• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

676 Good

About AU-panther

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

4,306 profile views
  1. So there is a bunch of unemployed people that are unwilling to work because the wage offered is beneath them? As someone who has worked minimum wage jobs I have a hard time understanding that. Overall I think you and I want the same thing we just disagree on how to achieve it. If we did raise min wage to $15 where do you honestly think that will come from? Do you think the companies are going to absorb it out of the goodness of their heart? I just don't see it as a cure all that some think. I guess I look at the other end of the process, why are wages so low and how do we fix it? How do we improve the economy where there are more businesses looking for workers and therefore having to offer more pay.
  2. probably true, it was a bit of an illustration to show that companies would pass the cost on. In reality it would probably be some combination of increased cost to consumers and reduction of expenses. There is a good chance the reduction of expenses will come out of the pocket of other workers or a reduction of jobs. I wasn't talking about slavery I was talking about how things actually work in today's marketplace. Here again do you honestly believe if we raise minimum wage that companies are just going to absorb that additional cost? If you so you have more faith in corporate America then me. So employed people would work more if it paid more? Inflation is caused by increased demand or decreased supply. Also for the most part prices are set by the consumers, not the companies. Everyone wants to tie wages to inflation but in some ways the two can work against each other. More people buying an item can cause inflation. More people looking for work keeps wages down. If you want to talk about tax cuts for businesses to offset the higher labor cost then that is an entirely different scenriou of what you were talking about.. There is enough wealth in this country where a $15 minimum wage should easily be accomplished. Unfortunately I'm not convinced that artificially setting it at that number will solve problems as easily as some think. I've spent a good bit of my working life in retail environments. Its just not the minimum wage that is the problem but also the next tier of worker and their wages. I talked it about it in an early post but what about the full time single mom of 2 kids who is a department manager that is stuck at 15-17 an hour? Is she really making enough to support her family? Personally I think the economic gap in this country is the single biggest issue we have at the moment. There is definitely an erosion of middle class type jobs and a heavy distribution amount of wealth at the top. At some point we (rich included) all have to agree that that is a problem for the entire country. I usually stay out of the Tinderbox because what see around here is that really nobody wants to discuss with an open mind. For the most part everyone has their own agenda and when things do go their way they start to throw barbs.
  3. In some ways yes. A business expects to operate at a profit. If they made x amount last year they expect to make at least that much the following year. If not people start to get fired or at some point they go out of business. If their labor cost for a segment of their workforce goes up they have to make up that cost elsewhere. Either they reduce the pay range of the rest of their workforce, become more efficient (which often leads to reduced number of jobs), or the pass the cost on to consumers which hurts the very same people that you just gave a raise to. I'm not trying to argue what is right or wrong but instead looking at reality of how companies operate. If the jobs aren't there, the education/job training is irrelevant. You just end up with over qualified people making an inadequate wage or unemployed. Wages are simply a product of supply vs demand. Increase the number of jobs while keeping the supply of labor the same and you will have increased wages. The question becomes how do we increase the ratio of jobs to applicants.
  4. I'm not saying we should do nothing. Doing something just for the sake of doing something isn't worthwhile if that something makes things worse. Nothing happens in a vacuum, that money will come from somewhere. I just have a fear it will come from the other employees, namely the middle to lower level ones. The part time bag boy is happy because he is making $15 hour but the full time single mom who has been with the company for 5 years is all of sudden capped at $17 hour. Or even worse they get rid of her position and fill it with 2 part timers. or the company passes the cost on to consumers If I make 30% more but the cost of everything I buy goes up by that same amount I'm really not better off.
  5. I agree that the economic gap in this county is a problem that needs to be addressed. I also agree that a lot of people can't make it on what a lot of jobs pay. I'm just not sure that raising the minimum wage to some number ($15) automatically fixes these problems. If the increased labor cost increases the cost of the goods sold peoples buying power might not actually increase. Also if you increase minimum wage there is a chance that you actually end up hurting some of the very same people you are trying to help. I'll explain: Lets say you have a grocery store, 10 part time employees making $10 hour working 20 hours a week + 3 full time employees making $20 hour working 40 hours a week = $4400 labor cost If you end up raising the minimum wage to $15 hour, then to keep the same labor cost for your company you have to reduce the full time employee salaries to $17.5 hour and you have to remove one of the positions. Now the part time bagger is making more but the full time single mom who has worked her way up to a department manager job is making less or the job has been eliminated entirely. I'm not sure that is the best answer either. The fact is if you raise wages artificially by increasing minimum wage that money has to come from somewhere. Either higher cost to the consumer or reduced expenses (lower wages for other employees) elsewhere in the company. I'm sure someone will say "what about CEO salaries". While I agree they are out of hand I'm not sure that lowering them is the quick fix that some people think. Since we are talking about grocery stores above I'll stick with that industry. Rough numbers from random websites CEO around $11m in 2015 number of employees in 2010 - 334,000 if you reduce the CEO's salary to zero you could give every employee an extra $33 That is $33 a year, not day, week, or month. Apparently Kroger had sales of $115B in 2016. If some CEO can improve the company and increase those sales by 10% you can see why some board of directors will happily pay someone $11m. I'm not looking to argue if that is morally right but that is just the fact of how things work. I'm not saying it is right but for the most part people get paid what the market dictates they need to get paid. If someone owns a fast food restaurant and I need to hire a cashier I can probably hire someone if I'm willing to pay $10 hour. If I need to hire a teacher I'm probably going to have to offer $30 to $40k (no idea what teachers make now). If I offer $10 hour I'm probably not going to get anyone that is qualified to do the job. If I want a top 5 nfl QB I'll probably have to be in the $20m range. Is the QB more important to society then the teacher or restaurant worker? probably not I don't know what the easy answer is. In theory if the number of available jobs increase then the salaries will follow.
  6. What amount would most people consider as an acceptable living wage?
  7. Not really surprising that the list is dominated by soccer players. Even basketball is more popular in most parts of the world than football.
  8. Last year: Every down back: Stewart back up every down back: CAP change of pace little back: Fozzy change of pace big back: Tolbert I think the coaches didn't feel like CAP needed to be active if Stewart was healthy at the beginning of the game because worst case Tolbert and Fozzy could handle the carries if Stewart was injured during the game. Everyone wanted to list Tolbert as a FB but the coaches almost treated him like a RB at times. I could see the team keeping CAP just as easily as Fozzy. Also I'm really hesitant to get caught up in YPC numbers with our RBs. Somebody had a thread talking about Stewart having the most missed tackles since 2015. That tells me he hasn't really had the blocking. When you watch a RB you have to ask yourself if another RB would have actually got more out of the same situation. Also in regards to Fozzy his numbers might be a little higher because he receives a higher percentage of carries on passing downs and distances(just a guess on my part) . A 7yrd draw on 3rd and 15 isn't any more impressive then a 3yrd run on 1st and 10.
  9. I meant Doctors but you can look at from the insurance company point of view also. At $1200 a year a couple of things could happen. The insurance company would have to pay less for services to the doctors and hospitals and at that point a lot of places would no longer take that insurance and that insurance company could go out of business. or If all the insurance companies agree to reimburse at that lower rate then at a certain point it no longer becomes worthwhile to become a doctor.
  10. At that point it wouldn't matter, there wouldn't be any doctors or hospitals.
  11. Exactly That is why I didn't understand the people that were against it.
  12. I'm curious to why people don't like the inactive list? Also why do people think there is an inactive list?
  13. If he plays as a top 10 LT then it was a good deal. If not it wasn't. Also, to a lot of people there isn't really any evidence in recent history to suggest he will be a top 10 LT. If we had paid Russell Shepard top 5 WR money people would have had a fit. Whitworth got paid off of recent performance, with Kalil we are putting a lot of faith in our coaches.
  14. Honest question here.....what metric is that ranking based off of? I have to admit this is a topic that I haven't researched probably as much as a lot of people here. I can't speak for everyone here but I really don't see that many people here against health care for everyone. The discussion seems to focus more on how to achieve that goal. In theory a nonprofit health care system run by the government should be able to provide cheaper care than a for-profit company. That is common sense and would apply to any type of industry. is still more efficient? Are there private schools out there that can provide a comparable or better education then a public school at a lower cost per student? Regardless of which system you like, if you want everyone to have access to it there has to be some kind of funding and that is another discussion in itself.
  15. As someone who doesn't keep up with these type of topics I do have a question. How do our tax rates compare to the tax rates of these other countries that do provide "free" health care? I do agree that the distribution of current government funds could probably be better, but also the efficiency of those funds needs to be looked at also. Unfortunately there are too many agendas at play to make this an easy fix.