Proudiddy

Sen. Elizabeth Warren Makes Case for $22-an-hour Minimum Wage.

72 posts in this topic

Oh I admit such is an issue. The ideal thing would to have reached a high level of your craft so you are in demand at the plant/site/job that NEEDS you and will pay you better than the last.

I don't know how that applies to min wage tho...

It's wage warfare....

My question is how come wages have not increased at a time of record profits and record salaries at the top?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw your post above my last one Kurb, and agreed again.

My issue has always been that if every unskilled laborer just went on strike, our entire economy and way of life, from the poorest to the richest, would collapse. So, they should at least be paid for their services because they are willing to do what many aren't and it is the foundation of our economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is though...the amount of profit that a Walmart worker brings is actually very high. When I worked at Sears in college, my contribution per hour (profit, not revenue) was several times higher than my actual salary. These numbers were readily accessible and included on your commission report each week. I was paid commission and earned about twice what an average Walmart worker makes in a store that did a fraction of the business a Walmart would.

Employees at Sears and HHGregg can actually make a livable salary because they're paid commission on what they sell, but at Walmart, Target, Best Buy, and countless other retail stores people cannot make a livable wage even though their contribution to store profits is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy higher than what they are paid.

The retail environment used to pay many people a livable wage, but the rise of mega-stores destroyed many of these jobs and replaced them with minimum wage or slightly above minimum wage jobs.

I worked at Sears in college. I loved how they broke that out on the paycheck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to find if me or you said "culturlely skilled" I can't remember the context of what I as trying to say when I said it...anyways.

IMO If min wage goes up---> prices of everything goes up, so really you aren't gaining anything.

This may be a fallacy.

That said I am enjoying everyone's opinions.

I think it is a fallacy, although I could be wrong, but I think it is used to scare the little people into not wanting better. And those forms of conditioning have been in place since social hierarchies have existed.

And I think you said "culturally skilled" originally, so I put it in quotations, not to use it sarcastically, but because it was a relevant term, lol.

I look at it like this... Just as we have been educated on how mortgages work and how the rules and regulations regarding them were necessary, we have been led to believe the same about wages and the economy. Look at what Iceland did with mortgages. I don't see them in a state of civil unrest and chaos.

Every class of people below that 1% are entitled to more and it's possible to give them more, we're just led to believe that it is against our best interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's easy to say when you aren't running the cooperation.

You make hammers.

Every hammer costs 5 dollars to make while the wage is 10$ per hour. 3 of those 5 dollars are wage costs. You sell the hammer for 10$ making 5

Government doubles min wage to 20$ per hour. Now your cost of hammers is 8$ and you are only making 2$ per hammer. You have lost over half of your profit.

Do you shrug your shoulders and say, welp thats tough on me, I will just deal.

Or do you sell your hammer for 13$ and keep making that 5$ per?

I would contract with the Government and sell the hammers for 100$ each, but I'm a dick like that.

See you are taking a snapshot. What if the cost to produce a hammer decreased hypothetically by a dollar every year because I could make them faster or cheaper.

If it cost $5 lat year and it cost $4 this year....what are you Johnny Hammer Corp going to do with that extra $1 in profit?

And there's my rub. The hammersmith doesn't deserve the whole portion but the 10% increase but they do deserve some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See you are taking a snapshot. What if the cost to produce a hammer decreased hypothetically by a dollar every year because I could make them faster or cheaper.

If it cost $5 lat year and it cost $4 this year....what are you Johnny Hammer Corp going to do with that extra $1 in profit?

And there's my rub. The hammersmith doesn't deserve the whole portion but the 10% increase but they do deserve some.

I would go something along the lines of .50 to the worker for his good work and .50 to the owner b.c he is the owner.

But I agree with your reality as of right now 2$ goes to the owner b/c he is the owner and the worker takes a pay cut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supply and demand.

Nobody needs employees right now. And thanks to the government sucking more and more private sector cash out of the system to bankroll their elections, employees will not be needed for a good while. So, who cares, they can sign up or go on disability. Nothing matters any longer. Quit worrying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would go something along the lines of .50 to the worker for his good work and .50 to the owner b.c he is the owner.

But I agree with your reality as of right now 2$ goes to the owner b/c he is the owner and the worker takes a pay cut.

I'm a big fan of tying people wages to their productivity/profitability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supply and demand.

Nobody needs employees right now. And thanks to the government sucking more and more private sector cash out of the system to bankroll their elections, employees will not be needed for a good while. So, who cares, they can sign up or go on disability. Nothing matters any longer. Quit worrying.

And Kurb...here is the republican response

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Kurb...here is the republican response

that is actually the frustrated conservative's response.

One that is based on what has happened over the last 12 years where the country spends more than it has, and borrows like there is no tomorrow. All rules of economics seem to no longer apply. Need to get re elected? Just promise to give everyone a bunch of stuff and demonize your opponent as one who won't give you as much. Don't have the cash? Who cares. Spend it anyway.

This is the new rules for operating a country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • A pro? Cool. Just quit crying in the panthers main forum about the quality of threads and talking about how you're going to leave. That's not what a troll does. If you're going to troll troll right
    • Naziism wasn't really socialism and in fact one of their first orders of business was to eradicate Communists from Germany. Also, trying to meld Nazis with socialists is disingenuous because the issue with Nazi Germany wasn't their economy which actually recovered quite well under Nazi rule, but the first part of their name.  "Nationalist".  That is what drove them to war crimes and mass murder of Jews and immigrants. And the party that currently most mirrors a form of nationalism close to Naziism is the Republican Party.  With heavy anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, criminalization of minorities, etc etc rhetoric.  
    • Looked at both your posts, they didn't improve so I will pick this one. Cherrypicking a stat or six game period that was decent hardly justifies that we were middle of the pack. First of all this discussion was about cornerbacks not defensive ends so your run defense and sack stats means little. Newsflash. We were top 10 in rush defense because teams didn't have to run on us when they could pick up chunks in passing the ball. We were 26th in number of rushing attempts by the opponent meaning 25 teams had the opponent rush more times than we did.  And we were second in sacks for the same reason. Teams passed all the time on us giving us many more times to sack them.  We had the 6th most passes thrown against us. We were second in sacks behind Arizona- 47   to their 48. But they had 547 attempts against them versus our 612. So we had a sack for every 13 attempts. Arizona had a sack every 11 attempts. Even Buffalo which ranked 9th in sacks with 39 had the same one sack for every 13 passes attempted as we did. Teams completed passes almost 70% of the time which also ranks us 29th. We were tied for 22nd with 4 other teams in giving up 7.5 yards per pass play.  We were 21st in yards surrendered in total defense. And in points surrendered we were 26th not 15th. That was offense not defense that was 15th. With all the offense and Shula bashing I can understand why you might think the defense was better than the offense but it was the other way around. TL,DR Wrong we are one of the worse defenses in the league no matter how you look at it.