DescentBB

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/busines ... 15-n120511

I await the imminent collapse of Seattle's economy, and panic in the streets during the inevitable riots after the flight of decent capitalist people.
Or not.

I bet you could list the positive results they claim they will cause and then after the wage has been phased in the results will be sorely disappointing.

Employers will avoid paying an unnecessary high wage as a matter of good business sense. Hiring more teens to replace the more expensive adults....combining responsibilities for job positions resulting in higher paid but fewer employees, etc.

That's the way it works. And minimum wage represents something like 4 percent of the workers in America and over half of that tiny segment are teens..exempt from this new law!
So how many net increases will show up on the bottom line? Not many if at all.

How many votes do they buy from pandering with empty gestures like this? Enough to cover the 'expense' of delivering the lip service to get it done.
Big null deal.

to date, every Western nation(let alone the US) who has raised minimum wages to keep up to a civilized level has seen their economy surge. Every one.

And what is that "civilized level"? You are citing specific facts surely you can share the source....
Where is our current level relative to this 'civilized' level?

Second, in the example you are posting about they are poised to increase the minimum wage for approximately 2% of the wage earners....are you saying a surge is expected from that?

I think what you have done is taken an issue that is typically polarizing left vs right and attributed all sorts of made up 'facts' about it and not even bothered to consider how insignificant a change this legislation will have because all you care about is partisan cheerleading.

Will Robinson wrote:And what is that "civilized level"? You are citing specific facts surely you can share the source....

fair enough, Will....you hit on the key point. The cases I can think of involved making the minimum equal to the minimal level for one person to work and support him/herself completely in terms of housing, food, basic transportation, which of course varies by locale.

Where is our current level relative to this 'civilized' level?

pretty pathetic, as it wasn't indexed to any cost factors. Really, do you think anyone can live on $7.75 per hour?

Second, in the example you are posting about they are poised to increase the minimum wage for approximately 2% of the wage earners....are you saying a surge is expected from that?

actually, I am awaiting WHAT happens, as I really don't know. It's just that there will be no doubt those predicting doom beforehand. It's much like environmental regulation and safety regs: every time they get tightened, going back in my memory to the auto seat belt, some folks jump up and claim that US industry will shut down, and the economy will tank. It never has yet.
So, bottom line is that I'm not cheerleading anything. I just found this to be interesting. My gut tells me $15 per hour is a bit high, but Seattle might be expensive enough to justify it. Bear in mind, McDonalds workers in Denmark make nearly $20 per hour, with full paid vacation and healthcare bennies.

Slick you claimed a surge in the economy was the result of raising minimum wage, you cited that in rebuttal to my comments, therefore you implied a surge was likely. Now you say you are waiting to see the results...a much more reasonable position.

Your bravado and partisan hyperbole are almost always your first contribution to a discussion. Thus we usually find your comments to be dishonest and condescending.
Why not just talk in terms of what you know instead of fabricating a foundation out of whole cloth?
It's not like you don't have any real knowledge or wisdom...but you just hop right into partisan rhetorical mode like you are more concerned with keeping the dumbmasses on the party plantation than having a genuine discussion with someone holding an opposing viewpoint .

Those are tactics that work well enough to keep the two party's in power but have reduced the quality of representation to an extreme low. Why take part in perpetuating that process?!?

Raising the minimum to 15$ will probably cause some inflation, but not affect the employment of the major corporations like McDonalds or WalMart. (who have large profits)

But it’s affect on small businesses like restaurants and others is a different story, the NewsHour ran a story on this, the other day, and interviewed 3 “progressive” restaurant owners, and they were scared as hell.

They were concerned that having to raise prices would cut business because people won’t spend their money on more expensive non-essentials.

Many other issues were raised that the proponents of this bill seem to ignore.

As a small business man myself, I have a pretty good idea what may happen. And exactly what I would do.

Try a real news source sometime…might help that partisan kink relax a little.

And no reasonable person I know predicts a “surge” only a minor shift of costs from the taxpayer to the consumer. (same person, but with different choices)

callmeslick wrote: Really, do you think anyone can live on $7.75 per hour?

The Obama's Economics Team can't stimulate the economy so they turn to raising the minimum wage as a sop to all their blindly low information voters crowd. Since the Obama team is more interested in having more EPA regulations than getting the economy going ( where a strong economy would preclude any need for a increase in the minimum wage), the attempts to deflect attention from a bad economy to creating a whole working class with no more incentive than to be burger flippers the rest of their lives. No, 7.75 per hour is not a living wage but then school kids and retired folks on a pension aren't looking for a wage they can raise a family on.

woodchip wrote:No, 7.75 per hour is not a living wage but then school kids and retired folks on a pension aren't looking for a wage they can raise a family on.

Are you suggesting that school kids and retirees with pensions are the only folks making minimum wage? Or that people raising families are not making minimum wage?

woody's ignoring that families are now having to work at minimum wage jobs just to support themselves. Minimum wage jobs are no longer the normal stuff of teenagers and summer jobs. I've seen a lot more working age adults working in fast food McJobs than ever before.

woodchip wrote:The Obama's Economics Team can't stimulate the economy...

The BLS and Worldbank appear to disagree with you. Also,

Worldbank wrote:While there is no known formula for stimulating economic growth, data can help policy-makers better understand their countries' economic situations and guide any work toward improvement.

woodchip wrote:No, 7.75 per hour is not a living wage but then school kids and retired folks on a pension aren't looking for a wage they can raise a family on.

Ignorant of the world around you.

Foil wrote:

woodchip wrote:No, 7.75 per hour is not a living wage but then school kids and retired folks on a pension aren't looking for a wage they can raise a family on.

Are you suggesting that school kids and retirees with pensions are the only folks making minimum wage? Or that people raising families are not making minimum wage?

No, only that minimum wage was not for people raising families. Bad economic times force people into min. wage jobs that would otherwise have decent jobs. This is not to say low skilled/educated people cannot find anything other than min. wage jobs but those are a problem of a different catagory. Low skilled/educated people have the option of bettering themselves. With the presentation that it is ok to work for min. wage and for your vote we'll make it better, disincentives people from boot strapping themselves up.

Showing charts of where the economy is at any given time does nothing to prove the relationship between growth and stimulation.

Could easily be a cycle that would have happened anyway.

Could have more growth without the stimulus programs…not saying that is the case…but some charts like that prove nothing.

Spidey wrote:Showing charts of where the economy is at any given time does nothing to prove the relationship between growth and stimulation.

Exactly, and macroeconomics is just as much a religion in that sense. None of the competing economic theories model reality. Our economy is completely intertwined with the global economy and "the current administration" has far less agency in those matters than the haters would like to believe.

@vision: you don't say?.......however, that reality will never stop the haters and fingerpointers.

callmeslick wrote:@vision: you don't say?.......however, that reality will never stop the haters and fingerpointers.

I think it is the 'reality' of you and your party celebrating empty gestures, like raising minimum wage, an 'socioeconomic platitude' that, at best, benefits less than 2% of the workforce and does nothing to address the shrinking workforce or lack of economic growth.
Yea, I'm pretty sure that is what has people pissed off, not the red herring you are trying to stink the conversation up with because if people are forced to seek out minimum wage jobs to raise a family on certainly the level of minimum wage isn't the source of the problem!
America doesn't raise families, or build economic growth, on minimum wage. Maybe you think lifting it up to enough to sustain life is some kind of 'new America' the change you hoped for but that sounds very last century Soviet to me.

woodchip wrote: No, only that minimum wage was not for people raising families. Bad economic times force people into min. wage jobs that would otherwise have decent jobs. This is not to say low skilled/educated people cannot find anything other than min. wage jobs but those are a problem of a different catagory. Low skilled/educated people have the option of bettering themselves. With the presentation that it is ok to work for min. wage and for your vote we'll make it better, disincentives people from boot strapping themselves up.

That may have been true fourty or fifty years ago, but the entire working landscape has completely shifted since then. Gone are the good manufacturing jobs and have now been replaced with service sector jobs. That's your McJob, your StarbucksJob, your waitress/waiter job. To get into the decent jobs you need to go to university. Can't just walk into a factory anymore and get a position they happen to have open.

And since you need to get into university, you need money. Lots of it. Getting a student loan incurs a lot of debt. Debt that can be dealt with when you have a job paying a decent wage. And you can pay off a loan faster on 15/hr than you can on 7.75/hr.

Faster payoff means a better credit raiting. A better credit rating gives you a better shot at getting that nice car you want. or that nice house a couple needs.

An inflated minimum wage is just welfare. The only 'good' thing about that is it does keep the government out of the loop so 100% gets to the recipient.
Consumers will pay the extra cost for goods and services passed on to them by the businesses. And as Spidey mentioned it will drive business away from many places because of the price increase. You can't tamper with the market too much or you create problems like that.

I don't know exactly how much is too much but my guess is $15 an hour is too much for a lot of businesses. I pay $15 as a minimum for a helper in the HVAC trade but I charge $84 an hour plus my mark up on all materials and parts etc. so I can afford it and the work requires some skills and intelligence. The local restaurants probably can't afford to pay hostesses and waiters and busboys $15 an hour without jacking up menu prices considerably.

Raising minimum is no way to fix an economy.

Ferno wrote: To get into the decent jobs you need to go to university. Can't just walk into a factory anymore and get a position they happen to have open.

And since you need to get into university, you need money. Lots of it. Getting a student loan incurs a lot of debt. Debt that can be dealt with when you have a job paying a decent wage. And you can pay off a loan faster on 15/hr than you can on 7.75/hr.

Faster payoff means a better credit raiting. A better credit rating gives you a better shot at getting that nice car you want. or that nice house a couple needs.

So the end result of going to college is a minimum wage job.

Spidey wrote:So the end result of going to college is a minimum wage job.

For too many people, yes. We still have it better than a many countries. Japan has the most PHDs making the least amount of money. Much of the Middle East suffers from "brain drain" -- their brightest get out of school and leave the country right away looking because there are few high-tech jobs. I have a degree and I'm still making about the same as I did 15 years ago but I'm working more and my job is harder. That's just how it is nowadays.

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote: No, only that minimum wage was not for people raising families. Bad economic times force people into min. wage jobs that would otherwise have decent jobs. This is not to say low skilled/educated people cannot find anything other than min. wage jobs but those are a problem of a different catagory. Low skilled/educated people have the option of bettering themselves. With the presentation that it is ok to work for min. wage and for your vote we'll make it better, disincentives people from boot strapping themselves up.

That may have been true fourty or fifty years ago, but the entire working landscape has completely shifted since then. Gone are the good manufacturing jobs and have now been replaced with service sector jobs. That's your McJob, your StarbucksJob, your waitress/waiter job. To get into the decent jobs you need to go to university. Can't just walk into a factory anymore and get a position they happen to have open.

And therein lies the defeatist attitude. I don't know about where you live but auto mechanics are in high demand. Don't need a college degree for that. Had a sewer problem last winter and the plumber charged 300.00 to fix it for only 3 hours worth of work. Not many people willing to work in ★■◆● in the middle of winter. Try going to the different trade unions and see if you can get in on a apprentice program. Again, don't need a college degree. My daughter, to help to get through college, goes to estate sales, She buys low value items and turns around and sells them on ebay for 2x what she bought them all. To keep this short, people like you Ferny are so indoctrinated into believing you need a college degree to generate a good income that you've become brain dead as to all the possibilities to make money that exist in America. What is not taught is gumption and persistence, without which people are forever doomed to be burger flippers.

Ferno wrote:And since you need to get into university, you need money. Lots of it. Getting a student loan incurs a lot of debt. Debt that can be dealt with when you have a job paying a decent wage. And you can pay off a loan faster on 15/hr than you can on 7.75/hr.

Faster payoff means a better credit raiting. A better credit rating gives you a better shot at getting that nice car you want. or that nice house a couple needs.

Or join the military and learn a skill there. To bad we have people like John Kerry ridiculing the idea:

"“You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

vision wrote:

Spidey wrote:So the end result of going to college is a minimum wage job.

For too many people, yes. We still have it better than a many countries. Japan has the most PHDs making the least amount of money. Much of the Middle East suffers from "brain drain" -- their brightest get out of school and leave the country right away looking because there are few high-tech jobs. I have a degree and I'm still making about the same as I did 15 years ago but I'm working more and my job is harder. That's just how it is nowadays.

Yes I know, I was trying to point out the logic failure.

You don’t fix the problem of getting out of college and landing a minimum wage job by raising the minimum wage.

Spidey wrote:
So the end result of going to college is a minimum wage job.

That's usually how it's been working out lately. People go in with their college education and the response is 'sorry the position is filled', or 'sorry, you don't have the qualifications'. Damn shame, really.

So there you are, degree in hand, and the only way you can survive is... minimum wage job.

woodchip wrote:
And therein lies the defeatist attitude. I don't know about where you live but auto mechanics are in high demand. Don't need a college degree for that. Had a sewer problem last winter and the plumber charged 300.00 to fix it for only 3 hours worth of work. Not many people willing to work in ★■◆● in the middle of winter. Try going to the different trade unions and see if you can get in on a apprentice program. Again, don't need a college degree. My daughter, to help to get through college, goes to estate sales, She buys low value items and turns around and sells them on ebay for 2x what she bought them all. To keep this short, people like you Ferny are so indoctrinated into believing you need a college degree to generate a good income that you've become brain dead as to all the possibilities to make money that exist in America. What is not taught is gumption and persistence, without which people are forever doomed to be burger flippers.

Been there, done that. Including the ★■◆● job. I'm in the collision trade and I'm not making a lot of money. I told will all this, but you didn't read it. Otherwise you wouldn't have said this. Hell, a friend of mine told me there's just not much money in hands-on jobs anymore. And he's in upholstery work. Another friend of mine is in construction and people who hire him always want to pay him the lowest they can get away from.

So no, it's not a 'defeatist' attitude. It's reality. Or as my boss (who cut his teeth working on a fishing boat) says, it is what it is.

Or join the military and learn a skill there

Even that's not a guarantee anymore.

Collision trade and you're not making much money???

What do you do?

Because unless you're a wash kid you can make a decent living in the industry.

A good estimator can make 50-85k
same for the tech 55-85k
painters 60-90k
managers 70 -100k +

Even entry level mid techs can make 35k+

CUDA wrote:Even entry level mid techs can make 35k+

Woohoo! Time to raise a family!

vision wrote:

CUDA wrote:Even entry level mid techs can make 35k+

Woohoo! Time to raise a family!

entry level smart ass. right out of school. Not college and no degree required.
typical of you kids today. You want it given to you from the start like your entitled. But in grown up world you realize you need to earn your way. Nothing comes for free.. nice also that you CHOSE to ignore the other wages I posted. Guess that didnt fit your agenda huh?

CUDA wrote:Guess that didnt fit your agenda huh?

Please tell me what my "agenda" is.

Around here, 35k is just piss for money. Wouldn't even be able to afford a three bedroom house and a decent vehicle on that. You'd be in a two bedroom trailer and have a fifteen year old beater to get to and from work with.

~55k you might be able to pay a mortgage on a three bedroom, have (not own) a five year old car and maybe have one child. That's assuming life goes well and you don't have a messy divorce.

It all boils down to one simple fact. No one wants to pay for quality.


As for what I do, I've already answered that in a similar thread. But if you had read that detail, you would not have asked that question.

Can someone please explain to me why someone that is new to a job/industry deserves more than a starting wage?
Why do you think that you should get paid as much as someone that is experienced and has a proven record at what he does. Just because you went to school doesn't mean you are qualified for the position. Just because you went to school doesnt mean you are capable of doing the job and making a profit for my company.







I find it interesting that ferno could take the time to post that he's not going to take the time to post about what he does in the collision industry. CLASSIC

fyi being in the collision industry in the U.S. I've had the missfortune of dealing with BC's (and most of Canadas)single payer collision system. And it's no wonder you dont make a decent wage.
I just read an article from 2000 that said the average income in Canada's collision industry was 35K thats pathetic. And was even pathetic for 2000.
Maybe you should try to compare markets before you whine about how you couldn't live on 35k a year, or maybe get into an industry that pays better.
or at least one where the free market is involved, not cost mandated by the government.

vision wrote:

CUDA wrote:Guess that didnt fit your agenda huh?

Please tell me what my "agenda" is.

Your agenda is to chose the least option and build your case from there ignoring all other data.
A shining example of a scientific mind at work.

Ferno wrote:

Been there, done that. Including the ★■◆● job. I'm in the collision trade and I'm not making a lot of money. I told will all this, but you didn't read it. Otherwise you wouldn't have said this. Hell, a friend of mine told me there's just not much money in hands-on jobs anymore. And he's in upholstery work. Another friend of mine is in construction and people who hire him always want to pay him the lowest they can get away from.

So no, it's not a 'defeatist' attitude. It's reality. Or as my boss (who cut his teeth working on a fishing boat) says, it is what it is.

No, the reality is you have given up. If you wanted to get ahead you'd at least look at contacting Cuda about work and moving to America. There is nothing wrong about networkin and using contacts to get ahead. What is wrong is not using a source where you might double your income. Making excuses as to why you won't just furthers my impression you don't really want to succeed. So from here on out kindly don't complain about lack of opportunities.

In the end, it is possible to live well even on a small wage. It's a matter of your preference and your beliefs about happiness. It all depends on what to you are willing to sacrifice for your happiness
Examples:
One guy works as an electrician, but drives a BMW 740, just because he likes this car.
Couple lives modestly, but they love to travel together, and they have traveled half the planet.
The other guy is a foodie, and it works only for what a tasty meal in expensive restaurants. (By the way, he even spends his vacation part time, for example, in Astrakhan or in Kamchatka or on Baikal, that he had the opportunity unlimited to guzzle black and red caviar, freshly smoked sturgeon, cisco, white salmon, etc.
Another woman who works in a bank, basically does not want to have a car or a vacation home, because she has many friends who are willing to give her car and invited them to live in their country house.
The young guy who had never rested in other countries, but he has two computers at cost 150,000 rubles each.
Another woman who dresses like a beggar and buys food in supermarket economy class constantly invests his money in the purchase of new flats, making them an expensive repair and then sells (she's just crazy about this, and she has no time for anything else ).
And finally, my cousin runs a personal driver, has a modest home and two older machines, but his eight children, education which he spends most of his wage.

Ferno it sounds like you are refusing to move to where the cost of living is less. If you want to live where 50,000 a year barely pays rent etc then you damn well better be smart enough to earn 50k+. If you are not then it is on you.

Stop the presses.

I agree with Sigma

woodchip wrote:Your agenda is to chose the least option and build your case from there ignoring all other data.

This sentence is incoherent. What is the "least option?"

vision wrote:

woodchip wrote:Your agenda is to chose the least option and build your case from there ignoring all other data.

This sentence is incoherent. What is the "least option?"

Don't play dumb:

"Even entry level mid techs can make 35k+"

You chose this to make your statement about what a family can't live on. Like I said...the least option that Cuda posted.

So, people don't have families before they finish college, or high school?

They shouldn’t…but that’s another story.

CUDA wrote: I find it interesting that ferno could take the time to post that he's not going to take the time to post about what he does in the collision industry. CLASSIC

I wanted to see if you actually read it a while back. Clearly, you didn't.

What's really classic is you did the exact same thing you accuse others of. You know that ★■◆● doesn't wash with me.

woodchip wrote:No, the reality is you have given up. If you wanted to get ahead you'd at least look at contacting Cuda about work and moving to America. There is nothing wrong about networkin and using contacts to get ahead. What is wrong is not using a source where you might double your income. Making excuses as to why you won't just furthers my impression you don't really want to succeed. So from here on out kindly don't complain about lack of opportunities.

Actually I did. He never got back to me about it.

Again, this isn't about excuses. Have a look at vancouver's housing market for instance. You'd be paying almost half a million for a house that twenty years ago went for around 125,000. How does a house become worth four times what it originally was over the years when nothing was added to it? I don't know, do you?

Have a look at the shift that's happened due to it. More and more people are either sticking with renting or moving back in with their parents.



I was talking to one of the bodymen today about what it's cost him to go to school. Taking lost wages, food, housing, fuel and other miscellaneous costs, total bill was 15,000. Now, I'm sure if the starting wage was higher, that bill would have been a lot easier to swallow. Sure he's a journeyman now, but he's still driving around this piece of ★■◆● car that he got for free.

As much as people disagree with it, a higher starting wage might make it easier for more people to get a better education, get better employment and be more successful in life. For the amount of time you spend working at a higher wage, you'd be able to start your education sooner than you would if you were earning a lower wage.

Actually I did. He never got back to me about it.

Are you claiming you contacted me about a job?