In reply to Tom_Spangler:
Don't care, Indiana won the game after starting a stadium riot......
In reply to Tom_Spangler:
Don't care, Indiana won the game after starting a stadium riot......
Kenny_McCormic wrote: You've got me all wrong man. Both political parties suck, but in this case, it was a bunch of corrupt liberal democrats and democrat voting unions with unchecked control for decades that destroyed Detroit. You cant deny that. You certainly are right about Detroit being an example of things to come in this country.
I'll concede I may have you all wrong. I can deny your opinion that Detroit was bankrupted by whatever scapegoat your want to trot out. Bankruptcy isn't caused by one draw on your or a city's finances. It's a complete depletion of your financial resources. Therefore all draws on those resources are to blame because if one had let up...you wouldn't be bankrupt. Therefore your statement of "liber-ahls and der unions!" is untrue as stated in my post. Tax breaks to corps/rich guys, social welfare enacted to offset employers low wages, etc all contributed. To break it down yet again - corporations and the rich sucking on Detroit's teat caused it to run dry just as much as anything else. I'd argue Corporations are vastly more equipped to milk a city dry than the poor, uneducated, and black. To list some other poster's favorite scape goats.
aussiesmg wrote: "Had the minimum wage kept pace with gains in the country's productivity since 1968, it would be $16.54 an hour today, as opposed to the current level of $7.25 per hour." If this was the case there would be no small businesses left in the USA.
I disagree. A living wage would do a lot to help this country AND small businesses as there would be a lot more money in the populace as opposed to sitting in some corporations Scrooge McDuck style vault. My point:
Sorry, It's Not A 'Law Of Capitalism' That You Pay Your Employees As Little As Possible
Some gems from the article:
If average Americans don't get paid living wages, they can't spend much money buying products and services. And when average Americans can't buy products and services, the companies that sell products and services to average Americans can't grow. So the profit obsession of America's big companies is, ironically, hurting their ability to accelerate revenue growth.
There are also 4 charts in the article. (Read the article and view the charts if you want to see how we stack up against say, 1920 U.S.)
CHART ONE: Corporate profits and profit margins are at an all-time high.
CHART TWO: Wages as a percent of the economy are at an all-time low.
CHART THREE: Fewer Americans are employed than at any time in the past three decades.
CHART FOUR: The share of our national income that American corporations are sharing with the people who do the work ("labor") is at an all-time low.
How does would these four facts make for a healthy business climate much less a healthy national economy? Short answer, they don't. They benefit a select few (1%) to the detriment of the rest of us including on a long enough time line the same 1% this previously benefited.
The final part of the article:
In short, the obsession with "maximizing short-term profits" that has developed in America over the past 30 years has created a business culture in which executives dance to the tune of short-term traders and quarterly earnings reports, instead of balancing the value created for employees, customers, and long-term owners. That's not what has made America a great country. It is not what has made some excellent American corporations the envy of the world. It's also hurting the economy.
All that from the liberal commies who run a magazine named The Business Insider. What a bunch of pinkos! Can you believe those socialists?! 
To wind this back to Detroit, it's a call. Detroit's downfall is an example of what America may be headed for if we don't change how the middle class is treated, and compensated, in this nation.
In reply to Xceler8x:
Everytime the minimum wage goes up, everything else does as well.....it really berkeleys over those of us who make more than minumum wage, but aren't that far over the "new" minimum wage.
I ran into that when it used to be $5.15 or whatever and I was making $9/hr. They bumped it to $7.xx and at that point I didn't get a raise to compensate for the ground I lost, nor comparable cost of living increases.
I am patiently awaiting your reasoning as to why this would be a good thing. Because lets face it, a high percentage of those bitching about minimum wage don't live by their incomes. Live by your income, end of story.
E36 M3. $16.54 to flip burgers? Where do i sign for THAT job?
In reply to Xceler8x:
there can be elements of what you discuss contributing to the situation, but you said :
" It's a complete depletion of your financial resources."
and thats exactly right. but in your remarks, and in the press in general, I don't see enough reporting of how spending kept going UP, even as tax revenues had been predictably going down. It wasn't a surprised that they were losing tax revenue, they saw the migration numbers, it didn't sneak up on anyone.
So why did spending continue to go up even as income did nothing but drop? Its almost immaterial -what- money was being spent on, wether you can cite a tax break the size of the union entitlements or not.
Why did they issue bonds to shore up spending knowing their revenue was dropping and that they would never be able to pay back?
I dunno. I just feel like nobody puts it in a realistic perspective with both those things in view...
yamaha wrote: In reply to Xceler8x: Everytime the minimum wage goes up, everything else does as well.....it really berkeleys over those of us who make more than minumum wage, but aren't that far over the "new" minimum wage. I ran into that when it used to be $5.15 or whatever and I was making $9/hr. They bumped it to $7.xx and at that point I didn't get a raise to compensate for the ground I lost, nor comparable cost of living increases. I am patiently awaiting your reasoning as to why this would be a good thing. Because lets face it, a high percentage of those bitching about minimum wage don't live by their incomes. Live by your income, end of story.
Let's review your logic.
Because you make slightly over minimum wage everyone else making minimum wage should be kept at the same poverty wages. Did I get that right?
If you think a bit further you might consider that if wages go up below, then wages might just be pushed up above. Also consider that the article I quoted, which I'm sure you read, discussed how everyone is being underpaid by corps making record amounts of money. You're focused on the negative here. You are also under paid. You too deserve a wage commiserate with the historically increased productivity your current employer is enjoying at your expense. Don't get angry at other folks trying to get by just as you yourself are. Look to the person taking money from you. Not the person trying to make money like you. Corps and the 1% don't factor into this btw. They've made their money. They're just trying to keep you from earning it back by underpaying for the labor they now get.
Your second point, folks on minimum wage not living within their incomes. Did you see the McBudget? Where McD's tried to show how a person on minimum wage could survive and live well? They forgot little things....like heat. The truth is someone on minimum wage can't support a family on that income alone. So your logic stands there, a person on minimum wage is most likely not living on that income alone. Again. Don't get angry at the working poor. They're doing their 40+ like everyone else. Due to their low wage their forced to go on assistance. There's nothing wrong with being poor. There is something wrong with blaming someone for being poor when they're working as hard as they can not to be.
Swank Force One wrote: E36 M3. $16.54 to flip burgers? Where do i sign for THAT job?
Read the article. You could sign up for that job if wages had kept pace with productivity gains as they had until the 80's. It was in the 80's that corps, with gov't help, started keeping more and more profit for themselves and their upper management. When my Dad was in High School a lot of his classmates were able to afford new muscle cars on their wages as working students. These were not rich kids. They were all working class with blue collar parents. Can you imagine that now?
Xceler8x wrote:Swank Force One wrote: E36 M3. $16.54 to flip burgers? Where do i sign for THAT job?Read the article. You could sign up for that job if wages had kept pace with productivity gains as they had until the 80's. It was in the 80's that corps, with gov't help, started keeping more and more profit for themselves and their upper management. When my Dad was in High School a lot of his classmates were able to afford new muscle cars on their wages as working students. These were not rich kids. They were all working class with blue collar parents. Can you imagine that now?
Think about how ridiculous that is...
My wife works at a franchised frozen dairy store. I know the owners quite well.
If they had to pay their entire staff at $16.54/hr, they would be out of business.
Oh but the money trickles up, you may say... Sure, but then where does it stop? The money has to come from somewhere. Eventually all that will happen is that everyone has tons of money, and voila! The dollar is now devalued, have a nice day.
To put this same sort of percentage math into perspective, i'd currently be getting paid just about $60/hr to do my current job.
While that would be nice, and while i do believe that i'm underpaid at the moment, this job is NOT a $60/hr job.
Here's why a lot of the kids that went to school with your Dad could afford new muscle cars: They had jobs and actually worked. Nowadays, high school kids have so much homework and silly extracuriculars that they don't have time to hold down a full time job.
Quite honestly, i could have afforded a new muscle car working during high school. Because i lived with my parents. I wouldn't have wanted to buy a new muscle car, because at age 16-17 that's a BEYOND stupid financial decision, and no bank is doing that E36 M3 for a punk high school kid anyways, because they're smarter than that. (Maybe they were real dumb back then, i have no idea.)
If you take the average of what my wife and i make, we make less than minimum wage. Our quality of life isn't suffering, it's actually quite nice. It would still be quite nice if she didn't even have a job. It's about being smart.
Couple days ago, Zerohedge.com had an interesting article on the 1968 minimum wage in today's dollars, and even using the totally fudged government statistics, it came out to $10.74. Real inflation has been grossly understated, so that would easily be $16.54 in actual purchasing power. Read the article: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-05/40-us-workers-now-earn-less-1968-minimum-wage
In the early 80's, I heard one of the Rockefellers on the radio saying that the American standard of living was too high, and it needed to be cut in half. The middle class is being eviscerated. The next generation, that is, Tommie's generation, is going to have it bad. No jobs. School loans to replace home loans. Expensive econo-boxes on debt (if they drive at all, many are just not getting licenses.) Things will not even start to get better for at least 10 years. Welcome to The Greater Depression.
Detroit killed their own city. It didn't help that Clinton opened up China trade on everything except boom sticks, or that Bush 2 continued to outsource us or that The O continued on as well. Oh, and what's one industry that survived in the US? Boom sticks?
I think part of the problem is not acknowledging the whole system is rigged. It's not designed for there to be "grey area" winners. It's really meant for there to be only "1" winner and the rest losers. My 2 cents on the whole thing.
i recommend being employable in an industry that can't be totally outsourced, that produces goods and services that "can't be lived without". electrician, plumber, mechanic, engineer, anything that requires hands-on. it may not be a perfect answer, but it's a pretty good one.
Engineer: Our Vice President (BIDEN), on a trip to Russia told the Russians that he ("we" actually was what he said) was going to do for Russia for engineering what "they" did for India with IT. That is, outsource all the US engineering to Russian engineers who will work for real cheap, like Indian IT. I saw the video. Should have bookmarked it.
In reply to Dr. Hess:
there is no such thing as outsourcing "all the US engineering", at least not in my lifetime, and i'm only 46. some things, such as vehicle performance development, have to be done by experienced hands-on engineers. people who have never driven at the circumference of the friction circle can not do this job. there are other examples, this is just the one with which i am most familiar.
Just relating what Joe Biden told the Russians. Maybe not "all" engineering, but all they could. They couldn't outsource all IT either but they did a chunk of it. One would think the Biden has access to knowledge and trend planning that us peons don't.
Tom_Spangler wrote:yamaha wrote:You mean aside from the CHAMPIONSHIP that the Wings won in 2008 (their fourth since 1997) and the two world series appearances by the Tigers? Let's not forget that the brawl happened when the Pistons were the defending CHAMPIONS and were in the midst of something like 6 straight conference final appearances.93EXCivic wrote: All I know is the Redwings suck.The Pistons do as well.....this might have been the best thing that happened in detroit in the last decade....
Swank Force One wrote: E36 M3. $16.54 to flip burgers? Where do i sign for THAT job?
North Dakota. No, I'm not joking.
mtn wrote:Swank Force One wrote: E36 M3. $16.54 to flip burgers? Where do i sign for THAT job?North Dakota. No, I'm not joking.
Which is also the area where you share a 1 bedroom apartment with 8 other dudes in order to make the cost of living acceptable.
Point made?
Swank Force One wrote:mtn wrote:Which is also the area where you share a 1 bedroom apartment with 8 other dudes in order to make the cost of living acceptable. Point made?Swank Force One wrote: E36 M3. $16.54 to flip burgers? Where do i sign for THAT job?North Dakota. No, I'm not joking.
That's because there's not nearly enough housing for the boom they are experiencing.
Funny thing, that whole supply-and-demand bit..... 
Tom_Spangler wrote:Swank Force One wrote:That's because there's not nearly enough housing for the boom they are experiencing. Funny thing, that whole supply-and-demand bit.....mtn wrote:Which is also the area where you share a 1 bedroom apartment with 8 other dudes in order to make the cost of living acceptable. Point made?Swank Force One wrote: E36 M3. $16.54 to flip burgers? Where do i sign for THAT job?North Dakota. No, I'm not joking.
I'm sure a 1 bedroom apartment will be $500-$600 once they get enough housing, though. It'll be perfect for those people making $16.50 flipping burgers.
Swank Force One wrote:mtn wrote:Which is also the area where you share a 1 bedroom apartment with 8 other dudes in order to make the cost of living acceptable. Point made?Swank Force One wrote: E36 M3. $16.54 to flip burgers? Where do i sign for THAT job?North Dakota. No, I'm not joking.
http://bn.craigslist.org/rvs/3987986407.html
http://bn.craigslist.org/rvs/3986878754.html
Join a health club for showers. Problems solved.
mtn wrote:Swank Force One wrote:http://bn.craigslist.org/rvs/3987986407.html http://bn.craigslist.org/rvs/3986878754.html Join a health club for showers. Problems solved.mtn wrote:Which is also the area where you share a 1 bedroom apartment with 8 other dudes in order to make the cost of living acceptable. Point made?Swank Force One wrote: E36 M3. $16.54 to flip burgers? Where do i sign for THAT job?North Dakota. No, I'm not joking.
Does that sound like the acceptable standard of living that people who are asking for the $16.54 minimum wage would be happy with?
Xceler8x wrote: Let's review your logic. Because you make slightly over minimum wage everyone else making minimum wage should be kept at the same poverty wages. Did I get that right? If you think a bit further you might consider that if wages go up below, then wages might just be pushed up above. Also consider that the article I quoted, which I'm sure you read, discussed how everyone is being underpaid by corps making record amounts of money. You're focused on the negative here. You are also under paid. You too deserve a wage commiserate with the historically increased productivity your current employer is enjoying at your expense. Don't get angry at other folks trying to get by just as you yourself are. Look to the person taking money from you. Not the person trying to make money like you. Corps and the 1% don't factor into this btw. They've made their money. They're just trying to keep you from earning it back by underpaying for the labor they now get. Your second point, folks on minimum wage not living within their incomes. Did you see the McBudget? Where McD's tried to show how a person on minimum wage could survive and live well? They forgot little things....like heat. The truth is someone on minimum wage can't support a family on that income alone. So your logic stands there, a person on minimum wage is most likely not living on that income alone. Again. Don't get angry at the working poor. They're doing their 40+ like everyone else. Due to their low wage their forced to go on assistance. There's nothing wrong with being poor. There is something wrong with blaming someone for being poor when they're working as hard as they can not to be.
Currently I make $12/hr and actually have a good life, sure, I am single and I cannot afford a new $40k lexus, but I know this and keep within my means. It'd be nice to make more, but I expect to have to do more and work harder to get that.
My apologies if this sounds harsh, but the underlying problem is that someone has absolutely no business attempting to support a family working for minimum wage, no matter what the minimum wage is. I have never supported the minimum wage hikes, and I probably never will.
FWIW, I work for a small family owned business that treats us pretty well, profit shares, provides other benifits, etc.
Stop it Paul. Stop talking sense. This whole "living with your means" thing is over blown. Just wait for a handout.
93EXCivic wrote:
5 times.
11 times
My numbers may be off though.
I remember not long ago I had a dream everyone in the entire country was basically living off of food stamps. Half the population was dead from a combination of fighting and starvation. Martial law had been established to "keep the peace". Walking outside you saw burnt out building, military vehicles, people walking everywhere with very few vehicles being used do to extremely inflated fuel prices and extreme rationing. There were no animals or birds anywhere to be seen, they had all been eaten. Including the rats.
Going into a grocery store meant going through security gates and passing armed guards. Stealing food was a capital crime those caught were immediately executed. There was virtually no food on the shelves. Fresh vegetables and fruit were practically non existent. What little was available would be thrown out by today's standards. Everyone had an electronic bracelet that they would scan to use their food stamps. There was no cash, it was worthless, people worked (those lucky enough to get a job) for credits or benefits from their company. For instance if you worked at a gas station you may receive some gas rations like a gallon or two for a weeks worth of work.
People were living 3 to 4 families per home. Many would try growing gardens which had to be done in secret as doing so was considered hoarding food and was illegal. Movements and activities are strictly monitored. The internet is basically non existent as basically no one can afford electricity and most homes are in such disrepair internal wiring would be unsafe at best. In most cases internal wiring and most power lines had been stripped and sold off as scrap.
rebelgtp wrote: I remember not long ago I had a dream everyone in the entire country was basically living off of food stamps. Half the population was dead from a combination of fighting and starvation. Martial law had been established to "keep the peace". Walking outside you saw burnt out building, military vehicles, people walking everywhere with very few vehicles being used do to extremely inflated fuel prices and extreme rationing. There were no animals or birds anywhere to be seen, they had all been eaten. Including the rats. Going into a grocery store meant going through security gates and passing armed guards. Stealing food was a capital crime those caught were immediately executed. There was virtually no food on the shelves. Fresh vegetables and fruit were practically non existent. What little was available would be thrown out by today's standards. Everyone had an electronic bracelet that they would scan to use their food stamps. There was no cash, it was worthless, people worked (those lucky enough to get a job) for credits or benefits from their company. For instance if you worked at a gas station you may receive some gas rations like a gallon or two for a weeks worth of work. People were living 3 to 4 families per home. Many would try growing gardens which had to be done in secret as doing so was considered hoarding food and was illegal. Movements and activities are strictly monitored. The internet is basically non existent as basically no one can afford electricity and most homes are in such disrepair internal wiring would be unsafe at best. In most cases internal wiring and most power lines had been stripped and sold off as scrap.
So you read before bed?
You'll need to log in to post.
