It used to be that poverty was seen as a social failure instead of an individual one. If you were poor it used to be that society had failed you instead of you being a lazy good-for-nothing.
When and where was that? Sounds like "takes a village" poppycock. In the states poverty has always been stigmatized otherwise there wouldn't be so many initiatives to try to get people out of poverty.
Anybody who is willing and able to work full time should make a "living" wage. People ***** about welfare and too much government, but the cold truth is it's better for a lot of people to just receive government handouts than it is for them to work for minumum wage or close to it. If you don't want people to be on the mooch, don't create a system where it's often better to be a mooch than a hard worker.
What's to keep me from not letting you work full time? Employers are already cutting part time employees to under 30 hours so they don't have to pay for healthcare. (Why is this imposed on employers when we have a required system that would let them buy subsidized care on the open market?!!? Oh yea, just sign now and read later).
I proposed this a long time ago when Checkers stock took a dump because they started hiring 15 year olds rather than adults to cut labor costs (so quality of service went down taking sales with it). If I could hire a working adult for the same price as a kid, there is no way I'd grab a high school kid.
Good thing this proposal pretty much already exists. Employers can get tax breaks for hiring people who are currently getting or who even qualify for government assistance. Funny though, I don't have to pay them living wage or anything close to do it.
The holes that were shot in my argument were simple. If you are getting a living wage for say being head of household what incentive do you have to better yourself, and how difficult is it to better yourself?
If you made say $12 an hour for working at McD's and you would get $12 an hour to be a shift manager (normalized), $12.50 an hour to be an Assistant manager and $17 an hour to be a store manager. How many wouldn't take that step to shift because it requires a lot more work for the same pay?
It's the same reason we can't put means testing on social security until people are WAY above where it matters.
If you are going to get say $2300 from your investments and $2200 from social security you get $4000 a month. But what if the government says, for each $1 you make above $2300 a month we take $1 from your social security. Unless you can produce $4001 on your own there is no incentive to save more or withdraw more both of which strain the system.
So we could means test about the top 1% (who may not have even filed) and after that there is no more real savings.
Why don't people want to get low paying jobs who are on unemployment? For every $1 you make over the cap you get that taken from unemployment. So I could sit on my bump doing nothing or looking for only higher paying jobs for $200-500 a week or I could work 40 hours at McD's for $225. Something doesn't add up.
The last example is the crux of your argument. If MCD's paid me $14 an hour it would be $420 a week but then a McDouble would cost $4.
As a liability they would be doing everything they could to get their labor costs down which usually means less positions. They are going to ask me to do more for my $14 an hour and because I'm used to making that I will find ways to produce it so I don't end up as one of the people cut.
Now I've shipped half the minimum wage population to the unemployment line and I'm asking them to pay for $7 gallons of milk. (Check this stat. I'm making it up, but I bet if you researched it it's probably close. Gallon of milk historically costs 50-60% of the minimum wage).
What did we gain?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
You know, instead of demonizing them. I like the Swedish model where most of the country is unionized and every year the unions and businesses get together to negotiate a new labor contract, the lowest paid employees get the biggest raises. So the janitors and secretaries and mail room people get the largest raises.
In contrast with most other European countries, Sweden maintained an unemployment rate around 2% or 3% of the work force throughout the 1980s.[37] This was, however, accompanied by high and accelerating inflation. It became evident that such low unemployment rates were not sustainable, and in the severe crisis of the early 1990s the rate increased to more than 8%. In 1996 the government set out a goal of reducing unemployment to 4% by 2000. During 2000 employment rose by 90,000 people, the greatest increase in 40 years, and the goal was reached in the autumn of 2000. The same autumn the government set out its new target: that 80% of the working age population will have a regular job by 2004. Some have expressed concern that meeting the employment target may come at a cost of too high a rate of wage increases hence increasing inflation. However, as of August 2006, roughly 5% of working age Swedes were unemployed, over the government-established goal. However, some of the people who cannot find work are put away in so-called "labour market political activities", referred to as "AMS-åtgärder".[38]
So raising wages (true inflation) increases unemployment and unemployment numbers can be improved by hiding people in the system.
Swedish unskilled employees are well-paid while well-educated Swedish employees are low-paid compared to those in competitor countries in Western Europe and USA.
That seems to prove my point. Why better yourself if you can get everything on someone else's back?
Sweden has the second highest total tax revenue behind Denmark, as a share of the country's income. As of 2011, total tax revenue was 44.4% of GDP, down from 48.3% in 2006
Why try to make more when the government is just going to take it?
Now, culturally this may work for them, but you have a LONG way to go if you think those types of socialistic policies and tax rates are going to thrive in the states.
I'm actually somewhat surprised there hasn't been a "brain drain" of people moving away.
______________________________
I'm not bashing Sweden. Lets talk about some things they've done right:
Tax Reform to curb budget deficits.
A healthcare solution they seem to be comfortable with (IE they aren't sticking employers with the bill because they don't have the ability to push taxes up to cover the deficit).
Pension Reform to normalize the inflows and expenditures.
An export based economy vs an import based economy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
As a liability they would be doing everything they could to get their labor costs down which usually means less positions.
Costco's CEO himself has said that this insane drive to cut labor costs is the entire problem. Instead they boost labor expenditures to increase productivity and customer relations. That drives up the contribution from workers and keeps customers happy. Trader Joes uses the same wage policy. Have you ever been in a Trader Joes? The prices are reasonable, and I’ve never seen such polite workers.
This idea that cutting labor costs as an austerity measure to increase profits is flawed, and bad for the economy. There are in increasing number of companies that are taking this approach and they're seeing huge profits from it without shafting everyone within a stone's throw.
Quote from Costco CEO »
“At Costco, we know that paying employees good wages makes good sense for business,” Jelinik said in a statement last week. “Instead of minimizing wages, we know it’s a lot more profitable in the long term to minimize employee turnover and maximize employee productivity, commitment and loyalty. We support efforts to increase the federal minimum wage.” LINK
Many employers believe that one of the best ways to raise their profit margin is to cut labor costs. But companies like QuikTrip, the grocery-store chain Trader Joe’s, and Costco Wholesale are proving that the decision to offer low wages is a choice, not an economic necessity. All three are low-cost retailers, a sector that is traditionally known for relying on part-time, low-paid employees. Yet these companies have all found that the act of valuing workers can pay off in the form of increased sales and productivity.
QuikTrip, Trader Joe’s, and Costco operate on a different model, Ton says. “They start with the mentality of seeing employees as assets to be maximized,” she says. As a result, their stores boast better operational efficiency and customer service, and those result in better sales.
The approach seems like common sense. Keeping shelves stocked and helping customers find merchandise are key to maximizing sales, and it takes human judgment and people skills to execute those tasks effectively. To see what happens when workers are devalued, look no further than Borders or Circuit City. Both big-box retailers saw sales plummet after staff cutbacks, and both ultimately went bankrupt. LINK
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
I worked a lot harder at Costco than I did at other supermarkets. And was a lot more willing to do really gross stuff (like getting arm-deep in blood, literally) due to being paid about 50% more than minimum wage when I was working there. ($8 vs $12).
Also they give bennies and pay up to about $40K to long-timers.
As a liability they would be doing everything they could to get their labor costs down which usually means less positions.
Costco's CEO himself has said that this insane drive to cut labor costs is the entire problem. Instead they boost labor expenditures to increase productivity and customer relations. That drives up the contribution from workers and keeps customers happy. Trader Joes uses the same wage policy. Have you ever been in a Trader Joes? The prices are reasonable, and I’ve never seen such polite workers.
This idea that cutting labor costs as an austerity measure to increase profits is flawed, and bad for the economy. There are in increasing number of companies that are taking this approach and they're seeing huge profits from it without shafting everyone within a stone's throw.
If paying above minimum wage is a superior economic strategy, then why do we need a minimum wage? If Costco and Trader Joes have it right, then we should expect that they will continue to turn supernormal profits and grow, while bogeymen like Walmart will shrink and eventually go bankrupt due to an inferior business model. Likewise, startup companies will realize that this is a better strategy and start off paying employees more to emulate. Pretty soon we should expect the entire market to pay above minimum wage?
Why has this not happened? Try to think critically.
If you don't want people to be on the mooch, don't create a system where it's often better to be a mooch than a hard worker.
That looks like an anti-welfare comment If I've ever seen one
I'm not arguing the welfare state is too expansive. Just merely commenting that what incentive do you have to go work and make $9 or $10 an hour without health care and give up government paid housing and health care? The answer isn't well cut all the welfare so they have incentives to work crappy jobs, the answer is to make it so that when they do work their needs are being met.
You know, instead of demonizing them. I like the Swedish model where most of the country is unionized and every year the unions and businesses get together to negotiate a new labor contract, the lowest paid employees get the biggest raises. So the janitors and secretaries and mail room people get the largest raises.
In contrast with most other European countries, Sweden maintained an unemployment rate around 2% or 3% of the work force throughout the 1980s.[37] This was, however, accompanied by high and accelerating inflation. It became evident that such low unemployment rates were not sustainable, and in the severe crisis of the early 1990s the rate increased to more than 8%. In 1996 the government set out a goal of reducing unemployment to 4% by 2000. During 2000 employment rose by 90,000 people, the greatest increase in 40 years, and the goal was reached in the autumn of 2000. The same autumn the government set out its new target: that 80% of the working age population will have a regular job by 2004. Some have expressed concern that meeting the employment target may come at a cost of too high a rate of wage increases hence increasing inflation. However, as of August 2006, roughly 5% of working age Swedes were unemployed, over the government-established goal. However, some of the people who cannot find work are put away in so-called "labour market political activities", referred to as "AMS-åtgärder".[38]
So raising wages (true inflation) increases unemployment and unemployment numbers can be improved by hiding people in the system.
Swedish unskilled employees are well-paid while well-educated Swedish employees are low-paid compared to those in competitor countries in Western Europe and USA.
That seems to prove my point. Why better yourself if you can get everything on someone else's back?
Sweden has the second highest total tax revenue behind Denmark, as a share of the country's income. As of 2011, total tax revenue was 44.4% of GDP, down from 48.3% in 2006
Why try to make more when the government is just going to take it?
Now, culturally this may work for them, but you have a LONG way to go if you think those types of socialistic policies and tax rates are going to thrive in the states.
I'm actually somewhat surprised there hasn't been a "brain drain" of people moving away.
______________________________
I'm not bashing Sweden. Lets talk about some things they've done right:
Tax Reform to curb budget deficits.
A healthcare solution they seem to be comfortable with (IE they aren't sticking employers with the bill because they don't have the ability to push taxes up to cover the deficit).
Pension Reform to normalize the inflows and expenditures.
An export based economy vs an import based economy.
You're really comparing their unemployment numbers from 30 years ago? Sweden's unemployment numbers are really good in this economic climate, and this "great recession" has been global. Compared to the rest of the industrialized world, they are in great shape.
Sure you pay more money in taxes in Sweden, but you also don't have to worry about paying for your health care, taking on 6 figures of debt to get a college education, what you're going to do if you have children, etc. Unlike us, they get things for their money. We get corn subsidies and brown people to bomb. That's where our money goes.
You also seem to completely fail to grasp how progressive taxation works. Yes even if the government takes half your money after a certain income, you are still making more money. There is your incentive to make more money. Scandanavian countries have more people clustered around the middle where as America has a boom or bust economy. Some people will make millions, most will hover closer to the bottom. So sure, it's easier to get rich here, it's also easier to be poor here.
The problem for you is that in America, we've also discouraged bettering yourself. Why bother getting 6 figures of student loan debt only to find your college degree near useless? I'll never forget the day I applied for a job that paid $13 an hour and I took my education off my resume thinking if they saw I had an education they would think I would leave that job for something better shortly. Instead they asked me about my education background because they had MBA's applying. I know it's a worthless anecdote, but tales of people with college degree's and even masters degrees working retail or other menial jobs are not hard to come by.
Why better yourself in a market like that? We've almost completely crushed the middle class in this country. People will make it a personal failing, well you shouldn't have gotten that useless liberal arts degree! So we've completely ignored the point of higher education and the value it brings to society to have an educated society. Going to college used to say you were at least somewhat bright and were able to stick to something through some level of adversity. Now it's just a checkbox on an application and it had better be in a field they are demanding or you don't even get a second look. What incentive is there to better yourself, in America, not Sweden indeed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I don't fear the man who has played 10,000 decks once. I fear the man who played one deck 10,000 times.
Many people seem ignorant to your main message Dodger. Its one I've spoken of before myself being on disability and willing (frankly dying) to work but where the income penalties for working make it counterproductive unless I'm finding something in a limited range of jobs I can do paying $15/hr and fulltime. Until that threshold is met I'd be losing money to work between direct losses from D/A benefits and having to replace lost benefits like Medicare.
It sounds contrary to logic - but spending more in the shortterm per case to make transitioning off OR higher wages in general is the only sensible methods to "control" the issue with such benefits.
Many people seem ignorant to your main message Dodger. Its one I've spoken of before myself being on disability and willing (frankly dying) to work but where the income penalties for working make it counterproductive unless I'm finding something in a limited range of jobs I can do paying $15/hr and fulltime. Until that threshold is met I'd be losing money to work between direct losses from D/A benefits and having to replace lost benefits like Medicare.
It sounds contrary to logic - but spending more in the shortterm per case to make transitioning off OR higher wages in general is the only sensible methods to "control" the issue with such benefits.
I know where you are coming from, with my mom being on unemployment for so long (before her demise) i know what its like to start making five cents and having a dime taken away from you... i dont think a lot of people actually realize how hard it is to get ahead once you are so down. many consider the poor to be lazy, but what they dont realize is that most of them are scared to get a job because they would lose all their benefits and any job they could get, wouldnt cover all of the losses.
If paying above minimum wage is a superior economic strategy, then why do we need a minimum wage? If Costco and Trader Joes have it right, then we should expect that they will continue to turn supernormal profits and grow, while bogeymen like Walmart will shrink and eventually go bankrupt due to an inferior business model. Likewise, startup companies will realize that this is a better strategy and start off paying employees more to emulate. Pretty soon we should expect the entire market to pay above minimum wage?
Why has this not happened? Try to think critically.
Why do Republicans keep trying to pass austerity measures that are proven to fail on the macro scale? I don't know why comanies do this. . I assume because they think it's a good way to push profits to the upper teirs of the corperation. Or they actually think it's a better fiancial model for running a company that will maximize profits. At the end of the day it comes down to greed.
Clearly, minimizing labor costs is a model that does work. Wal-Mart and corperations like it still make billions of dollars in profits. They're willing to sell bad products very cheaply because they get to pay workers 1 dollar a day (or less), and people still shop there because the products are so cheap.
I would hope that more markets become open to the idea of paying more for better preforming workers, but given the recent push for laws like Right to Work in union states like Michigan I assume that is not the case. We'll see how it goes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
Why do Republicans keep trying to pass austerity measures that are proven to fail on the macro scale?
I'm not a republican, so I hope this isn't directed toward me. But typically the word "austerity" is used to refer to efforts to reduce government spending, not private corporate spending. So I'm doubly confused, and I feel like you're conflating governments and corporations.
I don't know why comanies do this. . I assume because they think it's a good way to push profits to the upper teirs of the corperation. Or they actually think it's a better fiancial model for running a company that will maximize profits. At the end of the day it comes down to greed.
I'm also confused by this sentence, and I'm not sure that you're understanding what "profits" are. By definition, the "upper tiers" of a corporation (the board and shareholders) decide what to do with the company's profits. Profits are calculated after deducting out expenditures like wages. So all profits are always pushed to the top by definition.
If greed is the motivator, then these greedy people would want to pay their employees more if this will increase profits. Higher profits = more money at the top.
I would hope that more markets become open to the idea of paying more for better preforming workers, but given the recent push for laws like Right to Work in union states like Michigan I assume that is not the case. We'll see how it goes.
Again, I feel like you're conflating the private and public sectors here. What does Michigan's political climate have to do with the economic decisions made by private actors?
A) Austerity means cutting to bare bones and its only just started as a political coined phrase its been used in business for decades or longer.
B) Because it will - in the short run - the problem is to make more today or over time, the low wage philosophy generally is only a cheap temporary stock boost. Case in point look at the history of Wal-Mart pre and post Sam Walton - his kids had a fraction of the expansion and high growth years. They've had a few good years, but Sam hit it out of the park every year for decades paying people well. (So well in fact that he never received a unionization threat something Wal-Mart under his kids has been under constant threat of)
C) Wages are part of worker's rights and union busting goes against worker's rights... The context isn't strange at all.
Wages are about 40% of operating costs for many companies today, whereas for much of US history it was 60% of operating costs. Which sheds light on a combination of the under employment, and over employment problem seen in America without the value of that labor distributed equitably across the board. So you have some people, thanks to the wonder of technology, doing unpaid overtime which often shorts the individual and decreases the competitive needs of other deserving persons to get into the action to do work by forcing the capitalist to hire more workers or to pay an individual more money.
Now I often see a point when a person "becomes successful enough" that they can sit on comfy boards in government and get certain perks among other things. So these ephemeral social and economic benefits are oft thrust upon people we deem to be the most successful. This layering effect also makes some persons extremely busy, while others who make seek such honors and privileges to be overcast that could dedicate such time to such endeavors.
And this is to where I genuinely where I see to be a problem that encourages theft or power struggle, when people believe they are being treated unfairly. To sum this human dilemma to give things to people in power to hope for them to show favor is seen in one low level celebrity saying something to the extent about getting offered free food all the time but these same people do not offer free food to people who actually need it.
I just think at times we encourage deviant behaviors with our unrelenting worship of celebrity, even marginal celebrity, and mythologizing individuals and encourage others to try and "cheat the system." Much like in Death of a Salesman whenever one of the sons steals a pen, that pen was a symbol of power. And granting symbols of power to people who show uncanny success, not that the Death of a Salesman son was a worthy, encourages others to not see something simple like a pen as akin to Prometheus and fire.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
I've said it before but I'm not really sure that people understand it.
The vast majority of the boards of large companies are made up of plants from large financial companies (Like mutual fund companies, the ones in your 401k).
If Mom and Pop Boomer who need to retire don't see a return on Their money, they are getting rid of Mr Financial Fund Guy. Mr Financial Fund Guy only cares about short term profits because Mom and Pop Boomer only care about short term profits.
Funny how many of them are getting laid off because they want those profits.
You can blame fat cat bankers all you want, but there is a culture of instant gratification that goes all the way down to the core of society.
I was shooting the breeze with a cashier inside McDonalds last night. She was in her early 20's. I told her (and showed her) how without any raise, education, better job et that she could be a millionaire. She looked at me all goofy eyed. She believes its possible, but she doesn't believe she would actually be willing to do what it would take.
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
Its the small investors that feel that way technically Card but otherwise you're on point. (Although I do think your anecdote at the end isn't doable anymore - even with Florida's below average CoL plus those old "easy million" plans always included projected raises - with 50% of raises going into investments)
Once you become a large investor its better to look at the long view.
Which of course is part of why the whole process is so illogical it shoots those that need it in the foot Russian roulette style and the wealthy would rather see it different.
I'm not arguing the welfare state is too expansive. Just merely commenting that what incentive do you have to go work and make $9 or $10 an hour without health care and give up government paid housing and health care? The answer isn't well cut all the welfare so they have incentives to work crappy jobs, the answer is to make it so that when they do work their needs are being met.
Pretty much this. Admittedly, you don't have much incentive to work for poverty-level income when the state's willing to maintain you at poverty levels without working.
To fix it, we have to identify the problem. Is it possible that the real problem here is: if you work full time (quite a bit more than full time, even) at the minimum wage, you're still falling below the line where we as a society look at you and say, "We think you should have more food and better health care than that whether you can afford it or not; we don't want to watch you starve and we don't want to see you die of a preventable disease."
I mean, really, 80 hours a week at minimum wage is around $34,000 annually. Decent food plus any shelter and clothing are going to be hard to come by in many regions for that little annual income, nevermind health care, and that's more than twice what we consider to be full time work. You can live off it, but you're living a spartan existence that revolves around your two full time crap jobs. And you have to have been able to FIND two jobs worth of work to get there, if you're a minimum wage worker.
We can talk about the welfare state being too expansive, about it being exploited, about how many people are on disability, etc., but we need to also be talking about the fact that you can work more than full time and still not be making enough money to live off of. That's a travesty.
I'm not a republican, so I hope this isn't directed toward me. But typically the word "austerity" is used to refer to efforts to reduce government spending, not private corporate spending. So I'm doubly confused, and I feel like you're conflating governments and corporations.
I'm also confused by this sentence, and I'm not sure that you're understanding what "profits" are. By definition, the "upper tiers" of a corporation (the board and shareholders) decide what to do with the company's profits. Profits are calculated after deducting out expenditures like wages. So all profits are always pushed to the top by definition.
By reading what you just wrote I don't understand what's confusing to you about what I wrote. If workers are paid less the company uses less of its gross on labor and hence more of the gross moves to Net to be paid out to upper tiers of the company (giving few huge wages while most quality of food stamps while working full time because of wage depression). What is confusing about this?
This behavior is, btw, encouraged by having a low corperate tax rate.
If greed is the motivator, then these greedy people would want to pay their employees more if this will increase profits. Higher profits = more money at the top.
That's the thing. That's why I mentioned not knowing why Repubs try to pass measures that don't work. I don't know why they want to reduce worker wages. They must think it will help the company (Repubs tell people they think austerity will help the country, when we know it won't). In some respects I'm sure it does (regarding corporations). That doesn't make it a morally acceptable policy when we are finding out that it's a decision, not a requirement for a successful business model.
Again, I feel like you're conflating the private and public sectors here. What does Michigan's political climate have to do with the economic decisions made by private actors?
Right to Work is not isolated to Michigan. There are over 20 states with Right to Work laws. These laws do one thing: They reduce wages over time on average for the middle class. Regardless of what RtW is supposed to do, that's what the eventual out-come is. The point I was making is that even in the face of successful business models like Costco and Trader Joes, there are corporations pushing to pass legislation which has the ultimate goal of depressing wages. Hence I'm skeptical that there is going to be a revolution in the US that drives companies to accept and implement the Costco model.
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
I don't know why comanies do this. . I assume because they think it's a good way to push profits to the upper teirs of the corperation. Or they actually think it's a better fiancial model for running a company that will maximize profits. At the end of the day it comes down to greed.
In a real way, paying only minimum wage is a better financial model. At the small business scale, you can dole out rewards and penalties to employees, and it may help, but you can't do that in big business.
Clearly, minimizing labor costs is a model that does work. Wal-Mart and corperations like it still make billions of dollars in profits. They're willing to sell bad products very cheaply because they get to pay workers 1 dollar a day (or less), and people still shop there because the products are so cheap.
Technically speaking, they're supposed to maximize profits above all else. This is actually why $1 million to a cause like Susan G Komen (always a popular cause with few detractors: Nobody will come out against cancer research) is met with $10 million in publicity, along with "With every UPC returned, we'll donate 25¢ to Susan G Komen."
Actually, I've been saying we should challenge Citizens United on the grounds that...they wasted money; moreover, if someone found out which corporations donated money to the candidate they didn't like, a boycott might ensue.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Why do Republicans keep trying to pass austerity measures that are proven to fail on the macro scale?
When all you have is a hammer...
Well you have all the tools at your disposal. It is a lie to say that the only option we have is to make cuts. It is a damnable lie at that. We have far more options before us. I think some cuts need to happen and the steepest of which is subsidies and military. So guns and corporate welfare are good places to start.
Reasons is that our military is grossly inflated without much output. We aren't even in a full scale war. We have dozens of bases that cost us billions each year that litterally don't do anything. I have 14 friends of mine in high school that took the military path. Zero of them found any actual combat action. They do mock drills and chill out at a base doing nothing. The most productive of my friends fixes airplane engines. The largest single consumer of crude oil is the US military. Have less mock runs and wasteful gasoline intake and the massive drop in demand will lower prices more than subsidies.
Instead they boost labor expenditures to increase productivity and customer relations. That drives up the contribution from workers and keeps customers happy.
The fact remains his premise is based upon the success of Costco and not business in general. Look at the average salary of a Costco customer. It is simple. Wal-Mart will, for a fact, lose market share if they use Costco's labor policies. Further, Wal-Mart is one of the most successful companies in the world, mostly for providing cheap and affordable products that cater to a much less paid customer base than Costco. Wal-Mart is able is able to cater to this base by keeping cost low. The fact of the matter is, "happy customers" take a back seat to ones that purchase based on cost. There is a reason Wal-Mart has the more revenue than the number 2,3,4, and five (combined) of the next four or five largest retailers.
Many people seem ignorant to your main message Dodger. Its one I've spoken of before myself being on disability and willing (frankly dying) to work but where the income penalties for working make it counterproductive unless I'm finding something in a limited range of jobs I can do paying $15/hr and fulltime. Until that threshold is met I'd be losing money to work between direct losses from D/A benefits and having to replace lost benefits like Medicare.
It sounds contrary to logic - but spending more in the shortterm per case to make transitioning off OR higher wages in general is the only sensible methods to "control" the issue with such benefits.
So, cutting your "entitlement" would be no less incentive? Say we make it where you had to find a job that paid $12 an hour to equal your free ride? No insult intended as I believe in disability for some.
Well you have all the tools at your disposal. It is a lie to say that the only option we have is to make cuts. It is a damnable lie at that. We have far more options before us. I think some cuts need to happen and the steepest of which is subsidies and military. So guns and corporate welfare are good places to start.
Reasons is that our military is grossly inflated without much output. We aren't even in a full scale war. We have dozens of bases that cost us billions each year that litterally don't do anything. I have 14 friends of mine in high school that took the military path. Zero of them found any actual combat action. They do mock drills and chill out at a base doing nothing. The most productive of my friends fixes airplane engines. The largest single consumer of crude oil is the US military. Have less mock runs and wasteful gasoline intake and the massive drop in demand will lower prices more than subsidies.
Okay, let me rephrase that:
"When you have a whole toolbox, but your boss will fire you if you use anything other than a hammer..." Because, you know, the GOTP is intimidating any Republican Congressmen they can. If your constituents include a significant number of Republican Tea Party members, they will challenge you in the next primary.
Also, mock runs have a purpose, because, to borrow from Bruce Lee, I really don't fear a man who has never kicked anything in his life.
John, ordering some Earl Grey
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Billy: Considering I can't walk or travel most days - in addition to the muscle weakness and fatigue (latter from meds to help with other issues) and absent seizures - and there's another 10 or so issues that crop up in a given week there's a pretty limited range I could do even though I'd love to work again. So basically unless you're talking about literally kicking everyone off to encourage a handful of us (while doubltalking to say you support some disabilities - protip: mine is considered a 9 on the disability impairment scale, which maxes at 10 - Downs is a 7 in comparison, terminal cancers are 8-9) to work. Hell, a lost leg is only a 6 even.)
And without my inherited wealth losing my "entitlement" would result in my death from starvation and exposure within months - I'm lucky to have a second safety net most don't. I look for appropriate work constantly for SEVEN years now for at least 4-5 hrs a week - gotten two interviews for ones that could've worked to date, and guess what - these disability friendly jobs had thousands of applicants each the great majority of which wanted the cushy job circumstances rather than NEEDING THEM to be a productive citizen.
Actually I bet most without a second safety net and inability to work would resort to crime - which costs society more, especially once eventually imprisoned. (Average entitlement is in the 5-10% range ofprison costs in a matching area) My health makes crime impossible for me but plenty of other entitlement folks would have no issue.
Hell, the average citizen pays $1 a day to entitlements (rounded up iirc it was 93c) - would you pay $1 to not have to deal with poor clogging the streets in hoovervilles, pickpockets, muggings, thefts, etc etc all of which dropped about 90% once entitlements started. To me that $1 a day (which I still pay thanks to my taxes on my trust and property taxes) is well worth it I've been to the bad parts of India before that are similar to the Hooverville era over here - and I was mortified - I'd personally spend ten times that if the issue got forced, its that repulsive.
Well you have all the tools at your disposal. It is a lie to say that the only option we have is to make cuts. It is a damnable lie at that. We have far more options before us. I think some cuts need to happen and the steepest of which is subsidies and military. So guns and corporate welfare are good places to start.
Reasons is that our military is grossly inflated without much output. We aren't even in a full scale war. We have dozens of bases that cost us billions each year that litterally don't do anything. I have 14 friends of mine in high school that took the military path. Zero of them found any actual combat action. They do mock drills and chill out at a base doing nothing. The most productive of my friends fixes airplane engines. The largest single consumer of crude oil is the US military. Have less mock runs and wasteful gasoline intake and the massive drop in demand will lower prices more than subsidies.
Okay, let me rephrase that:
"When you have a whole toolbox, but your boss will fire you if you use anything other than a hammer..." Because, you know, the GOTP is intimidating any Republican Congressmen they can. If your constituents include a significant number of Republican Tea Party members, they will challenge you in the next primary.
Also, mock runs have a purpose, because, to borrow from Bruce Lee, I really don't fear a man who has never kicked anything in his life.
John, ordering some Earl Grey
Thank you. Thats better. Because in reality that is the problem. To fix the economy it would mean taking home less gross profits which would in turn look like a failure. The current buisness system is set up for only short term goals because if you fail to turn a better profit this quarter than last then you seem to be a failure. So cutting a little here and a little there is the only way to make yourself look good as to not get let go.
I understand that. My message is that we should challenge that directly.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
When and where was that? Sounds like "takes a village" poppycock. In the states poverty has always been stigmatized otherwise there wouldn't be so many initiatives to try to get people out of poverty.
What's to keep me from not letting you work full time? Employers are already cutting part time employees to under 30 hours so they don't have to pay for healthcare. (Why is this imposed on employers when we have a required system that would let them buy subsidized care on the open market?!!? Oh yea, just sign now and read later).
I proposed this a long time ago when Checkers stock took a dump because they started hiring 15 year olds rather than adults to cut labor costs (so quality of service went down taking sales with it). If I could hire a working adult for the same price as a kid, there is no way I'd grab a high school kid.
Good thing this proposal pretty much already exists. Employers can get tax breaks for hiring people who are currently getting or who even qualify for government assistance. Funny though, I don't have to pay them living wage or anything close to do it.
The holes that were shot in my argument were simple. If you are getting a living wage for say being head of household what incentive do you have to better yourself, and how difficult is it to better yourself?
If you made say $12 an hour for working at McD's and you would get $12 an hour to be a shift manager (normalized), $12.50 an hour to be an Assistant manager and $17 an hour to be a store manager. How many wouldn't take that step to shift because it requires a lot more work for the same pay?
It's the same reason we can't put means testing on social security until people are WAY above where it matters.
If you are going to get say $2300 from your investments and $2200 from social security you get $4000 a month. But what if the government says, for each $1 you make above $2300 a month we take $1 from your social security. Unless you can produce $4001 on your own there is no incentive to save more or withdraw more both of which strain the system.
So we could means test about the top 1% (who may not have even filed) and after that there is no more real savings.
Why don't people want to get low paying jobs who are on unemployment? For every $1 you make over the cap you get that taken from unemployment. So I could sit on my bump doing nothing or looking for only higher paying jobs for $200-500 a week or I could work 40 hours at McD's for $225. Something doesn't add up.
The last example is the crux of your argument. If MCD's paid me $14 an hour it would be $420 a week but then a McDouble would cost $4.
As a liability they would be doing everything they could to get their labor costs down which usually means less positions. They are going to ask me to do more for my $14 an hour and because I'm used to making that I will find ways to produce it so I don't end up as one of the people cut.
Now I've shipped half the minimum wage population to the unemployment line and I'm asking them to pay for $7 gallons of milk. (Check this stat. I'm making it up, but I bet if you researched it it's probably close. Gallon of milk historically costs 50-60% of the minimum wage).
What did we gain?
That looks like an anti-welfare comment If I've ever seen one
Shall we continue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sweden
So raising wages (true inflation) increases unemployment and unemployment numbers can be improved by hiding people in the system.
That seems to prove my point. Why better yourself if you can get everything on someone else's back?
Why try to make more when the government is just going to take it?
Now, culturally this may work for them, but you have a LONG way to go if you think those types of socialistic policies and tax rates are going to thrive in the states.
I'm actually somewhat surprised there hasn't been a "brain drain" of people moving away.
______________________________
I'm not bashing Sweden. Lets talk about some things they've done right:
Tax Reform to curb budget deficits.
A healthcare solution they seem to be comfortable with (IE they aren't sticking employers with the bill because they don't have the ability to push taxes up to cover the deficit).
Pension Reform to normalize the inflows and expenditures.
An export based economy vs an import based economy.
Costco's CEO himself has said that this insane drive to cut labor costs is the entire problem. Instead they boost labor expenditures to increase productivity and customer relations. That drives up the contribution from workers and keeps customers happy. Trader Joes uses the same wage policy. Have you ever been in a Trader Joes? The prices are reasonable, and I’ve never seen such polite workers.
This idea that cutting labor costs as an austerity measure to increase profits is flawed, and bad for the economy. There are in increasing number of companies that are taking this approach and they're seeing huge profits from it without shafting everyone within a stone's throw.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
Also they give bennies and pay up to about $40K to long-timers.
If paying above minimum wage is a superior economic strategy, then why do we need a minimum wage? If Costco and Trader Joes have it right, then we should expect that they will continue to turn supernormal profits and grow, while bogeymen like Walmart will shrink and eventually go bankrupt due to an inferior business model. Likewise, startup companies will realize that this is a better strategy and start off paying employees more to emulate. Pretty soon we should expect the entire market to pay above minimum wage?
Why has this not happened? Try to think critically.
I'm not arguing the welfare state is too expansive. Just merely commenting that what incentive do you have to go work and make $9 or $10 an hour without health care and give up government paid housing and health care? The answer isn't well cut all the welfare so they have incentives to work crappy jobs, the answer is to make it so that when they do work their needs are being met.
You're really comparing their unemployment numbers from 30 years ago? Sweden's unemployment numbers are really good in this economic climate, and this "great recession" has been global. Compared to the rest of the industrialized world, they are in great shape.
Sure you pay more money in taxes in Sweden, but you also don't have to worry about paying for your health care, taking on 6 figures of debt to get a college education, what you're going to do if you have children, etc. Unlike us, they get things for their money. We get corn subsidies and brown people to bomb. That's where our money goes.
You also seem to completely fail to grasp how progressive taxation works. Yes even if the government takes half your money after a certain income, you are still making more money. There is your incentive to make more money. Scandanavian countries have more people clustered around the middle where as America has a boom or bust economy. Some people will make millions, most will hover closer to the bottom. So sure, it's easier to get rich here, it's also easier to be poor here.
The problem for you is that in America, we've also discouraged bettering yourself. Why bother getting 6 figures of student loan debt only to find your college degree near useless? I'll never forget the day I applied for a job that paid $13 an hour and I took my education off my resume thinking if they saw I had an education they would think I would leave that job for something better shortly. Instead they asked me about my education background because they had MBA's applying. I know it's a worthless anecdote, but tales of people with college degree's and even masters degrees working retail or other menial jobs are not hard to come by.
Why better yourself in a market like that? We've almost completely crushed the middle class in this country. People will make it a personal failing, well you shouldn't have gotten that useless liberal arts degree! So we've completely ignored the point of higher education and the value it brings to society to have an educated society. Going to college used to say you were at least somewhat bright and were able to stick to something through some level of adversity. Now it's just a checkbox on an application and it had better be in a field they are demanding or you don't even get a second look. What incentive is there to better yourself, in America, not Sweden indeed.
It sounds contrary to logic - but spending more in the shortterm per case to make transitioning off OR higher wages in general is the only sensible methods to "control" the issue with such benefits.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
I know where you are coming from, with my mom being on unemployment for so long (before her demise) i know what its like to start making five cents and having a dime taken away from you... i dont think a lot of people actually realize how hard it is to get ahead once you are so down. many consider the poor to be lazy, but what they dont realize is that most of them are scared to get a job because they would lose all their benefits and any job they could get, wouldnt cover all of the losses.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Why do Republicans keep trying to pass austerity measures that are proven to fail on the macro scale? I don't know why comanies do this. . I assume because they think it's a good way to push profits to the upper teirs of the corperation. Or they actually think it's a better fiancial model for running a company that will maximize profits. At the end of the day it comes down to greed.
Clearly, minimizing labor costs is a model that does work. Wal-Mart and corperations like it still make billions of dollars in profits. They're willing to sell bad products very cheaply because they get to pay workers 1 dollar a day (or less), and people still shop there because the products are so cheap.
I would hope that more markets become open to the idea of paying more for better preforming workers, but given the recent push for laws like Right to Work in union states like Michigan I assume that is not the case. We'll see how it goes.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
I'm not a republican, so I hope this isn't directed toward me. But typically the word "austerity" is used to refer to efforts to reduce government spending, not private corporate spending. So I'm doubly confused, and I feel like you're conflating governments and corporations.
I'm also confused by this sentence, and I'm not sure that you're understanding what "profits" are. By definition, the "upper tiers" of a corporation (the board and shareholders) decide what to do with the company's profits. Profits are calculated after deducting out expenditures like wages. So all profits are always pushed to the top by definition.
If greed is the motivator, then these greedy people would want to pay their employees more if this will increase profits. Higher profits = more money at the top.
Again, I feel like you're conflating the private and public sectors here. What does Michigan's political climate have to do with the economic decisions made by private actors?
B) Because it will - in the short run - the problem is to make more today or over time, the low wage philosophy generally is only a cheap temporary stock boost. Case in point look at the history of Wal-Mart pre and post Sam Walton - his kids had a fraction of the expansion and high growth years. They've had a few good years, but Sam hit it out of the park every year for decades paying people well. (So well in fact that he never received a unionization threat something Wal-Mart under his kids has been under constant threat of)
C) Wages are part of worker's rights and union busting goes against worker's rights... The context isn't strange at all.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Now I often see a point when a person "becomes successful enough" that they can sit on comfy boards in government and get certain perks among other things. So these ephemeral social and economic benefits are oft thrust upon people we deem to be the most successful. This layering effect also makes some persons extremely busy, while others who make seek such honors and privileges to be overcast that could dedicate such time to such endeavors.
And this is to where I genuinely where I see to be a problem that encourages theft or power struggle, when people believe they are being treated unfairly. To sum this human dilemma to give things to people in power to hope for them to show favor is seen in one low level celebrity saying something to the extent about getting offered free food all the time but these same people do not offer free food to people who actually need it.
I just think at times we encourage deviant behaviors with our unrelenting worship of celebrity, even marginal celebrity, and mythologizing individuals and encourage others to try and "cheat the system." Much like in Death of a Salesman whenever one of the sons steals a pen, that pen was a symbol of power. And granting symbols of power to people who show uncanny success, not that the Death of a Salesman son was a worthy, encourages others to not see something simple like a pen as akin to Prometheus and fire.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
The vast majority of the boards of large companies are made up of plants from large financial companies (Like mutual fund companies, the ones in your 401k).
If Mom and Pop Boomer who need to retire don't see a return on Their money, they are getting rid of Mr Financial Fund Guy. Mr Financial Fund Guy only cares about short term profits because Mom and Pop Boomer only care about short term profits.
Funny how many of them are getting laid off because they want those profits.
You can blame fat cat bankers all you want, but there is a culture of instant gratification that goes all the way down to the core of society.
I was shooting the breeze with a cashier inside McDonalds last night. She was in her early 20's. I told her (and showed her) how without any raise, education, better job et that she could be a millionaire. She looked at me all goofy eyed. She believes its possible, but she doesn't believe she would actually be willing to do what it would take.
Once you become a large investor its better to look at the long view.
Which of course is part of why the whole process is so illogical it shoots those that need it in the foot Russian roulette style and the wealthy would rather see it different.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Pretty much this. Admittedly, you don't have much incentive to work for poverty-level income when the state's willing to maintain you at poverty levels without working.
To fix it, we have to identify the problem. Is it possible that the real problem here is: if you work full time (quite a bit more than full time, even) at the minimum wage, you're still falling below the line where we as a society look at you and say, "We think you should have more food and better health care than that whether you can afford it or not; we don't want to watch you starve and we don't want to see you die of a preventable disease."
I mean, really, 80 hours a week at minimum wage is around $34,000 annually. Decent food plus any shelter and clothing are going to be hard to come by in many regions for that little annual income, nevermind health care, and that's more than twice what we consider to be full time work. You can live off it, but you're living a spartan existence that revolves around your two full time crap jobs. And you have to have been able to FIND two jobs worth of work to get there, if you're a minimum wage worker.
We can talk about the welfare state being too expansive, about it being exploited, about how many people are on disability, etc., but we need to also be talking about the fact that you can work more than full time and still not be making enough money to live off of. That's a travesty.
You're wrong. Google it.
By reading what you just wrote I don't understand what's confusing to you about what I wrote. If workers are paid less the company uses less of its gross on labor and hence more of the gross moves to Net to be paid out to upper tiers of the company (giving few huge wages while most quality of food stamps while working full time because of wage depression). What is confusing about this?
This behavior is, btw, encouraged by having a low corperate tax rate.
That's the thing. That's why I mentioned not knowing why Repubs try to pass measures that don't work. I don't know why they want to reduce worker wages. They must think it will help the company (Repubs tell people they think austerity will help the country, when we know it won't). In some respects I'm sure it does (regarding corporations). That doesn't make it a morally acceptable policy when we are finding out that it's a decision, not a requirement for a successful business model.
Right to Work is not isolated to Michigan. There are over 20 states with Right to Work laws. These laws do one thing: They reduce wages over time on average for the middle class. Regardless of what RtW is supposed to do, that's what the eventual out-come is. The point I was making is that even in the face of successful business models like Costco and Trader Joes, there are corporations pushing to pass legislation which has the ultimate goal of depressing wages. Hence I'm skeptical that there is going to be a revolution in the US that drives companies to accept and implement the Costco model.
Hope that's more clear.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
When all you have is a hammer...
In a real way, paying only minimum wage is a better financial model. At the small business scale, you can dole out rewards and penalties to employees, and it may help, but you can't do that in big business.
Technically speaking, they're supposed to maximize profits above all else. This is actually why $1 million to a cause like Susan G Komen (always a popular cause with few detractors: Nobody will come out against cancer research) is met with $10 million in publicity, along with "With every UPC returned, we'll donate 25¢ to Susan G Komen."
Actually, I've been saying we should challenge Citizens United on the grounds that...they wasted money; moreover, if someone found out which corporations donated money to the candidate they didn't like, a boycott might ensue.
On phasing:
Well you have all the tools at your disposal. It is a lie to say that the only option we have is to make cuts. It is a damnable lie at that. We have far more options before us. I think some cuts need to happen and the steepest of which is subsidies and military. So guns and corporate welfare are good places to start.
Reasons is that our military is grossly inflated without much output. We aren't even in a full scale war. We have dozens of bases that cost us billions each year that litterally don't do anything. I have 14 friends of mine in high school that took the military path. Zero of them found any actual combat action. They do mock drills and chill out at a base doing nothing. The most productive of my friends fixes airplane engines. The largest single consumer of crude oil is the US military. Have less mock runs and wasteful gasoline intake and the massive drop in demand will lower prices more than subsidies.
The fact remains his premise is based upon the success of Costco and not business in general. Look at the average salary of a Costco customer. It is simple. Wal-Mart will, for a fact, lose market share if they use Costco's labor policies. Further, Wal-Mart is one of the most successful companies in the world, mostly for providing cheap and affordable products that cater to a much less paid customer base than Costco. Wal-Mart is able is able to cater to this base by keeping cost low. The fact of the matter is, "happy customers" take a back seat to ones that purchase based on cost. There is a reason Wal-Mart has the more revenue than the number 2,3,4, and five (combined) of the next four or five largest retailers.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
So, cutting your "entitlement" would be no less incentive? Say we make it where you had to find a job that paid $12 an hour to equal your free ride? No insult intended as I believe in disability for some.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Okay, let me rephrase that:
"When you have a whole toolbox, but your boss will fire you if you use anything other than a hammer..." Because, you know, the GOTP is intimidating any Republican Congressmen they can. If your constituents include a significant number of Republican Tea Party members, they will challenge you in the next primary.
Also, mock runs have a purpose, because, to borrow from Bruce Lee, I really don't fear a man who has never kicked anything in his life.
John, ordering some Earl Grey
On phasing:
And without my inherited wealth losing my "entitlement" would result in my death from starvation and exposure within months - I'm lucky to have a second safety net most don't. I look for appropriate work constantly for SEVEN years now for at least 4-5 hrs a week - gotten two interviews for ones that could've worked to date, and guess what - these disability friendly jobs had thousands of applicants each the great majority of which wanted the cushy job circumstances rather than NEEDING THEM to be a productive citizen.
Actually I bet most without a second safety net and inability to work would resort to crime - which costs society more, especially once eventually imprisoned. (Average entitlement is in the 5-10% range ofprison costs in a matching area) My health makes crime impossible for me but plenty of other entitlement folks would have no issue.
Hell, the average citizen pays $1 a day to entitlements (rounded up iirc it was 93c) - would you pay $1 to not have to deal with poor clogging the streets in hoovervilles, pickpockets, muggings, thefts, etc etc all of which dropped about 90% once entitlements started. To me that $1 a day (which I still pay thanks to my taxes on my trust and property taxes) is well worth it I've been to the bad parts of India before that are similar to the Hooverville era over here - and I was mortified - I'd personally spend ten times that if the issue got forced, its that repulsive.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Thank you. Thats better. Because in reality that is the problem. To fix the economy it would mean taking home less gross profits which would in turn look like a failure. The current buisness system is set up for only short term goals because if you fail to turn a better profit this quarter than last then you seem to be a failure. So cutting a little here and a little there is the only way to make yourself look good as to not get let go.
I understand that. My message is that we should challenge that directly.