oletiger;1742561 wrote:You do realize union contracts are tied directly to minimum wage, it goes up they get a raise.
Make sense now why Dems push it?

Gosh a ruddies to help people make a living wage.

Bio-Hazzzzard;1742557 wrote:Unfortunately there is no anecdotal potion to fix the people who choose to feed off of the liberal nipple, I sure didn't get mine that way.

gosh a ruddies, self praise is such an admirable quality.

New York state could be next, with the state Wage Board on Wednesday backing a $15 wage for fast-food workers, something Gov. Andrew Cuomo has supported

Fast food workers flip hamburgers to the sound of a ding/buzzer. They drop french fries and pull them up to the same notification sound. This is not skilled labor. I can't think of a good reason to pay fast food workers $15 an hour for unskilled work. I've sat here reading this thread while trying to find an imaginative justification for such wages. I cannot.
For the fast food industry, the most logic and reasoning needed is for ordering stock or perhaps tallying up employee hours.

Isadore and Boat Shoes sure have tried, but they're not giving justification for it. They're giving round-about excuses. Well, in BS's case he's at least trying to offer an alternative. Isadore? Not so much...

But still, where's the justification for paying somebody $15/hour for unskilled labor?

isadore;1742661 wrote:gosh a ruddies, self praise is such an admirable quality.

You're right, much more admirable than a handout from the government.

BoatShoes;1742645 wrote:25 million unemployed or underemployed Americans and about 5 million jobs in the whole country. Even if everybody took your advice we would have about 20 million who would be shit out of luck.

If the the government would take a stand and extract the illegals from the jobs that could be occupied by legal American citizens a lot of the 20 million shit out of luck would have an excellent opportunity to find employment.

Uz2Bon36;1742619 wrote:"Among the most vocal opponents of raising the minimum wage are top corporate executives who are making increasingly multiples of the minimum. While the real value of the minimum wage has dropped 25% since 1968, the pay of CEOs at large corporations has exploded. The ratio of CEO pay to that of the average worker was 20 to 1 in 1965, 30 to 1 in 1978, 123 to 1 in 1995, 296 to in 2013, and it is now over 300 to 1. Also, because much executive pay comes in the form of shares of stock and stock options, by keeping wages down corporations have been able to generate higher profits and therefore higher share prices -- which enriches top executives even more.The issue here is not only economic. It is also political, because concentrated income and wealth at the top translates directly into political power -- power to prevent the minimum wage from increasing, for example, and to cut programs for the poor. Most fundamentally, the issue is a moral one. A decent society cannot remain decent, or a society, with the degree of inequality we're now experiencing."

Perhaps because the CEO's job is to maximize shareholder value and nothing else. The increase in labor costs will not be consistent with the mission to maximize shareholder value.

Also, let's be real here, a CEO is paid that much because A) He brings significantly more value to the company and B) because if he didn't, he would be out of a job or paid less

Let talk about business: Small/ Mid size business owners… (The Entrepreneur)
That individual put everything on the line.. Bank account, mortgage, car and future THE RISK TAKER how many of you would take that type of risk? So that explains why you’re not a CEO material and getting the big bucks. The Risk Taker had a dream, idea and ambition to do something, be better, make a profit and build a future. You know why your working for less wages because your comfortable bitching and blame others for your lack of constructive RISK TAKING. Why does the Owner/Business President/CEO make more money because they built something THE RISK to provide something for others could have a future also. Why does CEO of major companies make $5000.00 per hour because of their performance, ability, knowledge, cognitive skills and RISK provides hundred and thousand of jobs, hundred and thousand dollars of income taxes, property taxes to the local communities and states, charities gifts and provides opportunities to those willing to work. Everybody thinks they can be a boss or ceo….very few even show up to work.

Why is it good to pay $5000.00 per hour to a CEO because he or she will spend their money wisely, with reason and provide additional jobs to those who what to earn money or what to be an entrepreneur someday. At $15.00 an hour the incentive is gone and comfort level to not achieve sets in with the opinion to cut back on hours as to not cut into the entitlement benefits, just like the estimated national average $24,000 per year recipients of the entitlement system receives has provided a life time career of TAKERS with not risk.

Bio-Hazzzzard;1742682 wrote:You're right, much more admirable than a handout from the government.

so many variables based on how you earned your money and why a person was receiving payments from the government.

CenterBHSFan;1742662 wrote:
But still, where's the justification for paying somebody $15/hour for unskilled labor?

The argument would be that in the real world wages are more of a function of bargaining power than actual productivity i.e. Excellent violinists are not more productive than violinists in the days of Mozart as there are physical limits in the productivity of playing a classical symphony but yet wages for great violinists rise in any case due to bargaining power.

Moreover, human beings are dignified ends in themselves and ought not be reduced to wage slavery as means to other ends - factors of production - at wages that cannot sustain a dignified livelihood in conformity with the social norms of a given society.

TLDR: A society wherein dignified human beings cannot sustain a livelihood despite working and contributing is immoral as it reduces dignified humans to means to an end rather than dignified ends. If they were forming a society from scratch, they might take their chances in the state of nature rather than form a social contract with such terms.

A statutory minimum wage is one approach to ensuring all workers are treated in conformity with their intrinsic dignity.

So while a conservative might argue that a fast food worker's labor has low marginal product and therefore the employee has little value, an opposite view might stress that human beings have instrinsic value that is separate and distinct from the marginal product of their labor.

Bio-Hazzzzard;1742692 wrote:If the the government would take a stand and extract the illegals from the jobs that could be occupied by legal American citizens a lot of the 20 million shit out of luck would have an excellent opportunity to find employment.

How bout ICE hires unemployed citizens to be bounty hunters for illegals. There you go.

isadore;1742784 wrote:so many variables based on how you earned your money and why a person was receiving payments from the government.

If a person is mentally or physically handicapped and unable to work I agree that they need help if their family cannot financially do so, however, all able human beings have the ability to make something of themselves. There are variables of how I earned my money in comparison to the able body that taps off the liberal maple tree. If a person is physically and mentally able to work they may choose either to prosper or fail, simple math. I had a 22 year old working for me that I paid $18.50 p/h plus health, dental, and optical insurance all paid above his salary and provided him with a company vehicle which I covered fuel expenses. The last I heard from him he was sick of driving twenty miles to work for peanuts, I fired him on the spot because he had no appreciation for what I provided him with as an employer.

The bottom line is that you can't just compensate because they feel they need it, you compensate because they proved to their employer that they've earned it.

http://rightturnforever.com/2014/09/lou-holtz-nails-it/

Bio-Hazzzzard;1742858 wrote:If a person is mentally or physically handicapped and unable to work I agree that they need help if their family cannot financially do so, however, all able human beings have the ability to make something of themselves. There are variables of how I earned my money in comparison to the able body that taps off the liberal maple tree. If a person is physically and mentally able to work they may choose either to prosper or fail, simple math. I had a 22 year old working for me that I paid $18.50 p/h plus health, dental, and optical insurance all paid above his salary and provided him with a company vehicle which I covered fuel expenses. The last I heard from him he was sick of driving twenty miles to work for peanuts, I fired him on the spot because he had no appreciation for what I provided him with as an employer.

The bottom line is that you can't just compensate because they feel they need it, you compensate because they proved to their employer that they've earned it.

Gosh a ruddies I realize you are offended by able bodies 70 year olds collecting their social security, 55 year old 30 year military veterans receiving their pensions. able bodies widows 14 years receiving payments when one parent dies, or women who have deserted by their husband getting welfare to help support their children. All these parasites tapping off the liberal maple tree.
And then there is this arrogant 22 year old who does not grovel enough for you, but stands up and demands fair treatment, so you fire him. From your description we can not tell the difficulty of his travel, what his educational background and training are, and what he has to do to earn that fantastic unbelievable sum of $18.50 an hour. What we can tell is his boss, is unpleasant to work for.
For fast food and retail workers, they are often employed by large corporations who have all the power in the work relationship. Unions have been largely destroyed and the government is the only institution that can get the worker any fairness in his pay or conditions.

I will tell you as a person that hires and looks for hard workers in my field it is flipping hard to find anybody. People want to be paid but don't want to work. The "americans" are lazy workers. We don't hire any illegal but the many of the people willing to work hard and long hours are those that came here from somewhere else. Now we should worry about paying a burger flipper $15.00 per hour...get out of here. People don't realize as soon as you make that happen many people just lost their job.

FatHobbit;1742870 wrote:http://rightturnforever.com/2014/09/lou-holtz-nails-it/

Origins: Shortly after President Obama gave a speech about income inequality in December 2013, writer Bob Lonsberry published an essay on his web site titled "Two Americas" about the "The America that works, and the America that doesn’t."

The article didn't initially gain too much attention, but that situation changed when the text of Lonsberry's essay started circulating via e-mail with former football coach Lou Holtz's name featured prominently at the top in ways that inaccurately suggested he was the article's author, such as "Lou Holtz Nails It!", "Told As Only a Coach, An Old Coach Can," "Lou Holtz on America Today," and "Lou Holtz's Viewpoint."

As Bob Lonsberry has confirmed, however, the "Two Americas" essay was not penned by a famous former football coach. It was written and originally published by Lonsberry on his own web site on 9 December 2013.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/louholtz.asp#zE1IgEekmoVw2R9b.99

rrfan;1742881 wrote:I will tell you as a person that hires and looks for hard workers in my field it is flipping hard to find anybody. People want to be paid but don't want to work. The "americans" are lazy workers. We don't hire any illegal but the many of the people willing to work hard and long hours are those that came here from somewhere else. Now we should worry about paying a burger flipper $15.00 per hour...get out of here. People don't realize as soon as you make that happen many people just lost their job.

Let's see...guy who hires people deriding lazy Americans claims non-Americans are better workers and also claims not to hire illegals.

Totally I9 verification compliant I am sure.

rrfan;1742881 wrote:I will tell you as a person that hires and looks for hard workers in my field it is flipping hard to find anybody. People want to be paid but don't want to work. The "americans" are lazy workers. We don't hire any illegal but the many of the people willing to work hard and long hours are those that came here from somewhere else. Now we should worry about paying a burger flipper $15.00 per hour...get out of here. People don't realize as soon as you make that happen many people just lost their job.

that 13th Amendment must have really messed up your business plan.

BoatShoes;1742885 wrote:Let's see...guy who hires people deriding lazy Americans claims non-Americans are better workers and also claims not to hire illegals.

Totally I9 verification compliant I am sure.

In his defense, what you are implying does not necessarily follow. There are a lot of people who weren't born in America that are in this country legally.

BoatShoes;1742830 wrote:The argument would be that in the real world wages are more of a function of bargaining power than actual productivity i.e. Excellent violinists are not more productive than violinists in the days of Mozart as there are physical limits in the productivity of playing a classical symphony but yet wages for great violinists rise in any case due to bargaining power.

Moreover, human beings are dignified ends in themselves and ought not be reduced to wage slavery as means to other ends - factors of production - at wages that cannot sustain a dignified livelihood in conformity with the social norms of a given society.

TLDR: A society wherein dignified human beings cannot sustain a livelihood despite working and contributing is immoral as it reduces dignified humans to means to an end rather than dignified ends. If they were forming a society from scratch, they might take their chances in the state of nature rather than form a social contract with such terms.

A statutory minimum wage is one approach to ensuring all workers are treated in conformity with their intrinsic dignity.

So while a conservative might argue that a fast food worker's labor has low marginal product and therefore the employee has little value, an opposite view might stress that human beings have instrinsic value that is separate and distinct from the marginal product of their labor.

As if lower wage jobs were permanent for those people who occupy them. My God you love to completely distort reality. People in lower wage jobs are rarely, if ever, in a lower wage job a few years later, if even that long. The lower wage job is a temporary job and a training ground for gaining the skills necessary for a higher paying job. And free markets should dictate what that lower paying job should pay, not some liberal bureaucrat who never spent any meaningful time in the private sector.

PERIOD!

HitsRus;1742903 wrote:In his defense, what you are implying does not necessarily follow. There are a lot of people who weren't born in America that are in this country legally.

Bingo!

HitsRus;1742903 wrote:In his defense, what you are implying does not necessarily follow. There are a lot of people who weren't born in America that are in this country legally.

I was just messing with him.

QuakerOats;1742924 wrote:As if lower wage jobs were permanent for those people who occupy them. My God you love to completely distort reality. People in lower wage jobs are rarely, if ever, in a lower wage job a few years later, if even that long. The lower wage job is a temporary job and a training ground for gaining the skills necessary for a higher paying job. And free markets should dictate what that lower paying job should pay, not some liberal bureaucrat who never spent any meaningful time in the private sector.

PERIOD!

The argument from that point of view is that even temporary jobs require respect for the intrinsic dignity of mankind over and above the marginal product of their labor as subjectively valued by an employer.

In any case there are millions of Americans who work low wage jobs their entire lives even they are extreme outliers.

In particular, individual humans with low levels of intelligence that were often in special education classes but who do not qualify for social security disability (and don't quite know how to work the system to get it).

Most of the those jobs provide tremendous intrinsic value, beyond the pay, and 99% of those people will tell you that.

Even the liberal at the NY Times gets it: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/opinion/david-brooks-the-minimum-wage-muddle.html?WT.mc_id=SmartBriefs-Newsletter&WT.mc_ev=click&_r=0



Tell Karl we said hello.

BoatShoes;1742640 wrote:Actually there are not "plenty of non-management jobs out there that require low levels of skill."

Let's consider Ohio.

Ohio has a population of 11.5 million people, 5.7 million of which are in the Labor Force. About 300,000 of the nearly 6 million Ohioans who are not participating in the labor force are officially counted as unemployed.

So criminals, welfare recipients, prisoners, people who have gotten lawyers and judges to get them on social security disability despite being capable of gainful actiity, etc. are not even counted in this number.

According to job posting aggregator Indeed.com, there areroughly 52,000 jobs available in Ohio that pay between $16,000 - $30,000 per year.

I don't have time to review these numbers. However you are giving an example of a job market in a limited geographical area. It is a personal choice to remain in a given job market is it not? US citizens are free to traverse the national job market with few legal hurdles. This guy at the base is not even willing to leave NYC to cut his living expenses dramatically and perform the exact same job for the same money elsewhere. I have more respect for the people that are leaving their families south of the border and risking their lives to do so while breaking our laws. Yet these people have a direct economic impact on the availability of jobs in the pay range you mentioned. Its a small the part of the equation you people like to ignore. By the way I am not one of these clowns devoid of reality. We have statutes of limitations on many of our laws. The same reasoning should apply to some of those that have entered our work force at some point illegally. A path to legality for some should be made the rest should be dealt with the full force of law.

BoatShoes;1742640 wrote:Even if everybody was as hard working, motivated and as diligent as you there is not enough paid work to go around. Even if this guy did get a different low wage job in 30 years the point is moot in the grand scheme of things.

We have an economy wherein even if everyone had good conservative values millions of people cannot be self-reliant through wage labor because there is not enough to go around.

Typical. There is only so many slices of the pie to give out. Maybe we need more bakers. So the solution to the problem is to force an employer to provide compensation to an employee greater than his/her value?

You people are all about strict government regulation of economic activity. Should we not have better regulation of the immigrant workforce that would bring in more skilled management type individuals or potential job creators? Why not focus on more developing potential job creators? Any healthy economy should have jobs readily available to those initially entering the work force that do not require a living wage.

My 17yr old son does not need a living wage. Just to learn structure, responsibility, and the value of the money he earns. To begin to learn how many hours he has to work to buy the latest and greatest video game. Purchase an automobile, be responsible to insure it, the value of saving, etc... Also when he looks at his check stub discovering the amount of his labor that is owned by the government. Most importantly realizing that if he wants to attain more, learning that exercising personal discipline will make himself a greater value to his employer. Moving the bottom rung of the ladder up is not the answer. A job market that fosters the individuals incentive to clime the ladder on his own is.

BoatShoes;1742943 wrote:In particular, individual humans with low levels of intelligence that were often in special education classes but who do not qualify for social security disability (and don't quite know how to work the system to get it).

There are way to target these individuals without throwing the baby out with the bath water.