"By paying these people less, you give the companies an incentive to use them instead, reducing the job pool for adults and driving down wages for everyone."
By paying these people more you are giving people incentives to skip school, have kids they can't afford and flooding the no-skill job market which USED to be for people entering employment for the first time. Then there's the entire inflation problem as all costs will rise and you have the same issue again.
"Cold comfort for their children who had no choice in those decisions and get to live in poverty."
Then they need to do a better job of it when THEY grow up and provide for their own children. That's what I did.
I was the first in my family to finish HIGH SCHOOL, let alone go to college. I paid for it myself while working and paying rent. Full time work, part time school. Started with community college then went to U. It took me almost 8 years to finish 4 years worth of school but I did it with zero debt.
"People who "don't need of want" a living wage are free to do volunteer work if they need something to do, freeing up a paying job for those who do."
You don't "see" it. I get that. Let me help.
A high school student doesn't NEED a living wage -- but it might need to WORK for extra money for gas, save for school, etc.
A senior citizen usually has income coming in -- maybe not ADEQUATE income so (s)he doesn't NEED a living wage -- just enough to fill the gaps.
A non-working spouse doesn't NEED a living wage, but the extra income might provide enough money to justify a few more luxuries (maybe a nicer vacation, new furniture, etc).
I worked fast-food when I was 16-17. I made less than $4/hour. I lived at home and the money was so I could go to the movies, buy comic books (I collected -- dont judge) and pay air fair and hotel bills for the few book and gaming conventions I liked. My parents couldn't afford to do that for me.
Hell -- I started when I was 10 delivering papers. $60/month + tips.
This idea that flipping burgers was a job to raise a family is stupid. Whatever minimum wage is COSTS will go up so that money buys you the same amount of "stuff" it did BEFORE the hike.
You want more bang for you working dollar? Do the following and you'll be far better off:
o finish high school o finish college (or get a few years under your belt as a plumber or something) o dont have kids before finishing school o don't have kids before you are married
You do this and you are more than likely to live above the poverty line most (if not all) of your life.
I've had a lot of personal horror in my life. Here's what I've found works for me:
I PRETEND to be happy and upbeat when I don't feel that way. And you know what? The act of my smiling and speaking a certain way actually *DOES* improve my overall mood. Hell -- just SMILING changes my mood -- even when there's nothing for me to smile about.
Just because there's a lot of crap in my life I wouldn't wish upon anyone doesn't mean I need to let it slip in to my interactions with a world that for the most part wouldn't give a rip -- or would care too much an attempt a level of intimacy I don't want from strangers or casual acquaintances or co-workers.
It's a good path to take and regardless of regulations it's likely to happen naturally in the market -- oil will get more expensive to get out of the ground sooner or later.
People calling for "clean emissions" as the reason just seem silly to me. We don't have the ability to generate "clean" power at any level necessary to power cars -- and I recall reading an article in popular mechanics (which was debunking a claim about how much CO2 is required to just MAKE an electric car battery). The "debunked" claim was still pretty telling. It was something like 3 years before you start getting any CO2 benefit from the manufacture of the battery alone.
"As the US population gets older, Social Security and Medicare spending is going to increase dramatically. Add in the ever increasing medical prices and we're headed for some very hard choices."
What did I say? Limit it to pensions reform only. I made no mention of SS, medicare, welfare or even free government cheese.
Fund pension accounts for employees rather than PAY PENSIONS when they retire. It would be a hell of a lot cheaper in the long run. Also, a lot of those pensions are based on insane/stupid math and the processes used to calculate them need to be reevaluated. A good chunk of folks retire making more than they made while working.
What about entitlements? Hell... if you limit it to JUST reforming pension spending (which is INSANE) and divert THOSE fund to NASA you'd be better than best.
You load sixteen tons, what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go I owe my soul to the company store
What am I seeing here and on social media? Way too many people posting "Stan doesn't have long, either".
Yes -- he's old. Yes, elderly surviving spouses don't often last much beyond their departed. The *PROBLEM* I'm having with this popping up all over social media is that it's tactless. It is without taste. It's poor manners.
It's akin to meeting someone new and saying "Wow, that's some mole you have on your nose". Some things are of so little import that they need no comment and to make one only makes others feel uncomfortable. And I'm not talking about just Stan... *I* don't want to think of a world without him in it.
"Wow! You best get on the horn to NASA and share your stunning insight because I'm sure nobody involved in the project realizes the danger.", he said is his best "Frasier Crane" voice.
"It's even more unfortunate that the law does not blur the lines of pedophilia and lumps a well developed girl of 17 years and 11 months with a 5 year old."
Most sex crimes with minors do "blur the line". Punishment rules in California, for example for the same "act" are different for children age 10 and under vs. older. There are also different laws that take in to consideration of age of the offender. The language of the sex with minors laws are littered with "under the age of 10", "Under the age of 14, but older than 10".
"Why they think children getting raped is preferable is beyond me though, but that is what is going to happen and what they are promoting."
False dichotomy much?
There are other, scarier possibilities to consider. Ever look at sex addiction? As one continually flips their "arousal" switch, the further one tends to go to get arousal 'rush'.
"Look, if your business can reduce hours without significantly lowering the quality of customer service, then you should have done that BEFORE the wage increase. Otherwise you were wasting your money."
Increase costs make a business owner look at recovering those costs to something that were acceptable before. You are right -- maybe they could have done this before. Maybe their profit margin was working for them so they didn't bother doing a full analysis of their business to determine if that was the case. What does it matter?
"Seattle data show - even in simple first differences - that payroll expenses on workers earning under $19 per hour either rose minimally or fell as the minimum wage increased from $9.47 to $13 in just over nine months."
I don't think that's the result. I'm thinking that the guys making over $13/hour are pretty much unchanged as far as employment and hours and looking at $19/hour is hiding the negative impact on those bumped up to $13.
"A good rule of thumb is that a living wage should be three times the cost of renting an apartment with a roommate."
Move someplace where rent is cheap enough to afford on a minimum wage job -- and seek employment there. Maybe rent in Seattle will go down, too if enough people follow this suggestion.
Yes -- but the the point is that using $19 an hour skews the data. How many people earning $14/hr lost their job when the min wage went to $13? Probably a lot closer to zero than the guys making $10/hour getting bumped to $13.
So, the question would be, what are the REAL numbers? I would expect if you looked at JUST those workers who received mandated raises that 9% would be much higher.
How can it be "less bad" to target someone because of their race -- but their race isn't a "protected group" vs. targeting some because of their race -- and their race is a "protected group"?
Why should one class of people have less protection than another?
It's an awesome idea! What's not to love? Benefits:
o It'll be easier to see road-kill and avoid it now. o Streets don't look like they are in mourning anymore o New surfaces for graffiti! o Streets can be seen from space much easier now. o We'll all wear pirate eye-patches so when we go in to tunnels and our eyes dont adjust to the darkness fast enough we can just swap the patch to the OTHER eye and not crash!
"Which would explain why Joshua Brown's gopro is missing - as the trucker would have been wanting to get rid of any evidence that showed how little time he had to react (by all accounts many truckers are instructed to look for and dispose of dashcams in the event of a fatal crash)"
IIRC, I remember reading where it was believed the truck driver could have maneuvered to avoid the collision, too.
Yup... just checked:
"NTSB also quoted a witness to the crash as saying that the truck driver had sufficient time to avoid the collision." -- USAToday
Slashdot Mirror
"By paying these people less, you give the companies an incentive to use them instead, reducing the job pool for adults and driving down wages for everyone."
By paying these people more you are giving people incentives to skip school, have kids they can't afford and flooding the no-skill job market which USED to be for people entering employment for the first time. Then there's the entire inflation problem as all costs will rise and you have the same issue again.
"Cold comfort for their children who had no choice in those decisions and get to live in poverty."
Then they need to do a better job of it when THEY grow up and provide for their own children. That's what I did.
I was the first in my family to finish HIGH SCHOOL, let alone go to college. I paid for it myself while working and paying rent. Full time work, part time school. Started with community college then went to U. It took me almost 8 years to finish 4 years worth of school but I did it with zero debt.
"People who "don't need of want" a living wage are free to do volunteer work if they need something to do, freeing up a paying job for those who do."
You don't "see" it. I get that. Let me help.
A high school student doesn't NEED a living wage -- but it might need to WORK for extra money for gas, save for school, etc.
A senior citizen usually has income coming in -- maybe not ADEQUATE income so (s)he doesn't NEED a living wage -- just enough to fill the gaps.
A non-working spouse doesn't NEED a living wage, but the extra income might provide enough money to justify a few more luxuries (maybe a nicer vacation, new furniture, etc).
I worked fast-food when I was 16-17. I made less than $4/hour. I lived at home and the money was so I could go to the movies, buy comic books (I collected -- dont judge) and pay air fair and hotel bills for the few book and gaming conventions I liked. My parents couldn't afford to do that for me.
Hell -- I started when I was 10 delivering papers. $60/month + tips.
This idea that flipping burgers was a job to raise a family is stupid. Whatever minimum wage is COSTS will go up so that money buys you the same amount of "stuff" it did BEFORE the hike.
You want more bang for you working dollar? Do the following and you'll be far better off:
o finish high school
o finish college (or get a few years under your belt as a plumber or something)
o dont have kids before finishing school
o don't have kids before you are married
You do this and you are more than likely to live above the poverty line most (if not all) of your life.
Also helps by improving the mood of people you interact with. Make people you are around happy, and the reverse becomes a bit more true
You should have posted under your name. Quite insightful.
and answer from the heart.
I've had a lot of personal horror in my life. Here's what I've found works for me:
I PRETEND to be happy and upbeat when I don't feel that way. And you know what? The act of my smiling and speaking a certain way actually *DOES* improve my overall mood. Hell -- just SMILING changes my mood -- even when there's nothing for me to smile about.
Just because there's a lot of crap in my life I wouldn't wish upon anyone doesn't mean I need to let it slip in to my interactions with a world that for the most part wouldn't give a rip -- or would care too much an attempt a level of intimacy I don't want from strangers or casual acquaintances or co-workers.
"And every two to three years its "news" over and over again."
Groundhogs broadcast radio signals?
"Since WHEN is David Letterman Slashdot material?"
Since he looks like Alfred E Newman.
I'll just get a little red wagon and have my dogs and cats pull me.
Oh wait...
It's a good path to take and regardless of regulations it's likely to happen naturally in the market -- oil will get more expensive to get out of the ground sooner or later.
People calling for "clean emissions" as the reason just seem silly to me. We don't have the ability to generate "clean" power at any level necessary to power cars -- and I recall reading an article in popular mechanics (which was debunking a claim about how much CO2 is required to just MAKE an electric car battery). The "debunked" claim was still pretty telling. It was something like 3 years before you start getting any CO2 benefit from the manufacture of the battery alone.
"EU may not be perfect but its one of the reasons WHY we don't have a repeat of the Nazi regime"
I don't think you said what you meant to say. Unless you meant to say that the Nazi regime was perfect.
"As the US population gets older, Social Security and Medicare spending is going to increase dramatically. Add in the ever increasing medical prices and we're headed for some very hard choices."
What did I say? Limit it to pensions reform only. I made no mention of SS, medicare, welfare or even free government cheese.
Fund pension accounts for employees rather than PAY PENSIONS when they retire. It would be a hell of a lot cheaper in the long run. Also, a lot of those pensions are based on insane/stupid math and the processes used to calculate them need to be reevaluated. A good chunk of folks retire making more than they made while working.
What about entitlements? Hell... if you limit it to JUST reforming pension spending (which is INSANE) and divert THOSE fund to NASA you'd be better than best.
You load sixteen tons, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store
Stan Lee has lost his wife. Of nearly 70 years.
What am I seeing here and on social media? Way too many people posting "Stan doesn't have long, either".
Yes -- he's old. Yes, elderly surviving spouses don't often last much beyond their departed. The *PROBLEM* I'm having with this popping up all over social media is that it's tactless. It is without taste. It's poor manners.
It's akin to meeting someone new and saying "Wow, that's some mole you have on your nose". Some things are of so little import that they need no comment and to make one only makes others feel uncomfortable. And I'm not talking about just Stan... *I* don't want to think of a world without him in it.
"Wow! You best get on the horn to NASA and share your stunning insight because I'm sure nobody involved in the project realizes the danger.", he said is his best "Frasier Crane" voice.
"It's even more unfortunate that the law does not blur the lines of pedophilia and lumps a well developed girl of 17 years and 11 months with a 5 year old."
Most sex crimes with minors do "blur the line". Punishment rules in California, for example for the same "act" are different for children age 10 and under vs. older. There are also different laws that take in to consideration of age of the offender. The language of the sex with minors laws are littered with "under the age of 10", "Under the age of 14, but older than 10".
"Why they think children getting raped is preferable is beyond me though, but that is what is going to happen and what they are promoting."
False dichotomy much?
There are other, scarier possibilities to consider. Ever look at sex addiction? As one continually flips their "arousal" switch, the further one tends to go to get arousal 'rush'.
"Look, if your business can reduce hours without significantly lowering the quality of customer service, then you should have done that BEFORE the wage increase. Otherwise you were wasting your money."
Increase costs make a business owner look at recovering those costs to something that were acceptable before. You are right -- maybe they could have done this before. Maybe their profit margin was working for them so they didn't bother doing a full analysis of their business to determine if that was the case. What does it matter?
"Seattle data show - even in simple first differences - that payroll expenses on workers earning under $19 per hour either rose minimally or fell as the minimum wage increased from $9.47 to $13 in just over nine months."
I don't think that's the result. I'm thinking that the guys making over $13/hour are pretty much unchanged as far as employment and hours and looking at $19/hour is hiding the negative impact on those bumped up to $13.
"A good rule of thumb is that a living wage should be three times the cost of renting an apartment with a roommate."
Move someplace where rent is cheap enough to afford on a minimum wage job -- and seek employment there. Maybe rent in Seattle will go down, too if enough people follow this suggestion.
Yes -- but the the point is that using $19 an hour skews the data. How many people earning $14/hr lost their job when the min wage went to $13? Probably a lot closer to zero than the guys making $10/hour getting bumped to $13.
So, the question would be, what are the REAL numbers? I would expect if you looked at JUST those workers who received mandated raises that 9% would be much higher.
"I never understood that twisted definition."
It's because it's a crazy definition.
How can it be "less bad" to target someone because of their race -- but their race isn't a "protected group" vs. targeting some because of their race -- and their race is a "protected group"?
Why should one class of people have less protection than another?
It's an awesome idea! What's not to love? Benefits:
o It'll be easier to see road-kill and avoid it now.
o Streets don't look like they are in mourning anymore
o New surfaces for graffiti!
o Streets can be seen from space much easier now.
o We'll all wear pirate eye-patches so when we go in to tunnels and our eyes dont adjust to the darkness fast enough we can just swap the patch to the OTHER eye and not crash!
"Which would explain why Joshua Brown's gopro is missing - as the trucker would have been wanting to get rid of any evidence that showed how little time he had to react (by all accounts many truckers are instructed to look for and dispose of dashcams in the event of a fatal crash)"
IIRC, I remember reading where it was believed the truck driver could have maneuvered to avoid the collision, too.
Yup... just checked:
"NTSB also quoted a witness to the crash as saying that the truck driver had sufficient time to avoid the collision." -- USAToday