I slept around 4 p.m. and I cannot go to sleep now. On top of that, I was hungry and I ate a bagel, washed it down with red bull.
The reality is that not many can. Moving now and sacrificing your lively hood in another state? In California alone, you would have to save up a ton to be able to foot the bill at the lowest cost apartments. I do not think too many people, from KY, would be able to do that.
People want to move here because the government is worlds better; even though, many people here think the Federal government is behind its time. The federal governments in those states are far too corrupt, even in Venezuela. It is a socialist country; however, the government is far too corrupt to even allow it to work. What about Norway, Sweden, and Finland? I think I read last that one of those has a more socialized government. I doubt people would move there because it is a bit too cold.
Well, employers would not eat the cost, you are right; however, $20/hr is what the wage should be, according to that $3 hamburger price. $3 to $20/hr. is the ratio during FDR's time.
For Texas and Arizona, compare labor boards to CA and NY's and you will see. Whatever laws are absent, you could figure what those businesses exploit. Even in OH, the working conditions do not require businesses to have any kind of breaks, or so last I heard.
Also, if we are going international now, think about all the businesses that moved overseas. Think about all the people in China or India, who are being paid subpar wages by our own corporations. Since there are no laws regulating them or less than what they have to go through here, they are free to pay them a pittance. In this case, you are right, there are more jobs because of this, but is it really better? If there was no federal regulation, those same businesses would be here; however, it makes you question whether you were right about them paying better wages. You would think, with lower taxes, they would pay more; however, instead of giving back what they make in even more profit from those tax cuts, they would not be willing to pay more. It is the same reasoning they have for not paying that $20/hr. price tag.
Look at it another way. If businesses knew how to calculate a cost of living and offer a wage based on that, do you not think the government would have to intervene? If they treated their workers, better than what was expected, would the federal government not have to intervene? It is an action/reaction created by people who have a problem with it. This is why the federal is set out to do what the majority want them to do. Of course now, it is the opposite. They may, in fact, be cutting back on taxes and regulations.
reply
share
MovieManCin2 (26342)
8 years ago
A bagel and red bull. Not a good combination for sleep.
This has been an intelligent and stimulating conversation, but I think further debate is pointless, and a wast of time. I'm a Conservative, and you're apparently a Liberal, so neither of us is going to convince the other of anything. So let's just agree to disagree.
Have a good Sunday.
π
reply
share
kspkap (13555)
8 years ago
Arvin, first read the history of Jamestown. Understand how well it did, set up on a Socialist system.
You continue to believe businesses can eat the costs of higher wages. Most people are employed by small businesses. Most of the lower paying jobs are for part timers. After school jobs, college kids, extra income to supplement the main paycheck. These jobs are entry level for not only for extra income, they are for work experience. No hamburger flipper is worth $20 an hr!
So many small businesses in this country were a great place to work. A fair wage, benefits given...employees were happy. Then Obamacare hit! To the small business a choice had to be made...adhering to the new mandates which were not in the benefit package provided, followed by laying off workers. Or, keeping all employed who then would have to pay for their own health insurance.
The wealthy people you continue to rant about, those you say who don't give back their wealth and a large corporation, have stockholders who need to see a profit. But, prior to this did you ever think about how they became wealthy? Could it be they worked their butts off 90 plus hrs a week providing a service or designing a product, but needed people (ahem, stockholders) to invest in order to grow and...here we go...create jobs! BTW, as a whole, corporations do give back by funding charities, diversifying in order to create other businesses and more jobs.
Haven't you figured it out yet when the Fed. Gov. puts mandates on companies, such as the minimum wage, benefits, etc. jobs disappear? Where did all the gas station attendants go to? Hmm? Where are the cashiers, the restaurant servers, disappearing to. When you sit down at a restaurant table you see a tablet on which you place your order. Where's the server? Heck, I've been served by the kitchen staff!
Remember, every time the government does something it takes more from us. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Karl Marx
reply
share
arvin g borkar (2854)
8 years ago
Before FDR, how were the businesses then? Why would they pass, putting the minimum wage? People were not being treated fairly. It's not you nor me who decided it, it was decided by the majority who put him in office.
Trickle down economics does not work and if you look at the companies that go international, because they do not want to stay here, they actually pay people less than businesses belonging to that country. There is absolute NO regulation. Places like China and India are being hit hard by corporations that use to be in the U.S. Do we see these $20/hr. wages there because they are not being taxed by that country? Nope.
It definitely has to be a balance, but there is a reason for government intervention.
Those jobs you speak of are still prevalent in some states. I actually see gas attendants in New Jersey, kind of odd, but they are there.
Obamacare was not even invented yet when FDR was president. This is why I still cannot believe that it is all Obamacare's fault that corporations are stingy.
reply
share
arvin g borkar (2854)
8 years ago
And with response to the $20/hr. for a burger flipper, the wage is not based on skill sets. In other words, you are thinking of it in terms of what you would pay a burger flipper. No. They are suppose to pay $20/hr. to line up the prices they sell their burgers for. If pay was $20/hr., it would have as much buying power as the wage in FDR's time. That is how screwed up the price to wage is right now. $7.25/hr. has not been raised for decades!
reply
share
arvin g borkar (2854)
8 years ago
Check out R_Kane's post on the second page as well. He describes it wonderfully.
"In 1965, the hourly wage for someone who SHOVELED COAL, which requires no skill or though, was $16. You could have. family and own a home is 1965 on that! Adjusted for inflation that wage would be $123 an hour today! For shoveling coal!"
reply
share
kspkap (13555)
8 years ago
arvin, I knew no one who made $16 hourly in 1965! Someone earning that amount was wealthy. The average per hr wage today for coal miners is a little over $23.00! They surely didn't make $16 in 1965! The highest wage earners in 1965 were auto workers who made $3.00 to $4.00 per hr plus healthy benefits. I recall in 1963 my high school history teacher dropped by for a visit. My husband was out of work at the time (road construction). We were discussing wages. Mr. Yount made a statement which I recall these 54 years later. He said in so many words " In order to live well and not struggle we would have to bring home $100.00 a week"! This would be a little over $778.00 in today's dollars. But, the buying power is not the same. The average tuition cost per yr in 1965 was $607 which would be a little over $4700 in 2017. What occurred during the years, 1965-2017, to see the outrageous increase we now have in college tuition? The government got involved!! I keep repeating words I heard years ago, "Every time the government does something, it costs me!"
reply
share
arvin g borkar (2854)
8 years ago
Write to R_Kane on that, not me. But the more I look into it, the more I see that the corporations are shafting all of us. They are pricing up items way beyond what they should be, not paying their workers enough, pocketing the money, and expecting us to be in denial.
The reason the government gets involved is because we allow them to and because we feel that those corporations are not paying us enough. Look at our corporations, going international; it is a disgrace that they are representing the U.S. like that. They pay people very little and make MASS profit.
So sure, it will cost you if the government gets involved; however, I highly doubt business know how to offer a good enough wage. There was a reason FDR made the minimum wage and I will always go back to that (most pro wage increasers would).
Additionally, you will be absorbing the cost anyway. If these guys are not paid well, doing their job, they are not just going to get other ones. People at Walmart are most likely going to stay at their jobs AND be on your dime. You are paying for them to live. If Walmart paid them well enough to live, would you think your taxes would be going for their well being?
So we have scenarios here. Corporations and small businesses pay well and take care of their own and you pay nothing, but for the product (could be a pricier) or you pay the government more taxes to take care of the poor (resulting from businesses paying so little.)
Let's go your route. Cut back government, but now they are on your dime.
Your choice.
I know I would not mind paying $7 for a burger, if that meant people were being taken care of and paid fair. I think that is where we disagree. Of course, I would probably put the government into it and see why it has to be increased that much. Something tells me it is not a wage increase to product cost increase ratio. These guys are trying to pocket more, while paying what they should.
reply
share
arvin g borkar (2854)
8 years ago
Of course, you could have an uber Conservative government. Under that, the government does not even provide a safety net and you are really screwed.
In that scenario, the employees are not taken care of by the business; the government has no intervention and does not tax (at all), so no welfare nor medicaid and you are not paying anything; and those people are practically living on death row day by day. I would think this would result in total anarchy btw.
I think I am going to stick to government, even if it is pricier. I do not mind paying it, do you?
reply
share
kspkap (13555)
8 years ago
If a hamburger (w/o fries) goes to $7.00 at a fast food chain, there's going to be a lot more families priced out of the market. I myself would not pay $7 for a cardboard hamburger no matter the reason. I keep telling you most fast food places are franchises owned by a small business person. He knows his costs, his overhead, what he can pay and how many employees he needs to keep the place running. He can either have fewer employees, paying them more, running them into the ground, giving poor service or hire more with lesser pay, giving better service which brings in more customers...which means an increase in work attitude. Also, I repeat again, these are entry level jobs with a high turnover (students), or a second income job. They also don't stay at the same level of pay as when hired, and there's room for advancement.
BTW, I have never had a poor man give me a job...have you? I do not begrudge wealth. I do begrudge the government taking from me to give to others who are too sorry to do for themselves if they are able. Anyone, and I mean anyone in this country can achieve wealth if there is a will. As long as the person is healthy, have no obstacles, it can be done. I know millionaires, who were poorer than church mice, who have acquired wealth by working their rear ends off 90 hrs a week. It just takes drive, an education or training, finding a need for one's services, staying off the computer playing games or living in chat rooms. The jobs aren't going to come to them. I was so desparate for a job years ago, I sat on the floor to take the mechanical exam! All the seats were taken. I got hired and advanced. Me...with no training...just drive and a will to succeed.
This company was like others in the area, except for one big difference...it met all the benefits and work conditions (even better) without being unionized or under the gov. thumb. It valued its good employees. I loved working for the "wealthy" company.
reply
share
arvin g borkar (2854)
8 years ago
Back to one of your original comments, it is easier to see that a hamburger should not even be $3. What I am trying to get you to see is that free enterprise had given the business owner a way to be stingy. Our minimum wage and prices are out of whack!
Think about that for a second. You work an hour at $7.25 and half your wage is gone, with one hamburger. There is also a rule of thumb, save 50% of your income, 30% for leisure, and 20% for expenses. That hamburger should actually cost 20% of the wage, $1.45. Or they say the typical American spends 9-14% of their income on groceries. So really, the hamburger should be like $1.00
reply
share
Catbookss (13664)
8 years ago
A hamburger should be $1??
There is no way any business would be able to stay alive with such a tiny -- if ANY -- profit margin!
You'd have to buy the meat, buns, condiments, pay employees, rent, and insurance, and then exactly *what* would be left for profit? Why bother to break even or go into debt?
Even $3 is a bargain.
reply
share
arvin g borkar (2854)
8 years ago
Profit margin should be 10%.
One entree should not take out half of your hourly wage.
reply
share
Catbookss (13664)
8 years ago
I hope to god you never go into business for yourself, Arvin, because you'd be dead in the water before you even started.
So a hamburger joint is only supposed to make $.10 per burger, according to you?
How do you suppose the owner is supposed to squeeze even that pittance of a profit out after all the expenses s/he has? I didn't even cover them all. There's electricity, gas, various licenses, taxes, bookkeeping, and more! And even that's assuming the *only* thing on the menu is burgers, which is extremely unlikely.
Put yourself in others' shoes, not only your own or anyone who's exactly like you.
reply
share
arvin g borkar (2854)
8 years ago
I actually am an independent contractor, but I do know to never allow too much leniency on profit margins. It is because of leniency that businesses take more than what they should. People would have a problem with me saying it because it is THEIR businesses right? But then again, so many people have a problem with it. What profit margin is too little and what is too much? Businesses rise and fall, people struggle and die.
I support my fellow human beings, not some profit margin. I would rather see a business break the bear minimum threshold to stay afloat than people die from starvation.
In your last statement, I put myself in my fellow human's shoes, not a business entity.
reply
share
Catbookss (13664)
8 years ago
Being an independent contractor isn't the same thing as being a (small, or medium, or big) business owner; there are a lot more considerations and expenses.
I've been the employee of small, medium, and large (corporations) businesses, as well as an independent contractor for years, as well as owning my own (very) small business.
You frequently talk about wanting to increase your own profits, but resent it when it comes to others. What do you think businesses entities are comprised of, robots? Those people are *also* your fellow human beings.
reply
share
arvin g borkar (2854)
8 years ago
"I hope to god you never go into business for yourself, Arvin,"
I hope you then meant to clarify that because that is exactly what an independent contractor is.
You probably meant to say "I hope you never go into making a business yourself and hiring people".
And I am very glad you brought up what the "business entities are comprised of" and it is actually very wrong. They are comprised of humans; but if you knew even the basics of a business, you would know that it is a tunnel vision scheme. Supply and demand and running it, is a process, there is no emotion. This is why people are still having debates over how it should be regulated.
For your information, businesses USE TO BE product and wage. The employee would make a product, businesses would buy the materials, and the employee would get a percentage or a wage, from the employer. Then, as it evolved, the businesses needed more income to expand and this is when shareholders came in. The business now has a need to give return to those investors, who put their money, looking for a bigger return. All a business is is a for profit organization fueled by greed and money. Once share holders came in the picture and businesses made way over profit margins, all this excess cash was never passed down to the employee, it was at the top to the people who saw it. This is why there is a HUGE discrepancy between prices and wages.
I am not sure how people are still not seeing this, for those who do not. Unless you have some sort of emotional attachment, I could see why. The business would not care less if you were struggling Catbooks, it really would not. We, as humans, have to fight back against entities that make us struggle. Of course, you probably had a good life and/or business that treated you well (I could see why you would be for business); however, I see it everyday, people are being screwed.
reply
share
Catbookss (13664)
8 years ago
There really is no reasoning with you, Arvin. You're sorely lacking in logic, and are so determined to be a victim, there's no point trying anymore.
So, I'm not going to. I don't dislike you or anything like that. I just recognize a waste of time when I see it.
reply
share
arvin g borkar (2854)
8 years ago
It is a huge difference in political views and no, I would not dislike someone over something like this. I have had discussions on this thread with people like MovieManCin and others and really, we just agree to disagree.
I would NEVER let a business take priority over a human, ever and that is just the angle I see it from. Similarly, many people see a person struggling, who started that business and attribute it to multi-nationals that need to see a profit. It is just another angle. Even today, people debate over this.
reply
share
Catbookss (13664)
8 years ago
Yes, we can certainly agree to disagree. I'm good with that.
What you're not seeing, or acknowledging, is that businesses are run by humans. Businesses are a human creation. No humans = no businesses. So it's not a matter of choosing a business over a human, or vice versa.
There are good, ethical people who run businesses; and bad, unethical people who run them, whose sole concern is profit at any cost. Obviously I do not support the latter, but I do support the former.
reply
share
arvin g borkar (2854)
8 years ago
"businesses are run by humans"
Businesses are entities, not human. They can be run by humans; but unlike a human, it does not "feel" emotion. This is why most are for profit and they will only play by the rules if it is mandated. They have no reason to otherwise because profit is lost. The rules they play by is economics and again, economics does not "feel" emotion.
Like I said before, I would rather, no matter how ethical, a business suffer than the workers. If a business is put out of a business by a more ethical one, so be it. If a person straight up DIES from a business, it is that business's fault. If a person starves from a business's low wages, it is the business's fault.
Your angle may be that "well, you have to see it from the owner because they cannot break even and..."; however, I do not see it that way. That business fails, the owner probably has a good chunk of money to live on. If he does not, well, it kind of is his fault. Why start up a business if you know you are going to have to keep up with inflation? Just because you now have to pay $20/hr. and you cannot afford to, does not mean anyone should bow down and be lenient.
More often than not, it is the workers who are stiffed over and over again.
reply
share
Catbookss (13664)
8 years ago
Okay, I'm not going to bang my head against this wall anymore. I'd only end up saying the same things, possibly using different words, and you'd still never get what I'm saying.
You know, Arvin, most of the time I end up feeling that although we both speak English, we speak different languages! :D
reply
share
arvin g borkar (2854)
8 years ago
Political views Cat, it is a different language. Even in our government today, it is still an impasse.
reply
share
Catbookss (13664)
8 years ago
Nope, I'm not just talking about political views, Arvin. It's how I end up feeling most of the time when you and I interact, regardless of the topic.
In fact, I am by large liberal, politically speaking. You assume I'm conservative, which isn't true. You've assumed I've had an easy life, but in fact I've had a considerable amount of struggling -- even more so during the past 3-4 years, and yes, that has been financial, in addition to many other things.
It's like our brains are wired so differently, it makes meaningful communication very difficult, even though we are using the same language.
reply
share
kspkap (13555)
8 years ago
arvin, do I have to SCREAM to get you to understand? These are entry level, after school, extra income jobs. These jobs aren't geared for supporting a household. If someone is depending on fast food jobs for their only income, they should plan on having two other jobs! I've know people through the years who did carry two or three jobs. They were part of the unskilled labor force, or were college kids, widows who needed extra income, etc. I've also known people who just like to work and be around people so they would take a part time job not expecting to live off what they make.
Quit being so wealth envious! Nothing is stopping you from going after the big bucks! Trouble is if you make those big bucks there will be another arvin down the road ranting about you and your unwillingness to pay your employees that pie in the sky wage. After all you should only make 10% profit....
reply
share
arvin g borkar (2854)
8 years ago
Idk..I respectfully agreed with those statements before, but I could never see it that way. Yeah, let's categorize jobs just for high school people and people "who need these jobs" to supplement their income or use it as a stepping stone to find better paying jobs. It sounds like you are in so much denial.
Every business COULD offer full time jobs with benefits if they wanted. Of course, to do that, they would probably have to scale back the amount they would have to hire. I have never heard such a thing as "yeah..we'll just make part time jobs for people who need them". It's either that you knew someone who ran a business and were getting kickbacks or you are seriously in denial about being paid a good wage. I would never bow down to a corporate entity or a small business that does not pay an adequate wage.
Additionally, not everyone can make big bucks, so how do you tell those people that? Do you think everyone could create a business? Sure. Would you think every single business would succeed? Probably not, knowing that one business has to do well, for another to go bankrupt. We all know this.
I am not sure who you are trying to convince, but you are taking a business's side, when you get nothing from it. Maybe you had a good life to where you felt loyalty to a business, but they are just entities. They do not care how much you struggle, they are there to make profit. The government is the human's view (or should be) that keeps these entities in check. Businesses are too busy being for profit and that is why there is a balance from the worker's point of view, the government.
If changing my viewpoint is going to make you pay less, so be it. I am loving to pay more, if it means to help my own species out. I would never sell out to a business's financial structure. Those small businesses can save up to pay more or they will not be getting any labor from me.
reply
share
kspkap (13555)
8 years ago
How are they able to "save up to pay more" if every extra penny is going back into the business to keep it running. Every person I've known through the years, who started their own business, would tell me the hours are long and they were lucky to see a paycheck for themselves the first year. This goes from hair salons to lawn care to tradesmen. And, arvin, take off those rose colored glasses. Not every business can offer full time jobs with benefits.
I have an idea...why don't YOU start your own business? Let's see how you do after a year or two offering those big wages and benefits. Then you will have the right to rant and rave about the unfairness life has dealt you via the big, bad business sector! Something tells me you like the government sugar mama too much to venture forth. You feel entitled to whatever others (me and other taxpayers) can dole out to you. I feel sorry for you, because one day before you turn around twice...you are going to look back and regret why you didn't take advantage of all those wasted years. Waiting for someone or some other entity to pay your way...no self reliance, no intestinal fortitude. Just sitting behind a keyboard bemoaning how unfair everything is, detesting those who have become successful by working hard and not depending on others to make life easier for them.
We again have reached an impasse.
reply
share
arvin g borkar (2854)
8 years ago
I look to the government to regulate and audit unethical tendencies. To date, I have not been on the taxpayer dime because I too, contribute back. Anything the taxpayer should pay for is definitely for the benefit of those less fortunate and for every business that goes under the "but they cannot break even or they worked hard for it", there are millions of PEOPLE that are struggling and this is NOT because they are just lazy. Something has to happen to where the wage is in line with prices. Again $20/hr. is NOT something that should be struggled to pay for, or assumed to be offered to someone with a certain skill and especially, even if it is a small business. I would assume these business owners would THINK, before they start up, because that is the actual wage, adjusted for inflation. They HAVE TO pay that, think of it as a mandate.
Businesses now are run like kids hiding things from their parents. If they offered it in the first place, the government would NEVER need to intervene. Do you think if businesses were ever ethical in the past, people would have not fought for 8 hour work days, minimum wage, bathroom breaks, meal times, etc.? Businesses get away with a lot of crap. The little man (an employees) hardly gets looked at and the entity gets ever richer, they have all the best lawyers and the $. $ that should have been divided up to the employee.
I could run a business, but what would that exactly prove? You have to pay for materials, rent, and utilities and it goes without saying. They should also have that same urgency, to pay what is a rightful wage to their employees, like they pay the rest of those bills and still manage to make a profit. Do not ask me HOW they could do it, they have the plans.
What I would start out doing is to make sure I could cover all those costs WITHOUT someone vouching that I could not do it. I bet many businesses are personally thanking you for sticking up for them, while they put more excess pennies in their pockets
reply
share
kspkap (13555)
8 years ago
FYI, an article about owning a McDonald Franchise, start up costs, overhead costs, etc.
At the end you may believe the owner retains too much profit. But, what so many do is take some of that profit to open another one thereby creating more jobs. S/he knows how many employees are needed to run a smooth operation. But, your philosophy is the heck with making a profit! The sole purpose of a small business owner is to pay what you think they should pay along with benefits. Profits be damned!
http://www.mymoneyblog.com/mcdonalds-franchise-cost-vs-profit.html
reply
share
arvin g borkar (2854)
8 years ago
Well, think of it this way. Why open up another business, creating more jobs, when that job cannot do squat for those employees? I mean it is kind of what people fall for time and time again.
"We need more jobs. I can promise you guys will get back to work!"
So if these jobs were really any good, would they not be fully supporting people that they hire?
If these "jobs" cannot support people that they hire, the government is going to have to pick up the slack. You would be dreaming if you wanted people to take on multiple jobs. Some would, but most would not.
So I would probably call McDonald's out and tell them that their philosophy is HORRIBLE! Do you know why they are expanding? It is not because they want to provide more jobs (certainly not, if they are still paying a low wage). They are probably getting some tax break and more importantly PROFITS!!!
Additionally, the article says something about a franchise and yeah, those owners are put in a spot. Corporate hq wants to see that expansion or else that owner is GONE! Still, I would not care for that franchise owner nor their corporate. They are both stiffing workers. All these franchisers are doing, is making money for themselves, when they could by boycotting and shutting down this unethical corporation. Less people that work for them, the less profits they make, and the more we can focus on businesses that have ethics.
reply
share
kspkap (13555)
8 years ago
Well, I suppose we all could hope and pray these mean, bad business owners fail and close shop. No shops, no customers, and, hold on....NO JOBS! Utopia at it's best! Before I end this, ask yourself why making a good profit is abhorrent to you. You are so dissatisfied with the free market and capitalism, put your money where your mouth is and purchase a one way ticket to a strong socialist/communist country. All share equally...the gov. mandates what an owner is permitted to gross.
BTW, do you believe employee owned companies should or should not make a profit? I think you would still rant about that scenario. Those damnable employees are making too much money!
reply
share
arvin g borkar (2854)
8 years ago
Define "good profit".
I would define it as profit made only after your employees and everything is accounted for.
Employee owned companies should make a profit, but be able to take care of their own as well.
They need to get off the government dime (wow..never thought I would be the one to say that, a political viewpoint in opposition to my very own) and stay off.
Then again, how would I expect them to do that if the employer only pays half and the government pays half?
Shouldn't the company be paying everything that an employee should need? Less taxes for you to pay right?
reply
share