|
|
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... Chuckie is spewing the typical brain dead liebral class warfare crap. The vast majority of people do not stay in one income bracket throughout their lives. Sounds a bit like "let them eat cake." No, it sounds like let's teach them to bake their own cake so that they can feed themselves. You are right about that. The middle class is going the way of the passenger pigeon. Yes, yes, a few of the former middle class are moving into the ranks of the privileged-(something to cheer about in the right wing) but most of the people leaving the middle class are worse off now than they were a decade ago. Then we need to do more to teach them how to work hard and earn more money so that they can move up the ladder rather than sliding down the ladder under the weight of good intentions. 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. When the "RE bubble bursts" it will be a great oppourtunity to buy so that you can take advantage of the next bubble. Cycles, they keep repeating themselves. You have to make the money you have work harder for you. The lower my mortgage the more I can put into an 401K, Roth IRA, IRA or whatever else you choose to use as an investment vehicle. 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 Every time the darkness comes there will be sunlight next. The economic cycle is like that of the nights and days we experience. Sure, the reasoning advanced is often "When prices go down, we just won't sell. We'll wait a few years for them to come back up." Some people will have that luxury. Others will be forced to sell do to a medical emergency, job loss (or transfer), or other unforeseen event. 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." How may times have you been laid off during your working career? I have been laid off four or five times and each time I have been able to find another job that paid me the same or more. There are winners and loosers in life and you have to work to be a winner, you can't sit around waiting for someone to give you the blue ribbon. Those houses dumped by the portion of the population "forced to sell" will further erode the fantasy wealth of people who believe they can hold as well as consume the same asset. It is an oppourtunity? Add a 1, or even a 2,3,or 4 on the left hand side of every house price in America. Nobody would be one cent better off if they are compelled to live in one of those houses. Corrections and adjustments are a part of economic life, live with it or move to Cuba. In Cuba you won't own anything so you don't have to worry about the price of houses. Chuckie is just showing his true (very liebral) nature. |
Bert Robbins wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Chuckie is spewing the typical brain dead liebral class warfare crap. The vast majority of people do not stay in one income bracket throughout their lives. Sounds a bit like "let them eat cake." No, it sounds like let's teach them to bake their own cake so that they can feed themselves. You are right about that. The middle class is going the way of the passenger pigeon. Yes, yes, a few of the former middle class are moving into the ranks of the privileged-(something to cheer about in the right wing) but most of the people leaving the middle class are worse off now than they were a decade ago. Then we need to do more to teach them how to work hard and earn more money so that they can move up the ladder rather than sliding down the ladder under the weight of good intentions. Sounds very noble, but that flies in the face of a long-proven reality. The privileged class has a specific interest in maintaining or even increasing the number of poor and desperate people in this country while at the same time decreasing any public infrastructure or funding to relieve some of the hardships suffered by the poor. It's called labor force. We want lotsof people who will work as cheaply as possible. In fact, when our own poor people ask for a minimum wage job the privileged class declares minimum wage "too much" to pay and seeks out a foreign labor force even more poor, more desperate, and more willing to work for a handful of rice a day. It went on in the last great flood down south in the 20's, and it's still going on today. During the flood where VP Hoover served as the government emergency coordinator, there were several thousand people stranded on a levee. Times being as they were in the 20's, the government naturally evacuated all the white people first. When the government began evacuating the poor black folks on the levee, local business leaders pressured the administration to stop. They said that if the black people were even temporarily relocated, they would have a hard time rebuilding their agricultural labor force. In the end, an encampment of poor folks rose on that levee that was something like a mile and a half from end to end. The government hauled food out to them, but refused to take any of them off the levee. IIRC, it took a couple of weeks for the water to recede to where the poor people could get off on their own. Under your proposed social solution, perhpas we should have simply dropped a handful of lumber and a drawing of a raft onto the levee/island? The industrious folks could have built a raft and escaped- oh, but wait, no lumber and no drawing of a raft for these folks- it would have worked against the interests of the privileged class for any of these people to relocate out of the area. The economic value of somebody willing to or forced to work for only the tiniest fraction of the value produced in a work day is very high, and such an "asset" shouldn't be squandered. Times have changed, but human nature hasn't. It's tough to demand that somebody pull themselves up by the bootstraps when they don't even have any boots, let alone a pair with straps. |
wrote in message ps.com... Bert Robbins wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Chuckie is spewing the typical brain dead liebral class warfare crap. The vast majority of people do not stay in one income bracket throughout their lives. Sounds a bit like "let them eat cake." No, it sounds like let's teach them to bake their own cake so that they can feed themselves. You are right about that. The middle class is going the way of the passenger pigeon. Yes, yes, a few of the former middle class are moving into the ranks of the privileged-(something to cheer about in the right wing) but most of the people leaving the middle class are worse off now than they were a decade ago. Then we need to do more to teach them how to work hard and earn more money so that they can move up the ladder rather than sliding down the ladder under the weight of good intentions. Sounds very noble, but that flies in the face of a long-proven reality. The privileged class has a specific interest in maintaining or even increasing the number of poor and desperate people in this country while at the same time decreasing any public infrastructure or funding to relieve some of the hardships suffered by the poor. It's called labor force. We want lotsof people who will work as cheaply as possible. In fact, when our own poor people ask for a minimum wage job the privileged class declares minimum wage "too much" to pay and seeks out a foreign labor force even more poor, more desperate, and more willing to work for a handful of rice a day. It went on in the last great flood down south in the 20's, and it's still going on today. During the flood where VP Hoover served as the government emergency coordinator, there were several thousand people stranded on a levee. Times being as they were in the 20's, the government naturally evacuated all the white people first. When the government began evacuating the poor black folks on the levee, local business leaders pressured the administration to stop. They said that if the black people were even temporarily relocated, they would have a hard time rebuilding their agricultural labor force. In the end, an encampment of poor folks rose on that levee that was something like a mile and a half from end to end. The government hauled food out to them, but refused to take any of them off the levee. IIRC, it took a couple of weeks for the water to recede to where the poor people could get off on their own. Under your proposed social solution, perhpas we should have simply dropped a handful of lumber and a drawing of a raft onto the levee/island? The industrious folks could have built a raft and escaped- oh, but wait, no lumber and no drawing of a raft for these folks- it would have worked against the interests of the privileged class for any of these people to relocate out of the area. The economic value of somebody willing to or forced to work for only the tiniest fraction of the value produced in a work day is very high, and such an "asset" shouldn't be squandered. Times have changed, but human nature hasn't. It's tough to demand that somebody pull themselves up by the bootstraps when they don't even have any boots, let alone a pair with straps. ========================== Sounds very noble, but that flies in the face of a long-proven reality. The privileged class has a specific interest in maintaining or even increasing the number of poor and desperate people in this country while at the same time decreasing any public infrastructure or funding to relieve some of the hardships suffered by the poor. ============================== What a crock of bull. Everyone has the opportunity for an education. Everyone. Those choosing not to take that road make that choice on their own. And if you decide to settle in life for a menial job, there are plenty out there offering far more than minimum wage. 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. |
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 07:13:30 -0700, chuckgould.chuck wrote:
. IIRC, it took a couple of weeks for the water to recede to where the poor people could get off on their own. Only to be conscripted to rebuild the levees, while Hoover, "The Great Humanitarian" becomes President. I wonder how many of those blacks, or their descendants, ended up in New Orleans. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/flood/t...timeline2.html |
Chuck,
You are not only incorrect, but your premise flies in the face of common sense. It is in the interest of the privileged class to not only maintain the middle class but to increase the middle class. Who is going to buy the products and services offered by the privileged, if the middle class is not strong and growing. I think you might actually believe what you say, but there is no basis in logic or fact for your theories. wrote in message ps.com... Sounds very noble, but that flies in the face of a long-proven reality. The privileged class has a specific interest in maintaining or even increasing the number of poor and desperate people in this country while at the same time decreasing any public infrastructure or funding to relieve some of the hardships suffered by the poor. It's called labor force. We want lotsof people who will work as cheaply as possible. In fact, when our own poor people ask for a minimum wage job the privileged class declares minimum wage "too much" to pay and seeks out a foreign labor force even more poor, more desperate, and more willing to work for a handful of rice a day. It went on in the last great flood down south in the 20's, and it's still going on today. During the flood where VP Hoover served as the government emergency coordinator, there were several thousand people stranded on a levee. Times being as they were in the 20's, the government naturally evacuated all the white people first. When the government began evacuating the poor black folks on the levee, local business leaders pressured the administration to stop. They said that if the black people were even temporarily relocated, they would have a hard time rebuilding their agricultural labor force. In the end, an encampment of poor folks rose on that levee that was something like a mile and a half from end to end. The government hauled food out to them, but refused to take any of them off the levee. IIRC, it took a couple of weeks for the water to recede to where the poor people could get off on their own. Under your proposed social solution, perhpas we should have simply dropped a handful of lumber and a drawing of a raft onto the levee/island? The industrious folks could have built a raft and escaped- oh, but wait, no lumber and no drawing of a raft for these folks- it would have worked against the interests of the privileged class for any of these people to relocate out of the area. The economic value of somebody willing to or forced to work for only the tiniest fraction of the value produced in a work day is very high, and such an "asset" shouldn't be squandered. Times have changed, but human nature hasn't. It's tough to demand that somebody pull themselves up by the bootstraps when they don't even have any boots, let alone a pair with straps. |
My son earns $10-$12 an hour, working part time while attending school.
This is not high skilled labor, just someone who can use basic knowledge and analytical skills to solve problems. "*JimH*" wrote in message ... wrote in message ps.com... Bert Robbins wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Chuckie is spewing the typical brain dead liebral class warfare crap. The vast majority of people do not stay in one income bracket throughout their lives. Sounds a bit like "let them eat cake." No, it sounds like let's teach them to bake their own cake so that they can feed themselves. You are right about that. The middle class is going the way of the passenger pigeon. Yes, yes, a few of the former middle class are moving into the ranks of the privileged-(something to cheer about in the right wing) but most of the people leaving the middle class are worse off now than they were a decade ago. Then we need to do more to teach them how to work hard and earn more money so that they can move up the ladder rather than sliding down the ladder under the weight of good intentions. Sounds very noble, but that flies in the face of a long-proven reality. The privileged class has a specific interest in maintaining or even increasing the number of poor and desperate people in this country while at the same time decreasing any public infrastructure or funding to relieve some of the hardships suffered by the poor. It's called labor force. We want lotsof people who will work as cheaply as possible. In fact, when our own poor people ask for a minimum wage job the privileged class declares minimum wage "too much" to pay and seeks out a foreign labor force even more poor, more desperate, and more willing to work for a handful of rice a day. It went on in the last great flood down south in the 20's, and it's still going on today. During the flood where VP Hoover served as the government emergency coordinator, there were several thousand people stranded on a levee. Times being as they were in the 20's, the government naturally evacuated all the white people first. When the government began evacuating the poor black folks on the levee, local business leaders pressured the administration to stop. They said that if the black people were even temporarily relocated, they would have a hard time rebuilding their agricultural labor force. In the end, an encampment of poor folks rose on that levee that was something like a mile and a half from end to end. The government hauled food out to them, but refused to take any of them off the levee. IIRC, it took a couple of weeks for the water to recede to where the poor people could get off on their own. Under your proposed social solution, perhpas we should have simply dropped a handful of lumber and a drawing of a raft onto the levee/island? The industrious folks could have built a raft and escaped- oh, but wait, no lumber and no drawing of a raft for these folks- it would have worked against the interests of the privileged class for any of these people to relocate out of the area. The economic value of somebody willing to or forced to work for only the tiniest fraction of the value produced in a work day is very high, and such an "asset" shouldn't be squandered. Times have changed, but human nature hasn't. It's tough to demand that somebody pull themselves up by the bootstraps when they don't even have any boots, let alone a pair with straps. ========================== Sounds very noble, but that flies in the face of a long-proven reality. The privileged class has a specific interest in maintaining or even increasing the number of poor and desperate people in this country while at the same time decreasing any public infrastructure or funding to relieve some of the hardships suffered by the poor. ============================== What a crock of bull. Everyone has the opportunity for an education. Everyone. Those choosing not to take that road make that choice on their own. And if you decide to settle in life for a menial job, there are plenty out there offering far more than minimum wage. 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. |
Chuck,
I have always thought you made these posts, because you actually believed them, and Harry makes them for political gain. If you take some basic economic classes you will see where no businessman or privileged wants to decrease the middle class and wants to do everything to increase the middle class. The exporting of telemarketing jobs overseas is a perfect example of a businessmen making sure he is able to remain competitive and expand his business, hiring more US employees. When people go crazy about the changing job market, they remind me of those who were against upgrading the auto and manufacturing industries in the 50's and 60's. There were people who insisted this would be the downfall of the American Economy and all jobs would be filled with robots. There is a reason we don't have many buggy whip manufacturers today, the job market has changed. "Starbuck" wrote in message ... Chuck, You are not only incorrect, but your premise flies in the face of common sense. It is in the interest of the privileged class to not only maintain the middle class but to increase the middle class. Who is going to buy the products and services offered by the privileged, if the middle class is not strong and growing. I think you might actually believe what you say, but there is no basis in logic or fact for your theories. wrote in message ps.com... Sounds very noble, but that flies in the face of a long-proven reality. The privileged class has a specific interest in maintaining or even increasing the number of poor and desperate people in this country while at the same time decreasing any public infrastructure or funding to relieve some of the hardships suffered by the poor. It's called labor force. We want lotsof people who will work as cheaply as possible. In fact, when our own poor people ask for a minimum wage job the privileged class declares minimum wage "too much" to pay and seeks out a foreign labor force even more poor, more desperate, and more willing to work for a handful of rice a day. It went on in the last great flood down south in the 20's, and it's still going on today. During the flood where VP Hoover served as the government emergency coordinator, there were several thousand people stranded on a levee. Times being as they were in the 20's, the government naturally evacuated all the white people first. When the government began evacuating the poor black folks on the levee, local business leaders pressured the administration to stop. They said that if the black people were even temporarily relocated, they would have a hard time rebuilding their agricultural labor force. In the end, an encampment of poor folks rose on that levee that was something like a mile and a half from end to end. The government hauled food out to them, but refused to take any of them off the levee. IIRC, it took a couple of weeks for the water to recede to where the poor people could get off on their own. Under your proposed social solution, perhpas we should have simply dropped a handful of lumber and a drawing of a raft onto the levee/island? The industrious folks could have built a raft and escaped- oh, but wait, no lumber and no drawing of a raft for these folks- it would have worked against the interests of the privileged class for any of these people to relocate out of the area. The economic value of somebody willing to or forced to work for only the tiniest fraction of the value produced in a work day is very high, and such an "asset" shouldn't be squandered. Times have changed, but human nature hasn't. It's tough to demand that somebody pull themselves up by the bootstraps when they don't even have any boots, let alone a pair with straps. |
wrote in message ps.com... Bert Robbins wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Chuckie is spewing the typical brain dead liebral class warfare crap. The vast majority of people do not stay in one income bracket throughout their lives. Sounds a bit like "let them eat cake." No, it sounds like let's teach them to bake their own cake so that they can feed themselves. You are right about that. The middle class is going the way of the passenger pigeon. Yes, yes, a few of the former middle class are moving into the ranks of the privileged-(something to cheer about in the right wing) but most of the people leaving the middle class are worse off now than they were a decade ago. Then we need to do more to teach them how to work hard and earn more money so that they can move up the ladder rather than sliding down the ladder under the weight of good intentions. Sounds very noble, but that flies in the face of a long-proven reality. The privileged class has a specific interest in maintaining or even increasing the number of poor and desperate people in this country while at the same time decreasing any public infrastructure or funding to relieve some of the hardships suffered by the poor. It's called labor force. We want lotsof people who will work as cheaply as possible. In fact, when our own poor people ask for a minimum wage job the privileged class declares minimum wage "too much" to pay and seeks out a foreign labor force even more poor, more desperate, and more willing to work for a handful of rice a day. Spoken like a true liberal/progressive. Why are you so negative? It appears that you never have a positive thing to say! It went on in the last great flood down south in the 20's, and it's still going on today. During the flood where VP Hoover served as the government emergency coordinator, there were several thousand people stranded on a levee. Times being as they were in the 20's, the government naturally evacuated all the white people first. When the government began evacuating the poor black folks on the levee, local business leaders pressured the administration to stop. They said that if the black people were even temporarily relocated, they would have a hard time rebuilding their agricultural labor force. In the end, an encampment of poor folks rose on that levee that was something like a mile and a half from end to end. The government hauled food out to them, but refused to take any of them off the levee. IIRC, it took a couple of weeks for the water to recede to where the poor people could get off on their own. Remind me again about who the dominate political force was in the south after the Civil War up until the Republicans passed Johnson's Civil Rights bill? Who were the prominant Democrats that were against the Civil Rights bill? Gore, Fullbright, Byrd...the list goes on and on and on. Under your proposed social solution, perhpas we should have simply dropped a handful of lumber and a drawing of a raft onto the levee/island? The industrious folks could have built a raft and escaped- oh, but wait, no lumber and no drawing of a raft for these folks- it would have worked against the interests of the privileged class for any of these people to relocate out of the area. The economic value of somebody willing to or forced to work for only the tiniest fraction of the value produced in a work day is very high, and such an "asset" shouldn't be squandered. My propsed solution is to teach people how to do for themselves rather than relying upon someone else to gie them a handout. You and your ilk want to keep them dependent upon the government. Times have changed, but human nature hasn't. The Republican partyhas changed quite dramatically in the last 80 years while the Democratic party It's tough to demand that somebody pull themselves up by the bootstraps when they don't even have any boots, let alone a pair with straps. Stop whining and start doing. If you aren't going to help out and solve the problem then get out of the way of people that do want to help solve the problem. |
"*JimH*" wrote in message ... wrote in message ps.com... Bert Robbins wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Chuckie is spewing the typical brain dead liebral class warfare crap. The vast majority of people do not stay in one income bracket throughout their lives. Sounds a bit like "let them eat cake." No, it sounds like let's teach them to bake their own cake so that they can feed themselves. You are right about that. The middle class is going the way of the passenger pigeon. Yes, yes, a few of the former middle class are moving into the ranks of the privileged-(something to cheer about in the right wing) but most of the people leaving the middle class are worse off now than they were a decade ago. Then we need to do more to teach them how to work hard and earn more money so that they can move up the ladder rather than sliding down the ladder under the weight of good intentions. Sounds very noble, but that flies in the face of a long-proven reality. The privileged class has a specific interest in maintaining or even increasing the number of poor and desperate people in this country while at the same time decreasing any public infrastructure or funding to relieve some of the hardships suffered by the poor. It's called labor force. We want lotsof people who will work as cheaply as possible. In fact, when our own poor people ask for a minimum wage job the privileged class declares minimum wage "too much" to pay and seeks out a foreign labor force even more poor, more desperate, and more willing to work for a handful of rice a day. It went on in the last great flood down south in the 20's, and it's still going on today. During the flood where VP Hoover served as the government emergency coordinator, there were several thousand people stranded on a levee. Times being as they were in the 20's, the government naturally evacuated all the white people first. When the government began evacuating the poor black folks on the levee, local business leaders pressured the administration to stop. They said that if the black people were even temporarily relocated, they would have a hard time rebuilding their agricultural labor force. In the end, an encampment of poor folks rose on that levee that was something like a mile and a half from end to end. The government hauled food out to them, but refused to take any of them off the levee. IIRC, it took a couple of weeks for the water to recede to where the poor people could get off on their own. Under your proposed social solution, perhpas we should have simply dropped a handful of lumber and a drawing of a raft onto the levee/island? The industrious folks could have built a raft and escaped- oh, but wait, no lumber and no drawing of a raft for these folks- it would have worked against the interests of the privileged class for any of these people to relocate out of the area. The economic value of somebody willing to or forced to work for only the tiniest fraction of the value produced in a work day is very high, and such an "asset" shouldn't be squandered. Times have changed, but human nature hasn't. It's tough to demand that somebody pull themselves up by the bootstraps when they don't even have any boots, let alone a pair with straps. ========================== Sounds very noble, but that flies in the face of a long-proven reality. The privileged class has a specific interest in maintaining or even increasing the number of poor and desperate people in this country while at the same time decreasing any public infrastructure or funding to relieve some of the hardships suffered by the poor. ============================== What a crock of bull. Everyone has the opportunity for an education. Everyone. Those choosing not to take that road make that choice on their own. And if you decide to settle in life for a menial job, there are plenty out there offering far more than minimum wage. 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. Chuckie is just your typical socialist liebral that wants equal outcome not equal opportunity......regardless of the cost. |
.. 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. |
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. Chuck, the kid is in school and isn't going to make painting his life's endeavor so why should he be paid $25 an hour with just a few months experience? The rest of your "progressive" clap trap isn't worth reading. [ SNIP ] |
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? |
Chuck,
Do you think raising the minimum wage, would raise the salary of those already earning more than minimum wage? When you were selling used cars, did you pay the janitor $40 an hour so he could enjoy a decent standard of living, or did you horde all the money for yourself? 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. |
"*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. 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. |
wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 09:36:29 -0400, "Starbuck" wrote: Chuck, Do you think raising the minimum wage, would raise the salary of those already earning more than minimum wage? My wife is in the construction business and the ONLY people who make minimum wage are the winos who work for the rent a drunk companies. The Mexicams who work with a shovel make $100 a day and up (in union free Florida) It is hard to say how much the rent a drunks make a week since they never show up 5 days in a row. If the guy from the labor pool even shows a glimmer of hope he will be scooped up be a contractor. The only thing the minimum wage does is raise the bar higher across the board......and when you have labor availible offshore for less, it creates more of an incentive to move those jobs offshore. Liebrals believe that a corporation\s pupose is to provide jobs......which is false. A Corporation's purpose is to make profits for its investors. |
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. |
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. 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. |
Chuck,
This is not an attack on you, but I think your view of the world is clouded by your personal experiences as a used car and used boat salesman. In those professions it is a us vs. them mentality. Most businessman take a long term look at the business and their employees. If you didn't do that with your employees shame on you. If you did, why do you think other businessman don't? "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. 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. |
"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. |
|
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. |
Starbuck wrote:
Doug, If we raised everyone salary 25%, the net income gain in spending power would be 0%. ??? You should try and grasp the concept of "marginal rates of change." If everybody's salary was raised 25% in an instant, and prices remained constant *at that same instant* then there would very very definitely an increase in "spending power." It would taper off as prices rose, but probably would take a while to reach 0.0 if indeed it really did (increased spending tends to increase investment in production which tends to increase technology etc etc). It's not quite the Red Queen's Race, but it's close. I can see you're another economist wanna-be... did you get your tremendous expertise from the same "Everything You Need To Know About Economics In One Easy Lesson" website as that last joker? DSK |
"DSK" wrote in message ... Starbuck wrote: Doug, If we raised everyone salary 25%, the net income gain in spending power would be 0%. ??? You should try and grasp the concept of "marginal rates of change." If everybody's salary was raised 25% in an instant, and prices remained constant *at that same instant* then there would very very definitely an increase in "spending power." It would taper off as prices rose, but probably would take a while to reach 0.0 if indeed it really did (increased spending tends to increase investment in production which tends to increase technology etc etc). It's not quite the Red Queen's Race, but it's close. I can see you're another economist wanna-be... did you get your tremendous expertise from the same "Everything You Need To Know About Economics In One Easy Lesson" website as that last joker? DSK A 25% raise in all salaries would be reflected in prices in about 10 days. And the net gain would be a minus %. Bracket creep on tax charts. And how are you going to raise salaries, without raising prices concurrently? |
Bill McKee wrote:
A 25% raise in all salaries would be reflected in prices in about 10 days. Really? Across the board? Evenly distributed in all consumer categories, or will staples/necissities go up faster? And the net gain would be a minus %. If that were true, then the average standard of living would always tend to decrease. I guess the fact that we live in air-conditioned houses, not caves, hasn't been noticed by you? ... Bracket creep on tax charts. Are you under the impression that being nudged into the next higher tax bracket means that you now have less money? ... And how are you going to raise salaries, without raising prices concurrently? The same way President Bush raises expenditures... astronomically... without raising revenue. DSK |
Doug,
The marketplace responds fairly quickly to inflationary pressure, just ask Germans who lived during the 40's how quickly the marketplace reacts to an increase in money supply without an increase in productivity. Are you suggesting it is ok to create rampant inflation in an effort to try to give the appearance of helping the less fortunate? After all, the old on fixed income have lived a good life, it is more important that we give the appearance of helping the poor. "DSK" wrote in message ... Starbuck wrote: Doug, If we raised everyone salary 25%, the net income gain in spending power would be 0%. ??? You should try and grasp the concept of "marginal rates of change." If everybody's salary was raised 25% in an instant, and prices remained constant *at that same instant* then there would very very definitely an increase in "spending power." It would taper off as prices rose, but probably would take a while to reach 0.0 if indeed it really did (increased spending tends to increase investment in production which tends to increase technology etc etc). It's not quite the Red Queen's Race, but it's close. I can see you're another economist wanna-be... did you get your tremendous expertise from the same "Everything You Need To Know About Economics In One Easy Lesson" website as that last joker? DSK |
Starbuck wrote:
Doug, The marketplace responds fairly quickly to inflationary pressure Uh huh. Do you know the economics textbook definition of "long term"? Look it up. ... just ask Germans who lived during the 40's how quickly the marketplace reacts to an increase in money supply without an increase in productivity. And how quickly is that? When a crisis that is ten years in the making creates an "overnight sensation" of exponential inflation, does it take an idiot to ignore the 10 year crisis and focus on the overnight? Or merely someone who is poorly educated who also wants to promote a fundamentally dishonest agenda? Are you suggesting it is ok to create rampant inflation in an effort to try to give the appearance of helping the less fortunate? Why, no. Are you suggesting that I suggested that? I was merely pointing out that your ideas about economics are wrong. ... After all, the old on fixed income have lived a good life Is that why you & the Bush/Cheney Administration feel it's OK to pillage Social Security and hand over the loot to Wall St? ... it is more important that we give the appearance of helping the poor. instead of "giving the appearance" how about actually helping them? Or in the words of the immortal B.B. King (no relation) 'Help the poor... Lord, help the poor... yes, help the poor... won't you help poor me.' DSK |
"DSK" wrote in message ... Bill McKee wrote: A 25% raise in all salaries would be reflected in prices in about 10 days. Really? Across the board? Evenly distributed in all consumer categories, or will staples/necissities go up faster? And the net gain would be a minus %. If that were true, then the average standard of living would always tend to decrease. I guess the fact that we live in air-conditioned houses, not caves, hasn't been noticed by you? Productivity has gone up with wages. You are only going to raise wages. Therefore all prices have to follow directly or greater. ... Bracket creep on tax charts. Are you under the impression that being nudged into the next higher tax bracket means that you now have less money? If you raise all wages 25% and the prices will have to raise at least 25% to cover the extra costs, yes bracket creep will leave you with less spendable money. Example (ignore real tax rates). You make $100 / week. You get the 25% raise to $125 / week But prices have gone up 25% also. At $100/ week you paid 20% of your money in income taxes. Leaving you with $80. With a 25% increase in income your tax bracket is now 22%. Or $27.50 Leaving you with $97.50 or a 21% increase, while prices will raise 25%. ... And how are you going to raise salaries, without raising prices concurrently? The same way President Bush raises expenditures... astronomically... without raising revenue. DSK And you go into bigger debt. Just like this Congress and the President are doing. Include the Congress, as they are the only ones to allocate money to spend. And that includes the Democrats and the Republicans. Those same D's and R's who passed a transportation bill with $27 billion, that is with a capitol "B", load of pork in it. Yes it was voted for by the Boxer's, Pelosi's, Feinstein's, Kennedy's, Kerry's, etc. of the Congress as well as the Republicans. |
Doug,
If you increased the money supply by 25% without any increase in productivity, you could expect inflation to be 25% in less than 2 years, it would probably be 25% in less than 12 months, but you could expect to see prices rising the same month the money supply was increased. You will have 25% more dollars chasing the exact same amount of production, and the prices will rise as soon as the marketplace realizes it. Even if this information was never published in the news. Those who buy commodity futures will bid up the futures almost immediately, (they review all the government data concerning M1 and M2 money supply) this will increase the cost of the raw materials. This will very quickly raise the cost of finished goods, since most manufacturers and many retail businesses use LIFO accounting practice. "DSK" wrote in message ... Starbuck wrote: Doug, The marketplace responds fairly quickly to inflationary pressure Uh huh. Do you know the economics textbook definition of "long term"? Look it up. ... just ask Germans who lived during the 40's how quickly the marketplace reacts to an increase in money supply without an increase in productivity. And how quickly is that? When a crisis that is ten years in the making creates an "overnight sensation" of exponential inflation, does it take an idiot to ignore the 10 year crisis and focus on the overnight? Or merely someone who is poorly educated who also wants to promote a fundamentally dishonest agenda? Are you suggesting it is ok to create rampant inflation in an effort to try to give the appearance of helping the less fortunate? Why, no. Are you suggesting that I suggested that? I was merely pointing out that your ideas about economics are wrong. ... After all, the old on fixed income have lived a good life Is that why you & the Bush/Cheney Administration feel it's OK to pillage Social Security and hand over the loot to Wall St? ... it is more important that we give the appearance of helping the poor. instead of "giving the appearance" how about actually helping them? Or in the words of the immortal B.B. King (no relation) 'Help the poor... Lord, help the poor... yes, help the poor... won't you help poor me.' DSK |
"DSK" wrote in message ... And how quickly is that? When a crisis that is ten years in the making creates an "overnight sensation" of exponential inflation, does it take an idiot to ignore the 10 year crisis and focus on the overnight? Or merely someone who is poorly educated who also wants to promote a fundamentally dishonest agenda? Doug, You might be poorly educated, but I don't think you are promoting a fundamentally dishonest agenda, I just think you are poorly educated. Remember, the definition of inflation is when more dollars are chasing the same amount of goods and servcies. If you do not increase productivity at the exact same amount you increase the money supply, you will ALWAYS have inflation. |
"Starbuck" wrote in message ... Doug, The marketplace responds fairly quickly to inflationary pressure, just ask Germans who lived during the 40's how quickly the marketplace reacts to an increase in money supply without an increase in productivity. Are you suggesting it is ok to create rampant inflation in an effort to try to give the appearance of helping the less fortunate? After all, the old on fixed income have lived a good life, it is more important that we give the appearance of helping the poor. What is scary is that there are people like him who think that prices would stay the safe when wages increase. "DSK" wrote in message ... Starbuck wrote: Doug, If we raised everyone salary 25%, the net income gain in spending power would be 0%. ??? You should try and grasp the concept of "marginal rates of change." If everybody's salary was raised 25% in an instant, and prices remained constant *at that same instant* then there would very very definitely an increase in "spending power." It would taper off as prices rose, but probably would take a while to reach 0.0 if indeed it really did (increased spending tends to increase investment in production which tends to increase technology etc etc). It's not quite the Red Queen's Race, but it's close. I can see you're another economist wanna-be... did you get your tremendous expertise from the same "Everything You Need To Know About Economics In One Easy Lesson" website as that last joker? DSK |
I really thought many people wouldn't realize the correlation between
production, money supply and inflation, but I would have expected any college graduate to understand it when it was discussed. I guess I was wrong. "P Fritz" wrote in message ... "Starbuck" wrote in message ... Doug, The marketplace responds fairly quickly to inflationary pressure, just ask Germans who lived during the 40's how quickly the marketplace reacts to an increase in money supply without an increase in productivity. Are you suggesting it is ok to create rampant inflation in an effort to try to give the appearance of helping the less fortunate? After all, the old on fixed income have lived a good life, it is more important that we give the appearance of helping the poor. What is scary is that there are people like him who think that prices would stay the safe when wages increase. "DSK" wrote in message ... Starbuck wrote: Doug, If we raised everyone salary 25%, the net income gain in spending power would be 0%. ??? You should try and grasp the concept of "marginal rates of change." If everybody's salary was raised 25% in an instant, and prices remained constant *at that same instant* then there would very very definitely an increase in "spending power." It would taper off as prices rose, but probably would take a while to reach 0.0 if indeed it really did (increased spending tends to increase investment in production which tends to increase technology etc etc). It's not quite the Red Queen's Race, but it's close. I can see you're another economist wanna-be... did you get your tremendous expertise from the same "Everything You Need To Know About Economics In One Easy Lesson" website as that last joker? DSK |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:35 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com