A study by Joseph DiMasi, an economist at the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development in Boston, found that the cost of getting one new drug approved was $802 million in 2000 U.S. dollars.1 Most new drugs cost much less, but his figure adds in each successful drug’s prorated share of failures. Only one out of fifty drugs eventually reaches the market.
Why are drugs so expensive to develop? The main reason for the high cost is the aforementioned high level of proof required by the Food and Drug Administration.
Yeah regulation is a small cost. However, in this case, it's worth it....it cost money and lots of it. I can list example after example of how our standard/quality of life has improved at an expense to companies paying for regulation instead of innovation, employees and profit.
And yet your entire premise rests upon the idea that regulation has no benefit. As if business profit is literally the only thing that matters.
Maybe it's just me, but I find value in HR preventing sexual harassment.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
And yet your entire premise rests upon the idea that regulation has no benefit. As if business profit is literally the only thing that matters.
Maybe it's just me, but I find value in HR preventing sexual harassment.
Do you only read half the stuff I post? You are either lying about my premise or can not read. Read what I wrote when this foray into regulation started:
EDIT:
Any regulation cost employers money. Now most reg's make our life better but they also cost business money that could be used for innovation, employees, etc etc.
The argument is not that regulations are bad. It's that they cost companies money while increasing our standard of living while reducing the amount of money a company can spend on its employees, innovation and profit. So, people talk about wages decreasing while ignoring the resulting increase in standard of living regulations have created....
So you either can not read or being dishonest. Typical.
“The key point is that regulation affects the distribution of jobs among industries, but not the total number,” said Noll.
“It’s certainly true, as people say, that regulation does create jobs,” he said. “It requires firms to do something that they’re not doing now, so often they need to hire.”
So instead of hiring employees that contribute to the business the business has to hire a lawyer. Is a low wage worker more likely to be a lawyer/compliance person?
@mystery45, I find it funny anything that hits the nail on the head about the argument that you can not dispute is a strawman argument.
You might want to pick up a history book and learn WHY the minimum wage was instituted. I will give you a hint, it wasnt for a floor for employers.
Also your business sense needs some education too. Everything you say will happen, didnt the last time the minimum wage increase went into effect. The economy adapted and we moved on.
Hell you dont even know what a trades man has to go through to get their license, yet you wish to think you do because you read it some where.
There are 4-6 million people in our society that are in a very bad place. Yet you feel they are none of your concern. Back 100 years or so ago, you would have been exiled form a town to city for thinking as you do now. Shame on you. Your thinking is the problem, not the solution.
And yet your entire premise rests upon the idea that regulation has no benefit. As if business profit is literally the only thing that matters.
Maybe it's just me, but I find value in HR preventing sexual harassment.
Do you only read half the stuff I post? You are either lying about my premise or can not read. Read what I wrote when this foray into regulation started:
EDIT:
Any regulation cost employers money. Now most reg's make our life better but they also cost business money that could be used for innovation, employees, etc etc.
The argument is not that regulations are bad. It's that they cost companies money while increasing our standard of living while reducing the amount of money a company can spend on its employees, innovation and profit. So, people talk about wages decreasing while ignoring the resulting increase in standard of living regulations have created....
So you either can not read or being dishonest. Typical.
Regulations don't increase the standard of living the way you're portraying them . They usually are set out to right a wrong. The air was better before we had massive pollution. But now we have a little less pollution! You're welcome!
There are 4-6 million people in our society that are in a very bad place. Yet you feel they are none of your concern. Back 100 years or so ago, you would have been exiled form a town to city for thinking as you do now. Shame on you. Your thinking is the problem, not the solution.
Distortion. What you fail to indicate that a significant percentage of that total are teenagers living with mommy and daddy along with tip/commision earners. So stop using the 4-6 million number as if all of them are in the "dire straits you claim. Further, what say you to the budget I proposed that showed two people working full time minimum jobs able to live, if they worked together. Try being a little intellectually honest.
And yet your entire premise rests upon the idea that regulation has no benefit. As if business profit is literally the only thing that matters.
Maybe it's just me, but I find value in HR preventing sexual harassment.
Do you only read half the stuff I post? You are either lying about my premise or can not read. Read what I wrote when this foray into regulation started:
EDIT:
Any regulation cost employers money. Now most reg's make our life better but they also cost business money that could be used for innovation, employees, etc etc.
The argument is not that regulations are bad. It's that they cost companies money while increasing our standard of living while reducing the amount of money a company can spend on its employees, innovation and profit. So, people talk about wages decreasing while ignoring the resulting increase in standard of living regulations have created....
So you either can not read or being dishonest. Typical.
Regulations don't increase the standard of living the way you're portraying them . They usually are set out to right a wrong. The air was better before we had massive pollution. But now we have a little less pollution! You're welcome!
Yes or no...
Do regulations improve the standard/quality of living?
Is air quality improved with regulations?
Are drugs safer with regulations?
Are cars safer with regulation?
Are we better off with out false advertising?
Do we get better health care with licensing of doctors?
And yet your entire premise rests upon the idea that regulation has no benefit. As if business profit is literally the only thing that matters.
Maybe it's just me, but I find value in HR preventing sexual harassment.
Do you only read half the stuff I post? You are either lying about my premise or can not read. Read what I wrote when this foray into regulation started:
EDIT:
Any regulation cost employers money. Now most reg's make our life better but they also cost business money that could be used for innovation, employees, etc etc.
The argument is not that regulations are bad. It's that they cost companies money while increasing our standard of living while reducing the amount of money a company can spend on its employees, innovation and profit. So, people talk about wages decreasing while ignoring the resulting increase in standard of living regulations have created....
So you either can not read or being dishonest. Typical.
Regulations don't increase the standard of living the way you're portraying them . They usually are set out to right a wrong. The air was better before we had massive pollution. But now we have a little less pollution! You're welcome!
Yes or no...
Do regulations improve the standard/quality of living?
Good game. Better luck next time.
Yes, relative to the time after the "wrong." No, realtive to the time before the "wrong."
It would be like putting poison in your food and then saying "look, I'll take some of the poison out." Is that an "improvement"?
And yet your entire premise rests upon the idea that regulation has no benefit. As if business profit is literally the only thing that matters.
Maybe it's just me, but I find value in HR preventing sexual harassment.
Do you only read half the stuff I post? You are either lying about my premise or can not read. Read what I wrote when this foray into regulation started:
EDIT:
Any regulation cost employers money. Now most reg's make our life better but they also cost business money that could be used for innovation, employees, etc etc.
The argument is not that regulations are bad. It's that they cost companies money while increasing our standard of living while reducing the amount of money a company can spend on its employees, innovation and profit. So, people talk about wages decreasing while ignoring the resulting increase in standard of living regulations have created....
So you either can not read or being dishonest. Typical.
Regulations don't increase the standard of living the way you're portraying them . They usually are set out to right a wrong. The air was better before we had massive pollution. But now we have a little less pollution! You're welcome!
Yes or no...
Do regulations improve the standard/quality of living?
Good game. Better luck next time.
Yes, relative to the time after the "wrong." No, realtive to the time before the "wrong."
It would be like putting poison in your food and then saying "look, I'll take some of the poison out." Is that an "improvement"?
Still improves quality of living and it cost business money that could be spent on wages. If your worse off before it, your better off after it, it improves your life. Would you rather have increased wages or decreased regulations? That's the thing, you guys wont give up any regulations that improve the standard of living but complain about how bad off we are when talking about standard of living, considering its improved over the course of history as costly regulations are implemented.
And yet your entire premise rests upon the idea that regulation has no benefit. As if business profit is literally the only thing that matters.
Maybe it's just me, but I find value in HR preventing sexual harassment.
Do you only read half the stuff I post? You are either lying about my premise or can not read. Read what I wrote when this foray into regulation started:
EDIT:
Any regulation cost employers money. Now most reg's make our life better but they also cost business money that could be used for innovation, employees, etc etc.
The argument is not that regulations are bad. It's that they cost companies money while increasing our standard of living while reducing the amount of money a company can spend on its employees, innovation and profit. So, people talk about wages decreasing while ignoring the resulting increase in standard of living regulations have created....
So you either can not read or being dishonest. Typical.
Regulations don't increase the standard of living the way you're portraying them . They usually are set out to right a wrong. The air was better before we had massive pollution. But now we have a little less pollution! You're welcome!
Yes or no...
Do regulations improve the standard/quality of living?
Good game. Better luck next time.
Yes, relative to the time after the "wrong." No, realtive to the time before the "wrong."
It would be like putting poison in your food and then saying "look, I'll take some of the poison out." Is that an "improvement"?
Still improves quality of living and it cost money. If your worse off before it, your better off after it. GG.
If you're better off before it, you're worse off after it... GG. No try though. Glad I could quote that. Sums up your stance entirely. Keep eating the poison and be thakfull there isn't as much as there "used to be."
And yet your entire premise rests upon the idea that regulation has no benefit. As if business profit is literally the only thing that matters.
Maybe it's just me, but I find value in HR preventing sexual harassment.
Do you only read half the stuff I post? You are either lying about my premise or can not read. Read what I wrote when this foray into regulation started:
EDIT:
Any regulation cost employers money. Now most reg's make our life better but they also cost business money that could be used for innovation, employees, etc etc.
The argument is not that regulations are bad. It's that they cost companies money while increasing our standard of living while reducing the amount of money a company can spend on its employees, innovation and profit. So, people talk about wages decreasing while ignoring the resulting increase in standard of living regulations have created....
So you either can not read or being dishonest. Typical.
Regulations don't increase the standard of living the way you're portraying them . They usually are set out to right a wrong. The air was better before we had massive pollution. But now we have a little less pollution! You're welcome!
Yes or no...
Do regulations improve the standard/quality of living?
Good game. Better luck next time.
Yes, relative to the time after the "wrong." No, realtive to the time before the "wrong."
It would be like putting poison in your food and then saying "look, I'll take some of the poison out." Is that an "improvement"?
Still improves quality of living and it cost money. If your worse off before it, your better off after it. GG.
If you're better off before it, you're worse off after it... GG. No try though. Glad I could quote that. Sums up your stance entirely. Keep eating the poison and be thakfull there isn't as much as there "used to be."
Before the regulation you are worse off. Using twisted logic does not change this truth/fact. QoL is improved with it. How old are you?
Honestly billy? What people REALLY want is for the large corporations to take a cut from their profit margins, and use it to benefit the quality of life of the average joe. This doesn't have to be handouts, this doesn't have to be higher wages... it could be providing more education/training for their employees, or being more environmentally-friendly, or even yes, doing more expansion and creating jobs. Doing so could easily end up being beneficial for corporations, as they'd have a larger pool of skilled labor to draw from, and the consumer could have more money to spend on their products.
Profit represents what the company pockets after all its expenses, including ones related to expansion/investment. For the typical super-corp in the USA, this is measured in the billions. The vast majorities of these corporations would not suddenly collapse if they took a .25% hit to their profit margin. The people at the top do not need the extra money in their pockets, and society as a whole could benefit if they were willing. But they are not.
Unfortunately this will never happen due to Wall Street's fixation on the short-term; a company must have ever-increasing profits from quarter to quarter, or else it's stock will tank. Such a cycle can't really be sustained indefinitely. But companies have strong incentives to make it look like their profits are increasing, so they often will cut corners to generate the illusion of heightened profits. This is naturally harmful to all involved in the long run, but there's really no incentive for big business to stop. Fundamentally, the capitalist system does not believe in capping anyone's income at any value, even if doing so could cure cancer or what-have-you.
then you have money management issues if you think that is crap pay.
i was able to afford an apartment food, cable, cell phone on 10 dollars an hour and utilities
at 15 dollars i was paying a mortgage, utilities, cable, phone.
i am not sure how you can't live on that.
30k is perfectly acceptable for a starting or beginning professional in most careers.
Thats the go to excuse. I as well as anyone else unahppy with the current rate of pay is simply ****ty with money. Its not true. Its a lie and I wish you and others like you would stop spreading it around. You have not shown any evidence to back up your claim.
and yes you would be very correct about your personal experience if it was more than a decade ago. The prices have gone up significantly. Also you don't seem to know what I mean by a "good living". I don't mean fancy cars and daimond rings but I mean the ability to save and have a retirement as well as a say in your world. 30k a year without spousal extra income is a week to week life.
if the bottom line goes up so does the prices. not to mention the people that were making more than minimum wage will want more money for doing more complex jobs.
Not credible math has been produced to say the prices would go higher in percentage than the labor costs. It simply doesn't pan out. I agree that my example was oversimplified but it doesn't negate the point and neither did your data that I am supposidly avoiding. It doesn't prove me wrong at all. I have seen the same ignorant argumetn over and over and over so many times it makes me sick.
that is what this is about though minimum wage. if things go up then it offsets the raise and puts them right back to where they were.
yes the math is flawed because it ignores what businesses do to when this happens.
wow out of a whole dollar they might get .25 extra after cost increases and taxes.
It was over simplified. And again no math has been produced (thats credible) that says that the cost of living percentage would go up more than the wages.
I took the time to find and post them. this is a deliberate ignore of data because it proves your point is incorrect.
Except its not. I would bet you money I've seen the same link before and I can still justify my stance as the math doesn't play out in your favor.
yes it does it shows that your point is not correct.
broken record.
yes they will be missed by people that can afford to eat there. if you think that someone else will come along and open a different business to replace them and pay more then well you need to take a course on economics.
as i already said ROC the organization that is pushing this idea already tried it. their restuarant is closed. it failed. it even lowered wages from 13 dollars to 9 dollars and still failed.
They wouldn't be missed. New buisnseses start with higher prices and likewise pay higher wages. It doesnt' work with a single localized business. The whole economy has to shift. Otherwise it really is bad business.
you forget that this is not a net zero system. money constantly moves in a capitalistic society. it is not possible for a group of people to hog all the money.
if you think income inequality is bad here you should travel around like i have, or know people from places that have real income inequality like i do.
Income inequality is greatest here in America. Dollar for doller there is no where else in the world with greater income inequality. Percentage wise yes but not in actual assets. We're #1 baby.
you should count yourself blessed to live in a country where you have the ability to do anything.
I do. But being complacent is against everything capitalism stands for. Your thinking of communism.
yeah umm if he could i am sure bearny maddoff and other like him would have other words to say about that.
there are people out there that make less than you do. according to your theory they should be able to take it from you since well you have more than what they think you should have.
you see the problem with this type of thinking?
it doesn't matter how much more you have than they do. the fact is you do have more than they do. you try to pigeon hole the point to only to apply to rich people when the point is it applies to everyone.
wow. did you even read what I said? No you just assumed exactly what I was going to say and your brain input what you wanted to hear. Go back and read it again untill you absorb what I said.
nope most of the people that argue for income redistribution have the same ideology.
This is actually false. There is a number of ideologies that call for income redistribution.
Socialists often want it returned in the form of services that are deemed vital for a healthy population.
communists strive for a true-er equality.
your idea of crazy welfare liberals are acting out of greed.
Progressive fundamentalists often want it for the additional tax revenue but its to fund the government or get it out of debt with no actual changes to the government.
I could go on. Mine is somewhat socialistic but mostly as a checks and balances to make sure that no one is too powerful. My main concern is not with individual people but rather corporations as a whole.
see for me i don't care how much money someone has. as long as they did it in a legal manner i have no problems good for them.
Thats commendable. Shortsighted but commendable.
like maddoff if they did it in an illegal manner then their assests should be seized and given to help other people.
i find it very hard to believe that people advocate what i would say is attempted legal theft of someone else.
it is immoral and unethical.
You must provide evidence that states that it is immoral or unethical in a way that exludes capitalism from also being immoral and unethical. At its core it is. The main reason we continue with it is not because its "ethical" or "moral". By all means its neither. Its because it WORKS. Thats all I care about. Keeping a functional system that WORKS.
I make double what I made 3 years ago because I graduated with my degree. My wife will triple what she makes when she graduates. Together we'll make far more than we did before. I think we should be taxed accordingly. However the money we make is ant piss compaired to corporations and companies that make incredible amounts of money. If we talk about unfair or immoral practices we can look at the top heavy wage spending that is unanimous in America. But the incentives of having the boss get paid more is what causes people to work so hard for promotions. Its something that "works". To ofset this and keep the system clean and working we have higher taxes to make sure that those that make far more pay more.
I'm not advocating raising taxes. I might if it were a discussion on the matter but as of right now I don't have that many qualms of the tax rate. Just the effective tax rate. Loopholes need to be closed before we talk about adjusting the tax rates. Untill we can get an effective collection near the actual rate it would be pointless drivel to raise taxes.
For example wtih the first part of the sequester we raised taxes. It won't raise much revenue. No loopholes were closed. It doesn't matter the size of your net if you have holes to let the fish out.
There are 4-6 million people in our society that are in a very bad place. Yet you feel they are none of your concern. Back 100 years or so ago, you would have been exiled form a town to city for thinking as you do now. Shame on you. Your thinking is the problem, not the solution.
Distortion. What you fail to indicate that a significant percentage of that total are teenagers living with mommy and daddy along with tip/commision earners. So stop using the 4-6 million number as if all of them are in the "dire straits you claim. Further, what say you to the budget I proposed that showed two people working full time minimum jobs able to live, if they worked together. Try being a little intellectually honest.
I find it funny earlier in the thread you were all over those percentages as not many people in that situation, but when I put them into actually numbers you dont want to talk about them.
What you fail to realize is it also includes college graduates with degrees.
Get out of high school at 17/18. Do 5 years in college and you are 23/24 years old. So your excuse or dismissal of that group is tainted by your own lack of understand of what that group holds. Are there some late teen early 20 somethings living with mommy and daddy? Sure, but there are also college graduates that cant find a job, there are married adults, possibly with kids. Quit dismissing the group just because you dont care about a portion of it.
Like I said above to mystery, you need a history lesson of the whys and where fores. You live in a sphere and everyone is suppose to follow your rules, your way of doing things. Sorry life is not like that and people like you, with the narrow out look on life, need to understand it and be more accepting of other ways to handle things, and get things done. Your thinking is not helping the situation, but making it worse.
It still sickens me that you would dismiss 4-6 million people that you once fought for. I dont care if the are teenagers or adults or newborns, thats terrible. Quit being selfish.
Administrative requirements. The Affordable Care Act places a number of administrative requirements on employers, such as provisions newly in effect that businesses report on workers' W-2 forms the costs of company-sponsored health coverage for the previous year, and supply employees with a summary of benefits coverage.
Also as of this year, the law limits employee annual contributions to pretax health flexible spending arrangements, or FSAs, to $2,500, a figure that will be adjusted for inflation in subsequent years.
Because the law now requires small-group health plans to provide rebates if they fail to spend at least 80% of premiums on medical care and quality improvements rather than administrative costs and profits, employers may have to distribute rebates to employees, according to NFIB.
All of which will cost the employer money to implement not counting cost of maintaining it. Again, if it's for the greater good and better QoL/SoL, fine, just don't ***** about wages. Because every dime that goes to administering this act is a dime that cant go into the business.
Every item listed is about 15 min of work for HR total per employee with no other real costs - not to mention they go into place next year, thus my no costs started YET. (I think it missed some the costs ones looked obvious to me in other articles - that one just looks like one long weekend off the clock to my HR experience though)
This is just compliance. What you fail to acknowledge is every cent put towards implementing, compliance and and defending/attacking....is not put in the business. You want to talk about wages but you are being dishonest just how much regulations cost business. Look at patent law. Better yet corporate law....talk about some rich people, corporate lawyers whole reason for existence is because of regulations and laws companies have to abide by and protect themselves from.
Wal mart has 1.8 million employees. 1.8 million x 15 minutes = x hours x 7.25 (if you pay the HR person minimum wage).
450,000 Hours to do compliance. HR makes salary...and your paying them to do this instead of doing productive things for the companies business, like training. This will force them to develop an automated system, costing more money.
You do not think fortune 500 companies are study the AFA and seeing what the cost are going to be and that does not cost them money? This is just the AFA, there literally thousands of regualtions and laws companies have to insure they are compliant with all of which cost money. Its not some negligible amount. Every cent they put into this, is less they can pay their employees.
Cant have your cake and eat it too. Either you want to make quality of life better with laws or wages. Cant have both.
I meant worse case scenario LOL. First of all WalMart has over 8000 HR staff on record - so that actually is about a week and a half of work each. And in case you're not aware I've never heard of an HR person who didn't have half their day free to monitor business and schmooze to identify problems and morale in advance.
60 hrs a year if you understood the career track is a joke. (Hint: Normal hire is 2-3 hrs of paperwork - adding 15 m is trivial - Bush Tax Cuts took me nearly the same to process)
And of course my worst case is presuming that there's no automation of the processes since I'm familiar with companies doing everything manually corporations put most employee stuff through a script to complete the forms for them.
There are 4-6 million people in our society that are in a very bad place. Yet you feel they are none of your concern. Back 100 years or so ago, you would have been exiled form a town to city for thinking as you do now. Shame on you. Your thinking is the problem, not the solution.
Distortion. What you fail to indicate that a significant percentage of that total are teenagers living with mommy and daddy along with tip/commision earners. So stop using the 4-6 million number as if all of them are in the "dire straits you claim. Further, what say you to the budget I proposed that showed two people working full time minimum jobs able to live, if they worked together. Try being a little intellectually honest.
Your quoted article discluded tip earners your reading comp is horrendous.
Well at least now i understand the problem you're having. You're basing your views upon correlations that support your bias, and you can find a hundred of these correlations and they'll never be anything more than a correlation.
Yet i have provided you with an argument that is stronger than mere correlations. If you don't understand the difference between correlations and empirical data then you're gonna have a bad time.
This is why we do formal research. You question an assumption to find out if it's true. In this case it was found that the experimental results did not conform with expectations. Now we can start working with facts instead of assumptions.
This is a flat earth moment for you. Nobody can blame you for thinking the earth is flat but now it's time to accept new information.
There are 4-6 million people in our society that are in a very bad place. Yet you feel they are none of your concern. Back 100 years or so ago, you would have been exiled form a town to city for thinking as you do now. Shame on you. Your thinking is the problem, not the solution.
Distortion. What you fail to indicate that a significant percentage of that total are teenagers living with mommy and daddy along with tip/commision earners. So stop using the 4-6 million number as if all of them are in the "dire straits you claim. Further, what say you to the budget I proposed that showed two people working full time minimum jobs able to live, if they worked together. Try being a little intellectually honest.
I find it funny earlier in the thread you were all over those percentages as not many people in that situation, but when I put them into actually numbers you dont want to talk about them.
What you fail to realize is it also includes college graduates with degrees.
Get out of high school at 17/18. Do 5 years in college and you are 23/24 years old. So your excuse or dismissal of that group is tainted by your own lack of understand of what that group holds. Are there some late teen early 20 somethings living with mommy and daddy? Sure, but there are also college graduates that cant find a job, there are married adults, possibly with kids. Quit dismissing the group just because you dont care about a portion of it.
Like I said above to mystery, you need a history lesson of the whys and where fores. You live in a sphere and everyone is suppose to follow your rules, your way of doing things. Sorry life is not like that and people like you, with the narrow out look on life, need to understand it and be more accepting of other ways to handle things, and get things done. Your thinking is not helping the situation, but making it worse.
It still sickens me that you would dismiss 4-6 million people that you once fought for. I dont care if the are teenagers or adults or newborns, thats terrible. Quit being selfish.
Once again, this asserts those 4-6 million can not live on minimum wage. Further you continue to distort this number of people that are purportedly in dire straits.....it's sad you have to basically lie to appeal to emotion. Maybe if you were honest with the amount of people who are in "dire strait" we can talk about helping them....but no, all you want to is include teenagers who still live at home in the equation of who needs help. Along with sales people who potentially make a bunch of money as it is. It's bull****.
There are 4-6 million people in our society that are in a very bad place. Yet you feel they are none of your concern. Back 100 years or so ago, you would have been exiled form a town to city for thinking as you do now. Shame on you. Your thinking is the problem, not the solution.
Distortion. What you fail to indicate that a significant percentage of that total are teenagers living with mommy and daddy along with tip/commision earners. So stop using the 4-6 million number as if all of them are in the "dire straits you claim. Further, what say you to the budget I proposed that showed two people working full time minimum jobs able to live, if they worked together. Try being a little intellectually honest.
Your quoted article discluded tip earners your reading comp is horrendous.
The industry with the highest proportion of workers with hourly wages at or below the federal minimum wage was leisure and hospitality (about 19 percent). About half of all workers paid at or below the federal minimum wage were employed in this industry, the vast majority in restaurants and other food services. For many of these workers, tips and commissions supplement the hourly wages received.
Are you having trouble reading or did you just not see this? They did not include their tips/commission in their earnings. If they make minimum wage, they are included in the number of minimum wage workers. Only people excluded that could make minimum wage are self-employed people and salaried. I think your honesty is horrendous. Do not insult in my reading comprehension unless you come with the truth to back up your dubious claim.
You do understand they state that it was done by tax filings and you have to file taxes on tips, right?
And no point does anything anyone provides to the BLS has an hourly rate on it - its literally impossible for them to gather it by legal restrictions on privacy they can only do it by tax record. So any tipped employee counted is earning less than minimum WITH tips or they're tax evading on their tips.
(That's why its only 19% of the industry instead of close to 100% because very few tipped positions in the industry get paid over min wage before tips/tip share - I've known Maitre dee's at $100 a plate places that see $7.25/hr before tips)
You do understand they state that it was done by tax filings and you have to file taxes on tips, right?
Wrong again.
Quote from BLM »
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). These data on minimum wage earners are derived from the Current Population Survey (CPS), a monthly nationwide survey of households. Data in this summary are 2012 annual averages.
And no point does anything anyone provides to the BLS has an hourly rate on it - its literally impossible for them to gather it by legal restrictions on privacy they can only do it by tax record. So any tipped employee counted is earning less than minimum WITH tips or they're tax evading on their tips.
(That's why its only 19% of the industry instead of close to 100% because very few tipped positions in the industry get paid over min wage before tips/tip share - I've known Maitre dee's at $100 a plate places that see $7.25/hr before tips)
NO NO NO.. You said minimum wage workers earning tips and commission were excluded from the article I posted. You either lied or suck at reading or are incredibly confused, don't try to shift the goal post.
Your quoted article discluded tip earners your reading comp is horrendous.
This is a false statement.
It specifically stated they were included in the demographic.
Obviously I'm not the one with horrendous reading comprehension. Do not worry, I understand you have to find some bull**** reason to discredit the report, otherwise you have to come to terms with the fact, this is not as big of an issue as you and others say it is. Just like bo using an inflated number of 4-6 million people being in dire straits, all so he can appeal to emotion. You guys can't even be honest about how many minimum wage workers actually need help, as it's much lower than the number bo is using.
So please tell me how LEGALLY the BLS obtained that data without it being muddled into something effectively useless.
I know what they're legally allowed to see being someone (HR) that sent reports into them for such surveying - so please tell me more about how much more you know about something that ties into my career, please. It's only the third or fourth time this thread - and of course note I've never claimed an expertise on your career.
You're saying they have the data and it discludes tips but if it did considering 80% of the hospitality industry is tipped and less than 2% of those are paid a base wage over minimum how can you say 19% ddoesn't smell funny?
Its flawed, how I'm clueless - and looking over the charts doing the math for them in my head it looks like they're not included in the totals - but keep telling me they can get precise data for it when that's literally ILLEGAL, boss.
Your quoted article discluded tip earners your reading comp is horrendous.
Is this a false statement? You are shifting the goal post and this attempt to discredit the report quoted here, is a huge failure. So now you are trying to to shift the goal post to something else. It would not be so bad if you did not make a remark about my reading comprehension but that makes your statement even more ridiculous.
Well at least now i understand the problem you're having. You're basing your views upon correlations that support your bias, and you can find a hundred of these correlations and they'll never be anything more than a correlation.
attempting to label me as an idiot is not an arguement and it only goes show how far of a stretch you have to go to in order to try and make an argument.
I have posted tons of articles on this thread that shows direct corrilation to what happens when minimum wage increases.
I have also shown that raising the minimum wage has artificial results that causes loss of jobs to entry level workers.
you and others ignore every single article posted and the only thing that you can come up with are either appeals to emotion (you hate poor people, you don't like people that work), or strawman arguements.
you come up with 1 article written by someone of who knows were and come claiming it is the gospel when there is direct reality based evidence which has been shown that the majority of people do not make minimum wage.
it has also been shown that people that do make minimum wage have made bad decisions that keeps them there. such as not finishing high school or not going to college or trade school or some other kind of training.
Yet i have provided you with an argument that is stronger than mere correlations. If you don't understand the difference between correlations and empirical data then you're gonna have a bad time.
this is an assumption that you believe what people you are citing are correct.
no you haven't. you have submitted an article that agrees with your bias.
i am not going to have a bad time because we have real life numbers to back up what i am saying.
This is why we do formal research. You question an assumption to find out if it's true. In this case it was found that the experimental results did not conform with expectations. Now we can start working with facts instead of assumptions.
i have been working with facts back up by some of the most read economic sources out there.
what you are doing is called an appeal to authority.
This is a flat earth moment for you. Nobody can blame you for thinking the earth is flat but now it's time to accept new information.
this is what we call a strawman.
Is this a false statement? You are shifting the goal post and this attempt to discredit the report quoted here, is a huge failure.
they have been doing that the whole thread. do you expect them to stop?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yeah regulation is a small cost. However, in this case, it's worth it....it cost money and lots of it. I can list example after example of how our standard/quality of life has improved at an expense to companies paying for regulation instead of innovation, employees and profit.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Maybe it's just me, but I find value in HR preventing sexual harassment.
Do you only read half the stuff I post? You are either lying about my premise or can not read. Read what I wrote when this foray into regulation started:
EDIT:
The argument is not that regulations are bad. It's that they cost companies money while increasing our standard of living while reducing the amount of money a company can spend on its employees, innovation and profit. So, people talk about wages decreasing while ignoring the resulting increase in standard of living regulations have created....
So you either can not read or being dishonest. Typical.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
So instead of hiring employees that contribute to the business the business has to hire a lawyer. Is a low wage worker more likely to be a lawyer/compliance person?
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
You might want to pick up a history book and learn WHY the minimum wage was instituted. I will give you a hint, it wasnt for a floor for employers.
Also your business sense needs some education too. Everything you say will happen, didnt the last time the minimum wage increase went into effect. The economy adapted and we moved on.
Hell you dont even know what a trades man has to go through to get their license, yet you wish to think you do because you read it some where.
There are 4-6 million people in our society that are in a very bad place. Yet you feel they are none of your concern. Back 100 years or so ago, you would have been exiled form a town to city for thinking as you do now. Shame on you. Your thinking is the problem, not the solution.
Regulations don't increase the standard of living the way you're portraying them . They usually are set out to right a wrong. The air was better before we had massive pollution. But now we have a little less pollution! You're welcome!
Believe the hype!
Distortion. What you fail to indicate that a significant percentage of that total are teenagers living with mommy and daddy along with tip/commision earners. So stop using the 4-6 million number as if all of them are in the "dire straits you claim. Further, what say you to the budget I proposed that showed two people working full time minimum jobs able to live, if they worked together. Try being a little intellectually honest.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Yes or no...
Do regulations improve the standard/quality of living?
Is air quality improved with regulations?
Are drugs safer with regulations?
Are cars safer with regulation?
Are we better off with out false advertising?
Do we get better health care with licensing of doctors?
Good game. Better luck next time.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Yes, relative to the time after the "wrong." No, realtive to the time before the "wrong."
It would be like putting poison in your food and then saying "look, I'll take some of the poison out." Is that an "improvement"?
Believe the hype!
Still improves quality of living and it cost business money that could be spent on wages. If your worse off before it, your better off after it, it improves your life. Would you rather have increased wages or decreased regulations? That's the thing, you guys wont give up any regulations that improve the standard of living but complain about how bad off we are when talking about standard of living, considering its improved over the course of history as costly regulations are implemented.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
If you're better off before it, you're worse off after it... GG. No try though. Glad I could quote that. Sums up your stance entirely. Keep eating the poison and be thakfull there isn't as much as there "used to be."
Believe the hype!
Before the regulation you are worse off. Using twisted logic does not change this truth/fact. QoL is improved with it. How old are you?
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Profit represents what the company pockets after all its expenses, including ones related to expansion/investment. For the typical super-corp in the USA, this is measured in the billions. The vast majorities of these corporations would not suddenly collapse if they took a .25% hit to their profit margin. The people at the top do not need the extra money in their pockets, and society as a whole could benefit if they were willing. But they are not.
Unfortunately this will never happen due to Wall Street's fixation on the short-term; a company must have ever-increasing profits from quarter to quarter, or else it's stock will tank. Such a cycle can't really be sustained indefinitely. But companies have strong incentives to make it look like their profits are increasing, so they often will cut corners to generate the illusion of heightened profits. This is naturally harmful to all involved in the long run, but there's really no incentive for big business to stop. Fundamentally, the capitalist system does not believe in capping anyone's income at any value, even if doing so could cure cancer or what-have-you.
Thats the go to excuse. I as well as anyone else unahppy with the current rate of pay is simply ****ty with money. Its not true. Its a lie and I wish you and others like you would stop spreading it around. You have not shown any evidence to back up your claim.
and yes you would be very correct about your personal experience if it was more than a decade ago. The prices have gone up significantly. Also you don't seem to know what I mean by a "good living". I don't mean fancy cars and daimond rings but I mean the ability to save and have a retirement as well as a say in your world. 30k a year without spousal extra income is a week to week life.
Not credible math has been produced to say the prices would go higher in percentage than the labor costs. It simply doesn't pan out. I agree that my example was oversimplified but it doesn't negate the point and neither did your data that I am supposidly avoiding. It doesn't prove me wrong at all. I have seen the same ignorant argumetn over and over and over so many times it makes me sick.
It was over simplified. And again no math has been produced (thats credible) that says that the cost of living percentage would go up more than the wages.
Except its not. I would bet you money I've seen the same link before and I can still justify my stance as the math doesn't play out in your favor.
broken record.
They wouldn't be missed. New buisnseses start with higher prices and likewise pay higher wages. It doesnt' work with a single localized business. The whole economy has to shift. Otherwise it really is bad business.
Income inequality is greatest here in America. Dollar for doller there is no where else in the world with greater income inequality. Percentage wise yes but not in actual assets. We're #1 baby.
I do. But being complacent is against everything capitalism stands for. Your thinking of communism.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/sweetheart-settlement-for-hsbc-bank-on-drug-money-laundering-charges/5315486
Dozens of other stories like that. Every now and then they get to catch one but its not the norm.
wow. did you even read what I said? No you just assumed exactly what I was going to say and your brain input what you wanted to hear. Go back and read it again untill you absorb what I said.
This is actually false. There is a number of ideologies that call for income redistribution.
Socialists often want it returned in the form of services that are deemed vital for a healthy population.
communists strive for a true-er equality.
your idea of crazy welfare liberals are acting out of greed.
Progressive fundamentalists often want it for the additional tax revenue but its to fund the government or get it out of debt with no actual changes to the government.
I could go on. Mine is somewhat socialistic but mostly as a checks and balances to make sure that no one is too powerful. My main concern is not with individual people but rather corporations as a whole.
Thats commendable. Shortsighted but commendable.
You must provide evidence that states that it is immoral or unethical in a way that exludes capitalism from also being immoral and unethical. At its core it is. The main reason we continue with it is not because its "ethical" or "moral". By all means its neither. Its because it WORKS. Thats all I care about. Keeping a functional system that WORKS.
I make double what I made 3 years ago because I graduated with my degree. My wife will triple what she makes when she graduates. Together we'll make far more than we did before. I think we should be taxed accordingly. However the money we make is ant piss compaired to corporations and companies that make incredible amounts of money. If we talk about unfair or immoral practices we can look at the top heavy wage spending that is unanimous in America. But the incentives of having the boss get paid more is what causes people to work so hard for promotions. Its something that "works". To ofset this and keep the system clean and working we have higher taxes to make sure that those that make far more pay more.
I'm not advocating raising taxes. I might if it were a discussion on the matter but as of right now I don't have that many qualms of the tax rate. Just the effective tax rate. Loopholes need to be closed before we talk about adjusting the tax rates. Untill we can get an effective collection near the actual rate it would be pointless drivel to raise taxes.
For example wtih the first part of the sequester we raised taxes. It won't raise much revenue. No loopholes were closed. It doesn't matter the size of your net if you have holes to let the fish out.
I find it funny earlier in the thread you were all over those percentages as not many people in that situation, but when I put them into actually numbers you dont want to talk about them.
What you fail to realize is it also includes college graduates with degrees.
Get out of high school at 17/18. Do 5 years in college and you are 23/24 years old. So your excuse or dismissal of that group is tainted by your own lack of understand of what that group holds. Are there some late teen early 20 somethings living with mommy and daddy? Sure, but there are also college graduates that cant find a job, there are married adults, possibly with kids. Quit dismissing the group just because you dont care about a portion of it.
Like I said above to mystery, you need a history lesson of the whys and where fores. You live in a sphere and everyone is suppose to follow your rules, your way of doing things. Sorry life is not like that and people like you, with the narrow out look on life, need to understand it and be more accepting of other ways to handle things, and get things done. Your thinking is not helping the situation, but making it worse.
It still sickens me that you would dismiss 4-6 million people that you once fought for. I dont care if the are teenagers or adults or newborns, thats terrible. Quit being selfish.
I meant worse case scenario LOL. First of all WalMart has over 8000 HR staff on record - so that actually is about a week and a half of work each. And in case you're not aware I've never heard of an HR person who didn't have half their day free to monitor business and schmooze to identify problems and morale in advance.
60 hrs a year if you understood the career track is a joke. (Hint: Normal hire is 2-3 hrs of paperwork - adding 15 m is trivial - Bush Tax Cuts took me nearly the same to process)
And of course my worst case is presuming that there's no automation of the processes since I'm familiar with companies doing everything manually corporations put most employee stuff through a script to complete the forms for them.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Your quoted article discluded tip earners your reading comp is horrendous.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Well at least now i understand the problem you're having. You're basing your views upon correlations that support your bias, and you can find a hundred of these correlations and they'll never be anything more than a correlation.
Yet i have provided you with an argument that is stronger than mere correlations. If you don't understand the difference between correlations and empirical data then you're gonna have a bad time.
This is why we do formal research. You question an assumption to find out if it's true. In this case it was found that the experimental results did not conform with expectations. Now we can start working with facts instead of assumptions.
This is a flat earth moment for you. Nobody can blame you for thinking the earth is flat but now it's time to accept new information.
Once again, this asserts those 4-6 million can not live on minimum wage. Further you continue to distort this number of people that are purportedly in dire straits.....it's sad you have to basically lie to appeal to emotion. Maybe if you were honest with the amount of people who are in "dire strait" we can talk about helping them....but no, all you want to is include teenagers who still live at home in the equation of who needs help. Along with sales people who potentially make a bunch of money as it is. It's bull****.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm
Are you having trouble reading or did you just not see this? They did not include their tips/commission in their earnings. If they make minimum wage, they are included in the number of minimum wage workers. Only people excluded that could make minimum wage are self-employed people and salaried. I think your honesty is horrendous. Do not insult in my reading comprehension unless you come with the truth to back up your dubious claim.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
And no point does anything anyone provides to the BLS has an hourly rate on it - its literally impossible for them to gather it by legal restrictions on privacy they can only do it by tax record. So any tipped employee counted is earning less than minimum WITH tips or they're tax evading on their tips.
(That's why its only 19% of the industry instead of close to 100% because very few tipped positions in the industry get paid over min wage before tips/tip share - I've known Maitre dee's at $100 a plate places that see $7.25/hr before tips)
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Wrong again.
NO NO NO.. You said minimum wage workers earning tips and commission were excluded from the article I posted. You either lied or suck at reading or are incredibly confused, don't try to shift the goal post.
This is a false statement.
It specifically stated they were included in the demographic.
Obviously I'm not the one with horrendous reading comprehension. Do not worry, I understand you have to find some bull**** reason to discredit the report, otherwise you have to come to terms with the fact, this is not as big of an issue as you and others say it is. Just like bo using an inflated number of 4-6 million people being in dire straits, all so he can appeal to emotion. You guys can't even be honest about how many minimum wage workers actually need help, as it's much lower than the number bo is using.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I know what they're legally allowed to see being someone (HR) that sent reports into them for such surveying - so please tell me more about how much more you know about something that ties into my career, please. It's only the third or fourth time this thread - and of course note I've never claimed an expertise on your career.
You're saying they have the data and it discludes tips but if it did considering 80% of the hospitality industry is tipped and less than 2% of those are paid a base wage over minimum how can you say 19% ddoesn't smell funny?
Its flawed, how I'm clueless - and looking over the charts doing the math for them in my head it looks like they're not included in the totals - but keep telling me they can get precise data for it when that's literally ILLEGAL, boss.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Is this a false statement? You are shifting the goal post and this attempt to discredit the report quoted here, is a huge failure. So now you are trying to to shift the goal post to something else. It would not be so bad if you did not make a remark about my reading comprehension but that makes your statement even more ridiculous.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
attempting to label me as an idiot is not an arguement and it only goes show how far of a stretch you have to go to in order to try and make an argument.
I have posted tons of articles on this thread that shows direct corrilation to what happens when minimum wage increases.
I have also shown that raising the minimum wage has artificial results that causes loss of jobs to entry level workers.
you and others ignore every single article posted and the only thing that you can come up with are either appeals to emotion (you hate poor people, you don't like people that work), or strawman arguements.
you come up with 1 article written by someone of who knows were and come claiming it is the gospel when there is direct reality based evidence which has been shown that the majority of people do not make minimum wage.
it has also been shown that people that do make minimum wage have made bad decisions that keeps them there. such as not finishing high school or not going to college or trade school or some other kind of training.
this is an assumption that you believe what people you are citing are correct.
no you haven't. you have submitted an article that agrees with your bias.
i am not going to have a bad time because we have real life numbers to back up what i am saying.
i have been working with facts back up by some of the most read economic sources out there.
what you are doing is called an appeal to authority.
this is what we call a strawman.
they have been doing that the whole thread. do you expect them to stop?
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum