Minimum wage in mathematical terms

Status
Not open for further replies.

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Its okay dude, I've pumped gas before and that state didn't even require it. People hated me because we had to do it for them, lol.
My first job was picking up rectangles of sod and placing them on pallets. $0.60 a pallet. If you busted ass, you could make $1.80 an hour, but you'd catch up to the sod cutter. Averaged maybe $1.20 an hour. Paid in cash at the end of the day. They didn't provide gloves or anything else. The grass ate the skin off my knuckles for 3 days before I could buy gloves. I was 14. No shame in doing shit work. We all have to start somewhere.
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
i trust government to regulate against those who will exploit the system..job creators? what a fucking laugh.. Walmart founder Sam Walton once said, "I pay low wages. I can take advantage of that. We're going to be successful, but the basis is a very low-wage, low-benefit model of employment."[SUP][46] [/SUP]
Really? You trust the government?
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
I hardly think trying to get able bodied people to be responsible for themselves and encouraging them to take risks in order to reap the rewards is hardly lack of empathy. When your momma taught you how to wipe your ass ( assumption on my part here) did you feel that her encouragement to do for yourself what she had been doing for you for your entire life to that point, make her a complete uncaring bitch in your eyes?
Don't bring up his mother. That's his mother's underwear he's wearing on his head.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member

  • So what we're looking at is a system where the government spends more than 131 Billion dollars a year on "entitlements," of which more than 9/10ths is spent on the Elderly, Disabled, and Employed. Meaning that we either have to accept the nature of "the welfare state" or accept that these mega-corporations should shoulder some of the social burden and pay their employees a rate at or above the standard of living.




Who is smart enough to answer for this?
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
this from law firm in wisconsin:http://wisworkcompexperts.com/2013/11/21/wal-mart-mcdonalds-passing-the-buck-to-taxpayers/ [h=1]Wal-Mart & McDonald’s: Passing the Buck to Taxpayers[/h] Came across this post today: “How McDonald’s and Wal-Mart Became Welfare Queens.” News like this has become so commonplace that you almost accept it with a shrug. Yeah, big box stores and fast food chains are paying their workers cruddy wages, forcing them to go on state health insurance and food stamp assistance. Oh well. Move along. Nothing to see here. But the outrage should exist. These stories make my blood boil. Many of these companies are making massive profits. You’re telling me you can’t pay a living wage? All of us, as taxpayers, are helping pad the the coffers of these companies. By not providing sufficient wages or health care, the actual taxpayers serve as the necessary social safety net for these workers. Is that really how we want our society and country structured? Admittedly my experience is anectodal, but I see a number of these workers in my practice–from the greeters at Wal-Mart to those flipping burgers at McDonald’s. Many are making a minimum hourly wage of $7.25. No matter how hard they work (and, in my experience, some of these fast food and retail workers are the hardest workers out there, in light of their work condition), they cannot get ahead or make enough to avoid the necessity of seeking food stamp assistance or of searching for the local food pantry. Corporations simply should not be able to get rich on the public’s back. As taxpayers, we continue to allow this grossly one-sided equation to continue.
How much do you think a greeter at Walmart deserves to be paid to say "Welcome to Walmart"?
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Interestingly enough, The Center for Economic and Policy Research, have recently come out with a study showing that keeping with worker productivity, inflation and dollar value as key variables, minimum wage should be roughly $21 an hour. But more importantly, since 2009, the last time we increased minimum wages, worker productivity has increased by more than 150% while wages, only recognized in 31 states, has remained stagnant. Are you saying people should work harder and not be compensated for it? And further, the CEO's, you think are the job creators, should be given even bigger raises and bonuses?
$21.00 an hour? Dems have been saying $10.10 an hour. Those cheap bastards. Productivity increases were from better equipment and better management (those damn CEO's ). If you think people work 50% harder now than they used to, you're a fool.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
How much do you think a greeter at Walmart deserves to be paid to say "Welcome to Walmart"?
Enough to pay for a basic standard of living if they're working full time. If not, why would anyone work that job?


This point about "skilled labor vs. unskilled labor" is meaningless. If you work 40 hours a week, regardless of what you are doing, be it standing as still as you can for some rich guy who enjoys watching people stand completely still, counting the minutes it takes for paint to dry, watching CNN, asking people "what time do you have", ANYTHING, if you work 40 hours a week, you should be compensated enough to support yourself if someone is willing to pay you for it. The work you do is not relevant to this conversation. This is America, people shouldn't have to work more than what is outlined as an average working week, if they do, the average working week should be changed to account for it, and until it is, the 40 hour a week model is what we will use. Wanna bitch about it, lobby congress to change it, otherwise, simply, shut the fuck up about it and pay your workers what you fucking owe them.
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Would. You. Take. A. Full. Time. Job. If. It. Didn't. Pay. For. Your. Food. Rent. And. Clothes? Would you. Not have you. Not will you. Not could you. WOULD you. WOULD. WOULD. WOULD. WOULD. WOOOD! WOULD YOU TAKE A FULL TIME JOB, TODAY, IF IT DIDN'T PAY FOR YOUR FOOD, RENT, AND CLOTHES? Do you understand english?
Better than you, apparently. Are you trying to ask me if I'm going to quit my current job to make much less?
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
You will undoubtedly say "yes, I would", in more abrasive terms. Getting past that.. Why do you feel it is a better solution for the average worker to take on more work (jobs), than for the average employer to pay a reasonable working wage (above the poverty line so the worker doesn't require government assistance)?
You're weren't talking about "average" workers, you were talking about the bottom of the barrel.
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member

  • So what we're looking at is a system where the government spends more than 131 Billion dollars a year on "entitlements," of which more than 9/10ths is spent on the Elderly, Disabled, and Employed. Meaning that we either have to accept the nature of "the welfare state" or accept that these mega-corporations should shoulder some of the social burden and pay their employees a rate at or above the standard of living.
Who is smart enough to answer for this?
False choice. We don't have to accept either.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Then site it.
I've kept the argument on the issues, never got personal.
You and AC sound like frustrated little 12 year olds.
The truth is, even if I proved my net worth to you losers, you change your attacks to me being a greedy conservative.
grow the fuck up.
You give an opinion from a far left progressive think tank!
Did the big words fool you? LOL
Better than you, apparently. Are you trying to ask me if I'm going to quit my current job to make much less?
Forgive me for not recognizing your lack of empathy, trust me, I realize this is difficult for conservatives, but bear with me..

If you had '0' in the bank, would you take a full time job if it didn't pay for your food, rent, and clothes?


You're weren't talking about "average" workers, you were talking about the bottom of the barrel.
I have been talking about "average American workers" this entire thread
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Enough to pay for a basic standard of living if they're working full time. If not, why would anyone work that job? This point about "skilled labor vs. unskilled labor" is meaningless. If you work 40 hours a week, regardless of what you are doing, be it standing as still as you can for some rich guy who enjoys watching people stand completely still, counting the minutes it takes for paint to dry, watching CNN, asking people "what time do you have", ANYTHING, if you work 40 hours a week, you should be compensated enough to support yourself if someone is willing to pay you for it. The work you do is not relevant to this conversation. This is America, people shouldn't have to work more than what is outlined as an average working week, if they do, the average working week should be changed to account for it, and until it is, the 40 hour a week model is what we will use. Wanna bitch about it, lobby congress to change it, otherwise, simply, shut the fuck up about it and pay your workers what you fucking owe them.
"why would anyone work that job?" I don't know, but many do, ask them. Your assumption that solely working 40 hours a week deserves some arbitrary standard of living seems to be your sole argument. Your assumptions aren't much of an argument.
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Forgive me for not recognizing your lack of empathy, trust me, I realize this is difficult for conservatives, but bear with me.. If you had '0' in the bank, would you take a full time job if it didn't pay for your food, rent, and clothes? I have been talking about "average American workers" this entire thread
Yes, but I already have job. No, you've been talking about "minimum wage workers". By definition, the bottom of the pay scale.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
"why would anyone work that job?" I don't know, but many do, ask them. Your assumption that solely working 40 hours a week deserves some arbitrary standard of living seems to be your sole argument. Your assumptions aren't much of an argument.
They work it because they have to, because there is no other option.

It's not an assumption;

In 2006, the average man employed full-time worked 8.4 hours per work day, and the average woman employed full-time worked 7.7 hours per work day. There is no mandatory minimum amount of paid time off for sickness or holiday. However, regular, full-time workers often have the opportunity to take about nine days off for various holidays, two weeks (10 business days) of sick leave and two weeks (10 business days) of paid holiday time, with some workers receiving additional time after several years. Because of the pressure of working, time is increasingly viewed as a commodity.

Recent history


By 1946 the United States government had inaugurated the 40-hour work week for all federal employees. Beginning in 1950, under the Truman Administration, the United States became the first known industrialized nation to explicitly (albeit secretly) and permanently forswear a reduction of working time. Given the military-industrial requirements of the Cold War, the authors of the then secret National Security Council Report 68 (NSC-68)[38] proposed the US government undertake a massive permanent national economic expansion that would let it “siphon off” a part of the economic activity produced to support an ongoing military buildup to contain the Soviet Union. In his 1951 Annual Message to the Congress, President Truman stated:


In terms of manpower, our present defense targets will require an increase of nearly one million men and women in the armed forces within a few months, and probably not less than four million more in defense production by the end of the year. This means that an additional 8 percent of our labor force, and possibly much more, will be required by direct defense needs by the end of the year. These manpower needs will call both for increasing our labor force by reducing unemployment and drawing in women and older workers, and for lengthening hours of work in essential industries.


According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average non-farm private sector employee worked 34.5 hours per week as of June 2012.


...


Between 1950 and 2007 official price inflation was measured to 861 percent. President Truman, in his 1951 message to Congress, predicted correctly that his military buildup “will cause intense and mounting inflationary pressures.” Using the data provided by the United State Bureau of Labor Statistics, Erik Rauch has estimated productivity to have increased by nearly 400%. According to Rauch, “if productivity means anything at all, a worker should be able to earn the same standard of living as a 1950 worker in only 11 hours per week.”

Yes, but I already have job.
Do you feel it necessary to have a dozen different responses before you admit you understand what I am asking you?

...if you didn't already have a job and your net income was at '0'?

Also, your insurance wasn't already paid for, you don't have medical bills, you're right handed, your eyesight is 20/20, you and your wife have an OK relationship and your favorite color is green.. now that we've got that out of the way, can you answer the question as I asked it without invoking more bullshit excuses to extract more time away from this conversation?


No, you've been talking about "minimum wage workers". By definition, the bottom of the pay scale.
Why do you feel it is a better solution for minimum wage workers to take on more work (jobs), than for the average employer to pay a reasonable working wage (above the poverty line so the worker doesn't require government assistance)?

Again, assuming the world owes a solution. You just can't think outside your assumptions.
Exactly as expected, still no solution, just like your praised GOP representatives in the house and senate. All you have is complaints, yet when pressed with answers, the only thing you can do is bitch more
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top