$15/hr for fast food work
- Thread starter Brian
- Start date
PatrickCrazy said:
This is a thread for discussing ideas, not for inane partisan bickering.
Nice whine, patty.
Need a tissue, little guy?
b/w
Exhibit A that the Cons won't go for it. Instead of manning up and admitting that they won't be for it and why, they'll have cryfest over "partisan bickering".
Thanks for the assist, pattycakes!
This is a thread for discussing ideas, not for inane partisan bickering.
Nice whine, patty.
Need a tissue, little guy?
b/w
Exhibit A that the Cons won't go for it. Instead of manning up and admitting that they won't be for it and why, they'll have cryfest over "partisan bickering".
Thanks for the assist, pattycakes!
Cons are also on record as against an increase in the EITC.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/26/business/congress-nears-deal-on-major-business-tax-breaks.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT;.nav=top-news&_r=1
"The emerging tax legislation would make permanent 10 provisions, including an expanded research and development tax credit, which businesses and the Obama administration have wanted to make permanent for years; "
"Left off were the two tax breaks valued most by liberal Democrats: a permanently expanded earned-income credit and a child tax credit for the working poor. Friday night, Republican negotiators announced they would exclude those measures as payback for the president’s executive order on immigration, saying a surge of newly legalized workers would claim the credit, tax aides from both parties said."
Cue the whine of "partisan bickering".
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/26/business/congress-nears-deal-on-major-business-tax-breaks.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT;.nav=top-news&_r=1
"The emerging tax legislation would make permanent 10 provisions, including an expanded research and development tax credit, which businesses and the Obama administration have wanted to make permanent for years; "
"Left off were the two tax breaks valued most by liberal Democrats: a permanently expanded earned-income credit and a child tax credit for the working poor. Friday night, Republican negotiators announced they would exclude those measures as payback for the president’s executive order on immigration, saying a surge of newly legalized workers would claim the credit, tax aides from both parties said."
Cue the whine of "partisan bickering".
Bon Vivant said
atrickCrazy said:
This is a thread for discussing ideas, not for inane partisan bickering.
Nice whine, patty.
Need a tissue, little guy?
b/w
Exhibit A that the Cons won't go for it. Instead of manning up and admitting that they won't be for it and why, they'll have cryfest over "partisan bickering".
Thanks for the assist, pattycakes!
Grow up.
The money for an increased EITC has to come from somewhere, which means someone else will be taxed to fund it, or services will have to be reduced. Per a previous comment, it may not come directly from business owners in the form of increased wages for employees or the like, but it will come from somewhere.
atrickCrazy said:This is a thread for discussing ideas, not for inane partisan bickering.
Nice whine, patty.
Need a tissue, little guy?
b/w
Exhibit A that the Cons won't go for it. Instead of manning up and admitting that they won't be for it and why, they'll have cryfest over "partisan bickering".
Thanks for the assist, pattycakes!
Grow up.
The money for an increased EITC has to come from somewhere, which means someone else will be taxed to fund it, or services will have to be reduced. Per a previous comment, it may not come directly from business owners in the form of increased wages for employees or the like, but it will come from somewhere.
G-Writah said:
Grow up.
The money for an increased EITC has to come from somewhere, which means someone else will be taxed to fund it, or services will have to be reduced. Per a previous comment, it may not come directly from business owners in the form of increased wages for employees or the like, but it will come from somewhere.
Again, Cons aren't for it. No amount of your or patty's kvetching will change that.
More tax credits, especially for those who already pay little into the system, will lead to lower revenues. Guess where the Cons want to make up the difference? Cuts to SS and Medicare. Why? Because they refuse to raise revenues. This is US politics 101, or as patty would say "partisan bickering".
Grow up.
The money for an increased EITC has to come from somewhere, which means someone else will be taxed to fund it, or services will have to be reduced. Per a previous comment, it may not come directly from business owners in the form of increased wages for employees or the like, but it will come from somewhere.
Again, Cons aren't for it. No amount of your or patty's kvetching will change that.
More tax credits, especially for those who already pay little into the system, will lead to lower revenues. Guess where the Cons want to make up the difference? Cuts to SS and Medicare. Why? Because they refuse to raise revenues. This is US politics 101, or as patty would say "partisan bickering".
" You're already seeing it with Walmart increasing the minimum wage at their stores but also closing a bunch of them and cutting hours."
Hmm. I dunno. Paying people more for their work will likely mean more productivity out of those people because they're more satisfied and able to manage other things in their lives, and less likely quit/be fired. So businesses could stand to actually offset higher wages through more profit resulting from less hiring/training, and more sales. So I don't see why it absolutely has to be a trade-off that necessarily leads to businesses reducing job/hours to compensation for higher wages. Hell, they could also take a cut in their profit margin, but I guess that's a whole other topic.
Besides, I do agree that it's the government's responsibility to ensure social justice, and not the job of corporations (although corporate social responsibility can have its advantages too).
"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."
Yeah, I was talking about proactive policies.
Still, I'm no expert on this, but there's gotta be models of successful active labour market policies out there that the US could adopt. I refuse to believe that low-skilled adults have to be "fucked for life". In fact, a friend of mine used to work at the Bread Project out in Emeryville (http://www.breadproject.org/). That sort of thing could be expanded, I'm sure.
Hmm. I dunno. Paying people more for their work will likely mean more productivity out of those people because they're more satisfied and able to manage other things in their lives, and less likely quit/be fired. So businesses could stand to actually offset higher wages through more profit resulting from less hiring/training, and more sales. So I don't see why it absolutely has to be a trade-off that necessarily leads to businesses reducing job/hours to compensation for higher wages. Hell, they could also take a cut in their profit margin, but I guess that's a whole other topic.
Besides, I do agree that it's the government's responsibility to ensure social justice, and not the job of corporations (although corporate social responsibility can have its advantages too).
"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."
Yeah, I was talking about proactive policies.
Still, I'm no expert on this, but there's gotta be models of successful active labour market policies out there that the US could adopt. I refuse to believe that low-skilled adults have to be "fucked for life". In fact, a friend of mine used to work at the Bread Project out in Emeryville (http://www.breadproject.org/). That sort of thing could be expanded, I'm sure.
In the long run, the answer may come down to:
Guillotines.
I nominate Jamie Dimon as the first head to roll. Of course as his head rolled into the basket it would still be contemplating ways to fuck the non-rich sideways up the ass.
The Koch brothers should go stacked up under the same blade.
Guillotines.
I nominate Jamie Dimon as the first head to roll. Of course as his head rolled into the basket it would still be contemplating ways to fuck the non-rich sideways up the ass.
The Koch brothers should go stacked up under the same blade.
Call me a socialist or whatever, but I think a living wage should be paid to any worker.
I also think there needs to be a cultural shift that sees achievement and status measured in impacts made while serving one's community rather than in material accumulation.
I also think there needs to be a cultural shift that sees achievement and status measured in impacts made while serving one's community rather than in material accumulation.
I'm not opposed to giving the EITC to poor people instead of rich people.
But government hand outs should not replace a fair wage.
I can tell you that Oregon's high Minimum wage has not decreased the number of restaurants or fast food chains here. In fact that continue to expand at an alarming rate.
But government hand outs should not replace a fair wage.
I can tell you that Oregon's high Minimum wage has not decreased the number of restaurants or fast food chains here. In fact that continue to expand at an alarming rate.
ketan said:LaserWolf said:
But government hand outs should not replace a fair wage.
Agreed. But some business owners believe that a minimum wage is fair enough. It isn't, of course.
I think that sadly the US's standard of living will fall faster than reasonable minimum wage increases will occur.
At the base is that working the drive through at McDonald's shouldn't be a career. But with the erosion of traditional high-school-to-living-wage-employment jobs (I'm not going to call them low skill, because many are not) in manufacturing and other areas, it's now falling on those kinds of jobs to support families. On top of that, traditional employers are simply employing less people. They don't need them.
It's a scary thing when you think about it, especially at a time when it seems like people are loading themselves down in debt to try to stay ahead of the curve.
In the long term I think the US will adjust back to a standard where it isn't expected that everyone owns a car, dines out regularly, and has piles of disposable consumer goods. Public transportation will expand because of societal necessity and people will live more simple lifestyles ... out of necessity. The shift (back) towards entrepreneurship is because the stability of working for an employer is rapidly fading away.
A higher minimum wage, in my opinion, is treating the symptom, not the cause. I'm not against anyone making a living wage but I think like others have said it will just accelerate the motion toward minimizing human staff and increasing automation and technology.
But government hand outs should not replace a fair wage.
Agreed. But some business owners believe that a minimum wage is fair enough. It isn't, of course.
I think that sadly the US's standard of living will fall faster than reasonable minimum wage increases will occur.
At the base is that working the drive through at McDonald's shouldn't be a career. But with the erosion of traditional high-school-to-living-wage-employment jobs (I'm not going to call them low skill, because many are not) in manufacturing and other areas, it's now falling on those kinds of jobs to support families. On top of that, traditional employers are simply employing less people. They don't need them.
It's a scary thing when you think about it, especially at a time when it seems like people are loading themselves down in debt to try to stay ahead of the curve.
In the long term I think the US will adjust back to a standard where it isn't expected that everyone owns a car, dines out regularly, and has piles of disposable consumer goods. Public transportation will expand because of societal necessity and people will live more simple lifestyles ... out of necessity. The shift (back) towards entrepreneurship is because the stability of working for an employer is rapidly fading away.
A higher minimum wage, in my opinion, is treating the symptom, not the cause. I'm not against anyone making a living wage but I think like others have said it will just accelerate the motion toward minimizing human staff and increasing automation and technology.
G-Writah said:
A higher minimum wage, in my opinion, is treating the symptom, not the cause. I'm not against anyone making a living wage but I think like others have said it will just accelerate the motion toward minimizing human staff and increasing automation and technology.
Yeah.
What are the implications for the singularity? WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE ARE THE MACHINES?!!
A higher minimum wage, in my opinion, is treating the symptom, not the cause. I'm not against anyone making a living wage but I think like others have said it will just accelerate the motion toward minimizing human staff and increasing automation and technology.
Yeah.
What are the implications for the singularity? WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE ARE THE MACHINES?!!
PatrickCrazy said:http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-los-angeles-minimum-wage-unions-20150526-story.html
Removed with the quickness
Removed with the quickness
Similar threads
