Social Security

[zendari]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: zendari
No, quite a bit. Employers cannot simply lower wages to the minimum in the interests of profit maximization, therefore, the bolded post is null and void.

Uhh...migrant farm workers? You think companies are paying them living wages? HA!

The minimum wage itself is a foolish idea. When the minimum wage is $10, what happens to those workers who merit only $6 an hour?

Nobody merits $6/hr in this country in the 21st century. Nobody.

$6/hr is $12,480/yr (assuming one works a 40-hour week every week with no sick days). That results in no Federal tax needing to be withheld (well, a decent refund the following year.) There's the mandatory FICA and then State taxes. Let's say 15% total for those combined. That leaves $10,608 leftover or $884/mo.

Let's assume single parent with one child (of school age) here.

Now, explain to me how a single parent with a child merits such a paltry sum. That's not a living wage. That's a cruel joke.

If the individual was worthy of receiving a higher wage he would already be receiving it without government coercion. Now, if you feel they are worth the increased salary, perhaps you can give them a job.

Why should the company pay a "living wage" to an individual whose productivity doesn't earn a "living wage"?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: zendari
No, quite a bit. Employers cannot simply lower wages to the minimum in the interests of profit maximization, therefore, the bolded post is null and void.

Uhh...migrant farm workers? You think companies are paying them living wages? HA!

The minimum wage itself is a foolish idea. When the minimum wage is $10, what happens to those workers who merit only $6 an hour?

Nobody merits $6/hr in this country in the 21st century. Nobody.

$6/hr is $12,480/yr (assuming one works a 40-hour week every week with no sick days). That results in no Federal tax needing to be withheld (well, a decent refund the following year.) There's the mandatory FICA and then State taxes. Let's say 15% total for those combined. That leaves $10,608 leftover or $884/mo.

Let's assume single parent with one child (of school age) here.

Now, explain to me how a single parent with a child merits such a paltry sum. That's not a living wage. That's a cruel joke.

The last "real" job (punched a clock anyway) I had was working at an ISP helping people get hooked up to the internet, back in the old telephone modem days. I was farming, but wanted to have something constructive to do in the winter. I worked 4pm to midnight, no breaks, no lunch, no benifits, not even a paid holiday. It paid a whopping $6/hr.

LOL, they didn't even give me any training, just gave me a little book that wasn't worth the paper it was written on. If I hadn't had a little computer experience of my own, I never could have done it. It was still a case of the blind leading the blind.

I was the only one there at night and one evening the owner stopped by to "train" me. She was a nice looking lady with big bazookas, a few years younger then myself, LOL. A former college cheerleader even. Very religious too. She actually tried to jump my bones. I'm a happily married man and had to decline, but it was a tempting offer.

I kind of feel sorry for her because her husband (a REALLY big and RICH farmer) had crashed his plane while spraying his crops several years earlier. He lived, but was horribly disfigured. Ears and nose all but burnt off, couldn't walk right, who knows what else? Life can be so cruel and you can think you have it tough but you don't have to look very far to see someone who has it worse then you.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: zendari
No, quite a bit. Employers cannot simply lower wages to the minimum in the interests of profit maximization, therefore, the bolded post is null and void.

Uhh...migrant farm workers? You think companies are paying them living wages? HA!

The minimum wage itself is a foolish idea. When the minimum wage is $10, what happens to those workers who merit only $6 an hour?

Nobody merits $6/hr in this country in the 21st century. Nobody.

$6/hr is $12,480/yr (assuming one works a 40-hour week every week with no sick days). That results in no Federal tax needing to be withheld (well, a decent refund the following year.) There's the mandatory FICA and then State taxes. Let's say 15% total for those combined. That leaves $10,608 leftover or $884/mo.

Let's assume single parent with one child (of school age) here.

Now, explain to me how a single parent with a child merits such a paltry sum. That's not a living wage. That's a cruel joke.

If the individual was worthy of receiving a higher wage he would already be receiving it without government coercion. Now, if you feel they are worth the increased salary, perhaps you can give them a job.

Why should the company pay a "living wage" to an individual whose productivity doesn't earn a "living wage"?

Why would a company be in business offering jobs that don't provide much benefit to the company? Do you honestly think before you start typing on your daddy's keyboard?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: conjur
Nobody merits $6/hr in this country in the 21st century. Nobody.

$6/hr is $12,480/yr (assuming one works a 40-hour week every week with no sick days). That results in no Federal tax needing to be withheld (well, a decent refund the following year.) There's the mandatory FICA and then State taxes. Let's say 15% total for those combined. That leaves $10,608 leftover or $884/mo.

Let's assume single parent with one child (of school age) here.

Now, explain to me how a single parent with a child merits such a paltry sum. That's not a living wage. That's a cruel joke.

The last "real" job (punched a clock anyway) I had was working at an ISP helping people get hooked up to the internet, back in the old telephone modem days. I was farming, but wanted to have something constructive to do in the winter. I worked 4pm to midnight, no breaks, no lunch, no benifits, not even a paid holiday.

LOL, they didn't even give me any training, just gave me a little book that wasn't worth the paper it was written on. If I hadn't had a little computer experience of my own, I never could have done it. It was still a case of the blind leading the blind.

I was the only one there at night and one evening the owner stopped by to "train" me. She was a nice looking lady with big bazookas, a few years younger then myself, LOL. A former college cheerleader even. Very religious too. She actually tried to jump my bones. I'm a happily married man and had to decline, but it was a tempting offer.

I kind of feel sorry for her because her husband (a REALLY big and RICH farmer) had crashed his plane while spraying his crops several years earlier. He lived, but was horribly disfigured. Ears and nose all but burnt off, couldn't walk right, who knows what else? Life can be so cruel, you think you have it tough but you don't have to look very far to see someone who has it worse then you.

True. So true. I thought I had it rough a few years ago but compared to others I've known, whew, I didn't seem so bad off.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
It is true, sadly enough, that companies have a right to pay pathetic wages to employees. Walmart has been shown to be one of these type places (I think it was already mention, but I'll provide a link if necessary). And, employee's do have the right to go somewhere else if they're not getting what they want.

That being said, I think it's pretty sad/pathetic/irresponsible/shameful/inconsiderate/hateful (take your pick, I've got more) that companies pay employees such small amounts at places like that. Consider Louisiana. My mother has a master's degree in education, 20 years of experience, and makes $31,000 a year, with not the best benefits, but not terrible. But for that type of experience and education, that is flat out ridiculous. She, and all other teachers, deserve better.

Why do they deserve better? Are you willing to start a school and pay them better? Your mother also (presumably) works only 180 days a year.

No, she actually also works during the summer. Why do they deserve better? Because 1) anyone with that amount of education and experience deserves more money than that, 2) they may, for the most part, only work ~180 day per year, but they spend a heck of a lot more time doing work at home than almost any other profession, and 3) because you and everyone else would be nowhere without teachers.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: zendari
If the individual was worthy of receiving a higher wage he would already be receiving it without government coercion. Now, if you feel they are worth the increased salary, perhaps you can give them a job.

Why should the company pay a "living wage" to an individual whose productivity doesn't earn a "living wage"?

Why would a company be in business offering jobs that don't provide much benefit to the company? Do you honestly think before you start typing on your daddy's keyboard?

They provide a benefit....at $6 an hour. Not necessarily at $10.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: zendari
Why do they deserve better? Are you willing to start a school and pay them better? Your mother also (presumably) works only 180 days a year.

No, she actually also works during the summer. Why do they deserve better? Because 1) anyone with that amount of education and experience deserves more money than that, 2) they may, for the most part, only work ~180 day per year, but they spend a heck of a lot more time doing work at home than almost any other profession, and 3) because you and everyone else would be nowhere without teachers.

Says who? You? I love how liberals are so arrogant they think they can artificially decide who "deserves" what in the free market! :laugh:

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: zendari
Why do they deserve better? Are you willing to start a school and pay them better? Your mother also (presumably) works only 180 days a year.

No, she actually also works during the summer. Why do they deserve better? Because 1) anyone with that amount of education and experience deserves more money than that, 2) they may, for the most part, only work ~180 day per year, but they spend a heck of a lot more time doing work at home than almost any other profession, and 3) because you and everyone else would be nowhere without teachers.

Says who? You? I love how liberals are so arrogant they think they can artificially decide who "deserves" what in the free market! :laugh:

I love how you're nieve enough to trust capitalists to do so.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: zendari
Why do they deserve better? Are you willing to start a school and pay them better? Your mother also (presumably) works only 180 days a year.

No, she actually also works during the summer. Why do they deserve better? Because 1) anyone with that amount of education and experience deserves more money than that, 2) they may, for the most part, only work ~180 day per year, but they spend a heck of a lot more time doing work at home than almost any other profession, and 3) because you and everyone else would be nowhere without teachers.

Says who? You? I love how liberals are so arrogant they think they can artificially decide who "deserves" what in the free market! :laugh:

I love how you're nieve enough to trust capitalists to do so.

Don't be so hard on zentroll...he thinks he's going to be rich and famous one day.

Sadly his 15 minutes of fame are pretty much up (he just hasn't realized it yet) :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: zendari
Why do they deserve better? Are you willing to start a school and pay them better? Your mother also (presumably) works only 180 days a year.

No, she actually also works during the summer. Why do they deserve better? Because 1) anyone with that amount of education and experience deserves more money than that, 2) they may, for the most part, only work ~180 day per year, but they spend a heck of a lot more time doing work at home than almost any other profession, and 3) because you and everyone else would be nowhere without teachers.

Says who? You? I love how liberals are so arrogant they think they can artificially decide who "deserves" what in the free market! :laugh:

Artificially decide? Yeah, let's leave it up to the guy who is "maximizing" his profit to decide. He knows what's fair and wouldn't "artificially" decide the wrong amount.

Collective bargining came about for a reason. To fight arrogant bussiness owners who got to thinking they could do whatever they damn well pleased. I love to talk about unions just to see tightie righties like you squirm. :laugh:

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: zendari
If the individual was worthy of receiving a higher wage he would already be receiving it without government coercion. Now, if you feel they are worth the increased salary, perhaps you can give them a job.

Why should the company pay a "living wage" to an individual whose productivity doesn't earn a "living wage"?

Why would a company be in business offering jobs that don't provide much benefit to the company? Do you honestly think before you start typing on your daddy's keyboard?

They provide a benefit....at $6 an hour. Not necessarily at $10.

You didn't answer the question.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Cooler
They need to get rid of it . I hate having chunk of my pay check going in there when there is a good chance i will never see it when a get to 65.

There's an easy fix for SS.

Eliminate the wage cap.

That's not really a fix, that just puts the problem off for a couple years.

When in doubt, tax the rich! I wonder what Bill Gates's return on SS will be under conjur's plan.

Nowhere near as much you think. Last I knew his salary wasn't much over $300k/yr.

But, it's either remove the cap or increase the minimum wage to livable levels, say, $9-10/hr. That will pump a lot more into the SS trust fund from the workers who'll most likely be using it. Plus it will give them the ability to provide for themselves so they won't be living off of those social programs you despise so much.

IF making a livable wage is a good idea 9/hour, it will be a great idea at $90/hour. Why stop short. Of course any increase is inflationary and will cause job loss(Self chechout lines and such)

 

[conjur]

Ah, the ol' job loss from raising minimum wage BS. Wondered when that tired old talking point would be brought out.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur
Ah, the ol' job loss from raising minimum wage BS. Wondered when that tired old talking point would be brought out.

It is not bs, it does happen. When wages rise, prices must rise or jobs must decrease or both. Raising minimum wage is just a feel good shell game that does nothing to raise those at the bottom. Like I said if a minimum wage of $8 is good, why not make it $80?

 

[conjur]

Didn't happen last nor the time before that

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefacts

* A 1998 EPI study failed to find any systematic, significant job loss associated with the 1996-97 minimum wage increase. In fact, following the most recent increase in the minimum wage in 1996-97, the low-wage labor market performed better than it had in decades (e.g., lower unemployment rates, increased average hourly wages, increased family income, decreased poverty rates).
* Studies of the 1990-91 federal minimum wage increase, as well as studies by David Card and Alan Krueger of several state minimum wage increases, also found no measurable negative impact on employment.
* New economic models that look specifically at low-wage labor markets help explain why there is little evidence of job loss associated with minimum wage increases. These models recognize that employers may be able to absorb some of the costs of a wage increase through higher productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased worker morale.
* A recent Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) study of state minimum wages found no evidence of negative employment effects on small businesses.

Real Value of the Federal Minimum Wage

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur
Didn't happen last nor the time before that

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefacts

* A 1998 EPI study failed to find any systematic, significant job loss associated with the 1996-97 minimum wage increase. In fact, following the most recent increase in the minimum wage in 1996-97, the low-wage labor market performed better than it had in decades (e.g., lower unemployment rates, increased average hourly wages, increased family income, decreased poverty rates).
* Studies of the 1990-91 federal minimum wage increase, as well as studies by David Card and Alan Krueger of several state minimum wage increases, also found no measurable negative impact on employment.
* New economic models that look specifically at low-wage labor markets help explain why there is little evidence of job loss associated with minimum wage increases. These models recognize that employers may be able to absorb some of the costs of a wage increase through higher productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased worker morale.
* A recent Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) study of state minimum wages found no evidence of negative employment effects on small businesses.

Real Value of the Federal Minimum Wage

Either way those increased labor costs were passed onto the consumer. As of right now, less than 2% of the employeed population make minimum wage. Most of the this group is young workers with little experience. A significant chunk still live at home with their parents. There is little need to adjust minimum wage as the market apears to be doing that already.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: zendari
Why do they deserve better? Are you willing to start a school and pay them better? Your mother also (presumably) works only 180 days a year.

No, she actually also works during the summer. Why do they deserve better? Because 1) anyone with that amount of education and experience deserves more money than that, 2) they may, for the most part, only work ~180 day per year, but they spend a heck of a lot more time doing work at home than almost any other profession, and 3) because you and everyone else would be nowhere without teachers.

Says who? You? I love how liberals are so arrogant they think they can artificially decide who "deserves" what in the free market! :laugh:

Artificially decide? Yeah, let's leave it up to the guy who is "maximizing" his profit to decide. He knows what's fair and wouldn't "artificially" decide the wrong amount.

Collective bargining came about for a reason. To fight arrogant bussiness owners who got to thinking they could do whatever they damn well pleased. I love to talk about unions just to see tightie righties like you squirm. :laugh:

That one guy "maximizing profits" isn't the whole market for employment.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: zendari
If the individual was worthy of receiving a higher wage he would already be receiving it without government coercion. Now, if you feel they are worth the increased salary, perhaps you can give them a job.

Why should the company pay a "living wage" to an individual whose productivity doesn't earn a "living wage"?

Why would a company be in business offering jobs that don't provide much benefit to the company? Do you honestly think before you start typing on your daddy's keyboard?

They provide a benefit....at $6 an hour. Not necessarily at $10.

You didn't answer the question.

No, the answer is right in front of you. A small benefit is a benefit nonetheless.

 

[HomeAppraiser]

OK it is a TAX. As the joke goes, it will run out as soon as I turn 68. What stings is that as a self-employed person I have to by the FULL 15.6% without any reductions for deductions of the number of kids I have. And instead of going into a retirement account, it pays for some losers like my wives step-cousins who are "not motivated" to find a job and spend all the money on WarHammer figures. Aruggg!

End of rant.

 

[conjur]

Being as you're self-employed you'd also know that you can deduct half of the self-employment tax on your tax return.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: zendari
If the individual was worthy of receiving a higher wage he would already be receiving it without government coercion. Now, if you feel they are worth the increased salary, perhaps you can give them a job.

Why should the company pay a "living wage" to an individual whose productivity doesn't earn a "living wage"?

Why would a company be in business offering jobs that don't provide much benefit to the company? Do you honestly think before you start typing on your daddy's keyboard?

They provide a benefit....at $6 an hour. Not necessarily at $10.

You didn't answer the question.

No, the answer is right in front of you. A small benefit is a benefit nonetheless.

A company isn't going to create a job for a "small benefit".

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: zendari
Why do they deserve better? Are you willing to start a school and pay them better? Your mother also (presumably) works only 180 days a year.

No, she actually also works during the summer. Why do they deserve better? Because 1) anyone with that amount of education and experience deserves more money than that, 2) they may, for the most part, only work ~180 day per year, but they spend a heck of a lot more time doing work at home than almost any other profession, and 3) because you and everyone else would be nowhere without teachers.

Says who? You? I love how liberals are so arrogant they think they can artificially decide who "deserves" what in the free market! :laugh:

Artificially decide? Yeah, let's leave it up to the guy who is "maximizing" his profit to decide. He knows what's fair and wouldn't "artificially" decide the wrong amount.

Collective bargining came about for a reason. To fight arrogant bussiness owners who got to thinking they could do whatever they damn well pleased. I love to talk about unions just to see tightie righties like you squirm. :laugh:

That one guy "maximizing profits" isn't the whole market for employment.

That "one" guy is just an example. According to you they should all be maximizing there profit and to hell with there employees. So according to you the only way for employees to get a fair shake is to organize, that or just take whatever their employers are willing to offer, which isn't a damn cent more then they absoulutley have to.

That is why they outsource jobs overseas and hire illegal aliens. They are "maximizing" thier return by keeping the labor demand and wages as low as possible and at the expense of the workers of this country. It doesn't matter how hard you work or how loyal and dependable an employee you are. They're gonna put it to you every way they can think of. Coporate America at it's finest!!

:laugh:

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Cooler
They need to get rid of it . I hate having chunk of my pay check going in there when there is a good chance i will never see it when a get to 65.

There's an easy fix for SS.

Eliminate the wage cap.

That's not really a fix, that just puts the problem off for a couple years.

When in doubt, tax the rich! I wonder what Bill Gates's return on SS will be under conjur's plan.

Nowhere near as much you think. Last I knew his salary wasn't much over $300k/yr.

But, it's either remove the cap or increase the minimum wage to livable levels, say, $9-10/hr. That will pump a lot more into the SS trust fund from the workers who'll most likely be using it. Plus it will give them the ability to provide for themselves so they won't be living off of those social programs you despise so much.

IF making a livable wage is a good idea 9/hour, it will be a great idea at $90/hour. Why stop short. Of course any increase is inflationary and will cause job loss(Self chechout lines and such)

LOL, your going to argue about inflation??? That's a good one.

Anyway I don't think you understand the concept of a living wage. The idea is to increase wages so working people can get of the goverment welfare. If they get a 50% pay rasaise they can afford some inflation. Sure, the costs of SOME goods and services will go up, but that doesn't mean everybody gets a likewise increase in income. If they did what would be the point?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: zendari
Why do they deserve better? Are you willing to start a school and pay them better? Your mother also (presumably) works only 180 days a year.

No, she actually also works during the summer. Why do they deserve better? Because 1) anyone with that amount of education and experience deserves more money than that, 2) they may, for the most part, only work ~180 day per year, but they spend a heck of a lot more time doing work at home than almost any other profession, and 3) because you and everyone else would be nowhere without teachers.

Says who? You? I love how liberals are so arrogant they think they can artificially decide who "deserves" what in the free market! :laugh:

Artificially decide? Yeah, let's leave it up to the guy who is "maximizing" his profit to decide. He knows what's fair and wouldn't "artificially" decide the wrong amount.

Collective bargining came about for a reason. To fight arrogant bussiness owners who got to thinking they could do whatever they damn well pleased. I love to talk about unions just to see tightie righties like you squirm. :laugh:

That one guy "maximizing profits" isn't the whole market for employment.

That "one" guy is just an example. According to you they should all be maximizing there profit and to hell with there employees. So according to you the only way for employees to get a fair shake is to organize, that or just take whatever their employers are willing to offer, which isn't a damn cent more then they absoulutley have to.

:laugh:

Absolutely untrue. Faced with a lack of good employees one employer will raise his wages.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: zendari
Why do they deserve better? Are you willing to start a school and pay them better? Your mother also (presumably) works only 180 days a year.

No, she actually also works during the summer. Why do they deserve better? Because 1) anyone with that amount of education and experience deserves more money than that, 2) they may, for the most part, only work ~180 day per year, but they spend a heck of a lot more time doing work at home than almost any other profession, and 3) because you and everyone else would be nowhere without teachers.

Says who? You? I love how liberals are so arrogant they think they can artificially decide who "deserves" what in the free market! :laugh:

Artificially decide? Yeah, let's leave it up to the guy who is "maximizing" his profit to decide. He knows what's fair and wouldn't "artificially" decide the wrong amount.

Collective bargining came about for a reason. To fight arrogant bussiness owners who got to thinking they could do whatever they damn well pleased. I love to talk about unions just to see tightie righties like you squirm. :laugh:

That one guy "maximizing profits" isn't the whole market for employment.

That "one" guy is just an example. According to you they should all be maximizing there profit and to hell with there employees. So according to you the only way for employees to get a fair shake is to organize, that or just take whatever their employers are willing to offer, which isn't a damn cent more then they absoulutley have to.

:laugh:

Absolutely untrue. Faced with a lack of good employees one employer will raise his wages.

Gee, Zendari. Tell us about your vast decades of real-world experience with this subject. I'd love to hear it.