indicative to a huge population of college graduates...

College Degree = $10-Hour Job - Forbes

From the very article you chose to cite...

Nevertheless, there are a few options available to Millennials other than to passively accept that $10/hour is the new benchmark for a degree-requiring job. “It’s easy now when the economy is so challenging to throw up your hands and say everything is hopeless. And that it’s impossible to find a job that is both satisfying and pays well. But the successful ones will take responsibility and make plans. You have to move your own career and think about your long-term growth potential,” says Purdy.

As an aside, if indeed a degree is required for virtually any job, can we not say that an intellectual apartheid system has been created cutting off those without higher education from obtaining meaningful, lasting employment? For example, if there is such little hope for the highly educated brats what hope is there for the economical disadvantaged who have no access to higher learning?

He recommends job searchers proactively seek out positions, demonstrate their value, and set their own demands. He admits that low-wage jobs may be disheartening, but points out that they tend to possess other benefits that help further careers. “You may earn less money, but you are developing skills, building contacts and [strengthening] the resume. It’s important to invest in the long-term future.” There’s also the ever-popular path for job hunters to start their own businesses. And let’s hope these Millennial entrepreneurs revert back to offering job packages like our parents received.

Again, from the article cited, I can only paraphrase the words of JFK
"Ask not what a prospective employer can do for you, say what you can do for a prospective employer."

 

[mystic64]

This deserved a separate reply.

The workers are producing those profits, just like the owner and top dogs. I see no reason to consider the fruits of the company to be solely earned, and therefore the sole, and rightful property of, the owner.

The above is a classic example of "Aweseome" post !

If I can coerce (take advantage of) someone to make some money, then the money is mine." If the upper five to ten percent can coerce (take advantge of) the lower 95 to 90 percent, then the money is rightfully theirs. It is survival of the fittest and the upper 5 to ten percent, economically speaking, are the fittest or they wouldn't be the uppers. And the Devil take the hind most which is becoming a majority in the US. Saying that, "There is nothing that we can do because they have the power.", is just farting away the gift of the democracy (for the people, by the people; the majority rules; and we all get to vote) that the founders of our country gave us so that this didn't happen to us.

What is funny is that because most people are not psychic they are unaware of the deep dark anger that the average American feels fermenting in their minds and bowels because their govenment forced them to feel powerless and vulnerable. The only question is, "How is that anger going to manifest itself?" The odds are that it is going to be "class warfare". Obama started that with his tax the wealthy and the Tea Party folks gave it life when they shut down the government. "Who is the most fittest to survive, the wealty or the Amercan people?"

 

[Falvlun]

You don't, but this isn't our system.
If the workers want to share in the profits, then do as I do.....buy stock.
Otherwise, the workers are paid in wages & bennies.

I wasn't talking about a system. I was talking about your philosophy that asking for higher wages is akin to taking someone else's money, the implication being, that workers have no right to that money. I was making a case that workers do have right to that money, and therefore, it is not correctly called "someone else's money".

This is not true of all.
But sitting on cash does not make it become property of employees.

I didn't say it did. I was addressing the contention that businesses can't afford to pay their employees more.

Several reasons:
- Because the workers are willing to work at the current wage levels, & there is an excess of workers relative to jobs.

Again, this is addressing the point that businesses do indeed have the capability of paying their employees more.

I would also suggest that your answer indicates why it is necessary for the government to step in to protect the worker. Obviously, a business should not be expected to do so, but also I think that a healthy economy needs a less skewed distribution of profits.

It is.
But your point & question seem unrelated to the thread.

We are discussing raising the minimum wage. A common argument against raising minimum wage is that this would cause some businesses to go out of business.

I fail to see how my response to such an argument is off topic. What's good for the goose is good for the gander: Capitalism is dog-eat-dog. If you can't compete, then you go out of business. I fail to see why it is the worker's responsibility to forgo pay in order to subsidize a businesses's ability to compete.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

From the very article you chose to cite...

But the successful ones will take responsibility and make plans. You have to move your own career and think about your long-term growth potential,” says Purdy.

This is an opinion....so we can't make the "assumption", because that is what you and others are doing here, that students aren't taking responsibility thinking about their long-term growth. What we're seeing is that many students are prepared but the market isn't ready for the amount of qualified applicant's. Many of these students ARE choosing degrees in the relevant fields but struggling to get a job in the relevant field party due to market saturation. But saying what someone "should have done"...does not address the issues staring us in the face now. Education is just a microcosm when it comes to income inequality. There are other factors...


This breaks some of the inequality down as well...

It's the Inequality, Stupid | Mother Jones

As an aside, if indeed a degree is required for virtually any job, can we not say that an intellectual apartheid system has been created cutting off those without higher education from obtaining meaningful, lasting employment? For example, if there is such little hope for the highly educated brats what hope is there for the economical disadvantaged who have no access to higher learning?

But now you see the argument many of us are making here?.....If it's tough for the 2 and 4 year graduate with a degree in the relevant fields they're trying to apply for then it's equally tough for others...now many of these same college graduates are seeking jobs from a pool of jobs they would have passed over in the past.

“You may earn less money, but you are developing skills, building contacts and [strengthening] the resume. It’s important to invest in the long-term future.”

I agree...but this isn't in question as many already do this. Even the working poor/middle class do this.

Again, from the article cited, I can only paraphrase the words of JFK
"Ask not what a prospective employer can do for you, say what you can do for a prospective employer."

Employees are doing this in spades. While a typical work day is 8 hours many workers put in an extra 4 to five hours working per day. Some have at least two jobs to make the ends meet. You'll even find that many workers take work home. Workers "have" been giving more of themselves to the job. My wife, who is a salaried employee is, as we speak, upstairs working on job related stuff. We're seeing an increase workload per employee but little to no financial gains to go with that.

 

[Revoltingest]

I wasn't talking about a system. I was talking about your philosophy that asking for higher wages is akin to taking someone else's money, the implication being, that workers have no right to that money. I was making a case that workers do have right to that money, and therefore, it is not correctly called "someone else's money".

If a worker believes his employer is unjustly or illegally retaining money which belongs to the worker, then he should call the state, which would take such a matter very seriously. But to merely want more money is not to be entitled to it.

I didn't say it did. I was addressing the contention that businesses can't afford to pay their employees more.

Some can. Some can't. Graphs do not prove otherwise.
But the ability to pay more is not an obligation to pay more.
This isn't just my philosophy...it's how things work here & even in Canuckistan.

I would also suggest that your answer indicates why it is necessary for the government to step in to protect the worker. Obviously, a business should not be expected to do so, but also I think that a healthy economy needs a less skewed distribution of profits.

Your post suggests that businesses should take every measure to protect themselves from people who are generous with other people's money.

We are discussing raising the minimum wage. A common argument against raising minimum wage is that this would cause some businesses to go out of business.

I'm not making that argument.

I fail to see how my response to such an argument is off topic. What's good for the goose is good for the gander: Capitalism is dog-eat-dog. If you can't compete, then you go out of business. I fail to see why it is the worker's responsibility to forgo
pay in order to subsidize a businesses's ability to compete.

Do you believe that any excess money a business keeps is a subsidy by the employees?
What kind of business do you run, pray tell?

I wouldn't pay an employee any more than necessary to retain the kind of employee I want.
Profit is not mere excess money....it's what I live on or reinvest for retirement.
If giving employees a raise, one which isn't necessary for business reasons, would cause me to become unprofitable, then I certainly won't do it.
If forced to, I'd rather shut down that have my capital idle, & to work for free....or worse yet, lose money. (I've been there & done that.)

 

[Falvlun]

If a worker believes his employer is unjustly or illegally retaining money which belongs to the worker, then he should call the state, which would take such a matter very seriously. But to merely want more money is not to be entitled to it.

Good thing that's not what I'm talking about.

Some can. Some can't. Graphs do not prove otherwise.
But the ability to pay more is not an obligation to pay more.
This isn't just my philosophy...it's how things work here & even in Canuckistan.

Again. Never said it was. I simply said that the capability is there.

Your post suggests that businesses should take every measure to protect themselves from people who are generous with other people's money.

And yours suggests that people should take every measure to protect themselves from businesses who are too generous with the money other people have earned.

I'm not making that argument.

That is the argument that YmirGF made, to which I replied in post 456, which you then took upon yourself to reply to.

Do you believe that any excess money a business keeps is a subsidy by the employees?

No.

I wouldn't pay an employee any more than necessary to retain the kind of employee I want.
Profit is not mere excess money....it's what I live on or reinvest for retirement.

I never claimed it was merely excess money.

If giving employees a raise, one which isn't necessary for business reasons, would cause me to become unprofitable, then I certainly won't do it.
If forced to, I'd rather shut down that have my capital idle, & to work for free....or worse yet, lose money. (I've been there & done that.)

Well, then that would open up room for another business who was willing to pay the higher wage.

 

[Revoltingest]

Good thing that's not what I'm talking about.
Again. Never said it was. I simply said that the capability is there.

Sounds vague.

And yours suggests that people should take every measure to protect themselves from businesses who are too generous with the money other people have earned.
That is the argument that YmirGF made, to which I replied in post 456, which you then took upon yourself to reply to.
No.
I never claimed it was merely excess money.

You're saying a lot, but not admitting to much.

Well, then that would open up room for another business who was willing to pay the higher wage.

This statement hints at why you avoided this part of my post.
"What kind of business do you run, pray tell?"

 

[Monk Of Reason]

This statement hints at why you avoided this part of my post.
"What kind of business do you run, pray tell?"

I think what he is implying is that there are scores of buisinesses that make out with massive profits that do so by slashing wages. My personal issue isn't with mom & pop stores and I usually say they should do what they have to (small buisnesses are better for the economy even if they don't pay good wages as the money remains in the community and discourages income inequality by inherent function) but with large corporations that have record low wages to profit ratios and at the same time having record profits.

This seems to me a bit fishy.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think what he is implying is that.....

Penguins are rather androgynous looking, but she still prefers not to be called "he".

....there are scores of buisinesses that make out with massive profits that do so by slashing wages. My personal issue isn't with mom & pop stores and I usually say they should do what they have to (small buisnesses are better for the economy even if they don't pay good wages as the money remains in the community and discourages income inequality by inherent function) but with large corporations that have record low wages to profit ratios and at the same time having record profits.

I know some people would prefer that government regulate wages.
But I say gov doesn't understand much, & tends to just muck things up.
So I won't grant them this power.

This seems to me a bit fishy.

I like fish.

 

[tytlyf]

Rev is getting off topic or not understanding the wage increase. It's all about inflation and it's overdue. Some companies get it right, others are greedy.

In an article Wednesday about fast-food joints that purposely pay more than the minimum wage, I linked to an a piece about Moo Cluck Moo, a burger-chicken-shake place that started just outside Detroit in April. There, employees start at wages of $12 per hour. It’s not exactly a living wage, but it’s significantly better than the $7.40 Michigan minimum wage.

“I wasn’t tuned in to the whole living-wage movement,” Moorhouse told me. “We just felt that, for a variety of reasons, it was the right thing to do.”

A Fast-Food Joint Thrives, Even by Paying $12 an Hour - The Daily Beast

Why In N Out Burger is far more attractive than McDonalds

McDonald’s is across-the-board terrible. They require employees to work at Christmas and Thanksgiving, but don’t pay overtime. They pay as close to minimum wage as possible. Their marketing to kids is predatory and creepy. Some salads have more calories than burgers. They use “pink slime” for chicken entrees. They encourage employees to get food stamps to offset low pay. And they’re everywhere.

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/11/fast_food_restaurants_dont_need_to_pay_starvation_wages/

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Penguins are rather androgynous looking, but she still prefers not to be called "he".

Well then.

I know some people would prefer that government regulate wages.
But I say gov doesn't understand much, & tends to just muck things up.
So I won't grant them this power.

So you would rather it be in the hands of a pseudo elite few whose main goal is to profit more no matter what the expense of others? sounds like a neat plan.

I like fish.

I do too. However if you like the kind of fish making this stink then you would literally have to be insane or have no incentive for future. Either way its your prerogative.

 

[tytlyf]

So you would rather it be in the hands of a pseudo elite few whose main goal is to profit more no matter what the expense of others? sounds like a neat plan.

The wealth gap continues going up. Republicans will do whatever they can to crush the middle and lower classes.

 

[Revoltingest]

So you would rather it be in the hands of a pseudo elite few whose main goal is to profit more no matter what the expense of others? sounds like a neat plan.

The market is far larger than the "pseudo elite few" you claim. There are many many companies all competing.
But if it is this tiny ruling elite offends you, then to vest this power in the hands of a few politicians should be
even worse. I prefer the chaos of a free market to the dim authority of "elite" pandering politicians.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The market is far larger than the "pseudo elite few" you claim. There are many many companies all competing.
But if it is this tiny ruling elite offends you, then to vest this power in the hands of a few politicians should be
even worse. I prefer the chaos of a free market to the dim authority of "elite" pandering politicians.

Free market doesn't exist though. Corporate feudalism is unfortunately the inevitable ending of an economy with no regulation. Too much government is bad. Too little is even worse. Historically this is simply fact. If we functioned in the economy with knowledge and intentions on the macro level free market would work. However thats not how finances work.

I agree about our government. Our politicians are beyond rotten to the core. We are even worse than a free market right now. The politicians are in the pocket of the corporations so its a double slap. Were it up to me I would wipe the slate of the entire government and re-start. Or at least empty congress and the presidency and replace them with competent individuals.

I'll let you in a little secret. Its not that congress is incompetent. They aren't actually idiots. They simply don't care. Its not their job to do what we elected them to do. Its their job to pass laws that benefit them and their benefactors. I'm sure there are exceptions to this but not enough to make a difference.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The wealth gap continues going up. Republicans will do whatever they can to crush the middle and lower classes.

The democrats are also playing their role in the dance of devastation.

 

[Reverend Rick]

If you want to improve the middle class you have to improve the elite as well.

A rising tide will raise all boats. If you think you can sink one boat while raising another that is unrealistic.

If there is no incentive to gainfully hire folks, no new jobs will happen.

People don't start businesses to employ folks, they start businesses to make money....duh!

 

[tytlyf]

If you want to improve the middle class you have to improve the elite as well.

Trickle down I assume? Doesn't work. Never has. Greed gets in the way.

A rising tide will raise all boats. If you think you can sink one boat while raising another that is unrealistic.

See above, same thing.

If there is no incentive to gainfully hire folks, no new jobs will happen.

If I don't have customers walking in, there is no incentive to grow or hire more people. If the middle class had more disposable income, more people would walk in, I'd have to hire more to keep up with demand, etc.

People don't start businesses to employ folks, they start businesses to make money....duh!

Without 'folks,' no money is made.