Overtime for managers...

[franklin]

Sorry for spilling over into your thread, log. In the grand scheme I disagree with you but at the end of the day the market adjustments probably will mean things wont change much. I'm a proponent of stable wage laws regardless.

 

[Harambe]

You claimed I was on the "get off the "U H8 AMERICA! EFF U" horse". I was letting you in to how I analyze these things (in part anyway, I do have a humanitarian purist side). I don't care one way or another what the data says. I care about completeness and truly understanding the situation, and that was meant as an example to demonstrate that to you and definitely not to brag.

My ethos is not to maximize the pleasure for the few but to minimize the # of those with pain who have fallen through the cracks. I see that as the American ethos. If I were Danish I might adopt there ethos of having less, much less but content about it, but I'd probably just move to a place that wanted more instead. Here, we don't want less, it's not our ethos. We want more, we love the struggle and keeping up with the joneses. They measure happiness and throw Denmark in our faces but do we ever consider that being miserable because we aren't on top is our true happiness and what drives us to world leading perfection?

There are plenty of sociological surveys of what makes the rich so damn successful. A couple things are high insecurity and a drive to for perfection, to be the best. That is the American ethos and we can tear it down if it doesn't suit us but it's pretty damn hard to deny the comfort, pleasure and quality of life happiness that that ethos brings. Edison, Tesla, Ford, Dr. Jones, Silicon Valley, Wright Brothers.... Drive ethos > content ethos at the end of the day.


"My ethos is not to maximize the pleasure for the few but to minimize the # of those with pain who have fallen through the cracks."

It just so happens that strong economic policy combined with effective, targeted welfare programs go hand in hand to satisfy the former and the latter. We tend to get the worst of both the last 15 years.

We already agree on a lot, and I hope you see that.

Your ethos is very similar to what I'm imagining. Put in comparative words, I guess mine would be "Not to maximize the pleasure for the few but to minimize the number of cracks that can be fallen through". Yes, I understand it can curb pleasure of the few, but I greatly prefer safety to comfort.

Another thing we agree on, it feels like we've made some piss poor decisions the last 15 years. I wouldn't be surprised if that goes back 30 or more.

 

[LogGrad98]

Sorry for spilling over into your thread, log. In the grand scheme I disagree with you but at the end of the day the market adjustments probably will mean things wont change much. I'm a proponent of stable wage laws regardless.

We're not that far apart. I was getting at it more from the rampant political changes rarely breed stability angle.

 

[Dumb Bloke]

Is this the dork political/aliens/prepped forum most forums have?

Anyways, if we raised minimum wages to $15/hr these things would work themselves out.

 

[Gameface]

Is this the dork political/aliens/prepped forum most forums have?

Anyways, if we raised minimum wages to $15/hr these things would work themselves out.

We?

 

[VINYLONE]

I gave you the backing. What more do you need?

Measuring rate of inflation and standards of living is HIGHLY theoretical. From a practical standpoint, you are insane to claim we have a lower standard of living than in 1970. Thus, it stands to reason that incomes have not in fact been stagnant. A more proper term would be stagnant relative to high income growth.

Franky, yes, you're right. It is highly theoretical. So how do we measure it in real terms? What metrics can we use to give us a better picture of standard of living? I mean, we can't use the CPI because it DOESN't account for all sorts of things.

You may say that our standard of living is not lower but what are you basing that on? The things that matter to the common folk, like homes, school and health insurance are all astronomical compared to yesteryear. I do realize and I'm not being obtuse that housing is different across the country but taking a look at the homeownership rate is telling. The renter class is bigger than ever. More and more folks are living with roommates and more and more older "kids" are staying home or moving back to their parents.

So, again, what metrics can we use to have an honest conversation here?

 

[Nate505]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/-23-...see-a-raise-from-an-obama-rule-140934283.html



I believe mostly this will affect operations like fast-food and such. There are also other laws governing "exempt" status and it isn't exclusively based on wage. Interesting to see how this pans out. As it is McDonald's is no longer a good place for a quick cheap meal. We paid less at Denny's for burgers and fries than we did at McDonald's.

Are you in the US again? Perhaps the stoners in this state are making the fast food industry more revenue and thus keeping costs down, but here you can still get a double cheeseburger for $1.50 or so and a medium fry for $1.80 or so, bringing your total to $3.50 abouts with tax. If you can get that at Denny's still, wow. Though perhaps you can get a Grand Slam breakfast for that price. No Moons over MiHamy though.

 

[LogGrad98]

Is this the dork political/aliens/prepped forum most forums have?

Anyways, if we raised minimum wages to $15/hr these things would work themselves out.

I had to hunt to find this conversation to add this...

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/rais...ill-kill-6-6-million-jobs--aaf-152547994.html

The minimum wage is going up in a lot of places, such as New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seatlle and Chicago. Some workers will soon earn a starting wage of $15 per hour, more than double the federal minimum of $7.25.

But the sharp boost in the lowest legal wage is largely unprecedented, and some economist are warning of dire consequences. A new study published by the American Action Forum and Manhattan Institute finds that boosting the minimum wage nationwide to $12 or $15 would end up hurting many of the people it aims to help. Yahoo Finance has an exclusive first look at the research, which finds that a Federal minimum wage increase to $15 per hour would cost the economy 6.6 million jobs and that only 6.7% of the extra $105.4 billion in new wages would go to people in poverty.

“If you raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour, 55 million workers will see their wages affected—we looked at what happens after their wages are affected.”

The study also finds that increasing the minimum wage to $12 per hour would impact 38.3 million workers. 3.8 million jobs would be lost and only 5.8% of income gained would go to workers in poverty.

Some of us on here mentioned this sort of thing, that you cannot do this kind of drastic move without drastic effects.

 

[♪alt13]

I gave you the backing. What more do you need?

Measuring rate of inflation and standards of living is HIGHLY theoretical. From a practical standpoint, you are insane to claim we have a lower standard of living than in 1970. Thus, it stands to reason that incomes have not in fact been stagnant. A more proper term would be stagnant relative to high income growth.

The separation between the wealthy and middle class eventually leads to depressed spending. There ends up being more capital than can be invested for a profit. The middle class needs a larger share if we want our economy to be truly strong. Everyone benefits in the long run. When the middle class can afford what they want, and more importantly what they want to do, America will be booming.

 

[moevillini]

Franky, yes, you're right. It is highly theoretical. So how do we measure it in real terms? What metrics can we use to give us a better picture of standard of living? I mean, we can't use the CPI because it DOESN't account for all sorts of things.

You may say that our standard of living is not lower but what are you basing that on? The things that matter to the common folk, like homes, school and health insurance are all astronomical compared to yesteryear. I do realize and I'm not being obtuse that housing is different across the country but taking a look at the homeownership rate is telling. The renter class is bigger than ever. More and more folks are living with roommates and more and more older "kids" are staying home or moving back to their parents.

So, again, what metrics can we use to have an honest conversation here?

Not exactly sure how true most of this is, especially if you go back 40-50 years or so. Home ownership rates were much higher in the past ten years than they had ever been. The number of high school and college grads is now much higher than it was then as well.

https://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/28/homeownership-rate-lowest-in-25-years.html

Apr 28, 2015 - The homeownership rate in the first quarter of this year fell to 63.7 percent, the lowest since 1990, according to the U.S. Census. The homeownership rate is the ratio of households that own to overall households—the remaining being rental households.

LOL (or not...) just found a brand new analysis that shows its dropped to 63.4 - the lowest level in 48 years! Wow!!!

https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/07/28/u-s-homeownership-rate-hits-48-year-low/

Then again, a number of people I know rent their primary residence but own a "second" home on a lake or ski area - - and I know a number of boomers who are nearing retirement age and downsizing that are selling their house and renting, at least in the near term. This is most certainly a newer trend.

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/02/12/us-high-school-graduation-rate-hits-all-time-high

More American students are graduating from high school than ever before, according to new data from the Department of Education.

The national graduation rate hit a record high of 81 percent in the 2012-13 school year, the data show.

(article published in Feb, 2015) It has an interesting chart from 1909 - 1999 that shows it peaked slightly under 80% in 1969 and then dropped back around 70%.

and for college, another interesting article

Updated Feb. 3, 2015 7:53 p.m. ET

College completion rates for wealthy students have soared in 40 years but barely budged for low-income students, leading to a yawning gap in educational attainment between rich and poor that could have long-lasting implications for the socioeconomic divide.

In 2013, 77% of adults from families in the top income quartile earned at least bachelor’s degrees by the time they turned 24, up from 40% in 1970, according to a new report from the University of Pennsylvania’s Alliance for Higher Education and Democracy and the Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education. But 9% of people from the lowest income bracket did the same in 2013, up from 6% in 1970....

...Still, most of the poor students who pursue college degrees fail to make it all the way to graduation. About one in five college students from the lowest income bracket completed a bachelor’s degree by age 24 in 2013, about flat with the 1970 figure. Among students from top-earning families, meanwhile, 99% of students who enrolled completed their degrees, up from 55% in 1970.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-gap-in-college-graduation-rates-for-rich-and-poor-study-finds-1422997677

Plus, who is it that comes out of college loaded with debt - the wealthy student, or the poor student? So not only are poor students not completing college, but they are saddled with debt for their efforts at even trying.


I think for the most part everyone has access to a relatively decent standard of living at almost all income levels. That's not to say that there are not those that are struggling, because there certainly are. But what I do think has decreased in recent years is optimism for the future. And in some ways I think that's a more important measure, particularly once the basics of food and shelter are accounted for.

At any rate, I don't entirely disagree with this proposal regarding overtime pay. I do think that "managers" who earn less than around $40,000 or so should be paid overtime. But as with many related issues on income and wages, it's tough to draw an arbitrary line in the sand.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Do you know how many working people are on Food Stamps or have children that receive medical subsidies - I believe both represent a near majority of the recipients

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7grXSzxxxA

 

[LogGrad98]

I think that everyone likes to spout the idea of higher minimum wage without thinking about the unintended consequences.

 

[Revolution 9]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7grXSzxxxA

Yes, because Fox news is going to present an unbiased assessment of the situation. Please avoid MSNBC or Fox when trying to provide proof of anything.

I agree with Log people like to spout of about the issue. Which is true about both sides. Obviously there are consequences to keeping wages low as well.
I hear people whining about "all the people" they are paying for, but want to keep wages low. Well you cant have it both ways.

Usually the solution rides somewhere in the middle. We cant strip small business of its right to thrive or survive. We also need to be harder on these giant
companies who whine and complain about what higher wages will do to their companies. The solutuion requires both sides to take an honest look at the situation and make some compromies for the common good. Of course in todays political climate this isnt getting done. Its not cool to compromise.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Yes, because Fox news is going to present an unbiased assessment of the situation. Please avoid MSNBC or Fox when trying to provide proof of anything.

I agree with Log people like to spout of about the issue. Which is true about both sides. Obviously there are consequences to keeping wages low as well.
I hear people whining about "all the people" they are paying for, but want to keep wages low. Well you cant have it both ways.

Usually the solution rides somewhere in the middle. We cant strip small business of its right to thrive or survive. We also need to be harder on these giant
companies who whine and complain about what higher wages will do to their companies. The solutuion requires both sides to take an honest look at the situation and make some compromies for the common good. Of course in todays political climate this isnt getting done. Its not cool to compromise.

all media is biased.
but fact is if a few ask for less hours because they make too much money. so they can keep on mooching of taxpayers money.
isnt something wrong with the system

 

[green]

If you raise minimum wage, automation happens. Robots work for a lot less than people. And in 5 years? Everything is the same as costs rise, incomes rise across the board, and $15/hr is the new $7.50/hr.

The problem isn't wages. The problem is small businesses. I started a thread awhile back asking if Reagan killed small business.

The American Dream is to make $100,000 a year being your own boss with 10 employees. You can't do that anymore. A business that size can't compete. Did Reagan lowering the tax bill give companies/Wall Street the incentive to take over?

When did Wal-Mart, Ivory Homes, Applebee's, Famous Footwear, etc become so profitable that they decided to take over? That's what has killed the middle class. No more mom and pop stores.

 

[Gameface]

If you raise minimum wage, automation happens. Robots work for a lot less than people. And in 5 years? Everything is the same as costs rise, incomes rise across the board, and $15/hr is the new $7.50/hr.

The problem isn't wages. The problem is small businesses. I started a thread awhile back asking if Reagan killed small business.

The American Dream is to make $100,000 a year being your own boss with 10 employees. You can't do that anymore. A business that size can't compete. Did Reagan lowering the tax bill give companies/Wall Street the incentive to take over?

When did Wal-Mart, Ivory Homes, Applebee's, Famous Footwear, etc become so profitable that they decided to take over? That's what has killed the middle class. No more mom and pop stores.

I don't like mom and pop stores. They suck and, as a consumer, I'm glad there are fewer of them.

 

[RandyForRubio]

I don't like mom and pop stores. They suck and, as a consumer, I'm glad there are fewer of them.

I don't mind them. I can't get everything there that I need, and the prices are higher, but generally I get better service and a high quality product.

 

[Gameface]

mom and pop shops are a romantic fiction

 

[Beer]

I don't like mom and pop stores. They suck and, as a consumer, I'm glad there are fewer of them.

I'd rather spend a little more, get much better service and actually be helping someone live their life. I don't go to wal mart, its makes me feel gross.

 

[fishonjazz]

I'd rather spend a little more, get much better service and actually be helping someone live their life. I don't go to wal mart, its makes me feel gross.

I wish I could resist the sweet nectar of Wal-Mart.
I'm just too weak