"Starbuck" wrote in message
...
Chuck ,
You are absolutely incorrect. It is in the businesses best interest to
make
sure his cost as good or better than his competitors. It is in the
businesses best interest that his employees spend lots of money expanding
the economy.

You like to look at the world as a us vs. them. There are many people who
believe all negotiations can be a win win situation.

It is pretty comical to see chuckie rant about corporations needs to keep
people poor, when in truth it is the guvmint's need (at least the ass side
of the aisle) to keep as many dependant on the guvmint as possible. There
will always be "poor" people........20% of the population will always be
making the bottom 20% of earnings.....no amount of raising the minimum wage
will ever change that. Except for the percentage of the population that
refuses to do anything to better themselves, no one stays in the bottom 20%
for thir lifetime.




wrote in message
oups.com...

P Fritz wrote:
"*JimH*" wrote in message
. ..

wrote in message
oups.com...

.

My daughter is making $10/hour at a part time job she has while
attending
OSU.

My son made $9/hour painting houses as a summer job.

Both jobs pay/paid well above minimum wage.


Thank yoy for reinforcing my point.

Take your son, as an example. He was working at a skilled trade,
and
paid at a rate that would gross him $18,000 a year if he worked 50
40-hour weeks.

It's a fairly safe assumption that your son got very few, (possibly
no)
fringe benefits as part of the deal- so the employer's cost was
probably under $10 an hour with FICA, your state UE tax, etc.

What sort of lifestyle would 18,000 a year provide anybody?

Let's figure that after very minimal deductions for income tax and
Social Security, a full-time house painter in your community takes
home
$1350 a month from a $1500 gross. If you have a state income tax,
the
amount could be less.
(in reality, I bet there is very little exterior house painting
done
in
your climate for several months each winter, so the house painter
would
be laid off and earning $zero- or probably working at whatever
menial
task was available- for part of the year.)

From the $1350, deduct a flophouse rent. What is that in your area?
Let's say
$450 to rent a dirty little apartment in a questionable
neighborhood
or
to split rent with a buddy on a decent place. Down to $900 bucks.
Employer doesn't provide transportation to the job site so the
housepainter needs a car.
Figure $100 a month (average) in repairs to a wretched old beater
and
50 gallons of gas per month at $3, and you're down to $650. Car
insurance would be another $50 a month, but the housepainter will
drive
around without because he's got nothing to lose in a lawsuit and he
can't afford to take $50 out of his $650. The housepainter does
need
to
keep the lights on in his crumby little apartment and keep his cell
phone going so he can take calls from the boss telling him where to
go
and paint the following day, so let's figure he keeps most of the
lights off most of the time and gets by for $100 a month in
utilities.
Down to $550. A housepainter is going to burn up a lot of calories
in
a
day, so there will be some grocery expense each week. I think a
single
guy can get by on about $7-8 a day if he eats a lot of rice and
beans
and maybe some cheap ground beef. Down to $300 a month, so out of
the
remaning $75 a week the housepainter needs to be totally
responsible
for all his medical and dental bills, maybe put aside something so
he
can take a college class once in a while and become better
educated,
gawd forbid buy a ticket to a movie or a ballgame or some other
frivolous pastime once in a while, keep shoes on his feet and
clothes
on his back, and, of course, save for retirement.

I wish him good luck.

Maybe after 40-50 years he can save up enough capital to start his
own
business. Oh, wait.......he'll be 70 years old.......never
mind......

Why can an employer, billing you son's time at $50-60 an hour or
more,
get by with sharing only $10 (including taxes) of that $50 or $60
with
your son? It is precisely because that $9 wage *is* well above
minimum.
Despite the fact that nobody can live any sort of realistic life on
$1500 a month these days, the fact that some jobs pay even less
makes
it easy to fill a job like this with somebody trying to rise by
their
bootstraps from abject and brutal poverty to a level of bare
economic
subsistence.

Betcha a buck your son's employer thinks minimum wage is far too
high,
as he feels the need to pay a couple of bucks an hour more in order
to
attract adequate help. Betcha another buck he feels the "market"
should
set wages, that minimum wage distorts the market, and that he
thinks
his labor "costs" would be less in a "free market" environment. Few
people objecting to the minimum wage feel that it is artificially
*lowering* the cost of labor.



Pssst, Chuck............he is in high school. This is not a career
but
a
summer job. If he comes back next year he will be making $10/hour.
The
3rd summer brings $12/hour. Not bad for a non skilled summer job.
;-)

And you made my point. If one chooses to skip an education in lieu
of
taking a $9/hour job painting houses, that is *their* choice.

Now what is that saying about making your own bed?


Chuckie is full of crap.........he has been blinded by the socialist
liebral
mindset.

The whole notion that somehow raising the minimum wage will
automatically
raise the lifestyle of people is just horse ****. All it does is
creat
inflation, and make outsourcing overseas that more economical.


My point was that business has a vested interest in maintaining a
certain number of poor and desperate people who will work for mini-wage
or less, not that mini-wage should be raised. That would be another
discussion.




No one is guaranteed anything in life......a "decent" apartment with no
roomate nor a car, tickets to a ball game etc etc.

Funny thing, I know many people that started their own businesses on a
H.S.
education, without saving for 40 years, it is called ambition and hard
work........unlike the liebral slobs that want to sit around and have
guvmint tale care of their every need.

Chuckie is spewing the typical brain dead liebral class warfare crap.

What a nice, well-reasoned statement.

The vast majority of people do not stay in one income bracket throughout
their lives.

Facts??


wrote:
....most of the people leaving the middle class are worse off now
than they were a decade ago.


Sure looks that way to me.

Watch what happens when the RE bubble bursts. All those folks with what
they think is a huge asset (suburban McMansion) and almost no net worth
(refinanced 2,3,4 times to sustain consumer spending in an environment
where housing costs are soaring and wages are essentially flat). You
think we've got po' folk now?
Just wait.

You guys know darn well what's on the horizon, and the recent changes
making it
almost impossible to declare a personal bankruptcy are an indicator.
Some of these people will be working the rest of their lives to pay off
the debt on a soon to be repossesed house


And when it gets repossessed, the market value doesn't go up to suit the
mortgage holder's whim. If you think about it for a second, you know
exactly what's going to happen to those suburban McMansions... the same
fate that befell all the turn-of-the-last-century suburban grand old
Victorian homes... divided up into little apartments.


When they put these heavily refi'd houses on the market and discover
nobody is willing to pay enough to break them out of their
indebtedness, there will be more examples of "people not remaining in a
single economic class for an entire lifetime."


It won't even take that long. When interest rates start to climb, the
refi industry screeches to a halt, the consumer based economy slows
down, and market values start to stagnate just from the lack of
financability of a greater proportion of buyers... that's when you're
looking down from the top of a slippery slope.

But hey, there's a built-in bottom end to the market, too. It's all
happened before and will undoubetly happen again. It'll be a huge shock
to those who genuinely believe the hucksters claims, just like the
dot-bomb fiasco (which some sectors of the economy still haven't
recovered from) was a huge shock to those who believed the hucksters
claims that it was impossible to lose money in the stock market.

DSK

wrote in message
oups.com...

My point was that business has a vested interest in maintaining a
certain number of poor and desperate people who will work for mini-wage
or less, not that mini-wage should be raised. That would be another
discussion.


There will always be people at the bottom of the income scale. You may not
like it but it is a fact.

Now, if those people at the bottom of the income scale work hard and are
ambitious then they will work themsleves up the income scale.

Bert Robbins wrote:
There will always be people at the bottom of the income scale. You may not
like it but it is a fact.


Yep. Jesus said so! But why do you think Chuck doesn't like it (the fact
of poor people, not necessarily being poor himself, which I know for a
fact he ain't).

Now, if those people at the bottom of the income scale work hard and are
ambitious then they will work themsleves up the income scale.


Maybe. It's a chancy thing. It's much easier and more certain to move to
the capitol (state or national) and suck up to those in power. That way
you get juicy profit-guaranteed contracts & immunity from prosecution.

DSK

Doug,

If we raised everyone salary 25%, the net income gain in spending power
would be 0%. The only way you get a net increase in spending power is with
a corresponding increase in productivity. Without the increase in
productivity, inflation will offset any increase in salary.


"DSK" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
There will always be people at the bottom of the income scale. You may
not like it but it is a fact.


Yep. Jesus said so! But why do you think Chuck doesn't like it (the fact
of poor people, not necessarily being poor himself, which I know for a
fact he ain't).

Now, if those people at the bottom of the income scale work hard and are
ambitious then they will work themsleves up the income scale.

Maybe. It's a chancy thing. It's much easier and more certain to move to
the capitol (state or national) and suck up to those in power. That way
you get juicy profit-guaranteed contracts & immunity from prosecution.

DSK

Don't challenge Doug, he is our resident expert in economics. And if you
don't believe me ask him and he will tell you so.


"Starbuck" wrote in message
...
Doug,

If we raised everyone salary 25%, the net income gain in spending power
would be 0%. The only way you get a net increase in spending power is
with a corresponding increase in productivity. Without the increase in
productivity, inflation will offset any increase in salary.


"DSK" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
There will always be people at the bottom of the income scale. You may
not like it but it is a fact.


Yep. Jesus said so! But why do you think Chuck doesn't like it (the fact
of poor people, not necessarily being poor himself, which I know for a
fact he ain't).

Now, if those people at the bottom of the income scale work hard and
are ambitious then they will work themsleves up the income scale.

Maybe. It's a chancy thing. It's much easier and more certain to move to
the capitol (state or national) and suck up to those in power. That way
you get juicy profit-guaranteed contracts & immunity from prosecution.

DSK

The problem with raising salaries without an increase in productivity is it
places a "inflation tax" on those who can least afford the tax, those on a
fixed income. I am sure many in here can remember the stories during the
80's when we had 17% inflation and the elderly were eating dog food because
that is all they could afford.



"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
Don't challenge Doug, he is our resident expert in economics. And if you
don't believe me ask him and he will tell you so.


"Starbuck" wrote in message
...
Doug,

If we raised everyone salary 25%, the net income gain in spending power
would be 0%. The only way you get a net increase in spending power is
with a corresponding increase in productivity. Without the increase in
productivity, inflation will offset any increase in salary.


"DSK" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
There will always be people at the bottom of the income scale. You may
not like it but it is a fact.


Yep. Jesus said so! But why do you think Chuck doesn't like it (the fact
of poor people, not necessarily being poor himself, which I know for a
fact he ain't).

Now, if those people at the bottom of the income scale work hard and
are ambitious then they will work themsleves up the income scale.

Maybe. It's a chancy thing. It's much easier and more certain to move to
the capitol (state or national) and suck up to those in power. That way
you get juicy profit-guaranteed contracts & immunity from prosecution.

DSK

"Starbuck" wrote in message
...
The problem with raising salaries without an increase in productivity is
it
places a "inflation tax" on those who can least afford the tax, those on a
fixed income. I am sure many in here can remember the stories during the
80's when we had 17% inflation and the elderly were eating dog food
because
that is all they could afford.

The unions won't care since they are the least likely group ever to pay
union dues in the future, the the liebral socialist democrats would rather
coddle the up and coming potential voters than those that will only be
around for one or two more election cycles.




"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
Don't challenge Doug, he is our resident expert in economics. And if you
don't believe me ask him and he will tell you so.


"Starbuck" wrote in message
...
Doug,

If we raised everyone salary 25%, the net income gain in spending power
would be 0%. The only way you get a net increase in spending power is
with a corresponding increase in productivity. Without the increase in
productivity, inflation will offset any increase in salary.


"DSK" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
There will always be people at the bottom of the income scale. You
may
not like it but it is a fact.


Yep. Jesus said so! But why do you think Chuck doesn't like it (the
fact
of poor people, not necessarily being poor himself, which I know for a
fact he ain't).

Now, if those people at the bottom of the income scale work hard and
are ambitious then they will work themsleves up the income scale.

Maybe. It's a chancy thing. It's much easier and more certain to move
to
the capitol (state or national) and suck up to those in power. That
way
you get juicy profit-guaranteed contracts & immunity from prosecution.

DSK

Harry,

I noticed you ignored the issue of "inflation tax" and the damage it does to
those who can least afford a new tax. This is the most repressive tax of
all. The working class do not pay the tax, they receive salary increases to
offset inflation, those on fixed income pay the tax.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
P Fritz wrote:
"Starbuck" wrote in message
...

The problem with raising salaries without an increase in productivity is

it

places a "inflation tax" on those who can least afford the tax, those on
a
fixed income. I am sure many in here can remember the stories during the
80's when we had 17% inflation and the elderly were eating dog food

because

that is all they could afford.


The unions won't care since they are the least likely group ever to pay
union dues in the future, the the liebral socialist democrats would
rather
coddle the up and coming potential voters than those that will only be
around for one or two more election cycles.



Wow...you really truly do have crap for brains, Fritz. No wonder your wife
divorced you. "The unions won't care since they are the least likely group
ever to pay union dues..."

What, exactly, does that sentence mean, Fritz?

Well, enough for now. It's time for breakfast. I'll contemplate your
bizarre sentence for a moment or two.

"Starbuck" wrote in message
...
Harry,

I noticed you ignored the issue of "inflation tax" and the damage it does
to
those who can least afford a new tax. This is the most repressive tax of
all. The working class do not pay the tax, they receive salary increases
to
offset inflation, those on fixed income pay the tax.

harry always ignores the issues in favor of throwing perosnal
insults.........because he wouldn't know an issue if it bitch slapped him in
the head..............beside the fact he can seem to follow a simple thread.



"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
P Fritz wrote:
"Starbuck" wrote in message
...

The problem with raising salaries without an increase in productivity
is

it

places a "inflation tax" on those who can least afford the tax, those
on
a
fixed income. I am sure many in here can remember the stories during
the
80's when we had 17% inflation and the elderly were eating dog food

because

that is all they could afford.


The unions won't care since they are the least likely group ever to pay
union dues in the future, the the liebral socialist democrats would
rather
coddle the up and coming potential voters than those that will only be
around for one or two more election cycles.



Wow...you really truly do have crap for brains, Fritz. No wonder your
wife
divorced you. "The unions won't care since they are the least likely
group
ever to pay union dues..."

What, exactly, does that sentence mean, Fritz?

Well, enough for now. It's time for breakfast. I'll contemplate your
bizarre sentence for a moment or two.