Minimum Wage hike, you for it?

Beer Baron wrote:

Duke wrote:

Beer Baron wrote: If these people are not motivated and will not be motivated should we: let them die of starvation and exposure?

Yes, without question.

Well, we disagree then. I should also have said that these people have limited motivation and that it will not increase. I think we all have limited motivation. Some just more than others.

Hmmm... by this perspective, maybe we should all stop working? It would sure be a lot easier.

Since starvation and exposure will not be a threat (since "we" won't allow THAT to happen), we really won't have anything to worry about.

Duke wrote: Wait, I thought 100 years ago this was the land of robber barons who would screw over their mothers to make a buck, hire strike breakers, force kids to work 70 hour weeks, and bathe in the blood of the common man. Which way is it, again?

I'd still take 100 years ago over today. You can go to the IMF among other sources and take a look at income disparity. It's gone up since 1900.

In reply to Tom Suddard:

Ugh... Put me in for another century...

PHeller wrote:

mtn wrote: You know, this is extremely harsh. But it is exactly true. The bare minimum to survive, with the government benefits that are out there, is not hard to come by. Just throwing that out there.

I'd agree 100%. You could make absolutely no change to the current system and people would be able to survive, but I feel as thought some folks are advocating that current system is too much help.

^This.

And the idea of raising minimum wage is not to provide E36 M3-tons more help. It is to either maintain the current level help, or to shift where that help comes from.

I would rather see minimum wage pay more, and that be used to care for low income people than to see them cared for with welfare. I would rather see people have to do the minimum work possible to earn their way than no work.

Raise the minimum wage and offer payroll tax incentives for employers. If the government is paying out less in welfare, it needs lower taxes anyway. Everyone wins.

A raise from $7.25 to $8, perfectly fine. To DOUBLE the minimum wage? Go berkeley Yourself.

Tom Suddard wrote: Hi everybody. How's everything going in this thread?

It's going about the same as every other wage thread, disparity of income thread, walmart is evil thread, the rich are too damn rich thread, the poor are lazy, and "oh look the burger flippers are striking again" thread always does.

Take that as you may.

SVreX wrote: Hmmm... by this perspective, maybe we should all stop working? It would sure be a lot easier. Since starvation and exposure will not be a threat (since "we" won't allow THAT to happen), we really won't have anything to worry about.

That is not my perspective. You are engaging in whatever the logical fallacy is called of stretching someone else's argument to an unreasonable extreme to make the moderate argument look stupid.

I believe our society has enough wealth to take care of every member. I believe in order to maintain that, every person must have the incentive to at least make a real attempt to contribute to society. I do not believe everyone has to contribute at the same level. I believe people who contribute more will generally be rewarded more.

I do not believe it requires the wholesale sacrifice of the least motivated to provide incentive for people to contribute. I believe that not caring for the lowest leads to social decay that harms the ability of those people more motivated to contribute to society to better themselves.

I think safety nets that allow people to take risks and fail drives entrepreneurial innovation. I think these safety nets get abused by some, but that there is still a net benefit to society from the people who use them the way they were intended.

Tom Suddard wrote: Hi everybody. How's everything going in this thread?

Something like this.

93EXCivic wrote:

Tom Suddard wrote: Hi everybody. How's everything going in this thread?

Something like this.

That actually looks pretty awesome.

Beer Baron wrote:

Duke wrote: Yes, without question.

I should also have said that these people have limited motivation and that it will not increase. I think we all have limited motivation. Some just more than others.

Of course we do. So what? Why does "limited motivation" exempt you from the requirement to provide for yourself? Why does the grasshopper get a portion of the ant's food, despite his "limited motivation" to work hard all summer?

I have limited motivation. I work 40-45 hours a week for somebody else. Unlike my friend / boss, who put himself through college, started his own business, and works 60 hours a week. He probably pays himself 3-4 times what he pays me. I drive a kinda ratty 10-year-old BMW I bought used. He drives a mint Boxster in the summer and a 3-year-old Acura SUV in the winter, both bought new. I have no problem accepting the fact that his motivation and work ethic and willingness to risk have earned him much greater reward than I have earned. I don't feel he owes me a bigger slice of the pie, even though he might not be where he is now if he hadn't hired me.

I realize this sounds like first-world privilege, but it scales to any part of the spectrum. It doesn't matter where the floor is. If you have the ability to better yourself, but not the motivation, NOBODY is obligated to provide betterment for you. Even if that makes the difference between life and death.

PHeller wrote: I'd still take 100 years ago over today. You can go to the IMF among other sources and take a look at income disparity. It's gone up since 1900.

So what? The floor level of what's considered "living in poverty" has gone up by approximately the same amount as the increase in income disparity.

In reply to Duke:

Firstly, just because something is not obligated, does not mean it is not good.

I am not saying that people with less motivation than me should just be allowed to skate by. I am saying, I think if you put in a consistent level of effort, you should receive a fairly consistent level of reward. Your level of comfort should remain pretty much the same. Want to move up? Work harder and/or take more chances.

What I see happening is that inflation is making it so that for a consistent level of effort, people are effectively getting less reward. I think we would do well to correct it back up so those things are back in balance again. That does not mean $15 minimum wage, but $8-$9.

Now, maybe society would benefit further by raising the minimum wage to $10+. That is worth examining. For now, I think we should at least deal with the falling purchasing power of a stagnant minimum wage.

That's how I want to go. But the question is, do I want to go with Davis' intelligence or Sarandon's massive bobbies?

Appleseed wrote: That's how I want to go. But the question is, do I want to go with Davis' intelligence or Sarandon's massive bobbies?

Why not both?

Datsun1500 wrote: In reply to z31maniac: I show emailing you back that I don't have anything in your area

I believe I emailed you as well, and did not get any response.

Ooooh, another page!

https://secure.ablesoftsolutions.com/pdmg/SecurePages/NewSub.aspx?pi=grm

Haha new marketing strategy.

Until Moral Improves, the Subscription Spamming will continue!

Datsun1500 wrote:

mtn wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: In reply to z31maniac: I show emailing you back that I don't have anything in your area

I believe I emailed you as well, and did not get any response.

I sent your stuff to my guy in Chicago. I Just sent you my number.

Good to know. I'll have to search my spam folder when I get home.

Appleseed wrote: That's how I want to go. But the question is, do I want to go with Davis' intelligence or Sarandon's massive boObies?

I approve of working massive boobies into this thrread.

Datsun1500 wrote: In reply to z31maniac: I show emailing you back that I don't have anything in your area

My apologies, maybe it got nailed in my spam folder? I don't really remember to be completely honest. No harm intended.

Beer Baron wrote: I am not saying that people with less motivation than me should just be allowed to skate by. I am saying, I think if you put in a consistent level of effort, you should receive a fairly consistent level of reward.

That's not what you were saying. You were asking this:

Beer Baron wrote: If these people are not motivated and will not be motivated should we: let them die of starvation and exposure??

That's not the question you're answering in my first quote above. And in counterpoint to your obligation versus good comment, how about this: Just because something does the greatest good for the greatest number of people, doesn't make it right.

Beer Baron wrote: What I see happening is that inflation is making it so that for a consistent level of effort, people are effectively getting less reward. I think we would do well to correct it back up so those things are back in balance again.

I haven't had a raise since 2008. In fact I took a 25% pay cut for 2011 and only got back to where I was in 2009 at the end of 2012. The job market I'm in doesn't bear a raise.

I worked a consistent 40-45 hour week that entire time, with a professional level of effort and work ethic. Yet my real buying power has fallen just as much as someone who has been stuck at minimum wage that entire time. Does that mean I deserve an increase in pay, the same as someone on minimum wage apparently does in your mind?

That's completely leaving aside my doubts that most people who were in a minimum wage job in 2009 are still in a minimum wage job at the end of 2013.

Duke wrote: I haven't had a raise since 2008. In fact I took a 25% pay cut for 2011 and only got back to where I was in 2009 at the end of 2012. The job market I'm in doesn't bear a raise. I worked a consistent 40-45 hour week that entire time, with a professional level of effort and work ethic. **Yet my real buying power has fallen just as much as someone who has been stuck at minimum wage that entire time.** Does that mean I deserve an increase in pay, the same as someone on minimum wage apparently does in your mind?

I would feel I deserve a cost of living adjustment. I got hired at a certain rate with a certain purchasing power and effectively my pay has gone down, I wouldn't be thrilled with that. I would want that purchasing power back.

I want to win the lotto, but I haven't. You can want all you want (get it?), but it doesn't make it reality.

I went 5 years without a pay raise here. I just got it last year. But considering how the entire industry was, I was glad to be making what I was when I was and had the security I have had.

fritzsch wrote: I would feel I deserve a cost of living adjustment. I got hired at a certain rate with a certain purchasing power and effectively my pay has gone down, I wouldn't be thrilled with that. I would want that purchasing power back.

My pay not only "effectively" went down, it actually went down for a couple years. Demand for my type of services has gone down radically and it is a buyer's market. I'm not thrilled with that - but I also don't think that's anybody's problem but mine. Nobody owes me a guaranteed ability to keep pace with inflation, and nobody owes me insulation against a changing or even harsh world.

Xceler8x wrote: Like people who point their finger at the poor as being resource sponges all while immensely profitable corporations and the out sized military soak up more and more cash and resources? Hey, if we're against one why not the other?

Two quick things to point out:

-That out sized military is still the quickest way out of poverty, though I know that some people have moral objections to poor people going to war. As a training and career creating platform it beats any social program in every way. Really, with E-1 base pay available to almost anyone, why do we need a minimum wage for healthy adults? Any pay at any other job could be compared to military pay, and choosing not to sign up is accepting that you are willing to work for less than the one job equally available to almost everyone.

-Those moral objections to poor people joining the military? It's as a result of those that survivability for front line soldiers has never been better any time in history. That survivability comes at a cost in real dollars. We send a million dollar drone or smart missle in instead of 200 guys with $250 worth of bullets to risk fewer lives. As a society we choose to value those lives and pay tax dollars for better equipment for them despite the costs. You may not always agree that the mission should be accomplished, but if you claim to value our soldiers and their lives then you need to make peace with what it costs. Arguments about targets and objectives are very different than discussions of costs in the same way that spitting on a vet is very different than voting in a new elected official.

As to greedy corporations, you have to vote with your wallet. A company that can promise better returns to it's investors gets more and better access to investment cash. That makes the company stronger and also more profit driven. The only part in the whole system where conscience can still be injected is through the investors, and no one wants to invest their 401k in the less profitable option. We all vote profit when we vote with our wallets.

(Sidebar: Wouldn't that make for an interesting business model, though, running a fund that did invest with a conscience? From the investor end with a big enough fund you could force companies to bring up pay and benefits in exchange for investment capital. Orchestrated right that kind of fund would probably never be anyone's sole retirement investment but it could easily be a feel good alternative for part of a well blended portfolio, particularly with the right promotion.)