Obamabots defending the Democrats?

No the neverwillbe's defending the 1%.

Why let the correction of the story get in the way? :zz:

criticisms of something doesn't automatically equal defense of something else. it's not an either/or. i'm sorry you can't learn that, or refuse to accept it.


there is NO reason why, in this land of abundance, anyone who works should be needing govt handouts because their wage is lower than it ought to be.
corporations receive tax breaks, have tax shelters, get subsidized, announce record profits, pay their fat cat upper level management millions, but can't pay an adequate wage.
too many ebenezers, too many bob cratchits. and all of us in the middle support both thru our tax dollars.

God save my soul - I'm actually agreeing with Joey and Dell :eek:


Zig, I'm seeing this as a realtively simplistic view. In principle, yes the appearance in this story is that the working poor need handouts in order to feed their families.

But to stand back an look objectively at the circumstance, I see a larger issue, and one that feeds directly into this entitlement culture which we've found ourselves in.

When we were coming up, after HS you either went to college, learned a trade, or went to work. there were generations upon generations of Detrioters born with a umbilical cord tied to the pension funds of GM, Ford, Chrysler. They were not going to school, they knew they could graduate and get a lifetime job with great benefits on the line. they would not live in a mansion, but would do just fine, so long as they kept their nose clean. It was there for them. The same way with trade Unions, and of course college grads.

Who worked in department/grocery stores/fast food restaurants? High schoolers, retirees, etc. Those jobs were and still are unskilled part time jobs for the most part. No one ever thought in a million years that running a cash register was a "career option", with beneifts and a wage capable of supporting a household.

Fast forward 30 years, and now look. Not only are people being praised for working at Walmart, but they are expecting to get paid like they're actually providing a skilled service to the community. Maybe the guaranteed lifetime employment opportunities are no longer around in abundance like they were back then, but you still need to apply yourself in order to enjoy a lifestyle you wish to live.

An electrician, for example, who graduated high school and went to trade school and work his way up as an apprentice shouldn't have to pay 10.00 for a Big Mac just because the HS drop out fry cook needs to make the same living wage as he to support a family.

I'm sure the guidance counselor at school never advised them that a Greeter at Walmart is a solid career choice.

These are, by and large, personal decisions that people make with respect to how they are choosing to live their lives. You do not have the right to pop out 4 kids and expect your cash register job to front the bill for it. So when you do, expect to go to the food bank to feed yourself, and stop blaming your employer.

Well put:tro:

my point is that in the old days, minimum wage was a living wage. it's not now. and the jobs have changed in this country over the last however many years. altho we still lead the world in manufacturing, we have less manufacturing jobs, and a lot more automation.
it's not that we have less skilled people, it's that many jobs no longer exist, due to sending work overseas, cutting staff and having people do more to cover the slack..
as for mcdonalds workers and wal-mart, a lot of those employees have college education in their background. they don't have a job in that field tho. it's a stereotype of the minimum wage earner to say they are all dropouts, with lots of kids.
mcdonals minimum wage used to mean something, it doesn't anymore. it's not because the work force isn't as smart, but because corporations have managed to keep the minimum wage from rising along with everything else.
we require people to work at wal-mart, mcdonalds and the like, don't we? how do we then blame them for working there, when they work in a necessary job?
we as taxpayers support them. wouldn't it be better if mcdonalds had, say, $3 billion less in profit, and paid a living wage (not a high on the hog wage, but an actual living wage) so that us taxpayers weren't on the hook, supporting people who are working. bad enough we have to support those who don't work.

We'll have to just agree to disagree on this one. I don't recall the minimum wage ever being a living wage. Ever. It applies to jobs that anyone can do and is targeted specifically to the unskilled labor market - again, almost exclusively to teens and retirees - folks that do not need health insurance or benefits.

Furthermore there is a plenty of work if you are willing to go after it. If someone has a college education, and is choosing to work a minimum wage job over making some sacrifices (temporary relocation, entry level position to develop experience, etc.) then that's on them.

I moved from the Marcellus shale region of western PA / West VA and I can tell you anyone with a pulse can make a small fortune there right now - they can't build motels fast enough to accommodate the demand for labor there - similar stories around Minot ND - in fact a friend of mine who had been out of work in his field of expertise just returned from there, and now has enough money to start his own business here.

So I'm not buying it. Yes, it's tough, but there is great paying work if you're willing to go to it. It's may not be convenient, but there is no guarantees in life.

i posted a link a few weeks ago about the minimum wage, the paper was from a couple economists. it used to keep people above the poverty line, but no more. it hasn't kept pace over the years with inflation, etc. but then, neither have other wages, except for that at the top.
so, what once kept people from having to get aid no longer does.
and yes, there are jobs in places like north dakota. the trick is getting people there.
if someone can't make enough money to buy food, how do you expect them to get to north dakota?

i'll find that link.

here you go. lots of charts, etc.

http://www.epi.org/publication/bp357...wage-increase/

■Those who would see wage increases do not fit some of the stereotypes of minimum-wage workers.
■Women would be disproportionately affected, comprising 56 percent of those who would benefit.
■Over 88 percent of workers who would benefit are at least 20 years old.
■Although workers of all races and ethnicities would benefit from the increase, non-Hispanic white workers comprise the largest share (about 54 percent) of those who would be affected.
■About 44 percent of affected workers have at least some college education.
■Around 55 percent of affected workers work full time, 70 percent are in families with incomes of less than $60,000, more than a quarter are parents, and over a third are married.
■The average affected worker earns about half of his or her family’s total income

rudeboy, i hope you read over that whole paper, and take note of the majority of people that would be affected (not teens) etc.

Actually, doubling the wages of every employee of all McDonald's (including the execs) would raise the price of a Big Mac to a little over $5.00:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3672006.html

And considering the calorie bombs that are Big Macs, that's more than enough food for a single meal. $5.00 for a lunch is not very expensive.

I'm always fascinated by how low-income workers are always lazy slackers with too many kids who don't deserve any sort of financial security, but people like the Walton family, who did nothing other than get born to a particular guy, are upstanding individuals entitled to every penny they squeeze out of that underpaid work force. It's a cognitive dissonance in Americans I just don't understand.

http://gawker.com/the-simple-path-to...art-1467622860

There's this attitude that anything to raise stock prices and dividends is of course morally superior to paying workers a living wage, because filling the pockets of people who already have more money than they will ever spend is far more morally important that ensuring that the people who are the actual engine of the economy have money to keep that engine running by spending it on food, fuel and necessities.

The wealthy spend a much, much smaller percentage of their income than do the middle class- they end up hoarding large amounts of money, thus removing it from the economy. And there aren't enough wealthy people to make up for all of the middle class people who have now slid into the lower class and do not have disposable income. We are destroying our own nation in order to cater to the plutocrats. AND we are subsidizing them while we do it, because large numbers of Wal Mart employees are on government programs. So even people like me, who don't shop at Wal Mart, are supporting Wal Mart via our tax dollars, so the Waltons can hoard even more money. Yay!

i saw video from a congressional hearing that said they'd have to raise the price of a burger .06 cents. wow.

so, we want people to work instead of having them on welfare. but when people work, they still have to get welfare, because their living wage isn't one.
we say they're uneducated-but evidence shows that's not the case. and even if it was, since we use these goods and services, there's a demand for people to fill these jobs-and then we can demand they make squat? so we don't pay much for a burger, but we pay taxes to pick up the slack?
meanwhile, we subsidize the farmers, the corporations, we give tax breaks, incentives, etc, etc ad nauseum to these corporations....so we subsidize then, and their workers, and we also buy their stuff.
yeah, makes sense.
i did my shift at the food pantry this evening, which is always a bit disheartening. me and another volunteer were talking about how we pay farmers not to grow food, while people go hungry.

McDonalds solution to their employees holiday struggles. Chutzpah part Deux.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...presents-cash/

"stop complaining, it raises your stress level" :zz:

wow!

Let's see, a crew of 10 workers at $3.00 more an hour in wages would be $30/hr. in new wages. Dividing $30 by .06 cents gives us 500. (50 burgers per worker)

So your 'video' is true only if the McDonalds in question is turning out 500 burgers per 10 workers as an average. 12K burgers in a 24hr period or 84K/week. 4.3 million per year!!

In other words don't believe everything you see/hear/read. Let me guess the above video came from a congressman/woman pushing a minimum wage increase? In fact it kind of sounds Wasserman/Schiltz like.

Yes del they should STFU because somewhere in the world someone is willing to work for a quarter of that minimum wage and mcDonalds et all will continue lobbying efforts to get those people here to work.:zz:

How about presenting facts?

Hard to argue over fantasies as everyone has a different one.

Would .30 to .40 cents per burger instead of .06 cents ruined the argument?

Let them raise prices, isn't that what capitalism is about setting prices that your customer is willing to pay? They raise them too much and someone will undercut them and eat their lunch so to speak. Why do all arguments forget this basic tenant when it comes to employees getting more money?

FYI
CEO make 8.75 million a year which by the way would take a line worker 114 years working 24x7 365 to equal. Maybe he can take a paycut.