$15/hr for fast food work
- Thread starter Brian
- Start date
HarveyCanal said:hogginthefogg said:Meanwhile, in California: Gov. Jerry Brown endorsed a bill that would raise California's minimum wage to $10 an hour by January 2016.
= even more Californians moving to Austin.
Thanks.
Yep, because all those people who will make more money are going to want to move to Texas now.
LOL, indeed.
= even more Californians moving to Austin.
Thanks.
Yep, because all those people who will make more money are going to want to move to Texas now.
LOL, indeed.
PatrickCrazy said:http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-applebees-presto-tablets-20131203,0,5940819.story#axzz2mcffhq9f
Theyve had these things at the Umami Burgers around LA. I had mines taken away from me last time for playing around too much, good luck dealing with the 5 year old who has slightly less manners than I.
Theyve had these things at the Umami Burgers around LA. I had mines taken away from me last time for playing around too much, good luck dealing with the 5 year old who has slightly less manners than I.
It's funny how the RWNJs cry over the possibility of paying a quarter more for a Big Whoop but don't think subsidizing the work force for Wal-Mart heir billionaires is a bad idea.
Are RWNJs born wearing kneepads or what?
Also, fuck Peyton Manning.
http://www.tmz.com/2013/11/23/peyton-manning-papa-johns-armed-robbery-denver-employees-quit/
I hope he gets hit so hard this week that the field will have to be grid-searched for bits of vertebrae.
Are RWNJs born wearing kneepads or what?
Also, fuck Peyton Manning.
http://www.tmz.com/2013/11/23/peyton-manning-papa-johns-armed-robbery-denver-employees-quit/
I hope he gets hit so hard this week that the field will have to be grid-searched for bits of vertebrae.
The_Hook_Up said:Rockadelic said:Nabozo said:
So I have two questions.
1) Should all of these(as well as the many other) occupations get a 50% raise as well?
b/w
2) is there ANY occupation that you feel $8.20 an hour is fair pay for?
1) Yes
2) For an adult? No. If you are going to hire an adult to do ANYTHING for you, I would say 12 dollars an hour would be the absolute minimum.
8 bucks an hour is for a 12 year old bagging your leaves, walking your dog, washing your car.
So if you were a business owner, you would pay different groups of people differently based on their needs?
I can't imagine any scenario where someone should be paid for anything other than their actual contribution (amount and quality of work completed).
So I have two questions.
1) Should all of these(as well as the many other) occupations get a 50% raise as well?
b/w
2) is there ANY occupation that you feel $8.20 an hour is fair pay for?
1) Yes
2) For an adult? No. If you are going to hire an adult to do ANYTHING for you, I would say 12 dollars an hour would be the absolute minimum.
8 bucks an hour is for a 12 year old bagging your leaves, walking your dog, washing your car.
So if you were a business owner, you would pay different groups of people differently based on their needs?
I can't imagine any scenario where someone should be paid for anything other than their actual contribution (amount and quality of work completed).
SmallAxeRick said:I can't imagine any scenario where someone should be paid for anything other than their actual contribution (amount and quality of work completed).
[looks at wall street CEO bonuses]
[looks at wall street CEO bonuses]
[looks at wall street CEO bonuses]How much do you think Wall Street CEOs should get paid?
Irrelevant.
Better Than Raising the Minimum Wage
Help Americans who need it with a major, carefully crafted expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit.
The American Dream promises that a combination of education, hard work and good behavior can move any citizen from humble beginnings to at least reasonable success. And for many, that promise has been fulfilled. At the extreme, we have the Forbes 400, most of whom did not come from privileged backgrounds.
Recently, however, the economic rewards flowing to people with specialized talents have grown dramatically faster than those going to equally decent men and women possessing more commonplace skills. In 1982, the first year the Forbes 400 was compiled, those listed had a combined net worth of $93 billion. Today, the 400 possess $2.3 trillion, up 2,400% in slightly more than three decades, a period in which the median household income rose only about 180%.
Meanwhile, a huge number of their fellow citizens have been living the American Nightmare—behaving well and working hard but barely getting by. In 1982, 15% of Americans were living below the poverty level; in 2013 the proportion was nearly the same, a dismaying 14.5%. In recent decades, our country’s rising tide has not lifted the boats of the poor.
No conspiracy lies behind this depressing fact: The poor are most definitely not poor because the rich are rich. Nor are the rich undeserving. Most of them have contributed brilliant innovations or managerial expertise to America’s well-being. We all live far better because of Henry Ford, Steve Jobs, Sam Walton and the like.
Instead, this widening gap is an inevitable consequence of an advanced market-based economy. Think back to the agrarian America of only 200 years ago. Most jobs could then be ably performed by most people. In a world where only primitive machinery and animals were available to aid farmers, the difference in productivity between the most talented among them and those with ordinary skills was modest.
Many other jobs of that time could also be carried out by almost any willing worker. True, some laborers would outdo others in intelligence or hustle, but the market value of their output would not differ much from that of the less talented.
Visualize an overlay graphic that positioned the job requirements of that day atop the skills of the early American labor force. Those two elements of employment would have lined up reasonably well. Not today. A comparable overlay would leave much of the labor force unmatched to the universe of attractive jobs.
That mismatch is neither the fault of the market system nor the fault of the disadvantaged individuals. It is simply a consequence of an economic engine that constantly requires more high-order talents while reducing the need for commodity-like tasks.
The remedy usually proposed for this mismatch is education. Indeed, a top-notch school system available to all is hugely important. But even with the finest educational system in the world, a significant portion of the population will continue, in a nation of great abundance, to earn no more than a bare subsistence.
To see why that is true, imagine we lived in a sports-based economy. In such a marketplace, I would be a flop. You could supply me with the world’s best instruction, and I could endlessly strive to improve my skills. But, alas, on the gridiron or basketball court I would never command even a minimum wage. The brutal truth is that an advanced economic system, whether it be geared to physical or mental skills, will leave a great many people behind.
In my mind, the country’s economic policies should have two main objectives. First, we should wish, in our rich society, for every person who is willing to work to receive income that will provide him or her a decent lifestyle. Second, any plan to do that should not distort our market system, the key element required for growth and prosperity.
That second goal crumbles in the face of any plan to sizably increase the minimum wage. I may wish to have all jobs pay at least $15 an hour. But that minimum would almost certainly reduce employment in a major way, crushing many workers possessing only basic skills. Smaller increases, though obviously welcome, will still leave many hardworking Americans mired in poverty.
The better answer is a major and carefully crafted expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which currently goes to millions of low-income workers. Payments to eligible workers diminish as their earnings increase. But there is no disincentive effect: A gain in wages always produces a gain in overall income. The process is simple: You file a tax return, and the government sends you a check.
In essence, the EITC rewards work and provides an incentive for workers to improve their skills. Equally important, it does not distort market forces, thereby maximizing employment.
The existing EITC needs much improvement. Fraud is a big problem; penalties for it should be stiffened. There should be widespread publicity that workers can receive free and convenient filing help. An annual payment is now the rule; monthly installments would make more sense, since they would discourage people from taking out loans while waiting for their refunds to come through. Dollar amounts should be increased, particularly for those earning the least.
There is no perfect system, and some people, of course, are unable or unwilling to work. But the goal of the EITC—a livable income for everyone who works—is both appropriate and achievable for a great and prosperous nation. Let’s replace the American Nightmare with an American Promise: America will deliver a decent life for anyone willing to work.
Help Americans who need it with a major, carefully crafted expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit.
The American Dream promises that a combination of education, hard work and good behavior can move any citizen from humble beginnings to at least reasonable success. And for many, that promise has been fulfilled. At the extreme, we have the Forbes 400, most of whom did not come from privileged backgrounds.
Recently, however, the economic rewards flowing to people with specialized talents have grown dramatically faster than those going to equally decent men and women possessing more commonplace skills. In 1982, the first year the Forbes 400 was compiled, those listed had a combined net worth of $93 billion. Today, the 400 possess $2.3 trillion, up 2,400% in slightly more than three decades, a period in which the median household income rose only about 180%.
Meanwhile, a huge number of their fellow citizens have been living the American Nightmare—behaving well and working hard but barely getting by. In 1982, 15% of Americans were living below the poverty level; in 2013 the proportion was nearly the same, a dismaying 14.5%. In recent decades, our country’s rising tide has not lifted the boats of the poor.
No conspiracy lies behind this depressing fact: The poor are most definitely not poor because the rich are rich. Nor are the rich undeserving. Most of them have contributed brilliant innovations or managerial expertise to America’s well-being. We all live far better because of Henry Ford, Steve Jobs, Sam Walton and the like.
Instead, this widening gap is an inevitable consequence of an advanced market-based economy. Think back to the agrarian America of only 200 years ago. Most jobs could then be ably performed by most people. In a world where only primitive machinery and animals were available to aid farmers, the difference in productivity between the most talented among them and those with ordinary skills was modest.
Many other jobs of that time could also be carried out by almost any willing worker. True, some laborers would outdo others in intelligence or hustle, but the market value of their output would not differ much from that of the less talented.
Visualize an overlay graphic that positioned the job requirements of that day atop the skills of the early American labor force. Those two elements of employment would have lined up reasonably well. Not today. A comparable overlay would leave much of the labor force unmatched to the universe of attractive jobs.
That mismatch is neither the fault of the market system nor the fault of the disadvantaged individuals. It is simply a consequence of an economic engine that constantly requires more high-order talents while reducing the need for commodity-like tasks.
The remedy usually proposed for this mismatch is education. Indeed, a top-notch school system available to all is hugely important. But even with the finest educational system in the world, a significant portion of the population will continue, in a nation of great abundance, to earn no more than a bare subsistence.
To see why that is true, imagine we lived in a sports-based economy. In such a marketplace, I would be a flop. You could supply me with the world’s best instruction, and I could endlessly strive to improve my skills. But, alas, on the gridiron or basketball court I would never command even a minimum wage. The brutal truth is that an advanced economic system, whether it be geared to physical or mental skills, will leave a great many people behind.
In my mind, the country’s economic policies should have two main objectives. First, we should wish, in our rich society, for every person who is willing to work to receive income that will provide him or her a decent lifestyle. Second, any plan to do that should not distort our market system, the key element required for growth and prosperity.
That second goal crumbles in the face of any plan to sizably increase the minimum wage. I may wish to have all jobs pay at least $15 an hour. But that minimum would almost certainly reduce employment in a major way, crushing many workers possessing only basic skills. Smaller increases, though obviously welcome, will still leave many hardworking Americans mired in poverty.
The better answer is a major and carefully crafted expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which currently goes to millions of low-income workers. Payments to eligible workers diminish as their earnings increase. But there is no disincentive effect: A gain in wages always produces a gain in overall income. The process is simple: You file a tax return, and the government sends you a check.
In essence, the EITC rewards work and provides an incentive for workers to improve their skills. Equally important, it does not distort market forces, thereby maximizing employment.
The existing EITC needs much improvement. Fraud is a big problem; penalties for it should be stiffened. There should be widespread publicity that workers can receive free and convenient filing help. An annual payment is now the rule; monthly installments would make more sense, since they would discourage people from taking out loans while waiting for their refunds to come through. Dollar amounts should be increased, particularly for those earning the least.
There is no perfect system, and some people, of course, are unable or unwilling to work. But the goal of the EITC—a livable income for everyone who works—is both appropriate and achievable for a great and prosperous nation. Let’s replace the American Nightmare with an American Promise: America will deliver a decent life for anyone willing to work.
Thanks for sharing.
The EITC seems like a more broadly agreeable way to achieve livable incomes for the poor because it doesn't require business owners to do anything (e.g., reduce profits, reduce workforce size). It still would require politicians on the right (by way of the public) to be okay with "major" wealth redistribution. So it would still require those on the right to agree that there is a problem that needs fixing in the first place. My own research in the Canadian context suggests that people with right-leaning worldviews are less likely (than those on the left) to perceive inequality as a problem that needs fixing by the gov't. So it would help if someone like the Koch Brothers wrote this instead of Warren Buffett.
This also wouldn't do anything to improve the employability of the poor - a fairer education system and more affordable/free skills training opportunities would help there, but there also needs to be more done to improve the well-being of poor kids in the first 5 years of life, in my experience.
The EITC seems like a more broadly agreeable way to achieve livable incomes for the poor because it doesn't require business owners to do anything (e.g., reduce profits, reduce workforce size). It still would require politicians on the right (by way of the public) to be okay with "major" wealth redistribution. So it would still require those on the right to agree that there is a problem that needs fixing in the first place. My own research in the Canadian context suggests that people with right-leaning worldviews are less likely (than those on the left) to perceive inequality as a problem that needs fixing by the gov't. So it would help if someone like the Koch Brothers wrote this instead of Warren Buffett.
This also wouldn't do anything to improve the employability of the poor - a fairer education system and more affordable/free skills training opportunities would help there, but there also needs to be more done to improve the well-being of poor kids in the first 5 years of life, in my experience.
Can't see the Cons going for an increase in the EITC. Not too long ago, those who benefit the most from the EITC were vilified as moochers, takers, and deadbeats. They are the 47% who pay no federal income tax. The 2012 GOP nominee personally called them out, and said it wasn't his job to worry about them.
The idea that Cons will increase the amount of money that these "moochers/takers" get back from system that the Cons wrongfully believe they pay zero in to is a fantasy.
The idea that Cons will increase the amount of money that these "moochers/takers" get back from system that the Cons wrongfully believe they pay zero in to is a fantasy.
Bon Vivant said:Can't see the Cons going for an increase in the EITC. Not too long ago, those who benefit the most from the EITC were vilified as moochers, takers, and deadbeats. They are the 47% who pay no federal income tax. The 2012 GOP nominee personally called them out, and said it wasn't his job to worry about them.
The idea that Cons will increase the amount of money that these "moochers/takers" get back from system that the Cons wrongfully believe they pay zero in to is a fantasy.
This is a thread for discussing ideas, not for inane partisan bickering.
The idea that Cons will increase the amount of money that these "moochers/takers" get back from system that the Cons wrongfully believe they pay zero in to is a fantasy.
This is a thread for discussing ideas, not for inane partisan bickering.
ketan said:This also wouldn't do anything to improve the employability of the poor - a fairer education system and more affordable/free skills training opportunities would help there, but there also needs to be more done to improve the well-being of poor kids in the first 5 years of life, in my experience.
I think EIC changes definitely increases or at least maintains the immediate employment of low wage labor vs minimum wage increases that have widespread popularity. You're already seeing it with Walmart increasing the minimum wage at their stores but also closing a bunch of them and cutting hours. If you're able to work at a job for a longer period of time and show sustained employment, that in itself increases your employment opportunities. Raising the minimum wage shafts the bottom x% who probably are going to be less employable anyway than their coworkers.
Definitely agree with you on all the things (esp believe proactive >>>>> reactive solutions) that can be done to improve employment opportunities but 30-40 year olds who worked at Walmart or McDonalds their entire life are going to have dim job prospects no matter what training programs or education they go through. That same profile is very unlikely to have gone to college and extremely unlikely to go to college after a certain age. That alone is going to greatly restrict any opportunities in life. This is a sizable portion of the US population and basically an entire generation of people who are fucked for life.
I think EIC changes definitely increases or at least maintains the immediate employment of low wage labor vs minimum wage increases that have widespread popularity. You're already seeing it with Walmart increasing the minimum wage at their stores but also closing a bunch of them and cutting hours. If you're able to work at a job for a longer period of time and show sustained employment, that in itself increases your employment opportunities. Raising the minimum wage shafts the bottom x% who probably are going to be less employable anyway than their coworkers.
Definitely agree with you on all the things (esp believe proactive >>>>> reactive solutions) that can be done to improve employment opportunities but 30-40 year olds who worked at Walmart or McDonalds their entire life are going to have dim job prospects no matter what training programs or education they go through. That same profile is very unlikely to have gone to college and extremely unlikely to go to college after a certain age. That alone is going to greatly restrict any opportunities in life. This is a sizable portion of the US population and basically an entire generation of people who are fucked for life.
Similar threads
