Why the Republicans just don't get it (Minimum Wage)

[DEAD7]

yeah that i've seen that limit estimated to hoover around the 3 dollar mark and i suspect it'd be even lower than that. They'd pay what they could get away with and as people will always take SOME income over NO INCOME wtf you gonna do?
The market is very much like fire, lest alone it consumes everything burns hot for a time and then dies. The goal is to keep a good fire going for a long time, not a hot fire for a short time. The market's appetite overpowers it's intellect, it will always try to consume everything, that's the nature of capitalism.

You're thinking of corporatism/fascism, but that's a different conversation for a different thread.

Free market capitalism has never been implemented so I cant say what will happen anymore than you can you can say what will with 100% accuracy. What we can say ideological differences aside, is that government intervention has failed on nearly every front, and is losing all of its economic battles.

 

[CrimsonTider]

I didn't say all that but you should be thinking about saving. After savings comes investing. You gotta change your mindset. Your own savings is going to help you before the government.

I'm speaking form personal fukking opinion. You're talking to someone who made a $23.26 principal payment on her car note. The bytch is down to $1900 and will be paid off next month. In my mind, I'd rather be putting that same small amount into savings than having it go out the fukking door. 10 million pennies is $10,000. I pick up pennies off the ground and jar them. I still wrap coins. There is NO amount that I would consider small enough to save.

Maybe I'm just crazy.

You are crazy and what does this have to do with anything

Are you working full time and still live below the poverty line?

Because that is what this is about.

and this right here is where your argument falls apart

they dont make anywhere near that much per meal.

its been said that they make literally a cent per dollar spent.

You need to understand the ideas of "volume sales" vs "premium sales"

theres a reason they sell cheap food. A good example is the cheap gas station vs the gas station that charges 20-30ct more per gallon....ever wonder why?

What does This have to do with anything?

 

[-G$-]

The gist if the argument is @Rawtid is claiming the reason for the hours is because there are not enough qualified candidates In the marketplace to hire and people are working extra hours because of the lack of qualified applicants

I argued that the reason for these hours are the workload, culture and the people at the top not willing to trim profit margins by Hiring more staff vs using the staff there until they're burnout out.

i don't think you can reduce any profession down to that simple of one side or the other argument. even w/in law and finance. of course management in any profession is responsible for efficiency first and foremost. if that means squeezing every single ounce of productivity out of every employee and avoiding additional hires that is just a part of the process.

but she's not wrong either. a lot of people say they want to be in finance, want to be an analyst, want the big banking money. but when it comes down to the pool of people who are actually truly qualified (and that comes down educational background, personality type, understanding of the business, ability to interact in team setting, thick skin, quick thinking etc.) the pool of people really becomes much much much smaller. and unfortunately for these positions the hiring and training process is an enormous commitment from a time and capital perspective. that's why the interview process is so stringent for these analyst programs. in reality a huge majority of the people who try to get in are not cut out for it. so the talent pool is smaller than you'd think.

when you commit to one of these positions you're not doing so w the assumption that management is going to add more people when you start feeling overworked. it comes w the territory and that's the industry is so competitive to begin w. goes back to my analogy in my previous post, i'm sure a lot of the 40k/yr 40hr/wk people think the 90-100k sounds sexy, but most of them wouldn't last a week in an analyst's chair.

i think the argument is being over simplified.

 

[Rawtid]

You are crazy and what does this have to do with anything

Are you working full time and still live below the poverty line?

Because that is what this is about.

My comments were based on someone working minimum wage having, $20 extra after bills and food are paid, the example given in the original post. My whole thing is that saving that extra money, no matter the amount is more beneficial than spending it.

 

[Rawtid]

and unfortunately for these positions the hiring and training process is an enormous commitment from a time and capital perspective.

And it's not just for finance jobs, it's for any job where it takes YEARS of industry exposure through education and/or experience to be any good at it, not even counting any personal qualities they are looking for. Training someone off the street is a large investment and it's risky.

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

That's the business model though. THey don't make money because they sell a few things with large margins, they make money because they sell a shyt ton of stuff at a profit, however small. FFS 4 billion in profits...are we not seeing that? Keep in mind that's last qtr 15B is more what they'll make in profit this year.
So alittle math here
yearly salary for minimum wage is 15080. ($7.25)
Poverty line in america for a family of 4 is 23,550 (http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/tools-for-advocates/guides/federal-poverty-guidelines.html)

Using numbers from this report/article
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/23/walmart-salary_n_4151131.html
475k of the 1 million store workers already make over the poverty line.
this leaves 525k (i'll assume they all make minimum wage)
I'll also assume they're all famlies of 4.
In order to make the "poverty line" you have to be paid 11.32 an hour. So walmart would have to give every minimum wage employee (525k) a raise of (11.32-7.25) = 4.07 (keep in mind not all those 525k are making minimum wage in actuality.
Now $1 a year raise equates to an increase of salary by $2080. So a 4 dollar increase to each worker is $8320 per worker a year.
Walmart will have to give 525k employees $8320 a year more to meet poverty level.
So 525k X 8320 = 4,368,000,000.
That's how much more walmart would have to pay its employees in order to make ALL of it's employees making less than poverty level wages. Keep in mind this is highballing their own numbers. Now if they make in AFTER TAX profit 15b a year...would they be forced to shut down, or even increase prices in order to stay "afloat"? Fuk now. Now if they wanted to continue to make 15B in profit then absolutely, but the argumetn that they HAVE TO increase prices is BS. They are profitable and could clearly afford the extra burden AND still be profitable. This is before any price increase or increases they might see in sales as a result of their own employees shopping at their stores now that they have more purchasing power.

I understand the economies of scale aspect of it.

I'm also going to assume like most corporations 30-40% of their profits come from wall st.

you got to break it down by store and would it be viable for each store.

and by the way I'm not against a hike I'm the minimum wage in just looking at it from all angles.

 

[Brown_Pride]

I understand the economies of scale aspect of it.

I'm also going to assume like most corporations 30-40% of their profits come from wall st.

you got to break it down by store and would it be viable for each store.

and by the way I'm not against a hike I'm the minimum wage in just looking at it from all angles.

i hear you. Personally i think each state should be able to (within reason) base their minimum wage off of their own economic numbers. $7 in LA and NY is not the same $7 in New Mexico or some small town in Wyoming.

 

[CrimsonTider]

And it's not just for finance jobs, it's for any job where it takes YEARS of industry exposure through education and/or experience to be any good at it, not even counting any personal qualities they are looking for. Training someone off the street is a large investment and it's risky.

i don't think you can reduce any profession down to that simple of one side or the other argument. even w/in law and finance. of course management in any profession is responsible for efficiency first and foremost. if that means squeezing every single ounce of productivity out of every employee and avoiding additional hires that is just a part of the process.

but she's not wrong either. a lot of people say they want to be in finance, want to be an analyst, want the big banking money. but when it comes down to the pool of people who are actually truly qualified (and that comes down educational background, personality type, understanding of the business, ability to interact in team setting, thick skin, quick thinking etc.) the pool of people really becomes much much much smaller. and unfortunately for these positions the hiring and training process is an enormous commitment from a time and capital perspective. that's why the interview process is so stringent for these analyst programs. in reality a huge majority of the people who try to get in are not cut out for it. so the talent pool is smaller than you'd think.

when you commit to one of these positions you're not doing so w the assumption that management is going to add more people when you start feeling overworked. it comes w the territory and that's the industry is so competitive to begin w. goes back to my analogy in my previous post, i'm sure a lot of the 40k/yr 40hr/wk people think the 90-100k sounds sexy, but most of them wouldn't last a week in an analyst's chair.

i think the argument is being over simplified.

But it is still no proof that these jobs are in abundance.

These jobs are for people that have a the background and training for those jobs

@Rawtid is trying to claim that people shouldn't be unemployed or working for meager earning because of " all of these jobs that can't find qualified candidates"

I'm just looking for proof of this assertion

 

[Trip]

I argued that the reason for these hours are the workload, culture and the people at the top not willing to trim profit margins by Hiring more staff vs using the staff there until they're burnout out.

Similar to your beloved municipal workers collecting endless overtime...and they have no profit margins to answer to.

 

[CrimsonTider]

Similar to your beloved municipal workers collecting endless overtime...and they have no profit margins to answer to.

Nope

 

[Trip]

Nope

Yes actually. OT at time and a half could go to a younger person out of work, which would actually be more efficient. Nah, cant have that.

 

[Liquid]

Yes actually. OT at time and a half could go to a younger person out of work, which would actually be more efficient. Nah, cant have that.

but that might mean giving up one of my benz's. I need ALL of them

go push your Kia out of my parking spot

 

[CrimsonTider]

Yes actually. OT at time and a half could go to a younger person out of work, which would actually be more efficient. Nah, cant have that.

People should be paid for their work though

In the financial field those people are exempt from collections overtime because they are professionals

 

[Trip]

People should be paid for their work though

In the financial field those people are exempt from collections overtime because they are professionals

Who's saying they shouldn't be paid? Im saying OT work can be replaced by another worker instead of employing just one person.

Of course they're exempt...I'm not arguing they shouldnt be. But the gross negligence of funds is just as bad in the public sector you defend tooth and nail. Folks get OT to be physically be at work.

You're arguing the finance field doesnt hire enough people...why pigeon hole it to just that?

 

[CrimsonTider]

Who's saying they shouldn't be paid? Im saying OT work can be replaced by another worker.

Of course they're exempt...I'm not arguing they shouldnt be. But the gross negligence of funds is just as bad in the public sector you defend tooth and nail. Folks get OT to be physically be at work.

Oh yeah, you're right about that

I don't defend the public sector tooth and nail.

I just believe that the idea is perfect to combat out of control capitalism but the execution is awful