# I work 4 jobs and I'm still struggling



## Bowden (Dec 13, 2013)

He expects that in this job market that he can get a well paying job with a liberal arts degree?
Pffftttt.


"he finally  graduated in 2008 with a bachelor's degree in liberal arts from  University of Missouri, Kansas City".

Here's what one week of juggling schedules and part-time paychecks looks like for Bingham: 
   - 24 hours waiting tables at Mexican restaurant Taco Republic. He  makes  tips plus $2.13, which is the federal minimum wage for tipped   employees, like waiters. 
  -30 hours delivering sandwiches for Jimmy John's, which pays him $7.35 an hour, plus tips. 
  -3 one-hour massages, for a total of $60. 
   -9 hours as a receptionist at his former massage school. (The amount  of  money he makes working at the school isn't included in his $400  weekly  pay, since it goes directly to repay $9,500 worth of student  loans.)


I work 4 jobs and I'm still struggling - Dec. 12, 2013

By Emily Jane Fox  December 12, 2013: 9:28 AM ET  






Bobby  Bingham works 4 jobs, shares a one-bedroom apartment with a roommate,  has virtually no money saved and can't remember the last time he took a  vacation.

    NEW YORK (CNNMoney) 
*Bobby Bingham works four jobs in Kansas City, Missouri, yet he has very little to show for it.*

  Bingham is 37 years old and has a college degree, but like many Americans, is stuck working many hours in low wage, part-time jobs. 
    Each week, he works a total of about 60 hours in his jobs as a massage  therapist, a waiter at a Mexican restaurant, a delivery man for sandwich  chain Jimmy John's and a receptionist at his massage school. 
  He brings home about $400 a week, or $20,000 per year, and has joined the nationwide movement of fast food protests fighting for higher wages. 
   "I've come to the point in my life where I wonder if I can ever support  a family," he said. "I have no idea how that's ever going to logically  happen." 
  Bingham's is an increasingly common story. The share of part-time workers  who couldn't find full-time jobs surged during the Great Recession,  more than double what it was in the preceding decade. Though their  situation is improving now, more than 7.7 million Americans are still  settling for part-time work, compared to about 4.1 million on average in  2006. 
Related: The myth of the American Dream

 
  Here's what one week of juggling schedules and part-time paychecks looks like for Bingham: 
   - 24 hours waiting tables at Mexican restaurant Taco Republic. He makes  tips plus $2.13, which is the federal minimum wage for tipped  employees, like waiters. 
  -30 hours delivering sandwiches for Jimmy John's, which pays him $7.35 an hour, plus tips. 
  -3 one-hour massages, for a total of $60. 
   -9 hours as a receptionist at his former massage school. (The amount of  money he makes working at the school isn't included in his $400 weekly  pay, since it goes directly to repay $9,500 worth of student loans.) 




 
  Wage wars: The fight for higher pay




   Bingham shares a one-bedroom apartment with a roommate, has virtually  no money saved and can't remember the last time he took a vacation. 
   This is not where Bingham thought he'd be. After struggling to make  ends meet while also intermittently attending college, he finally  graduated in 2008 with a bachelor's degree in liberal arts from  University of Missouri, Kansas City. He had even higher hopes from his  massage therapy degree. 

  "My family told me, 'just get your  degree and it will be fine,'" he said. "A degree looks very nice, but I  don't have a job to show for it." 
  But Bingham, like millions of other hourly wage earners, doesn't know if there is a possible path to a higher paying job.  In fact, wages fell for the entire bottom 70% of the wage distribution  during the Great Recession and its aftermath, according to research from  the Economic Policy Institute. 
  And he feels like there aren't a  whole lot of places to go from here. He can't afford to go back to  school, and even if he could, Bingham said it wouldn't be worth it. He  doesn't have time to take on a fifth job. 


Related: Sick days: A luxury many hourly workers don't have

 

  So he has turned to the fast food protests in hopes of improving his current situation. 
  He walked off work last Thursday as part of a nationwide day of action  planned by union-backed groups like Fight for $15 and Fast Food  Forward. Organizers say that workers in more than 100 cities were  calling for fast food chains to increase their wages to $15 an hour. 
  Currently, the nationwide average hourly wage for fast food workers is just over $9 an hour, or about $18,500 a year. 


  The low-wage protest movement began with a small walkout by fast food workers in New York City in November 2012 and has since picked up steam. Strikes this past August drew fast food workers in 60 cities, organizers said. 
  Bingham said the protests are the only way he sees things getting better. 
   "The only choice I have is to go into work and do this," he said.  "Looking around and seeing all these other people I work with, they  don't see any other choices either." 



  First Published: December 12, 2013: 4:49 AM ET


----------



## Standard Donkey (Dec 13, 2013)

$15 minimum wage lol... knowing this country, they'll get it


----------



## SheriV (Dec 13, 2013)

so dude has a lib arts, essentially gen studies degree..lowest possible credits to obtain
works four shitty jobs with lousy hrs and is bitching about not getting by?

try adding some credits to that and interning somewhere useful


----------



## hypo_glycemic (Dec 13, 2013)

Standard Donkey said:


> $15 minimum wage lol... knowing this country, they'll get it



Yeah....


----------



## SheriV (Dec 13, 2013)

so my brother in law has a sociology degree...utterly worthless and a bazillion bucks in student debt
he also works at a restaurant but heres the diff. He works at a 5 star , he made gen manager in a year so now he makes 12 bucks an hr and still ends up bartending or waiting tables at the restaurant..so he avgs like 20 bucks an hr. big money? no...but a helluva bigger diff then some schmuck whos working fast food where the expectation of service is pretty low.

why are people so lazy? skilled labor pays more


----------



## charley (Dec 13, 2013)

Standard Donkey said:


> $15 minimum wage lol... knowing this country, they'll get it



[Quote = charley;] $15 minimum wage ... knowing this country, they'll never get it


----------



## IronAddict (Dec 13, 2013)

"So he has turned to the fast food protests in hopes of improving his current situation. 
He walked off work last Thursday as part of a nationwide day of action planned by union-backed groups like Fight for $15 and Fast Food Forward. Organizers say that workers in more than 100 cities were calling for fast food chains to increase their wages to $15 an hour. 
Currently, the nationwide average hourly wage for fast food workers is just over $9 an hour, or about $18,500 a year."

So go ahead and disband the unions and derail this mans last recourse of action or hope to try & better his work situation and life.

I don't place any stock in what the pope says, but he basically blasted capitalism in recent days...

Thoughts on Pope's recent comments about capitalism,

"The church has been in an incestuous and rather evil relationship with the worship of wealth for a long time. Unfettered capitalism has become a religion in its own right. Preachers promoting the health and wealth doctrine and evangelical ?Christian? leaders attracted to Ayn Rand ? like Paul Ryan ? have given up their duty to serve humanity over wealth".


----------



## LAM (Dec 13, 2013)

Standard Donkey said:


> $15 minimum wage lol... knowing this country, they'll get it



if you think $15/hr is a lot of money, you've never made any meal money because it's peanuts.  we got paid that in the mid 80's for landscaping work and $20/hr to shovel snow when we were in high school.

$150-$350/hr is a lot of money.


----------



## Standard Donkey (Dec 13, 2013)

LAM said:


> if you think $15/hr is a lot of money, you've never made any meal money because it's peanuts.  we got paid that in the mid 80's for landscaping work and $20/hr to shovel snow when we were in high school.
> 
> $150-$350/hr is a lot of money.



it's a lot of money to sit in an air conditioned building and put mayonnaise on bread


----------



## SheriV (Dec 13, 2013)

^^ This honestly...this should be the kind of work some teenager or someone with no education does...and even then you can better yourself with a skilled trade. I'm sorry but there it is. I think the real problem is insane inflation on everything with everyone using the excuse of outrageously inflated petroleum prices.

I work in a skilled trade now and avg (its piece work so its an avg) $60 an hr. This affords me the luxury of working part time so my daycare isn't excessive.. Any monkey with some knowledge of construction and the ability to use microsoft office products could learn my job in a week...but the truth of the matter is I think some people TRULY don't want to work.
Theres heavy lifting and travel involved in my job and that turns a lot of people off.


----------



## REDDOG309 (Dec 13, 2013)

SheriV said:


> ^^ This honestly...this should be the kind of work some teenager or someone with no education does...and even then you can better yourself with a skilled trade. I'm sorry but there it is. I think the real problem is insane inflation on everything with everyone using the excuse of outrageously inflated petroleum prices.
> 
> I work in a skilled trade now and avg (its piece work so its an avg) $60 an hr. This affords me the luxury of working part time so my daycare isn't excessive.. Any monkey with some knowledge of construction and the ability to use microsoft office products could learn my job in a week...but the truth of the matter is I think some people TRULY don't want to work.
> Theres heavy lifting and travel involved in my job and that turns a lot of people off.



Now you got me back to thinking you have a dick.....

My problem is that people like this can't make enough money to get by and I see fat fuckin trash at the supermarket buying steak and ice cream with govt access cards and putting that shit in the back of a 2 year old Escalade, And I know they ain't working at all.


----------



## Standard Donkey (Dec 13, 2013)

REDDOG309 said:


> Now you got me back to thinking you have a dick.....
> 
> My problem is that people like this can't make enough money to get by and *I see fat fuckin trash at the supermarket buying steak and ice cream with govt access cards and putting that shit in the back of a 2 year old Escalade, And I know they ain't working at all*.



when I was 16 I bagged at the local grocery store.. can't tell you how often I saw this when taking these scumbag's groceries out to their cars


----------



## Swfl (Dec 13, 2013)

I blame this fucked up mentality on the schooling system. It has effectively brainwashed almost Everyone into thinking they cant make any money without getting a college degree... which is not true at all. if people would stop bitching and waiting for big brother to wipe their ass and wash their dishes after dinner, and get up start THINKING for themselves and get creative they could put together a nice income fairly quickly. I moved down to FL and within 2 years I was making over 100k with just skilled labor and mostly part time one off jobs. But I hustle, I don't wait for a job in the paper I ask people if they need help, I check craigslist for people looking for help, I advertise on there too, and now I am well known enough that I don't have to advertise and I'm still as busy as I want to be.  I am also the only income earner in my home. My wife stays home and homeschools my son because I don't want any parts of the school system, its fucked and makes brainwashed retards for the most part.

This guy could do so much better if he bought a lawn mower and started cutting grass on the weekends, but I bet that never occurred to him.  and now all these people are strapped with school debt and most will default, the schools know it but it makes good little non thinking citizens so they do it anyway. The school bubble is bigger than the housing bubble it just hasn't popped yet...


----------



## Swfl (Dec 13, 2013)

oh one more thing if min wage goes up then so do expenses for the most part.  I know lam disagrees here.  so there still stuck at the bottom but witheven more people because everyone who made $15/he before is not a minimum wage earner and now considered at the poverty line where they were middle class+/- before. so raising min wage while it seems great, actually does quite a bit to destroy middle class.  everyone wants more middle class but this is nto the way. entitlements do not help one think for themselves.   Remember back when you did not have a calculator how you could actually do most math in yoru head. but now that you have something to do it for you even basic math seems nearly impossible...


----------



## troubador (Dec 13, 2013)

I made $20k a year working part-time while going to school full-time so fuck that guy.


----------



## Swfl (Dec 13, 2013)

troubador said:


> I made $20k a year working part-time while going to school full-time so fuck that guy.



Exactly!


----------



## jay_steel (Dec 13, 2013)

As soon as I read liberal studies i laughed. Thats a bogus degree, its like having no social life and going into communications. Just like in the military your choice your rate your choice your fate. My wife wanted to be an athletic trainer knowing they make peanuts compared to P.A's and Physical Therapists with the same education just a different path. She makes 20$ an hour with a masters and our PA's make 10-13k a month. She choice that path and i told her i dont want to hear her bitch about it. If she wants to complain go to PA school. 

There is no reason a McDonalds worker should make 15$ an hour maybe if your the floor manager, I can see better benefit packages for full time staff but lets get serious how hard is it to work an assembly line for fast food. If you expect to take care of your family with no education and your only talent is making a dbl 1/4 lber then your screwed you better take your ass to night school and use some of that financial aid and gov't money for education.

here is my observation some one who is 30 years old working fast food is lazy, does not want to challenge or better them selves. there may be a 1% that got stuck there and doing it because its there only option after losing there good job but in the median of people a 30 year old working a job made for a teenager is not motivated at all. Giving more money to people for no reason at all because they refuse to better them self will not help the economy. If you are proven to not be able to manage finances do you really think the additional minimum wage is going to go to savings and caring for their family?

I believe in providing to those who bust their ass and work hard, not give a hand out to everyone because you feel guilty there is a poor class in America. Shit our poor class is richer then 99% of the worlds poor class. If your lower income and you have a roof, flat screen tv and a ps3 you cant be bitching that much. Go to Thailand then complain.


----------



## dogsoldier (Dec 13, 2013)

SheriV said:


> so dude has a lib arts, essentially gen studies degree..lowest possible credits to obtain
> works four shitty jobs with lousy hrs and is bitching about not getting by?
> 
> try adding some credits to that and interning somewhere useful




You nailed it sister.  Go ahead and get the degrees in lib arts, women's, black, native studies, then try to translate those to the work world.  Better off trying to become the best barrista at Starbucks. You will make more money.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 13, 2013)

jay_steel said:


> here is my observation some one who is 30 years old working fast food is lazy, does not want to challenge or better them selves.



As someone that grew up among the poorest people in the nation, I make this one observation: the vast majority of poor people deserve to be poor. They make no real effort to change their station. They don't try to save money by purchasing less or putting it into an account. They don't take advantage of resources such as the library, Internet or cheap (sometimes free) educational programs. "But, but, they don't know any better," is the common plaintive wail I hear when in reply to my statement. What, they don't know you can make more? They don't see middle or upper class people? They don't know about learning from library, Internet or schools? 

If people only did what they'd seen before, then we'd all be ape sitting in tree flinging shit at each other. There's a reason that, as you move up the fiscal ladder, there are less and less because it's a simple fact that it mirrors the percentages of the population that want to put forth that much effort. "Hey, there are those people that are born into wealth!" I've heard that one, too. Behind each person that was born rich is, someone in their ancestry, a person that made the wealth. I know it's also "in" to talk about how lazy the rich are and that they don't know anything of value. It's true that some don't, but most do. Why? Because their parents teach them. Either explicitly or simply by watching. Want on a book on that? Read "Rich Dad, Poor Day" by Robert Kyosaki (don't bother with any of his other books, he simply rehashes). "But look Paris Hilton! He grandfather made the money and she's just living off of it!" You might give as a specific example, which would show that you're not getting it. Yeah, she's living off her inherited wealth, but she was also smart enough to make herself her own business. She had her own TV show, merchandise, appearances, and more. That woman that you thought was stupid still probably made more money on her own than you did.

Don't misunderstand me, far too many of the financial elite are abusing their power at our cost, but not all of the do. Nor does that have much bearing on one's individual ability to attain a better standard of living. What's also true is that most people take the easy path, the life less traveled...and they bitch and moan the entire time, looking for a free handout.

Not every poor person deserves to be poor. Those are the men and woman who will end up doing something to move up from that low financial station. The rest will remain, deservedly so, at the bottom. Put another way, the way out for those that shouldn't be poor are already there.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 13, 2013)

REDDOG309 said:


> Now you got me back to thinking you have a dick.....
> 
> My problem is that people like this can't make enough money to get by and I see fat fuckin trash at the supermarket buying steak and ice cream with govt access cards and putting that shit in the back of a 2 year old Escalade, And I know they ain't working at all.



Sometimes those fancy cars are right off the dealer lots.  Pop in for a test drive and keep it long-term.  That's how some people can afford them.


----------



## KelJu (Dec 13, 2013)

troubador said:


> I made $20k a year working part-time while going to school full-time so fuck that guy.




I made 28k-30k while going to school. However, I think that ruined me. I didn't know how lucky I was at the time, and I always thought that things were suppose to get even better. I wish I had never gone to school. It was the worst mistake I ever made. I would be debt free and happier.


----------



## jay_steel (Dec 13, 2013)

DOMS said:


> As someone that grew up among the poorest people in the nation, I make this one observation: the vast majority of poor people deserve to be poor. They make no real effort to change their station. They don't try to save money by purchasing less or putting it into an account. They don't take advantage of resources such as the library, Internet or cheap (sometimes free) educational programs. "But, but, they don't know any better," is the common plaintive wail I hear when in reply to my statement. What, they don't know you can make more? They don't see middle or upper class people? They don't know about learning from library, Internet or schools?
> 
> If people only did what they'd seen before, then we'd all be ape sitting in tree flinging shit at each other. There's a reason that, as you move up the fiscal ladder, there are less and less because it's a simple fact that it mirrors the percentages of the population that want to put forth that much effort. "Hey, there are those people that are born into wealth!" I've heard that one, too. Behind each person that was born rich is, someone in their ancestry, a person that made the wealth. I know it's also "in" to talk about how lazy the rich are and that they don't know anything of value. It's true that some don't, but most do. Why? Because their parents teach them. Either explicitly or simply by watching. Want on a book on that? Read "Rich Dad, Poor Day" by Robert Kyosaki (don't bother with any of his other books, he simply rehashes). "But look Paris Hilton! He grandfather made the money and she's just living off of it!" You might give as a specific example, which would show that you're not getting it. Yeah, she's living off her inherited wealth, but she was also smart enough to make herself her own business. She had her own TV show, merchandise, appearances, and more. That woman that you thought was stupid still probably made more money on her own than you did.
> 
> ...



there is actually a web site that will allow you to self teach your self ivy league and MIT material for free. You get all the material and E-Books. My brother in law told me about this site. He just had a guy apply for an aerospace engineering job with a GED only. He wasnt going to hire him, but wanted to meet him to see what gave him the idea he could apply for a job that maybe only 2% of America could qualify for. Were talking about redesigning satellites, and high end engineering. The guy brought in a binder with all of his research, CAD, and showed him concepts he has designed while self educating him self. He basically got an MIT education without the paper. 

My brother in law was blown away that he gave him a practical test to make sure it was his work and the guy was hired on the spot. Told him he had a 6 month probation window at 80k and if he proves him self because it is a risk hiring him then he will get a contract and bump to 120k with housing and a car supplied to him. 

It really falls under how bad you want something. It doesnt matter if its a job, a sport, or a video game. If you want to excel at things you have to make sacrifices. There are stories of pro gamers (yes im a geek im an IT) that lived on couches and barely had cash to pay bills just so they can game all day and practice. There is a guy that calls him doublelift was homeless and now hes an international star in the gaming community. 

If i worked at McD's and knew thats all i could do and didnt want to educate my self the first thing i would ask is what do i need to do, to earn a management position then bust my ass to that. Then once i get there ask the next question what do i need to do to get to the next higher position. If you setting for burger maker you will all ways be a burger maker. We should not adjust your salary because you have no drive to better your self.


----------



## heckler7 (Dec 13, 2013)

just to point out the obvious, 10 years ago gas was less than $1 a gal. so on average I paid $35 a week in fuel. and a 2 bedroom apartment cost me $800 a month now I spend about $800 a month in gas and an average apartment is more than $1500. $15 dollars an hour is about $600 a week before taxes I make about that much in one day, doesn't seem like that much money.just sayn


----------



## ctr10 (Dec 13, 2013)

What the fuck is Bobby Bingham smiling about then, I would be embarrassed as a 37 year old man with a college degree to even let that go public, evidently he planned to fail, or failed to plan, LOSER


----------



## Standard Donkey (Dec 13, 2013)

ctr10 said:


> What the fuck is Bobby Bingham smiling about then, I would be embarrassed as a* 37 year old *man with a college degree to even let that go public, evidently he planned to fail, or failed to plan, LOSER



wow I totally missed that...what a fucking loser lol


----------



## Swiper (Dec 13, 2013)

lets not forget that our govt is destroying the value of dollar which plays a huge role as well.  And we can thank the federal reserve for that as it turns 100 years old  this month while it devalued the dollar 96% since it's creation.


----------



## Bowden (Dec 14, 2013)

IronAddict said:


> "So he has turned to the fast food protests in hopes of improving his current situation.
> He walked off work last Thursday as part of a nationwide day of action planned by union-backed groups like Fight for $15 and Fast Food Forward. Organizers say that workers in more than 100 cities were calling for fast food chains to increase their wages to $15 an hour.
> Currently, the nationwide average hourly wage for fast food workers is just over $9 an hour, or about $18,500 a year."
> 
> ...



Did you notice yet that the pope is announcing that the Catholic church is selling the Vatican mansion that the Pope lives in, all other Church property around the world and donating the proceeds to feeding and sheltering the poor and homeless?

As to "this man", he needs to understand that the opinion of other people in the world is that they do not owe him a living wage and he is not entitled to other peoples money by the government taxing those people and then redistributing their income to him just because his father screwed his mother and nine months later he was born.


----------



## Bowden (Dec 14, 2013)

Swfl said:


> oh one more thing if min wage goes up then so do expenses for the most part.  I know lam disagrees here.  so there still stuck at the bottom but witheven more people because everyone who made $15/he before is not a minimum wage earner and now considered at the poverty line where they were middle class+/- before. so raising min wage while it seems great, actually does quite a bit to destroy middle class.  everyone wants more middle class but this is nto the way. entitlements do not help one think for themselves.   Remember back when you did not have a calculator how you could actually do most math in yoru head. but now that you have something to do it for you even basic math seems nearly impossible...



Try looking into where some companies allocate their cash after operating expenses.
Many of them could afford to pay their workers a living wage without raising prices, but in the case of companies like Wal-Mart they use it to buy-back 15 billion dollars worth of stock and pay out dividends so that the owners of the company and their executives that own stock in trusts and stock options and their investors receive that cash in capital gains and dividends that are taxed lower than ordinary income is.

At the same time they give their low wage and benefit employees directions to federal and state welfare offices in all the states they operate in so those employees can apply for food stamps and other taxpayer funded welfare programs.

Something very wrong here.
It's called corrupt capitalism, the end of trickle down supply side economics.
All boats are not being lifted at the same time  corporate profits are at an all time high.
The result is a destabilization of society, a large increase in the numbers of people in the working poor economic class and an increase in socialism.


----------



## Swfl (Dec 14, 2013)

And you think that raising the minimum wage will fix this issu?  it will only make it worse

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 14, 2013)

It isn't really a minimum wage issue, it's a stagnant wage issue.


----------



## hoyle21 (Dec 14, 2013)

Swfl said:


> And you think that raising the minimum wage will fix this issu?  it will only make it worse
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk



That's not a factual statement.


----------



## hoyle21 (Dec 14, 2013)

While it is true that prices would rise if minimum wage was raised they would rise very little compared to the wage increase.   If McDonalds doubled their wages a Big Mac meal would only increase 30 cents.  

I don't see how anyone doesn't believe that's a fair trade off.


----------



## Swfl (Dec 14, 2013)

I don't know where you think it's only going to raise end user costs by 30 cents that's ridiculous. As an employer if I see my lowest paid workers wages double that's a 100 percent increase. Ie more than double taken from the bottom line. Then I will have to increase my charge rate. Also now I have to raise everyone else's wages because it is unfair to them they worked for the higher wages and now they're making the same price as the entry-level employee, it simply isn't feasible

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk


----------



## troubador (Dec 14, 2013)

hoyle21 said:


> If McDonalds doubled their wages a Big Mac meal would only increase 30 cents.



That's not a factual statement. You have no idea what McDonald's would decide to do.


----------



## hoyle21 (Dec 14, 2013)

troubador said:


> That's not a factual statement. You have no idea what McDonald's would decide to do.



According to several studies that 30 cent increase would offset the hike in minimum wage, but you are correct.   They "could" do anything they want.


----------



## hoyle21 (Dec 14, 2013)

Swfl said:


> I don't know where you think it's only going to raise end user costs by 30 cents that's ridiculous. As an employer if I see my lowest paid workers wages double that's a 100 percent increase. Ie more than double taken from the bottom line. Then I will have to increase my charge rate. Also now I have to raise everyone else's wages because it is unfair to them they worked for the higher wages and now they're making the same price as the entry-level employee, it simply isn't feasible
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk



Sounds like you're very unfamiliar with McDonalds business model and more than likely a shitty manager.


----------



## hoyle21 (Dec 14, 2013)

Another cost that is completely related to low wages that is often ignored is the cost of voluntary attrition.


----------



## Swfl (Dec 14, 2013)

hoyle21 said:


> Sounds like you're very unfamiliar with McDonalds business model and more than likely a shitty manager.



Typical liberal argument, when someone calls us you have to insult them you have no idea how many businesses I ran with multiple employees in the real issue here is not what is going to do to a huge business its what's it going to do to the 90 percent of the small businesses in operation today therefore more small businesses that will be shut down or put out of competition because of this than a few McDonalds

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk


----------



## hoyle21 (Dec 14, 2013)

That's completely not true.

While labor is an employers largest controllable expense it accounts for a pretty small percentage of total expenses.

Furthermore businesses fail all the time.   Technology and competition make businesses obsolete constantly.   If your conservative viewpoint is correct businesses that are effected by higher wages (very few) will be replaced by more efficient models.

This stagnet wage issue is just government subsidized business.   If those businesses didn't have the help of the government subsidies they wouldn't be in business because nobody would work there.

Either way the expense is passed to the citizens.


----------



## KILLEROFSAINTS (Dec 14, 2013)

Swfl said:


> Typical liberal argument, when someone calls us you have to insult them you have no idea how many businesses I ran with multiple employees in the real issue here is not what is going to do to a huge business its what's it going to do to the 90 percent of the small businesses in operation today therefore more small businesses that will be shut down or put out of competition because of this than a few McDonalds
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk


cant compare whatever small buisness you had to mcds


----------



## hoyle21 (Dec 14, 2013)

Lots of McDonalds are small businesses.   It's a franchise.


----------



## Jamzy (Dec 14, 2013)

I am a Veterans Educational Counselor and help a lot of our servicemen to choose a career path and enter into school.  I have many success stories but my most recent was seaman that came to me wanting to get into college.  That was 4 years ago. He just graduated from school as a Petroleum Engineer at a starting wage of $160,000 a year.  He was told he would get rapid raises,  His family is very happy. If you look at our governments Occupational Handbook, you will see the present top occupational demand and how they pay.  I assure you that Liberal Arts Degrees are not even on the same page as the Top 10 Paying Jobs.  That guy was a dumbass.


----------



## KILLEROFSAINTS (Dec 14, 2013)

hoyle21 said:


> Lots of McDonalds are small businesses.   It's a franchise.


Still


----------



## Swfl (Dec 14, 2013)

hoyle21 said:


> That's completely not true.
> 
> While labor is an employers largest controllable expense it accounts for a pretty small percentage of total expenses.
> 
> ...



Employee wages and withholding taxes are between 25 to 35 percent of an average small business budget how was that small? I have no problem with a business failing because it offers poor service or a lesser quality product but if a business is going to be muscled oubt because of government imposed price increases ie wage increases that I'm not for that

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk


----------



## heckler7 (Dec 14, 2013)

why are people against a minimum pay increase? My daughter is working 2 part time jobs and in college I think if she made a little more money I wouldnt have to support het as much and she could work on job and focus more on school and sleep


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 14, 2013)

heckler7 said:


> why are people against a minimum pay increase? My daughter is working 2 part time jobs and in college I think if she made a little more money I wouldnt have to support het as much and she could work on job and focus more on school and sleep



Greed.


----------



## Swfl (Dec 14, 2013)

heckler7 said:


> why are people against a minimum pay increase? My daughter is working 2 part time jobs and in college I think if she made a little more money I wouldnt have to support het as much and she could work on job and focus more on school and sleep



Because of all of the other problems that will cause. Why don't you encourage her to find a way to generate income perhaps on the Internet there are other ways to make money besides going getting a job she could clean houses in the evening and easily make $25 an hour the list could go on and on

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk


----------



## Swiper (Dec 14, 2013)

heckler7 said:


> why are people against a minimum pay increase?



Minimum Wage, Maximum Stupidity

by Peter Schiff

In a free market, demand is always a function of price: the higher the price, the lower the demand. What may surprise most politicians is that these rules apply equally to both prices and wages. When employers evaluate their labor and capital needs, cost is a primary factor. When the cost of hiring low-skilled workers moves higher, jobs are lost. Despite this, minimum wage hikes, like the one set to take effect later this month, are always seen as an act of governmental benevolence. Nothing could be further from the truth.

When confronted with a clogged drain, most of us will call several plumbers and hire the one who quotes us the lowest price. If all the quotes are too high, most of us will grab some Drano and a wrench, and have at it. Labor markets work the same way. Before bringing on another worker, an employer must be convinced that the added productivity will exceed the added cost (this includes not just wages, but all payroll taxes and other benefits.) So if an unskilled worker is capable of delivering only $6 per hour of increased productivity, such an individual is legally unemployable with a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.

Low-skilled workers must compete for employers' dollars with both skilled workers and capital. For example, if a skilled worker can do a job for $14 per hour that two unskilled workers can do for $6.50 per hour each, then it makes economic sense for the employer to go with the unskilled labor. Increase the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour and the unskilled workers are priced out of their jobs. This dynamic is precisely why labor unions are such big supporters of minimum wage laws. Even though none of their members earns the minimum wage, the law helps protect their members from having to compete with lower-skilled workers.

Employers also have the choice of whether to employ people or machines. For example, an employer can hire a receptionist or invest in an automated answering system. The next time you are screaming obscenities into the phone as you try to have a conversation with a computer, you know what to blame for your frustration.


There are numerous other examples of employers substituting capital for labor simply because the minimum wage has made low-skilled workers uncompetitive. For example, handcarts have replaced skycaps at airports. The main reason fast-food restaurants use paper plates and plastic utensils is to avoid having to hire dishwashers.

As a result, many low-skilled jobs that used to be the first rung on the employment ladder have been priced out of the market. Can you remember the last time an usher showed you to your seat in a dark movie theater? When was the last time someone other than the cashier not only bagged your groceries, but also loaded them into your car? By the way, it won't be long before the cashiers themselves are priced out of the market, replaced by automated scanners, leaving you to bag your purchases with no help whatsoever.

The disappearance of these jobs has broader economic and societal consequences. First jobs are a means to improve skills so that low-skilled workers can offer greater productivity to current or future employers. As their skills grow, so does their ability to earn higher wages. However, remove the bottom rung from the employment ladder and many never have a chance to climb it.

So the next time you are pumping your own gas in the rain, do not just think about the teenager who could have been pumping it for you, think about the auto mechanic he could have become ? had the minimum wage not denied him a job. Many auto mechanics used to learn their trade while working as pump jockeys. Between fill-ups, checking tire pressure, and washing windows, they would spend a lot of time helping ? and learning from ? the mechanics.


Because the minimum wage prevents so many young people (including a disproportionate number of minorities) from getting entry-level jobs, they never develop the skills necessary to command higher paying jobs. As a result, many turn to crime, while others subsist on government aid. Supporters of the minimum wage argue that it is impossible to support a family on the minimum wage. While that is true, it is completely irrelevant, as minimum wage jobs are not designed to support families. In fact, many people earning the minimum wage are themselves supported by their parents.

The way it is supposed to work is that people do not choose to start families until they can earn enough to support them. Lower-wage jobs enable workers to eventually acquire the skills necessary to earn wages high enough to support a family. Does anyone really think a kid with a paper route should earn a wage high enough to support a family?

The only way to increase wages is to increase worker productivity. If wages could be raised simply by government mandate, we could set the minimum wage at $100 per hour and solve all problems. It should be clear that, at that level, most of the population would lose their jobs, and the remaining labor would be so expensive that prices for goods and services would skyrocket. That's the exact burden the minimum wage places on our poor and low-skilled workers, and ultimately every American consumer.

Since our leaders cannot even grasp this simple economic concept, how can we expect them to deal with the more complicated problems that currently confront us?

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/schiff/schiff34.1.html


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 14, 2013)

Swfl said:


> Because of all of the other problems that will cause. Why don't you encourage her to find a way to generate income perhaps on the Internet there are other ways to make money besides going getting a job she could clean houses in the evening and easily make $25 an hour the list could go on and on
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk



What problems would it cause?


----------



## Swfl (Dec 14, 2013)

Read above. From swiper this pretty well covers it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk


----------



## bruno229 (Dec 14, 2013)

All I know is that cost of living is rising every day but our wages are staying the same. I bust my butt and make combine 160k b4 taxes with 4 kids. And still barely making it. I don't own boats or nice automobiles either. My only luxury is kids are in Christian schools.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## SheriV (Dec 14, 2013)

yeah I have a huge problem with cost of living..I'd love to now how it is I buy half as much food, drive half as much, use literally a third less electricity in my house but everything has doubled over the last four yrs.

I cut out every extra expense out of family budget to keep a level playing field with everything else (mortgage, kids clothes etc)
and somehow how I have no real free-d up money floating around or major savings, and I did 8 years ago.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 14, 2013)

Swfl said:


> Read above. From swiper this pretty well covers it.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk



There is barely any truth to that.


----------



## Swfl (Dec 14, 2013)

The long and the short of it is if you've only ever had a job and never work for anyone else then you've never truly taking full responsibility for yourself and you can't understand until you do . When you have to make payroll and pay the taxes and everything else associated with keeping a business operational then even the slightest increase in your expenses can have quite the effect on the bottom line or the customers price that extra money has to come from somewhere either comes from the company taking less profits or the owners not being able to pay themselves as well or the end-user pays more the only two options there are there's no other magical fund that it comes from.

No I'm not saying that businesses are making money but what I am saying is I don't think it's best that businesses or any business makes money that's the purpose of a business.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk


----------



## Swfl (Dec 14, 2013)

the economy is really screwed and unfortunately the lowest paid workers are going to feel it first and that's what's happening right now the economy collapses. So these people are going to have to learn to become more innovative to take care of themselves they can't rely on someone else giving them work and giving them money yes they are in it but they have to be willing to go out and do their own thing and take their own risks.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 14, 2013)

Swfl said:


> the economy is really screwed and unfortunately the lowest paid workers are going to feel it first and that's what's happening right now the economy collapses. So these people are going to have to learn to become more innovative to take care of themselves they can't rely on someone else giving them work and giving them money yes they are in it but they have to be willing to go out and do their own thing and take their own risks.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk



I agree with most of this.


----------



## Big Puppy (Dec 14, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> There is barely any truth to that.



Barely any truth to that?

So what's ginna happen when you pull up to get your #1 with no onions at mcdonalds and they say $13.95?

Pretty irrevelevant lol


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 14, 2013)

Big Puppy said:


> Barely any truth to that?
> 
> So what's ginna happen when you pull up to get your #1 with no onions at mcdonalds and they say $13.95?
> 
> Pretty irrevelevant lol



How can you confidently say it will cost that much with an increase in the minimum wage?  It doesn't take an hour to make a burger.  If it did then the cost could indeed go up that much.  But with how much they sell?  The price increase will be minimal.  If it were to go up more than 50 cents it's only because someone wants to make a statement.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 14, 2013)

Besides, I don't eat there.  I just pop in for a Coke every couple weeks.  Maybe it will affect you, won't affect me.


----------



## Swfl (Dec 14, 2013)

Its the supply line the mcdonalds worker wont be the only person who gets the pay increase. .. the guy who packages the buns in boxes at the warehouse. The truck drivers  and everyone else like the farm worker who picks the vegetables. If there all makung $15/hr you cant logically deny that prices wont see a significant increase... most folks font think about everything that goes into making that $4 burger.   The burger is only one example. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 14, 2013)

Farm worker pay falls under different regulations.  Even if it didn't the overall price increase would not be significant.  Which is why I said 50 cents, taking all those things into consideration.


----------



## Swfl (Dec 14, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> Farm worker pay falls under different regulations.  Even if it didn't the overall price increase would not be significant.  Which is why I said 50 cents, taking all those things into consideration.



You taught me something! 

Thanks

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk


----------



## Swfl (Dec 15, 2013)

Here is what i'm getting at. the school system is a big part of the problem. Here is someone who actually sees it first hand and can articulate it.


----------



## Bowden (Dec 15, 2013)

Swfl said:


> Here is what i'm getting at. the school system is a big part of the problem. Here is someone who actually sees it first hand and can articulate it.



So,
What his argument is, is that there are plenty of manual labor jobs out there like plumbing, car mechanic ect. that do not require a college degree.
Ok, so what does someone do when they hit 50+ , are no longer are physically capable of doing heavy manual labor and the only job they are trained for and have 30 years of experience in is plumbing and car mechanics?
Go back to trade school at 50+ and start all over?

OR apply for a part time deli clerk job in a grocery store or a job working at Wal-Mart for 7.50 an hour?


----------



## Swfl (Dec 15, 2013)

You missed the point again... lol

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk


----------



## Bowden (Dec 15, 2013)

Swfl said:


> You missed the point again... lol
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk



Answer my questions.
In this job market, there are millions of people out there that have no skills that are competing for part time low wage jobs.

When Mr. working in what ever trade job hits 50+,  is no longer are physically capable of doing heavy manual  trade labor and the only job he is trained for and have 30 years of  experience in is say plumbing or car mechanics what does he do?
Compete in a job market with millions of people out there that have no skills that are competing for part time low wage jobs?

Most trade jobs that do not require a college degree require some type of heavy physical labor.
That's fine when you are 20 and starting out.
When you hit 50 you will find that you cannot continue doing the physical labor that is required.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 15, 2013)

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics less than 3 percent of all workers take home $7.25 or less an hour and half who do are 24 years old or younger. And the vast majority?77 percent ?of minimum wage earners belong to households that are above the poverty line.


----------



## Swfl (Dec 15, 2013)

Bowden said:


> Answer my questions.
> In this job market, there are millions of people out there that have no skills that are competing for part time low wage jobs.
> 
> When Mr. working in what ever trade job hits 50+,  is no longer are physically capable of doing heavy manual  trade labor and the only job he is trained for and have 30 years of  experience in is say plumbing and car mechanics what does he do?
> ...



See you're looking at this like everyone goes through the exact same thing in life. That's not the case! While it may happen to some it does not happen to all so to answer your specific question doesn't solve or fix the actual problem . This is one of the many reasons why I said you missed the point.

The real issue is that the school system has taught people that they are too good to go to work and get their hands dirty . There's nothing wrong with physical labor.  It pays well many times, but at a certain point you do become worn down there's no question about that, my father who has been in the water well drilling industry for over 40 years now is still going quite strong so to say that everyone is shot after 30 years is such a broad generalization that I can't comment on it accurately or fairly. What you're trying to do is prove your point by giving an isolated incident. If someone has 30 years of experience doing something, then they should be able to find a job that is similar but start at a lower pay rate (gasp) or they could go out and do it on their own.  After 30+ yrs they have plenty of experience.  Most times they don't need an employer if they're free thinking and innovative.

Case in point: The founder of KFC.  He did not start KFC until he was in his mid 60's and had, I can't remember either lost or retired from his job. So to say that once you get past 30 years of labor that you can't do anything anymore is simply, untrue

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk


----------



## Bowden (Dec 15, 2013)

Swfl said:


> You missed the point again... lol
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk



I know what his point is.
Too many people are going to college and there are "dirty jobs" out there that need to be done that do not require a college degree and pay well.
However many of those "dirty jobs" require heavy physical labor.
That is fine when you are 20 and starting out.
However what about the guy that has done a "dirty job" for 30 years is 50 and can no longer handle the " dirty job" physical labor?

People with a college degree that are sitting in front of a computer doing an office job do not have to worry about that.


----------



## Bowden (Dec 15, 2013)

Swfl said:


> See you're looking at this like everyone goes through the exact same thing in life. That's not the case! While it may happen to some it does not happen to all so to answer your specific question doesn't solve or fix the actual problem . This is one of the many reasons why I said you missed the point.
> 
> The real issue is that the school system has taught people that they are too good to go to work and get their hands dirty . There's nothing wrong with physical labor.  It pays well many times, but at a certain point you do become worn down there's no question about that, my father who has been in the water well drilling industry for over 40 years now is still going quite strong so to say that everyone is shot after 30 years is such a broad generalization that I can't comment on it accurately or fairly. What you're trying to do is prove your point by giving an isolated incident. If someone has 30 years of experience doing something, then they should be able to find a job that is similar but start at a lower pay rate (gasp) or they could go out and do it on their own.  After 30+ yrs they have plenty of experience.  Most times they don't need an employer if they're free thinking and innovative.
> 
> ...



Being an successful entrepreneur requires that someone posses certain social skill innate traits they are born with like an ability to relate to and communicate with other people on their level, the ability to 'sell' concepts to other people and a type of intelligence that allows them to start up and manage a business. 
It requires a 'business mind' to get a business off the ground.

Many people do not have that type of intelligence and those communication skills.

As to your point about KFC, the guy in the video was talking about dirty jobs that do not require a college degree.
Most jobs like that require heavy physical labor.
I doubt that "Colonel Saunders" was a car mechanic or a plumber doing heavy manual trade labor when he hit 60 and started KFC.


----------



## bruno229 (Dec 15, 2013)

I really want yo see if the obese and free loaders that are on disability (but don't really need it)will still buy a big Mac if it doubles.  They would probably only afford half of what they usually eat monthly but at least they don't get as much trans-fats 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## bruno229 (Dec 15, 2013)

Id rather go to a mom n pop diner if big Macs double. LOL realistically if wages double it would doom McDonald's pricing and business models for sure.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Swfl (Dec 15, 2013)

So you would rather tell me that its too hard ,or because your not borne with "it" then to forget about the possibility... you can always learn and improve yourself.

The KFC reference was off the top of my head and I am about 90%sure that he was an auto mechanic (physical labor) before starting  KFC so that is an exact answer to your question.

Mike was not saying you have to do this at all. he was saying that there are many unfilled jobs but that you should be willing to work smart and hard at whatever you apply yourself to, and not to develop the mentality that you are above or too good for something.  The schools teach you to look down on physical labor because it makes college look better. But in reality many people go to work at labor jobs and retire from them and have nice lives despite not sitting at a desk rotting away for 30 years, then one day looking up when they loose their jobs and realizing they can't or won't do something else because they are EDUCATED AND HAVE A DEGREE... my Father in law is going through this right now. It sucks for him but he has his head so far up his own ass the he is his own worst enemy.  

So on one side of my family I have my father who works very hard and is healthy and doing fine. and on the other is my father in law who worked at a desk job for Chrysler, retired lost his money and is living off of SS and has been looking  for a job for over a year. he just got one as an auto parts driver, at min wage. its all in mindset and determination.  if my father in law had kept up with the times, learned computers and such then he would have found a job faster. instead he says I don't need that, and sat on his ass watching TV for 6 yrs. So when he finally decided to get a job and all applications were online he was totally fucked. he said to me I'll just go apply in person. guess what he found out about that tactic? all the employers said sure sit at this computer and fill out the application, lol.  So he was screwed.


----------



## KILLEROFSAINTS (Dec 15, 2013)

there are overpopulated skilled labor positions  just like all those office jobs

like welding and hvac


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 15, 2013)

Having a degree, even in liberal arts, is not a bad thing.  Just don't let it change your perspective.  Always get that degree.  You may not use it, I haven't used mine, but it can help in ways you never expect.  My degree is in business management and for seventeen years I worked as a test technician, turning a wrench and getting dirty.  After all that time I'm now getting positioned to move up to bigger and better.  Being a test technician payed well, taught me skills I can use (and barter with in SHTF scenarios), and I greatly enjoyed breaking other people's stuff and getting paid for it.  Why get the degree?  My current boss is management, but he doesn't qualify for the serious bonuses because he doesn't have a degree in anything.  I'm working to take over when he retires.  I'll get the bonuses he can't get.  

Worst (or best) case if I leave for one reason or another that degree is a talking point in an interview that shows I can adapt and succeed.  And should I go work for, say GM, I will get hired direct.  No contract work for me.  To be hired direct at GM requires a degree, any bachelor degree or higher.  So if I hired in as a technician I'd be one of the very few direct hires.  Contract people get let go first when things get bad.


----------



## Bowden (Dec 15, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> Having a degree, even in liberal arts, is not a bad thing.  Just don't let it change your perspective.  Always get that degree.  You may not use it, I haven't used mine, but it can help in ways you never expect.  My degree is in business management and for seventeen years I worked as a test technician, turning a wrench and getting dirty.  After all that time I'm now getting positioned to move up to bigger and better.  Being a test technician payed well, taught me skills I can use (and barter with in SHTF scenarios), and I greatly enjoyed breaking other people's stuff and getting paid for it.  Why get the degree?  My current boss is management, but he doesn't qualify for the serious bonuses because he doesn't have a degree in anything.  I'm working to take over when he retires.  I'll get the bonuses he can't get.
> 
> Worst (or best) case if I leave for one reason or another that degree is a talking point in an interview that shows I can adapt and succeed.  And should I go work for, say GM, I will get hired direct.  No contract work for me.  To be hired direct at GM requires a degree, any bachelor degree or higher.  So if I hired in as a technician I'd be one of the very few direct hires.  Contract people get let go first when things get bad.



Good points.


----------



## troubador (Dec 15, 2013)

We have a situation where more people are told to get their degree because more employers are requiring it and more employers are requiring it because there's a surplus of graduates. While as an individual getting a degree is probably a good idea, I'm not sure that the government should be promoting this practice of everyone getting a degree.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 15, 2013)

college is so expensive because the govt gets involved in the school loan business.


----------



## Jeeper (Dec 15, 2013)

I have no sympathy for the guy.  He picked jobs that have no potential of advancement.  And I doubt he knows how to work hard.  Look at him.  Most people simply don't want to work hard.  I have been fired twice in my life, and once I ended up on unemployment.  I was an engineer but was working construction and other manual labor jobs most people would not take.  I delivered paint in the 120 degree Phoenix summers into metal sheds that were 150 degrees.  I now own my own law firm.  Too many employees are straight 8-5 and not an ounce extra of effort.  And then they gripe that they deserve more.


----------



## Crono1000 (Dec 15, 2013)

dunno how true this is, but I feel it easier to post it, and let it formulate my opinion for me.


----------



## LAM (Dec 15, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> Worst (or best) case if I leave for one reason or another that degree is a talking point in an interview that shows I can adapt and succeed.  And should I go work for, say GM, I will get hired direct.  No contract work for me.  To be hired direct at GM requires a degree, any bachelor degree or higher.  So if I hired in as a technician I'd be one of the very few direct hires.  Contract people get let go first when things get bad.



many people have the mindset where a higher education is only about becoming more economically profitable, that's not what the higher education was meant to be about.  historically a scholar is also supposed to be about public work that that engages people in the arts, design, and humanities fields and in important and often transformative leadership roles.  It's also supposed to be about work or study that embodies and advances cultural ideals and values such as democracy, diversity, and equity.

That's one of the many problems with America, life isn't supposed to be all about economics and profits and that's exactly part of the problem of why the country is headed down the path it is.


----------



## LAM (Dec 15, 2013)

Swiper said:


> According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics less than 3 percent of all workers take home $7.25 or less an hour and half who do are 24 years old or younger. And the vast majority?77 percent ?of minimum wage earners belong to households that are above the poverty line.



and what does SSA data from 2010 show?   that 66% of the US workforce is earning less than $40K a year or an inflation adjusted $23K in 1990's dollars.  40% earns less than $20K or an inflation adjusted $11K in 1990's dollars.  

This "might" be causing a problem with aggregate demand.

Wage Statistics for 2010


----------



## Bowden (Dec 16, 2013)

OfficerFarva said:


> This is such a stupid post.  So you're saying once we hit 50 that life's pretty much over, we can't do anything physical anymore.. Maybe for you and some other people that's true but for the majority that age they're more than capable of doing physical work.  Let's all just get jobs sitting in cubicles for the rest of our lives.
> 
> Any guy that has been working in the trades for 30 years should easily be able to retire by than.  Journeymen out here make well over 100k a year.



Can we go back to the original premise of the thread?
The guy in the video was associated with "Dirty Jobs".
The premise is that Dirty Jobs are out there that do not require a college degree and that "schools" have sold people on the idea that a college degree is required to work at a job that provides a good living.
However there are other factors involved than just that there are "Dirty Jobs" out there that do not require a college degree.

Trade jobs usually require heavy manual labor.
Most people that have worked at trade jobs that require heavy manual labor will testify as to what doing that type of job day in and day out for years will do to someone.
Most people cannot continue do those jobs when they hit 50+.

Most people are clueless as to how much money is required for a comfortable retirement over say a 20 year retirement period.

Someone is not eligible for reduced Social Security benefits until they hit 62.
That problem is compounded by the fact that someone is not eligible for Medicare until they hit 65.
Medical expenses for people over 65 can be astronomical.

Most people making an income of around 100k and working at a trade job for 30 years will probably not have saved enough money to retire at 50.
Someone assuming they live until 80 making say 100k a year they would probably need to have saved at least *8 their salary (800k)  to be able to fund a comfortable retirement over a 20 year retirement period.
At a very minimum, they would have needed to save at least 80% of their 100k a year income *8 to be able to have a comfortable retirement.
That 80% minimum assumes that both Social Security and Medicare will be maintained at their current benefit levels which is unlikely.

If they retire at 50 after working 30 years, assuming they live until 80, then they would have to accumulate enough money to fund a 30 year retirement.
If they were paying on a mortgage, putting their kids through college ect.  then they are going to be limited as to how much of their income after expenses they can afford to put away for retirement.

You do the math.
At 100k a year if they retire at 50 after working 30 years and managed to be able to save 10% of their salary a year how much would they have accumulated for retirement over a 30 year period?
Will they have accumulated at the minimum at least 800k for retirement?

Most people do not get defined pensions anymore, so even if their employer has provided a 401k to them, if the market tanks just before they retire like it did in 2008, then they are fucked.
Most people lost at least 45% of their retirement account values if their retirement account contained mutual funds that were invested in the stock market.

People need to think about all of the above before they draw conclusions and if they do not want to be eating dog food in retirement need to do some research as to how much money is required at their income level to be able to replace at least 80% of their income over a 30 year retirement period.
Especially considering the facts that both Medicare and Social Security are running out of money and those benefits in the near future are probably going to be reduced for anyone that will not retire within 5 years.


----------



## Bowden (Dec 16, 2013)

People that do not think about what is going on are going to be fucked.

Anyone that thinks that someone making 100k over a 30 year career can afford a comfortable retirement starting at 50 if they manage to put away 10% a year (10k) of their income in a 401k retirement account is an idiot.
They are the ones that in retirement will be voting for socialist politicians as they will be totally dependent on the mercies of Government for their survival when they run out of money.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 16, 2013)

I have one observation: he can land four part-time jobs but not one full-time job? Part-timers tend to make less than their full-time counterparts. I think his lack of ability to commit to a full-time job is a symptom of his real problem. And before you pipe in with, "Maybe there aren't any full-time jobs at Jimmy Johns", I give you: full-time jobs for Jimmy Johnson in Kansas City, Missouri.



> "I've come to the point in my life where I wonder if I can ever support   a family," he said. "I have no idea how that's ever going to logically   happen."
> 
> ...
> 
> But Bingham, like millions of other hourly wage earners, doesn't know if there is a possible path to a higher paying job.



And this is why Bingham, and the people like him, will remain at the bottom no matter how much the minimum wage is raised. Also, get a Liberal Arts degree during a recession was just one of many poor choices this guy has made.

Having said that, I think that the minimum wage is due for a goodly raise. Back in the 60s or 70s (I can't remember which) they took the prices of a home and a car out of the calculations used to arrive at the amount the minimum wage should be. That is just as messed up at Bingham's choices. The minimum wage was a number used to make sure that companies had to pay enough for their employees to subsist. The minimum wage no longer meets that requirement therefor it needs to be raised.


----------



## jay_steel (Dec 16, 2013)

Bowden said:


> So,
> What his argument is, is that there are plenty of manual labor jobs out there like plumbing, car mechanic ect. that do not require a college degree.
> Ok, so what does someone do when they hit 50+ , are no longer are physically capable of doing heavy manual labor and the only job they are trained for and have 30 years of experience in is plumbing and car mechanics?
> Go back to trade school at 50+ and start all over?
> ...



If your working the same position for 50 plus years there is a problem. Just as if you work for McD's at 18 and still work the cash reg at 50 years old there is an issue. Plenty of people in the past busted there ass until they are 65, my grandpa drove trucks past retirement age. The thing is if you dont want to be put in that situation and work your ass off your entire life maybe you should sit down and think about what options you have. There are so many gov't funded education programs out there its stupid. Get a degree in civil service and go work for the country. CPS pays close to 80k a year just going over paperwork and managing the system but you need a degree. 

if you dont like the pay at your job then bust your ass to get a better job.


----------



## jay_steel (Dec 16, 2013)

Bowden said:


> People that do not think about what is going on are going to be fucked.
> 
> Anyone that thinks that someone making 100k over a 30 year career can afford a comfortable retirement starting at 50 if they manage to put away 10% a year (10k) of their income in a 401k retirement account is an idiot.
> They are the ones that in retirement will be voting for socialist politicians as they will be totally dependent on the mercies of Government for their survival when they run out of money.



yes but how is it our responsibility as tax payers and responsible citizens to ensure they are financially taken care of. If I sacrifice allot of wants in my life to ensure i can live comfortably where another family does not but ends up living off the gov't why should i be held responsible for their actions and not them? I would love a PS4, a new cell phone, new shoes, and ect. My wife drives a beat up explorer but its paid off and i consider our selves upper middle class. People need to start living with what they need and not what they want. My opinion if you can not pay cash for something that will not return revenue then you do not need it.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Dec 16, 2013)

Big Puppy said:


> Barely any truth to that?
> 
> So what's ginna happen when you pull up to get your #1 with no onions at mcdonalds and they say $13.95?
> 
> Pretty irrevelevant lol



This is a fundamental flaw in the anti-raise the minimum wage crowd.  Raising employees wages is peanuts compared to removing the subsidies that allow shitty food to be sold for nothing.  If you are against gov't intervention you should be against fast food establishments, yet they are held up as a beacon of capitalistic success.  They're more on the tit than the employees they aren't paying for shit.  People don't understand this because they don't think past the, "That dude who didn't go to college is making 5 cents more than me" logic.  I say raise the minimum wage for these people, Americans over-consuming this garbage is one of the reasons our healthcare tab is so high which is why I don't eat fast food.  Personally I would prefer elimination of the subsidies, but that ain't happening and these companies do provide jobs.  With the subsidies provided to them as well as the fact that a chunk of their employees have to go on welfare they are essentially double dipping.  So who's the bigger scumbag, the employee who is using the system to just get by and eat or the company that is reliant on both to provide their CEO with a 5th vacation home and pay a dividend to stockholders?


----------



## Swiper (Dec 16, 2013)

http://youtu.be/ahMGoB01qiA


----------



## LAM (Dec 16, 2013)

jay_steel said:


> Plenty of people in the past busted there ass until they are 65, my grandpa drove trucks past retirement age.



And it's a completely different era today in the U.S where unproductive financial capital now leads the economy which is no longer supported by labor.  An economy which gets markedly worse after each recession.  The liberalization of labor in the US only insures one thing, that things are only going to get worse and never better for the majority as the rate of poverty constantly increases and wages remain flat.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 16, 2013)




----------



## Swiper (Dec 16, 2013)

Singapore has the 3rd highest incomes in the world, 1.9% unemployment rate and no minimum wage.


----------



## LAM (Dec 16, 2013)

Swiper said:


>



Here's a couple hundred pages of empirical data collected across the OECD that you will never read which trumps your little graph.


Global Wage Report 2008/09
Minimum wages and collective bargaining
Towards policy coherence

http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_100786.pdf

Global Wage Report 2010/11: Wage policies in times of crisis
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/pu...---publ/documents/publication/wcms_145265.pdf


----------



## LAM (Dec 16, 2013)

Swiper said:


> Singapore has the 3rd highest incomes in the world, 1.9% unemployment rate and no minimum wage.



but they have national collective bargaining.   the number of high functioning economy's in the world that have neither equals zero.

Singapore Tripartism Forum : National Wages Council


----------



## Dale Mabry (Dec 17, 2013)

Swiper said:


> Singapore has the 3rd highest incomes in the world, 1.9% unemployment rate and no minimum wage.



They also have a very successful healthcare system based off sane government price controls and health savings accounts that can be used for any healthcare costs and are inheritable.  It basically pairs reasonable regulation with self accountability.


----------



## LAM (Dec 17, 2013)

Dale Mabry said:


> They also have a very successful healthcare system based off sane government price controls and health savings accounts that can be used for any healthcare costs and are inheritable.  It basically pairs reasonable regulation with self accountability.



and a massive subsidized housing program.  they have also followed a completely different model of deregulation and liberalization , haven't off-shored manufacturing as they have an export drive economy.

so in other words, their economy isn't even close to what we have here in the U.S.


----------



## iFartGlitter (Dec 17, 2013)

1) he's an asshole
2) who failed to tell him that a liberal arts degree does nothing for you unless you live in California, NYC, Chicago, or any major Euro city?
3) he can kiss my ass because he probably slept through his undergrad...if he wants to cry, he should try getting a health science degree in his 30's, then bitch about how boring ramen is, and then cry more when he realizes that a BS in health is worthless without a graduate degree, so he needs to amass $200k in loans before he actually makes more than $15/hr. 
4) he's an asshole
5) the cost of living in the Midwest is drastically less than the rest of the country, so he should try #3 while making about $200/week because that's all the time he can spare due to the requirements of #3
6) he's an asshole


----------



## Swiper (Dec 17, 2013)

LAM said:


> Here's a couple hundred pages of empirical data collected across the OECD that you will never read which trumps your little graph.
> 
> 
> Global Wage Report 2008/09
> ...




you just posted an opinion report by a labor organization. a labor organization advocating more wages for labor? no way! who would have thunk it?  LOL  the chart I posted is a fact of what happens in the US when the minimum wage is increased. your opinion report is worldwide when all govt operate different.   nice try though.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 17, 2013)

LAM said:


> so in other words, their economy isn't even close to what we have here in the U.S.




i know, they have more capitalism in Singapore than in the US, that's why they are in better financial situation than us.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 17, 2013)

LAM said:


> but they have national collective bargaining.   the number of high functioning economy's in the world that have neither equals zero.
> 
> Singapore Tripartism Forum : National Wages Council



a national wage council with no minimum wage......


----------



## LAM (Dec 17, 2013)

Swiper said:


> you just posted an opinion report by a labor organization. a labor organization advocating more wages for labor? no way! who would have thunk it?  LOL  the chart I posted is a fact of what happens in the US when the minimum wage is increased. your opinion report is worldwide when all govt operate different.   nice try though.



a labor organization that uses empirical data collected across dozens of country's over the course of many decades.  typical right wing response, refute all data that goes against your low wage ideology.


----------



## LAM (Dec 17, 2013)

Swiper said:


> a national wage council with no minimum wage......



and your point is?  

there is no sustainable economy in the world that has neither a minimum wage or national collective bargaining.  if you weren't so lazy and ever bothered to read either of the Global Wage reports you would see how wages in the US differ from other country's and how the empirical data clearly shows that lack of wage growth not only contributed to the 2008 economic downturn but in the slow recovery.  And yes every economist already knows and acknowledges there is a trade of between higher wages and employment, empirical data clearly shows that.

Minimum relative to average wages of full-time workers
Minimum relative to average wages of full-time workers


----------



## Swiper (Dec 17, 2013)

my point is in the US minimum wage laws prices people out of the job market causing more unemployment while rising prices on goods and services.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 17, 2013)




----------



## DOMS (Dec 17, 2013)

OfficerFarva said:


> I can't wait until this day finally happens. Better efficiency and less frustration. It's been a few years since I've gone through a drive through and had someone who speaks and understands english serve me.



Thankfully, I live in an area that's upwards of 90% white. I still enjoy friendly, prompt, and accurate service at the fast food places that I occasionally go to. But damn, I hate when I do it back in LA.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 17, 2013)

LAM said:


> Here's a couple hundred pages of empirical data collected across the OECD that you will never read which trumps your little graph.
> 
> 
> Global Wage Report 2008/09
> ...



Even your noble prize wining economist idol Paul krugman says increasing the minimum wage will increase unemployment. 
So i guess the Nobel prize winning economist is wrong?


 "So what are the effects of increasing minimum wages? Any Econ 101 student can tell you the answer: The higher wage reduces the quantity of labor demanded, and hence leads to unemployment." -Paul Krugman
Living Wage: What It Is and Why We Need It. - Free Online Library


----------



## Bowden (Dec 17, 2013)

OfficerFarva said:


> Lol Bowden, you're a joke. You probably have no idea what 'hard work' is.  Now you're telling me you can't retire off of a 6 digit income after 30 years



Son,
I worked in Florida on a roofing crew for 4 years. 
Working as a roofer on roofs that at times hit at least 110 degrees+ while working in 80%+ humidity.
I also served in the Marines as a field grunt.
So yeah boy, I know what hard work is.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Dec 18, 2013)

LAM said:


> and a massive subsidized housing program.  they have also followed a completely different model of deregulation and liberalization , haven't off-shored manufacturing as they have an export drive economy.
> 
> so in other words, their economy isn't even close to what we have here in the U.S.



And how does that change the fact that personal responsibility has to be part of the answer.  I agree that most of it will come from making it difficult to pay people substandard wages, but at the same time you have to change the entitlement mentality.  I agree that all jobs should afford people the ability to buy shelter and food, it doesn't mean everyone should have an iphone.  A large chunk of poor people do make poor choices.  I don't necessarily agree with the extent that DOMS takes it, that all poor people are poor because they should be poor.  However, there is a reason why they tell you not to feed bears.  I see no reason why the same logic cannot be applied to humans, we're no better and part of the same evolutionary system.  Just because our environment is a concrete city and theirs' is a plant filled jungle doesn't mean the core concept behind biology doesn't apply to us.


----------



## LAM (Dec 18, 2013)

Dale Mabry said:


> And how does that change the fact that personal responsibility has to be part of the answer.



Personal responsibility is a great right wing think tank talking point but not when a lack of wages supports the ability for one to actually be self-sustaining in reality.  Falling wages for those in the lowest income quintile, job insecurity along and the loss of tax progressiveness in the US makes it easier said then done.  Empirical data clearly shows that upward social mobility is stagnant in the U.S.


----------



## LAM (Dec 18, 2013)

and with upward social mobility stagnant comes social stratification


----------



## DOMS (Dec 18, 2013)

LAM said:


> Personal responsibility is a great right wing think tank talking point



Really, because, growing up at the absolute fiscal bottom of this nation, I had been under the impression that it was a _choice_. But it turns out that personal responsibility is a talking point. Good to know.


----------



## LAM (Dec 18, 2013)

DOMS said:


> Really, because, growing up at the absolute fiscal bottom of this nation, I had been under the impression that it was a _choice_. But it turns out that personal responsibility is a talking point. Good to know.



And who made you the standard by which all others are to me measured against?  Your just as much as an economic failure to those at the top as you are a winner compared to those at the very bottom.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 18, 2013)

LAM said:


> Personal responsibility is a great right wing think tank talking point    S.



typical socialist ^^^^


----------



## LAM (Dec 18, 2013)

Swiper said:


> typical socialist ^^^^



really in what way?  please cite one post were I have lobbied for the transfer of the means of production from the private to public sector?

You haven't got a single clue about what it takes to build a sustainable economic model in the post industrial era because you know absolutely nothing about economics.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 18, 2013)

LAM said:


> really in what way?  please cite one post were I have lobbied for the transfer of the means of production from the private to public sector?
> 
> You haven't got a single clue about what it takes to build a sustainable economic model in the post industrial era because you know absolutely nothing about economics.



are you that stupid ? don't answer I already know. there are many types of socialism go look it up retard. 

the fed is the main problem to the economy I'll explain when I get on my computer later. stay tuned.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 18, 2013)

LAM said:


> And who made you the standard by which all others are to me measured against?  Your just as much as an economic failure to those at the top as you are a winner compared to those at the very bottom.



Yet another red herring. Color me surprised.

Personal responsibility is something that everyone, not matter their station, is accountable for. But I guess slinging drugs and jacking cars are just talking points, right?


----------



## LAM (Dec 18, 2013)

jay_steel said:


> yes but how is it our responsibility as tax payers and responsible citizens to ensure they are financially taken care of.



it's called being part of a society, its not like taxation is a new thing it's only been going on for several thousand years now.  Have  you not studied world history at all beyond what you did in high school?

Society and collaboration is what allows you to even work in the field that you do today.


----------



## LAM (Dec 18, 2013)

DOMS said:


> Yet another red herring. Color me surprised.
> 
> Personal responsibility is something that everyone, not matter their station, is accountable for. But I guess slinging drugs and jacking cars are just talking points, right?



Since you claim to have an understanding of economics then do explain how the imbalance of agriculture, manufacturing and services impacts "personal responsibility" in a post industrial economy where economic rents and market dominance are capturing a greater share of productivity gains over time.

Name one way to address this problem.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 18, 2013)

LAM said:


> Since you claim to have an understanding of economics then do explain how the imbalance of agriculture, manufacturing and services impacts "personal responsibility" in a post industrial economy where economic rents and market dominance are capturing a greater share of productivity gains over time.
> 
> Name one way to address this problem.



And...another red herring.

I'm talking about personal responsibility, you apparently have started talking about fish.


----------



## LAM (Dec 18, 2013)

DOMS said:


> And...another red herring.
> 
> I'm talking about personal responsibility, you apparently have started talking about fish.



Right, because you won't admin you don't really understand anything about ecnomics, so that's your cop out.

But what I'm talking about how your simplistic approach to a real work economic problem offers no real world solution in a economy that's dying.   The "personal responsibility" meme does nothing to address the facts that there are many people in the US who did the right thing but have had jobs and careers take out from under them.

Do tell Mr Perfect what would you do tomorrow to support your family at the same level of income if your means of income was taken away from you over night?  What's your back up plan?  You must have one because your perfect because "you" were able to pull yourself up out of poverty.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 18, 2013)

LAM said:


> Right, because you won't admin you don't really understand anything about ecnomics, so that's your cop out.



You're confused. I'll try to help you out. This is what I wrote:



DOMS said:


> Really, because, growing up at the absolute fiscal  bottom of this nation, I had been under the impression that it was a _choice_. But it turns out that personal responsibility is a talking point. Good to know.



In what part of that did I mention economics? I'm talking about concepts such as taking responsibility for your own actions, and how it's not okay to make shitty decisions and then absolve yourself of the consequences.



LAM said:


> But what I'm talking about how your simplistic approach to a real work economic problem offers no real world solution in a economy that's dying.   The "personal responsibility" meme does nothing to address the facts that there are many people in the US who did the right thing but have had jobs and careers take out from under them.



And now personal responsibility is a meme. Awesome. Apparently it's everything but _personal responsibility_.



LAM said:


> Do tell Mr Perfect what would you do tomorrow to support your family at the same level of income if your means of income was taken away from you over night?  What's your back up plan?  You must have one because your perfect because "you" were able to pull yourself up out of poverty.



Oh, I don't know... Rely on money in the bank. Use the marketable skills I have. Use the skills in a new field that I've been learning. Continue to learn.Not bitch and moan about how life isn't fair. Not buy into the idea that personal responsibility is something for other people. And the most important: be willing to work hard, doing any job that I can get. You know, _*the way that I got out of poverty in the first place? *_


----------



## Dale Mabry (Dec 18, 2013)

LAM said:


> Personal responsibility is a great right wing think tank talking point but not when a lack of wages supports the ability for one to actually be self-sustaining in reality.  Falling wages for those in the lowest income quintile, job insecurity along and the loss of tax progressiveness in the US makes it easier said then done.  Empirical data clearly shows that upward social mobility is stagnant in the U.S.



So you believe our healthcare system can be fixed without personal responsibility being involved?  WRT the economy, I agree that most of the problem is due to stagnant wages, but if you don't believe that personal responsibility is a significant issue you are delusional.  It certainly needs to be a part of the solution because most people don't have it.  I would not hold that to the poor either, the people who tanked the economy took zero responsibility and got punished nada.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 18, 2013)

who needs personal responsibility when our govt is blindly willing to support people who don't want to take responsibility for their selves? 

these are the kind of people who LAM supports. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRRwZDSmTVI&feature=youtube_gdata


----------



## Gregzs (Dec 18, 2013)

Majority of Americans want minimum wage to be increased, poll finds - The Washington Post

Majority of Americans want minimum wage to be increased, poll finds

A large majority of Americans want Congress to substantially increase the minimum wage as part of an effort to reduce the nation?s expanding economic inequality, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

As a growing share of the country?s income flows to the very wealthiest, the poll found that 57 percent of Americans say lawmakers should pursue policies aimed at balancing an economic system they think is out of whack. Nearly two in three say federal policy is tilted toward helping the rich over Americans who are less well-off, according to the survey. 

The findings come as President Obama has moved to refocus national attention on the problems of inequality and decreasing social mobility. Earlier this month, he called confronting the twin issues ?the defining challenge of our time.? He added that ?making sure our economy works for every working American? will be a central task of his remaining time in office.

Obama recently came out in favor of rasing the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour ? a much larger increase than he had proposed in his State of the Union address in February, when he advocated raising it to $9 an hour. 

Increasing the minimum wage, which has stood at $7.25 an hour since 2009, is one of the chief policy tools economists recommend to address inequality. It is also popular among everyday Americans: About two in three say the wage floor should be lifted, and the average wage suggested is $9.41 an hour.

The idea of using public policy to combat inequality is much more popular among Democrats and independents than it is among Republicans. Three in four Democrats and 58 percent of independents say Washington should pursue policies to address inequality, a sentiment that was shared by just two in five Republicans.

A similar divide is evident when it comes to the minimum wage. Eighty-five percent of Democrats support raising the wage, while Republicans are split 50-45 on the issue, the poll found.

Republicans support a lower wage floor than Democrats, when asked separately about their preferred dollar amount. On average, Democrats favor a minimum wage of just over $10, while Republicans want it to be about $8.60 an hour. Independents fall in between, supporting an average minimum wage of about $9.40 an hour. All three groups set their preferred minimum wage higher than the current $7.25, but far below a $15 wage sought by some worker advocates.

Although partisans disagree about what should be done about inequality, economists say the issue has reached dimensions not seen since the years preceding the Great Depression.

Whether calculated by comparing the growth in wages of the highest-income Americans with the lowest, or the proportion of wealth controlled by the richest Americans, or the ratio of wages for production workers to those of chief executives, inequality has grown. Americans have consistently called for government to aim policies at shrinking the gap.

Two years ago, when the Occupy Wall Street movement helped move the issue into the mainstream of political debate, a Post-ABC poll found that more than six in 10 perceived a widening wealth gap and 60 percent wanted Washington to pursue policy to address it, similar to today?s 57 percent mark. In the fall of 2012, 52 percent of registered voters shared that sentiment.

Although some policymakers point to minimum-wage increases, more widespread unionization, better education opportunities and bolstering income-support programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit as possible remedies, enacting those policies has always proved difficult.

?A majority of the public might favor some policies that the minority that has the most influence is less enthusiastic about,? said Martin Gilens, a politics professor at Princeton University. ?On some policies, there is ambivalence among the public. While there is strong support for opportunity-enhancing policies to reduce inequality, there is less support for directly redistributive policies.?

Obama has periodically invoked inequality as a problem and promised to address it. Yet economic inequality has only widened on his watch.

Between 2009 and 2012, the incomes of the top 1 percent of earners grew by more than 31 percent, according to Emmanuel Saez, an economist at the University of California at Berkeley, while the incomes of the bottom 99 percent expanded by just 0.4 percent.

?He?s got a Republican House and even members of the Democratic Party who are strongly aligned with business interest, who are at best ambivalent about some of these policies that certainly are not popular among business interests that have to foot the bill,? Gilens said. ?When you have divided government and multiple veto points, policies that even a majority of people support can be difficult to adopt.?

The new Post-ABC poll was conducted Dec. 12-15 among a random national sample of 1,005 adults, including interviews on land lines and with cellphone-only respondents. The overall margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.


----------



## heckler7 (Dec 18, 2013)

why is everyone acting like they are signing the payroll checks, give people a livable god damn wage already. its good for everyone, its not rocket science. Were all in this together and I would prefer my country to be a wealthy prosperous caring country for all, and not turn into Africa or some other third world country where we have to drive thru ghettos to go to work or visit relatives


----------



## Swiper (Dec 19, 2013)

heckler7 said:


> why is everyone acting like they are signing the payroll checks, give people a livable god damn wage already. its good for everyone, its not rocket science. Were all in this together and I would prefer my country to be a wealthy prosperous caring country for all, and not turn into Africa or some other third world country where we have to drive thru ghettos to go to work or visit relatives




"So what are the effects of increasing minimum wages? Any Econ 101 student can tell you the answer: The higher wage reduces the quantity of labor demanded, and hence leads to unemployment." -Paul Krugman
Living Wage: What It Is and Why We Need It. - Free Online Library












According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics less than 3 percent of all workers take home $7.25 or less an hour and half who do are 24 years old or younger. And the vast majority?77 percent ?of minimum wage earners belong to households that are above the poverty line.




Minimum Wage, Maximum Stupidity
by Peter Schiff
In a free market, demand is always a function of price: the higher the price, the lower the demand. What may surprise most politicians is that these rules apply equally to both prices and wages. When employers evaluate their labor and capital needs, cost is a primary factor. When the cost of hiring low-skilled workers moves higher, jobs are lost. Despite this, minimum wage hikes, like the one set to take effect later this month, are always seen as an act of governmental benevolence. Nothing could be further from the truth.

When confronted with a clogged drain, most of us will call several plumbers and hire the one who quotes us the lowest price. If all the quotes are too high, most of us will grab some Drano and a wrench, and have at it. Labor markets work the same way. Before bringing on another worker, an employer must be convinced that the added productivity will exceed the added cost (this includes not just wages, but all payroll taxes and other benefits.) So if an unskilled worker is capable of delivering only $6 per hour of increased productivity, such an individual is legally unemployable with a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.

Low-skilled workers must compete for employers' dollars with both skilled workers and capital. For example, if a skilled worker can do a job for $14 per hour that two unskilled workers can do for $6.50 per hour each, then it makes economic sense for the employer to go with the unskilled labor. Increase the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour and the unskilled workers are priced out of their jobs. This dynamic is precisely why labor unions are such big supporters of minimum wage laws. Even though none of their members earns the minimum wage, the law helps protect their members from having to compete with lower-skilled workers.

Employers also have the choice of whether to employ people or machines. For example, an employer can hire a receptionist or invest in an automated answering system. The next time you are screaming obscenities into the phone as you try to have a conversation with a computer, you know what to blame for your frustration.


There are numerous other examples of employers substituting capital for labor simply because the minimum wage has made low-skilled workers uncompetitive. For example, handcarts have replaced skycaps at airports. The main reason fast-food restaurants use paper plates and plastic utensils is to avoid having to hire dishwashers.

As a result, many low-skilled jobs that used to be the first rung on the employment ladder have been priced out of the market. Can you remember the last time an usher showed you to your seat in a dark movie theater? When was the last time someone other than the cashier not only bagged your groceries, but also loaded them into your car? By the way, it won't be long before the cashiers themselves are priced out of the market, replaced by automated scanners, leaving you to bag your purchases with no help whatsoever.

The disappearance of these jobs has broader economic and societal consequences. First jobs are a means to improve skills so that low-skilled workers can offer greater productivity to current or future employers. As their skills grow, so does their ability to earn higher wages. However, remove the bottom rung from the employment ladder and many never have a chance to climb it.

So the next time you are pumping your own gas in the rain, do not just think about the teenager who could have been pumping it for you, think about the auto mechanic he could have become ? had the minimum wage not denied him a job. Many auto mechanics used to learn their trade while working as pump jockeys. Between fill-ups, checking tire pressure, and washing windows, they would spend a lot of time helping ? and learning from ? the mechanics.


Because the minimum wage prevents so many young people (including a disproportionate number of minorities) from getting entry-level jobs, they never develop the skills necessary to command higher paying jobs. As a result, many turn to crime, while others subsist on government aid. Supporters of the minimum wage argue that it is impossible to support a family on the minimum wage. While that is true, it is completely irrelevant, as minimum wage jobs are not designed to support families. In fact, many people earning the minimum wage are themselves supported by their parents.

The way it is supposed to work is that people do not choose to start families until they can earn enough to support them. Lower-wage jobs enable workers to eventually acquire the skills necessary to earn wages high enough to support a family. Does anyone really think a kid with a paper route should earn a wage high enough to support a family?

The only way to increase wages is to increase worker productivity. If wages could be raised simply by government mandate, we could set the minimum wage at $100 per hour and solve all problems. It should be clear that, at that level, most of the population would lose their jobs, and the remaining labor would be so expensive that prices for goods and services would skyrocket. That's the exact burden the minimum wage places on our poor and low-skilled workers, and ultimately every American consumer.

Since our leaders cannot even grasp this simple economic concept, how can we expect them to deal with the more complicated problems that currently confront us?

Minimum Wage, Maximum Stupidity by Peter Schiff


----------



## heckler7 (Dec 19, 2013)

^^ you are full of shit. How much money do you make? If your doing well a little extra for services wont effect your wallet. How much money are you saving to make it worth keeping a large group of people in poverty. You people lost sight of whats important in life


----------



## Swiper (Dec 19, 2013)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLr5oWfoWRY&feature=youtube_gdata


----------



## Gissurjon (Dec 19, 2013)

Swfl said:


> I don't know where you think it's only going to raise end user costs by *30 cents that's ridiculous*. As an employer if I see my lowest paid workers wages double that's a 100 percent increase. Ie more than double taken from the bottom line. Then I will have to increase my charge rate. Also now I have to raise everyone else's wages because it is unfair to them they worked for the higher wages and now they're making the same price as the entry-level employee, it simply isn't feasible
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk



Well, smart one, you are not taking into account the increase in the rest of the menu and how many meals they sell a day. lets say a McDonalds sells 200 big macs a day. That's 60 extra dollars they got from big mac increase and the higher pay for a single employee has been paid for. Now take into account the other items they sell and the increases in prices of them. It would be spread across the board so to think that a doubling of wages equates to doubling (or even drastically raising) of the price of a single item in a business that sells MULTIPLE items, is naive. 

I'm not really for raising the minimum wage but I'm totally against dumb asses that think they got it all figured out. I know this is the "school is useless" thread, but you could benefit from one or two accounting courses.


----------



## Crono1000 (Dec 19, 2013)

When I graduated college, I entered the workforce at a Bachelor's level job in my field at only $12.50.  Granted, that's my own fault for choosing Psychology as a major and future career, but there are plenty of jobs at this pay range that college grads end up in.  I was one of the lucky ones to even find a job and a job in lines of my education.  So if the minimum wage is increased to this, what is the incentive to go to college?  I would rather not have the student debt and make $2.50 less. There is no way the college entry level wage would increase simply because the minimum wage would.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 19, 2013)

This is all the same argument about people making money.  Someone wants so much that they can't dream of someone else making enough to get by without government assistance.  Saying "I made $X amount after finishing college so someone without an education shouldn't be making that much" is patently stupid.  You sold yourself short.  You took the job for that amount, that is what you decided you're worth.  Because someone else believes they are worth more doesn't make them wrong or a deadbeat looking for a handout or wanting something they didn't earn.  Wall Street is actually in the porn business because they are making a killing fucking the rest of us and the joke is they've got so many people convinced that businesses and investors are entitled to keep fucking everyone because they bought some stock.  Investing is gambling.  They might make money, they might not.  They aren't entitled to anything any more than some welfare queen is entitled to three squares a day, a new car, and the latest iphone.  But they have people convinced otherwise.  They bought some stock so now they are entitled to an automatic return.  Look at how companies bleeding money pay out dividends.  They should be telling investors that there won't be a dividend because of the loss and that they are working on turning that around.  If investors bail, they bail.  It just makes an opportunity for a low-dollar investor to potentially make a killing.  Giving people a pay raise isn't going to kill any companies, large or small.  The threat of increased unemployment is simply that:  A threat.  Each time minimum wage was raise increased unemployment was threatened to leave vast swaths of the population unemployed, poor, and destitute along with a complete economic crash.  Did that happen?  It was just a bunch of threats to keep the few making more and the majority making less.


----------



## Big Puppy (Dec 19, 2013)

^^^Giving people a pay raise isn't going to kill any company????

Obviously you've never owned a company.  I've never heard anything so rediculous  in my life


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 20, 2013)

Big Puppy said:


> ^^^Giving people a pay raise isn't going to kill any company????
> 
> Obviously you've never owned a company.  I've never heard anything so rediculous  in my life



^^^Obviously either isn't old enough to remember minimum wage below what it is now or has completely forgotten what it used to be.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 20, 2013)

Walmart profit 2012 = 17 billion

Walmart employees = 2.2 Million 

17 billion divided by 2.2 million = a raise of $7,727 per employee per year. 

Equals a raise of $3.71 per hour per employee.


That's with Walmart making NO PROFIT.


----------



## fastcashforcoins (Dec 20, 2013)

might be time to find a better paying job... i thought thats what people did when they didnt make enough money lol


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 20, 2013)

Swiper said:


> Walmart profit 2012 = 17 billion
> 
> Walmart employees = 2.2 Million
> 
> ...



They aren't entitled to a profit.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 20, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> They aren't entitled to a profit.




wow!  why not? 


if that's the case they'll close down and 2.2  Million people will have no jobs. you like that better?


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 20, 2013)

Swiper said:


> wow!  why not?
> 
> 
> if that's the case they'll close down and 2.2  Million people will have no jobs. you like that better?



That's the epitome of entitlement.  "I spent some money on a business so I should automatically get a profit."

If Walmart closed it would probably be for the better.  Most of those people are already on government assistance as it is.  In effect WE are subsidizing Walmart and their profits.  Is that right?  Is that ethical?  Why are you okay with corporate welfare on such a large scale?


----------



## Swiper (Dec 20, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> That's the epitome of entitlement.  "I spent some money on a business so I should automatically get a profit."
> 
> If Walmart closed it would probably be for the better.  Most of those people are already on government assistance as it is.  In effect WE are subsidizing Walmart and their profits.  Is that right?  Is that ethical?  Why are you okay with corporate welfare on such a large scale?



it's not an automatic profit.  that's crazy thinking.  they earned it.  

just think of all the tax revenue that would be lost if they closed.  it's staggering. so the people on welfare would be affected too. and just think off all the companies and their products that Walmart sells. they'd lost out big time causing even more unemployment.  it would be a ripple effect to the overall economy and jobs.  


absolutely not, there should be no welfare, corp or personal.  

you're way off on this. just think for a minute of what you're saying in your last two posts.  there's no reason or logic.


----------



## s2h (Dec 20, 2013)

the company i work for has the highest wage rate in the industry...a base entry no education 18 yr old can start at no less then slightly over $2 a hour above min wage...you know what that does for us?..gives us pick of the litter..we can be picky and hire the best people out of the type of applicants that are seeking employment in that wage range..we can afford it because when you have the best people you get the best production...so the most for your money..issue is the pick of the litter is not as big as the runt of the litter...

what happens when you raise min wage is you get unproductive labor at a price that is set for productive labor..and what happens when you get unproductive labor..you start heading for the red because work isn't done on time..work isn't done to standard..all because you were forced to hire somebody at a wage you would have never hired them at anyway..but the litter was empty of the picks due to wage increases..

btw there are plenty of unskilled 18 yr olds in our company by 25 are then making 50-60,000 a year with full benefits...you know why??..cause they performed and earned it...not sat at home smoking a J waiting on there government check to show up...

America is full of lazy ass people...and big Gov lets em keep being lazy...all at yours(for you with jobs) and mine expense...that's the real world and not some bullshit trend graphs and ass paper research done by some Economics expert...

so if your reading this and you don't have a job..GO GET ONE!!!


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 20, 2013)

Swiper said:


> it's not an automatic profit.  that's crazy thinking.  they earned it.
> 
> just think of all the tax revenue that would be lost if they closed.  it's staggering. so the people on welfare would be affected too. and just think off all the companies and their products that Walmart sells. they'd lost out big time causing even more unemployment.  it would be a ripple effect to the overall economy and jobs.
> 
> ...



No logic to what I'm saying?  You're willing to accept unethical actions which a company profits from simply because of the number of people it employs.  Who is crazy?  

Starting and running a business does not guarantee profit or success.  Do you have any idea how few start-ups make it through the first year in business?  How few are in business after two years?  If starting a business means someone earned a profit then any new businesses would never fail.  That is insane.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 20, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> No logic to what I'm saying?  You're willing to accept unethical actions which a company profits from simply because of the number of people it employs.  Who is crazy?
> 
> Starting and running a business does not guarantee profit or success.  Do you have any idea how few start-ups make it through the first year in business?  How few are in business after two years?  If starting a business means someone earned a profit then any new businesses would never fail.  That is insane.




i see nothing unethical about Walmart.

i completely agree with your last paragraph. Many companies don't make a profit. especially small businesses.


----------



## s2h (Dec 20, 2013)

oh i forgot...

SWIPER FOR PRESIDENT!!


----------



## Bowden (Dec 20, 2013)

s2h said:


> the company i work for has the highest wage rate in the industry...a base entry no education 18 yr old can start at no less then slightly over $2 a hour above min wage...you know what that does for us?..gives us pick of the litter..we can be picky and hire the best people out of the type of applicants that are seeking employment in that wage range..we can afford it because when you have the best people you get the best production...so the most for your money..issue is the pick of the litter is not as big as the runt of the litter...
> 
> what happens when you raise min wage is you get unproductive labor at a price that is set for productive labor..and what happens when you get unproductive labor..you start heading for the red because work isn't done on time..work isn't done to standard..all because you were forced to hire somebody at a wage you would have never hired them at anyway..but the litter was empty of the picks due to wage increases..
> 
> ...



Which industry is your company associated with?


----------



## Goodskie (Dec 20, 2013)

If you work minimum wage and bitch and are broke you're a fucking LOSER.

Theres so many jobs that pay better. Go serve somewhere nice or bartend. 

In my field (EMS) emts (not paramedics) at the company I work for make a little over minimum wage starting. 

Thats one semester of school. They work 2-3 24s a week. Run 0-10 calls a day (if u want a slow station you can work at a slow one) and there's unlimited overtime. So, 10 days a month and they can make 30-45k. 

If you can't do one semester of school with 2 days of class 6-10pm (example of EMT sched) then save up your McDonald's money, buy a gun and put it to your head. I'll come pronounce you. Loser

so now you aren't happy making 35-40k. Well the company pays for paramedic school and works around your sched. So a year to 18 months later you're a paramedic making 45-60k. Not enough? Ok then they'll pay for whatever you want next. Say nursing. 60-80k where I live. Not enough? PA school. Etc. not that hard to not be a loser


----------



## Big Puppy (Dec 20, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> That's the epitome of entitlement.  "I spent some money on a business so I should automatically get a profit."
> 
> If Walmart closed it would probably be for the better.  Most of those people are already on government assistance as it is.  In effect WE are subsidizing Walmart and their profits.  Is that right?  Is that ethical?  Why are you okay with corporate welfare on such a large scale?



Once again proving you have no clue what it entails to run a business.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 21, 2013)

Swiper said:


> i see nothing unethical about Walmart.
> 
> i completely agree with your last paragraph. Many companies don't make a profit. especially small businesses.



Of course you see nothing unethical about Walmart.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 21, 2013)

Big Puppy said:


> Once again proving you have no clue what it entails to run a business.



And you somehow do?


----------



## Bowden (Dec 21, 2013)

"Some analysts have complained in the past that Costco's worker-friendly policies aren't so friendly to shareholders."


Costco's Profit Soars To $537 Million Just Days After CEO Endorses Minimum Wage Increase


Costco's Profit Soars To $537 Million Just Days After CEO Endorses Minimum Wage Increase

Posted: 03/12/2013 9:16 am EDT  |  Updated: 03/13/2013 4:14 pm EDT

Less than a week after Costco CEO Craig Jelinek spoke out in favor of  raising the minimum wage, the big-box retailer's earnings showed that  paying workers a living wage doesn't always hurt business. 
  Costco reported a profit of $537 million  last quarter, up from $394 million during the same period last year,  according to the Wall Street Journal. The healthy earnings report comes  just six days after Jelinik urged lawmakers to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. 


  At Costco, we know that paying employees good wages makes good sense for business, Jelinik said in a statement  last week. Instead of minimizing wages, we know it's a lot more  profitable in the long term to minimize employee turnover and maximize  employee productivity, commitment and loyalty. We support efforts to  increase the federal minimum wage.

  Costco is known for paying its workers wages that are generally above average  for the retail industry. An average Costco worker made about $45,000 in  2011, according to Fortune. That's compared to an average of about  $17,486 per year for a worker at comparable Walmart-owned Sam's Club. 


  And apparently the extra pay pays off. Costco makes more than $10,000 in profits per employee,  while Walmart takes home about $7,400 per worker, according to the  Daily Beast (Walmart and Costco aren't exactly the same type of  business, however).


  In addition to offering its workers high pay and the opportunity to  unionize, Costco also provides a benefit many of its competitors don't:  health insurance for part- and full-time employees. 
  Some analysts have complained in the past that Costco's worker-friendly policies aren't so friendly to shareholders. If Tuesday's results are any indication, those concerns may be exaggerated.


----------



## Bowden (Dec 21, 2013)

Costco CEO Supports Minimum Wage Hike - Business Insider

Retail More: Walmart Costco Retail Select
Costco Is The Perfect Example Of Why The Minimum Wage Should Be Higher

Ashley Lutz
Mar. 6, 2013, 10:45 AM 

Big-box warehouse store Costco is often compared with Walmart's Sam's Club. Both stores are places where people go to buy in bulk and save money.  But while Walmart employees are striking for higher wages and health care, Costco has some of the happiest employees in the business.
 Costco pays its  employees an average hourly wage of $11.50 to start. After five years,  they make $19.50 an hour and get an "extra check," a bonus of more than  $2,000 every six months, according to Slate. 


 While Wal-Mart's Sam's Club starts employees at $10 an hour, they make $12.50 after about five years, Slate reported. 
 Costco workers pay a 12 percent out of pocket premium for benefits, while Wal-Mart workers pay 40 percent. 
 This results in lower turnover and more skilled workers, Costco CEO Craig Jelinek said, according to the Puget Sound Business Journal. 


 He told advocacy group Business for a Fair Minimum Wage that he supports a national minimum wage increase. 
 The bill just introduced in Congress would increase the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour from $7.25 an hour over time.

 Instead of minimizing wages, we know it's a lot more  profitable in the long term to minimize employee turnover and maximize  employee productivity, commitment and loyalty, Jelinek said in the  statement. 

 Having more knowledgeable employees results in better sales, according to David Worrell at AllBusiness.com.
 Costco averages $814 in sales per square foot, while Sam's Club makes just $586 per square foot. 


 In a recent earnings announcement, Wal-Mart Stores revealed that sales at Sam's Club were down. 
 Investing in employees creates loyalty and better customer service that trickles down to the consumer. 

 "Look at people as an investment and hire the best you can possibly  afford," Worrell said. "Stretch to your limit to keep them excited about  coming to work ... then watch as they actually perform."


----------



## theCaptn' (Dec 21, 2013)

Hell I've worked with guys that are nearly illiterate pulling 80-120k. There are jobs out there that will pay, if you're prepared to work in dirty, potentially risky and remote locations.


----------



## Bowden (Dec 21, 2013)

^^^

"Instead of minimizing wages, we know it's a lot more  profitable in the  long term to minimize employee turnover and maximize  employee  productivity, commitment and loyalty, Jelinek said in the  statement."

A smart man that knows how to manage a business beyond the MBA bean counter resource cost spreadsheet mentality that leads to customer service that sucks like you find at Wal-Mart.


----------



## Bowden (Dec 21, 2013)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/business/yourmoney/17costco.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

*How Costco Became the Anti-Wal-Mart*






Rick Bowmer/Associated Press
  A Costco warehouse store in Tigard, Ore. The company is challenging the idea that discount retailers must pay workers poorly.  

  By Steve Greenhouse

  Published: July 17, 2005     ISSAQUAH, Wash.

JIM SINEGAL, the chief executive of  Costco Wholesale,  the nation's fifth-largest retailer, had all the enthusiasm of an  8-year-old in a candy store as he tore open the container of one of his  favorite new products: granola snack mix. "You got to try this; it's  delicious," he said. "And just $9.99 for 38 ounces."


*Defying the Analysts*

  Enlarge This Image




Peter Yates for The New York Times
  A Costco store in Issaquah, Wash.  







Peter Yates for The New York Times

Costco's strategy of using plain spaces to sell products in bulk at deep  discounts has won over many customers, said Jim Sinegal, Costco's chief  executive.  

     Some 60 feet away, inside Costco's cavernous warehouse store here in  the company's hometown, Mr. Sinegal became positively exuberant about  the 87-inch-long Natuzzi brown leather sofas. "This is just $799.99," he  said. "It's terrific quality. Most other places you'd have to pay  $1,500, even $2,000."
But the piece de rsistance, the item he  most wanted to crow about, was Costco's private-label pinpoint cotton  dress shirts. "Look, these are just $12.99," he said, while lifting a  crisp blue button-down. "At Nordstrom or Macy's, this is a $45, $50  shirt."
Combining high quality with stunningly low prices, the  shirts appeal to upscale customers - and epitomize why some retail  analysts say Mr. Sinegal just might be America's shrewdest merchant  since Sam Walton.


But not everyone is happy with Costco's business  strategy. Some Wall Street analysts assert that Mr. Sinegal is overly  generous not only to Costco's customers but to its workers as well. 
Costco's  average pay, for example, is $17 an hour, 42 percent higher than its  fiercest rival, Sam's Club. And Costco's health plan makes those at many  other retailers look Scroogish. One analyst, Bill Dreher of  Deutsche Bank, complained last year that at Costco "it's better to be an employee or a customer than a shareholder." 


Mr.  Sinegal begs to differ. He rejects Wall Street's assumption that to  succeed in discount retailing, companies must pay poorly and skimp on  benefits, or must ratchet up prices to meet Wall Street's profit  demands.


Good wages and benefits are why Costco has extremely low  rates of turnover and theft by employees, he said. And Costco's  customers, who are more affluent than other warehouse store shoppers,  stay loyal because they like that low prices do not come at the workers'  expense. "This is not altruistic," he said. "This is good business."
He  also dismisses calls to increase Costco's product markups. Mr. Sinegal,  who has been in the retailing business for more than a half-century,  said that heeding Wall Street's advice to raise some prices would bring  Costco's downfall. 

"When I started,  Sears, Roebuck  was the Costco of the country, but they allowed someone else to come in  under them," he said. "We don't want to be one of the casualties. We  don't want to turn around and say, 'We got so fancy we've raised our  prices,' and all of a sudden a new competitor comes in and beats our  prices."
At Costco, one of Mr. Sinegal's cardinal rules is that no  branded item can be marked up by more than 14 percent, and no  private-label item by more than 15 percent. In contrast, supermarkets  generally mark up merchandise by 25 percent, and department stores by 50  percent or more. 


"They could probably get more money for a lot of items they sell," said Ed Weller, a retailing analyst at ThinkEquity.


But  Mr. Sinegal warned that if Costco increased markups to 16 or 18  percent, the company might slip down a dangerous slope and lose  discipline in minimizing costs and prices.
Mr. Sinegal, whose  father was a coal miner and steelworker, gave a simple explanation. "On  Wall Street, they're in the business of making money between now and  next Thursday," he said. "I don't say that with any bitterness, but we  can't take that view. We want to build a company that will still be here  50 and 60 years from now."


IF shareholders mind Mr. Sinegal's  philosophy, it is not obvious: Costco's stock price has risen more than  10 percent in the last 12 months, while  Wal-Mart's  has slipped 5 percent. Costco shares sell for almost 23 times expected  earnings; at Wal-Mart the multiple is about 19.Mr. Dreher said Costco's  share price was so high because so many people love the company. "It's a  cult stock," he said. 
Emme Kozloff, an analyst at Sanford C.  Bernstein & Company, faulted Mr. Sinegal as being too generous to  employees, noting that when analysts complained that Costco's workers  were paying just 4 percent toward their health costs, he raised that  percentage only to 8 percent, when the retail average is 25 percent. 


"He  has been too benevolent," she said. "He's right that a happy employee  is a productive long-term employee, but he could force employees to pick  up a little more of the burden."
Mr. Sinegal says he pays  attention to analysts' advice because it enforces a healthy discipline,  but he has largely shunned Wall Street pressure to be less generous to  his workers. 
"When Jim talks to us about setting wages and  benefits, he doesn't want us to be better than everyone else, he wants  us to be demonstrably better," said John Matthews, Costco's senior vice  president for human resources.


With his ferocious attention to  detail and price, Mr. Sinegal has made Costco the nation's leading  warehouse retailer, with about half of the market, compared with 40  percent for the No. 2, Sam's Club. But Sam's is not a typical runner-up:  it is part of the Wal-Mart empire, which, with $288 billion in sales  last year, dwarfs Costco. 
But it is the customer, more than the  competition, that keeps Mr. Sinegal's attention. "We're very good  merchants, and we offer value," he said. "The traditional retailer will  say: 'I'm selling this for $10. I wonder whether I can get $10.50 or  $11.' We say: 'We're selling it for $9. How do we get it down to $8?' We  understand that our members don't come and shop with us because of the  fancy window displays or the Santa Claus or the piano player. They come  and shop with us because we offer great values."


Costco was  founded with a single store in Seattle in 1983; it now has 457 stores,  mostly in the United States, but also in Canada, Britain, South Korea,  Taiwan and Japan. Wal-Mart, by contrast, had 642 Sam's Clubs in the  United States and abroad as of Jan. 31.Costco's profit rose 22 percent  last year, to $882 million, on sales of $47.1 billion. In the United  States, its stores average $121 million in sales annually, far more than  the $70 million for Sam's Clubs. And the average household income of  Costco customers is $74,000 - with 31 percent earning over $100,000.


One  reason the company has risen to the top and stayed there is that Mr.  Sinegal relentlessly refines his model of the warehouse store - the  bare-bones, cement-floor retailing space where shoppers pay a membership  fee to choose from a limited number of products in large quantities at  deep discounts. Costco has 44.6 million members, with households paying  $45 a year and small businesses paying $100.
A typical Costco  store stocks 4,000 types of items, including perhaps just four  toothpaste brands, while a Wal-Mart typically stocks more than 100,000  types of items and may carry 60 sizes and brands of toothpastes.  Narrowing the number of options increases the sales volume of each,  allowing Costco to squeeze deeper and deeper bulk discounts from  suppliers.


"He's a zealot on low prices," Ms. Kozloff said. "He's very reticent about finagling with his model."


Despite  Costco's impressive record, Mr. Sinegal's salary is just $350,000,  although he also received a $200,000 bonus last year. That puts him at  less than 10 percent of many other chief executives, though Costco ranks  29th in revenue among all American companies.


"I've been very  well rewarded," said Mr. Sinegal, who is worth more than $150 million  thanks to his Costco stock holdings. "I just think that if you're going  to try to run an organization that's very cost-conscious, then you can't  have those disparities. Having an individual who is making 100 or 200  or 300 times more than the average person working on the floor is  wrong."


There is little love lost between Wal-Mart and Costco.  Wal-Mart, for example, boasts that its Sam's Club division has the  lowest prices of any retailer. Mr. Sinegal emphatically dismissed that  assertion with a one-word barnyard epithet. Sam's might make the case  that its ketchup is cheaper than Costco's, he said, "but you can't  compare Hunt's ketchup with  Heinz ketchup."
Still,  Costco is feeling the heat from Sam's Club. When Sam's began to pare  prices aggressively several years ago, Costco had to shave its prices -  and its already thin profit margins - ever further. 
"Sam's Club  has dramatically improved its operation and improved the quality of  their merchandise," said Mr. Dreher, the Deutsche Bank analyst. "Using  their buying power together with Wal-Mart's, it forces Costco to be very  sharp on their prices."


Mr. Sinegal's elbows can be sharp as  well. As most suppliers well know, his gruff charm is not what lets him  sell goods at rock-bottom prices - it's his fearsome toughness, which he  rarely shows in public. He often warns suppliers not to offer other  retailers lower prices than Costco gets. 


When a frozen-food  supplier mistakenly sent Costco an invoice meant for Wal-Mart, he  discovered that Wal-Mart was getting a better price. "We have not  brought that supplier back," Mr. Sinegal said.
He has to be  flinty, he said, because the competition is so fierce. "This is not the  Little Sisters of the Poor," he said. "We have to be competitive in the  toughest marketplace in the world against the biggest competitor in the  world. We cannot afford to be timid."


Nor can he afford to let  personal relationships get in his way. Tim Rose, Costco's senior vice  president for food merchandising, recalled a time when  Starbucks  did not pass along savings from a drop in coffee bean prices. Though he  is a friend of the Starbucks chairman, Howard Schultz, Mr. Sinegal  warned he would remove Starbucks coffee from his stores unless it cut  its prices.
Starbucks relented.
 "Howard said, 'Who do you  think you are? The price police?' " Mr. Rose recalled, adding that Mr.  Sinegal replied emphatically that he was.


 If Mr. Sinegal feels  proprietary about warehouse stores, it is for good reason. He was  present at the birth of the concept, in 1954. He was 18, a student at  San Diego Community College, when a friend asked him to help unload  mattresses for a month-old discount store called Fed-Mart.
What he  thought would be a one-day job became a career. He rose  to executive  vice president for merchandising and became a prot?g? of Fed-Mart's  chairman, Sol Price, who is credited with inventing the idea of  high-volume warehouse stores that sell a limited number of products.


Mr.  Price sold Fed-Mart to a German retailer in 1975 and was fired soon  after. Mr. Sinegal then left and helped Mr. Price start a new warehouse  company, Price Club. Its huge success led others to enter the business:  Wal-Mart started Sam's Club, Zayre's started  BJ's Wholesale Club and a Seattle entrepreneur tapped Mr. Sinegal to help him found Costco.


Costco  has used Mr. Price's formula: sell a limited number of items, keep  costs down, rely on high volume, pay workers well, have customers buy  memberships and aim for upscale shoppers, especially small-business  owners. In addition, don't advertise - that saves 2 percent a year in  costs. Costco and Price Club merged in 1993.
"Jim has done a very  good job in balancing the interests of the shareholders, the employees,  the customers and the managers," said Mr. Price, now 89 and retired.  "Most companies tilt too much one way or the other."


Mr. Sinegal,  who is 69 but looks a decade younger, also delights in not tilting  Costco too far into cheap merchandise, even at his warehouse stores. He  loves the idea of the "treasure hunt" - occasional, temporary specials  on exotic cheeses,  Coach  bags, plasma screen televisions, Waterford crystal, French wine and  $5,000 necklaces - scattered among staples like toilet paper by the case  and institutional-size jars of mayonnaise.
The treasure hunts, Mr. Sinegal says, create a sense of excitement and customer loyalty.


This  knack for seeing things in a new way also explains Costco's approach to  retaining employees as well as shoppers. Besides paying considerably  more than competitors, for example, Costco contributes generously to its  workers' 401(k) plans, starting with 3 percent of salary the second  year and rising to 9 percent after 25 years. 
ITS insurance plans  absorb most dental expenses, and part-time workers are eligible for  health insurance after just six months on the job, compared with two  years at Wal-Mart. Eighty-five percent of Costco's workers have health  insurance, compared with less than half at Wal-Mart and Target.


Costco  also has not shut out unions, as some of its rivals have. The Teamsters  union, for example, represents 14,000 of Costco's 113,000 employees.  "They gave us the best agreement of any retailer in the country," said  Rome Aloise, the union's chief negotiator with Costco. The contract  guarantees employees at least 25 hours of work a week, he said, and  requires that at least half of a store's workers be full time.
Workers seem enthusiastic. Beth Wagner, 36, used to manage a  Rite Aid  drugstore, where she made $24,000 a year and paid nearly $4,000 a year  for health coverage. She quit five years ago to work at Costco, taking a  cut in pay. She started at $10.50 an hour - $22,000 a year - but now  makes $18 an hour as a receiving clerk. With annual bonuses, her income  is about $40,000. 
"I want to retire here," she said. "I love it here."


----------



## Bowden (Dec 21, 2013)

The above articles as to Costco are some of the keys as to why employees at Wal-Mart are paid so poorly and why many of them are on taxpayer funded welfare.
It's all about how a company distributes their cash.

Wall Street objects to Costco, because Costco doesn't treat their workers like working poor field hands like Wal-Mart does and doesn't distribute their cash to the upper economic class in the form of excessive owner and executive stock options grants and stock buybacks at the expense of their working poor employees and taxpayers that fund welfare for Wal-mart workers.

Costco, unlike Wal-Mart doesn't give their employees directions to welfare offices to apply for taxpayer funded welfare as they compensate them at a level that keeps them off of taxpayer funded welfare.
Costco is not going bankrupt by paying their employees a living wage and that destroys any argument as to paying employees a living wage and good benefits will bankrupt a company.

Note this:

"Despite  Costco's impressive record, Mr. Sinegal's salary is just  $350,000,  although he also received a $200,000 bonus last year. That  puts him at  less than 10 percent of many other chief executives, though  Costco ranks  29th in revenue among all American companies."

"I've been very  well rewarded," said Mr. Sinegal, who is worth more  than $150 million  thanks to his Costco stock holdings. "I just think  that if you're going  to try to run an organization that's very  cost-conscious, then you can't  have those disparities. Having an  individual who is making 100 or 200  or 300 times more than the average  person working on the floor is  wrong."


----------



## Swiper (Dec 21, 2013)

Costco employees are an upgrade from walmarts. you need prior experience to work there and make a good wage.  Walmart will hire anyone no matter how inexperienced they are ect . the type of people Costco won't hire.  look at the customer service you get at costco compared to Walmart. there's no comparison. Also look at the total bill at costco compared to Walmart. a bill at Walmart is nothing compared to Costco. At Costco people spend way more money than they do at Walmart. no comparison there either.  there's no real comparison between the two companies. completely different business models.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 21, 2013)

*Costco CEO Wants Government To Tip The Scales In His Company's Favor*



By, Chris Rossini
*WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 2013*


What's more American these days than using government to tip the scales in your favor?

HuffPo reports:On Tuesday, Costco CEO and President Craig Jelinek came out in support of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013, which aims to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour, then adjust it after that for inflation.​Now...Murray Rothbard smashed the minimum wage law in one succinct paragraph:In truth, there is only one way to regard a minimum wage law: it is compulsory unemployment, period. The law says: it is illegal, and therefore criminal, for anyone to hire anyone else below the level of X dollars an hour. This means, plainly and simply, that a large number of free and voluntary wage contracts are now outlawed and hence that there will be a large amount of unemployment. Remember that the minimum wage law provides no jobs; it only outlaws them; and outlawed jobs are the inevitable result.​The Costco CEO then tells us about his company:"We pay a starting hourly wage of $11.50 in all states where we do business, and we are still able to keep our overhead costs low."​So what?

Who cares that Costco's starting wage is $11.50/hr?

Does that change the economics of the minimum wage law? If Rothbard were still alive, would he have to retract his statement because of Costco's pay scales?

Not at all.

So, how could Costco _benefit_ from their CEO publicly sticking his nose in on this issue? HuffPo says (my emphasis):Costco has a reputation for paying its employees above market rate, with the typical worker earning around $45,000 in 2011, according to Fortune. *Walmart-owned Sam's Club, in contrast, pays its sales associates an average of $17,486 per year*, according to salary information website Glassdoor.com.​Ahaaa!!!

Stick it to the competition!

This is the same reason that Unions are traditionally in favor of minimum wage hikes. Screw the non-union individuals who are willing to work for lower wages!

Or as Bob Wenzel has said to me, "Well then, if the Costco chief wants to pay currently unemployed people more than the minimum wage, he should start doing so now. Let Costco hire them. What's that? He doesn't have jobs for them? Oh."

So the Costco CEO is just _playing the game_. The government billy club is there...why not pick it up and beat your competition over the head with it?
EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Costco CEO Wants Government To Tip The Scales In His Company's Favor


----------



## FUZO (Dec 21, 2013)

Get Dumbass out of office and eventualy our country will start to get better


----------



## Swiper (Dec 21, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> They aren't entitled to a profit.



there's a lot of people in your party that share your views on profits.  it's disturbing to say the least. 

http://youtu.be/07fTsF5BiSM


----------



## s2h (Dec 21, 2013)

Bowden said:


> Costco CEO Supports Minimum Wage Hike - Business Insider
> 
> Retail More: Walmart Costco Retail Select
> Costco Is The Perfect Example Of Why The Minimum Wage Should Be Higher
> ...




Costco is a very good operator...they have found processes and such to be much more efficient the Same Club/Wal-Mart...and there wiping there ass with Wal-Mart everywhere they go...

By Costco paying a higher wage it proves that having good people will make you a better company and more profitable....

The wage difference is a little deceiving thou comparing Costco and Sam's per location....Sam's club has three times the employees then Costco does...and there mostly ground level employees....so it brings there average wage down a good bit....


----------



## Bowden (Dec 21, 2013)

Swiper said:


> there's a lot of people in your party that share your views on profits.  it's disturbing to say the least.
> 
> Democrats: Let's Ban Profits! - YouTube



They are entitled to a profit.
What they are not entitled to, is to have a resource compensation wage and benefit model that consists in part of giving their low paid and benefit employees many who are temp at well under 40 hours a week that they will not give full time hours to in order to maintain wall street quarterly EPS forecasts,  directions to the nearest welfare office so that the American taxpayers can subsidize Wal-Mart or any other corporation with taxpayer corporate welfare.
So that they can maintain enough cash flow after operating expenses to allow allocation of cash to fund huge levels of stock buybacks and high owner and executive compensation levels.

The social damage this employee low wage and benefit model is doing is huge.
It is causing a huge increase in the number of people in taxpayer funded socialist programs.

It is going to magnify the retirement funding problem as most of these employees are not going to be able to accumulate enough retirement account money due to this maximize profits low wage and benefit model and the resultant disposable income percentages they can apply to funding a retirement account.

Many of these low wage employees do not work 40 hours.
They are part time at under 30 hours a week and that is not all due to the ACA 30 hour a week trigger for health care benefits.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 21, 2013)

Bowden said:


> They are entitled to a profit.
> What they are not entitled to, is to have a resource compensation wage and benefit model that consists in part of giving their low paid and benefit employees many who are temp at well under 40 hours a week that they will not give full time hours to in order to maintain wall street quarterly EPS forecasts,  directions to the nearest welfare office so that the American taxpayers can subsidize Wal-Mart or any other corporation with taxpayer corporate welfare.
> So that they can maintain enough cash flow after operating expenses to allow allocation of cash to fund huge levels of stock buybacks and high owner and executive compensation levels.
> 
> ...



they can run their business anyway they want.   don't like it, don't shop there or be don't be employed by  them. simple as that and then the market will decide if they are a viable business or not.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 21, 2013)

Swiper said:


> Costco employees are an upgrade from walmarts. you need prior experience to work there and make a good wage.  Walmart will hire anyone no matter how inexperienced they are ect . the type of people Costco won't hire.  look at the customer service you get at costco compared to Walmart. there's no comparison. Also look at the total bill at costco compared to Walmart. a bill at Walmart is nothing compared to Costco. At Costco people spend way more money than they do at Walmart. no comparison there either.  there's no real comparison between the two companies. completely different business models.



One puts people on government assistance, which you and I pay for, the other doesn't.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 21, 2013)

Swiper said:


> there's a lot of people in your party that share your views on profits.  it's disturbing to say the least.
> 
> Democrats: Let's Ban Profits! - YouTube



Being in business or investing in a business is not an automatic guarantee of profits.  It never was, and it should stay that way.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 21, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> One puts people on government assistance, which you and I pay for, the other doesn't.



 people put themselves on govt assistance because they have no viable skills for the current economy.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 21, 2013)

s2h said:


> Costco is a very good operator...they have found processes and such to be much more efficient the Same Club/Wal-Mart...and there wiping there ass with Wal-Mart everywhere they go...
> 
> By Costco paying a higher wage it proves that having good people will make you a better company and more profitable....
> 
> The wage difference is a little deceiving thou comparing Costco and Sam's per location....Sam's club has three times the employees then Costco does...and there mostly ground level employees....so it brings there average wage down a good bit....



What Sam's Club pays brings their average wages down.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 21, 2013)

Swiper said:


> people put themselves on govt assistance because they have no viable skills for the current economy.



When there aren't any decent paying jobs people have no choice but to go on government assistance.  Skills or no skills.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 21, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> Being in business or investing in a business is not an automatic guarantee of profits.  It never was, and it should stay that way.



no one said it was. why do you keep saying that foolish statement?  profits are made by a successful business model.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 21, 2013)

Swiper said:


> they can run their business anyway they want.   don't like it, don't shop there or be don't be employed by  them. simple as that and then the market will decide if they are a viable business or not.



What you are advocating is socialism.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 21, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> When there aren't any decent paying jobs people have no choice but to go on government assistance.  Skills or no skills.



and you have govt to  blame for it. your anger is direct at the wrong people.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 21, 2013)

Swiper said:


> no one said it was. why do you keep saying that foolish statement?  profits are made by a successful business model.



The only reason for Walmart's success is that they depend on corporate welfare.  That's not a business model, that's a scam.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 21, 2013)

Swiper said:


> and you have govt to  blame for it. your anger is direct at the wrong people.



Government is only part of the problem.  A small part.  Corporate greed is the bulk of the problem.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 21, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> What you are advocating is socialism.



Lmao!  no one can reason with a crazy leftist thinker like you. you'll never understand business.  it's too bad.......


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 21, 2013)

Swiper said:


> Lmao!  no one can reason with a crazy leftist thinker like you. you'll never understand business.  it's too bad.......



What is crazy and leftist about ending corporate welfare?  If a company like Walmart cannot make a profit without forcing its employees to go on government assistance it has no business being in business.  It deserves to fail.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 21, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> Government is only part of the problem.  A small part.  Corporate greed is the bulk of the problem.



you have it all backwards,  greed is good.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 21, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> What is crazy and leftist about ending corporate welfare?  If a company like Walmart cannot make a profit without forcing its employees to go on government assistance it has no business being in business.  It deserves to fail.



so you're ok with a $3.71 raise to all of walmarts employees with no expansion which means no more jobs created? And that's including no extra benefits


----------



## fastcashforcoins (Dec 21, 2013)

do u even communist


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 21, 2013)

Swiper said:


> you have it all backwards,  greed is good.



Just a brief head's up for you:  Gordon Gekko is a fictional character from a movie.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 21, 2013)

Swiper said:


> so you're ok with a $3.71 raise to all of walmarts employees with no expansion which means no more jobs created? And that's including no extra benefits



If it gets them, and Walmart, off government assistance how can anyone say it's bad?


----------



## Swiper (Dec 21, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> If it gets them, and Walmart, off government assistance how can anyone say it's bad?



ya think maybe the shareholders would care? lol. if Walmarts business model was never to make a profit there would be no Walmart.  get it?


----------



## Swiper (Dec 21, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> Just a brief head's up for you:  Gordon Gekko is a fictional character from a movie.



and it's true. you're also greedy.


----------



## heckler7 (Dec 21, 2013)

Swiper said:


> Walmart profit 2012 = 17 billion
> 
> Walmart employees = 2.2 Million
> 
> ...


didnt Walmart brag that they could give everyone a raise to $15hr. I didnt say it, they did so obviously they can afford it so why are you so concerned about walmart losing profit? Is it your favorite store?


----------



## Swiper (Dec 21, 2013)

heckler7 said:


> didnt Walmart brag that they could give everyone a raise to $15hr. I didnt say it, they did so obviously they can afford it so why are you so concerned about walmart losing profit? Is it your favorite store?



I'm pointing out the numbers.  it's simple math, but you still don't get it.  I'm sure u never will.  it's hopeless to debate with people who don't function in reality.   you people believe in fairy tails. it's a lost cause.


----------



## Big Puppy (Dec 21, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> And you somehow do?



As a matter of fact I do. I know what it's like to be up all night worrying about cash flow, employees, future work, clients, payroll, expansion, possible layoffs, the economy, OSHA, EPA, IRS, state EPA, and all sorts of other govt entities that take my money to pay for their shitty employees to drive prius's.   You can watch sex, read about sex, think about sex, and try and create sex, but until you actually HAVE sex, you don't know what it's like.


----------



## charley (Dec 21, 2013)

Swiper said:


> I'm pointing out the numbers.  it's simple math, but you still don't get it.  I'm sure u never will.  it's hopeless to debate with people who don't function in reality.   you people believe in fairy tails. it's a lost cause.




.............


----------



## Swiper (Dec 21, 2013)

thanks for making my point. your comparing completely two different business models. 


Costco employees are an upgrade from walmarts. you need prior experience to work there and make a good wage.  Walmart will hire anyone no matter how inexperienced they are ect . the type of people Costco won't hire.  look at the customer service you get at costco compared to Walmart. there's no comparison. Also look at the total bill at costco compared to Walmart. a bill at Walmart is nothing compared to Costco. At Costco people spend way more money than they do at Walmart. no comparison there either.  there's no real comparison between the two companies. completely different business models.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 21, 2013)

charley said:


> .............



what wage pre hour do you want Walmart paying its employees?


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 22, 2013)

Big Puppy said:


> As a matter of fact I do. I know what it's like to be up all night worrying about cash flow, employees, future work, clients, payroll, expansion, possible layoffs, the economy, OSHA, EPA, IRS, state EPA, and all sorts of other govt entities that take my money to pay for their shitty employees to drive prius's.   You can watch sex, read about sex, think about sex, and try and create sex, but until you actually HAVE sex, you don't know what it's like.



Perhaps you would be more successful if you didn't consider your employees to be shitty.  It would be interesting to see how your supposed employees would react to knowing what you really think of them.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 22, 2013)

Swiper said:


> ya think maybe the shareholders would care? lol. if Walmarts business model was never to make a profit there would be no Walmart.  get it?



Shareholders are not the end-all, be-all of corporate existence.  With Costco's business model, and according to your logic, investors should be dropping Costco stock like it's covered in shit.  But they aren't.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 22, 2013)

Swiper said:


> and it's true. you're also greedy.



How am I greedy?


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 22, 2013)

Swiper said:


> thanks for making my point. your comparing completely two different business models.
> 
> 
> Costco employees are an upgrade from walmarts. you need prior experience to work there and make a good wage.  Walmart will hire anyone no matter how inexperienced they are ect . the type of people Costco won't hire.  look at the customer service you get at costco compared to Walmart. there's no comparison. Also look at the total bill at costco compared to Walmart. a bill at Walmart is nothing compared to Costco. At Costco people spend way more money than they do at Walmart. no comparison there either.  there's no real comparison between the two companies. completely different business models.



One is a business model, the other is a scam being perpetuated on the American people.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 22, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> How am I greedy?



when you buy a product or service you look for the cheapest price.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 22, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> One is a business model, the other is a scam being perpetuated on the American people.



you mean one discriminates against the poor and  the other helps them.


----------



## Bowden (Dec 22, 2013)

Swiper said:


> when you buy a product or service you look for the cheapest price.



Oh really?
I would rather buy a quality product or service at a higher price than buy a cheap POS product or service that causes me to have to pay good money for higher quality after spending bad money on something that is a POS that breaks sooner and has to be replaced quicker.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 22, 2013)

Bowden said:


> Oh really?
> I would rather buy a quality product or service at a higher price than buy a cheap POS product or service that causes me to have to pay good money for higher quality after spending bad money on something that is a POS that breaks sooner and has to be replaced quicker.





yeah really. you're going to look for the best price on that higher quality product.  if one store sells that product for $69 and the other for $99 which store are you going to buy it from?   you greedy capitalist!


----------



## heckler7 (Dec 22, 2013)

Swiper said:


> when you buy a product or service you look for the cheapest price.


I'm gonna say this is half true, but usually with larger purchases were I will see a difference, like a TV or a car. But really to be honest I never lok at the cost of shit I purchase daily or shop at walmart because of the crowds there. I dont care if toilet paper is cheaper at a different store, I'm more concerned about getting in and out because I feel my time is more valuable than my money.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 22, 2013)

Swiper said:


> when you buy a product or service you look for the cheapest price.



I look for the best value, not the cheapest price.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 22, 2013)

Swiper said:


> you mean one discriminates against the poor and  the other helps them.



The scam is a ponzi scheme.  It's unsustainable (a favorite word of "conservatives").  When everyone depends on the government for assistance where will that money come from?


----------



## Swiper (Dec 22, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> I look for the best value, not the cheapest price.



right, the best value for your money. greedy capitalist!

I'm still waiting for you to answer what hourly rate you want Walmart to pay its employees.  

for example: LAM says $14 an hour is a good place to start for a federal minimum wage. at least he has a pair of balls and gives a number. although that $14 per hour will bankrupt Walmart unless they raise their prices. so he advocated raising price for higher wages.  why can't you guys just admit that too?


----------



## Big Puppy (Dec 22, 2013)

[QUOT E=Zaphod;3197565]Perhaps you would be more successful if you didn't consider your employees to be shitty.  It would be interesting to see how your supposed employees would react to knowing what you really think of them.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension and read my post again.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 22, 2013)

Swiper said:


> right, the best value for your money. greedy capitalist!
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to answer what hourly rate you want Walmart to pay its employees.
> 
> for example: LAM says $14 an hour is a good place to start for a federal minimum wage. at least he has a pair of balls and gives a number. although that $14 per hour will bankrupt Walmart unless they raise their prices. so he advocated raising price for higher wages.  why can't you guys just admit that too?



How do you figure $14/hour will bankrupt Walmart?


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 22, 2013)

Big Puppy said:


> Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension and read my post again.



No problem with reading comprehension, simple mistake on my part due to your run-on sentence.


----------



## heckler7 (Dec 22, 2013)

still no matter what you say doesn't take away the fact that Walmart stated they could afford to give all their employees a raise to $15hr. don't see why anyone would be against that


----------



## Swiper (Dec 23, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> How do you figure $14/hour will bankrupt Walmart?



 if you take the average pay per store employee and give everyone $3.71 raise it will not be near $14 an hour.


----------



## LAM (Dec 23, 2013)

Swiper said:


> right, the best value for your money. greedy capitalist!
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to answer what hourly rate you want Walmart to pay its employees.
> 
> for example: LAM says $14 an hour is a good place to start for a federal minimum wage. at least he has a pair of balls and gives a number. although that $14 per hour will bankrupt Walmart unless they raise their prices. so he advocated raising price for higher wages.  why can't you guys just admit that too?



Sustainability is only achieved by the integration of economic, cultural, and environmental strands, when one of these strands is weakened the entire economic "braid" is weakened.  People can debate how much anyone should get paid or what anything is "worth" until they rare blue in the face but the facts are that the financial system as a whole meaning tax policy, subsidies, fiat currency, etc. has great distorted the natural process of wage and price discovery mechanisms permanently.

This is why the US is one of the worst performing economy's in the OECD out of all the wealthy industrialized country's, why the US has the most recessions, has the highest degree of inequality.  There is simply nothing sustainable about the current economic model here and the 2008 economic downturn is only the precursor of negative economic events to come, each one being markedly worse than the last because that is the nature of recessions in the world we live in today.

There is one thing that's not debatable and that's low wages for the majority of workers does not make for a sustainable consumption based society, especially when labor has to complete with a massive self-serving financial sector that produces nothing of value, it gives nothing back to society.  There are only so many resources to go around and the people and business that have direct access to US politicians have been winning that battle for decades.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 23, 2013)

LAM said:


> This is why the US is one of the worst performing economy's in the OECD out of all the wealthy industrialized country's



...in the western hemisphere...in the north-western hemisphere...in North America...in places between Canada and Mexico...

Nice narrowing of the list.

Source. In ranking of GDP per capita, the USA ranks *forth *(out of thirty four) in purchasing power parity and *seventh *(out of thirty four) in current exchange rates.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 23, 2013)

Swiper said:


> if you take the average pay per store employee and give everyone $3.71 raise it will not be near $14 an hour.



That not withstanding how do you figure it will bankrupt Walmart when they, themselves, already stated they could easily do so and not hurt themselves?


----------



## LAM (Dec 23, 2013)

Standard Donkey said:


> it's a lot of money to sit in an air conditioned building and put mayonnaise on bread



and what does the cumulative effect of inflation have on wages again?

your daft you still haven't figured out the scam that the capitalist at the top play.  they pay poverty wages, then lend their excess monies back to the middle in bottom in the form of credit where they receive interest payments and on top of that their firms receive massive tax subsidies.

if you think paying poverty wages is the only obligation that these larges firms have to help maintain our society then your utterly clueless on how to achieve economic sustainability.


----------



## Swiper (Dec 23, 2013)

LAM said:


> and what does the cumulative effect of inflation have on wages again?
> .



it has a huge impact. 

And Obama's new federal reserve chairwoman loves inflation and will keep the same destructive policies in place creating even more inflation, at the same time, destroying the poor and middle class. And you said you voted for Obama because of his economic policies?  LOL  you must hate the middle class and poor to support a policy like that.   shame on you.


----------



## jay_steel (Dec 23, 2013)

heckler7 said:


> I'm gonna say this is half true, but usually with larger purchases were I will see a difference, like a TV or a car. But really to be honest I never lok at the cost of shit I purchase daily or shop at walmart because of the crowds there. I dont care if toilet paper is cheaper at a different store, I'm more concerned about getting in and out because I feel my time is more valuable than my money.



i look for the cheapest price period a $ is a $ to me and every dollar that i can save to further invest will trickle down and return my total invest more more. If i can save 20$ a year with toilet paper from costco by buying bulk then i can probably save a few hundred throughout the year, just in groceries. adding another 300$ a year to my investments over a 20 year term will be well worth it. 

This topic is still going on... Here is a good solution. If you dont like your job then get a better one. If you can not find a better job then you probably suck as a human-being and deserve working at wall mart.


----------



## fastcashforcoins (Dec 23, 2013)

jay_steel said:


> If you can not find a better job then you probably suck as a human-being and deserve working at wall mart.



ha ha ha


----------



## Gregzs (Dec 24, 2013)

Why a higher minimum wage beats welfare payments | SmartBrief

Why a higher minimum wage beats welfare payments

12/17/2013 | Bloomberg

A study of welfare payments to the employed shows that fast-food workers are the biggest recipients of government handouts, with well over 4 in 10 workers receiving welfare payments. That's effectively a subsidy for the fast-food industry, and an argument in favor of higher minimum wages, writes Barry Ritholtz. "Raising the minimum wage to $11.33, the poverty level, effectively shifts the cost of eating greasy French fries and overcooked burgers from taxpayers to fast food consumers -- where they belong," Ritholtz writes. 

The Minimum Wage and McDonald's Welfare - Bloomberg


----------



## LAM (Dec 24, 2013)

Swiper said:


> it has a huge impact.
> 
> And Obama's new federal reserve chairwoman loves inflation and will keep the same destructive policies in place creating even more inflation, at the same time, destroying the poor and middle class. And you said you voted for Obama because of his economic policies?  LOL  you must hate the middle class and poor to support a policy like that.   shame on you.



since when does the executive branch control the FED?  since never maybe..doesn't matter who the POTUS appoints they are going to do what's best for the FED, it's not like we don't have 100 years of empirical data showing that or anything.

check with any leading economist in the world or Nobel prize winning economists or the most highly functioning economies in the world and compare their policy between the left and the right in the U.S, and there's a clear winner of the two.  

It's not even debatable, the right was against every single policy that built the middle class in the U.S.  They were against progressive taxation, against pension plans, against subsidized housing, anti-education, against affordable healthcare, against wages that increase with productivity and earnings.


----------



## Gissurjon (Dec 24, 2013)

Swiper said:


> Costco employees are an upgrade from walmarts. you need prior experience to work there and make a good wage.  Walmart will hire anyone no matter how inexperienced they are ect . the type of people Costco won't hire.  look at the customer service you get at costco compared to Walmart. there's no comparison. Also look at the total bill at costco compared to Walmart. a bill at Walmart is nothing compared to Costco. At Costco people spend way more money than they do at Walmart. no comparison there either.  there's no real comparison between the two companies. *completely different business models.*



No shit.... it is, after all, essentially a comparison of business models that is going on here. Did you not notice that? There wouldn't be much need for debate in a comparison of two _completely __similar business model, now would there?_


----------



## Gissurjon (Dec 24, 2013)

Swiper said:


> it has a huge impact.
> 
> And Obama's new federal reserve chairwoman *loves inflation* and will keep the same destructive policies in place creating even more inflation, at the same time, destroying the poor and middle class. And you said you voted for Obama because of his economic policies?  LOL  you must hate the middle class and poor to support a policy like that.   shame on you.



Of Course she does, inflation isn't a product of the system going bad, it is one of the *actual foundations *of the system. Something that the system needs to operate how we know it. Wright or wrong, the system needs inflation like a car needs a battery (or whatever). If we want no a system without inflation we want another system.


----------



## LAM (Dec 24, 2013)

apparently Swiper hasn't watched a video which explained that to him!  LOL

really you mean the US provides USD for nations across the globe and it causes inflation!  holly shit, this kid is fucking Albert Einstein Jr!  LMAO


Money Matters, an IMF Exhibit -- The Importance of Global Cooperation, System in Crisis (1959-1971), Part 4 of 7


----------



## Big Smoothy (Dec 25, 2013)

LAM said:


> and what does the cumulative effect of inflation have on wages again?*
> 
> your daft you still haven't figured out the scam that the capitalist at the top play.  they pay poverty wages, then lend their excess monies back to the middle in bottom in the form of credit where they receive interest payments and on top of that their firms receive massive tax subsidies.
> *
> if you think paying poverty wages is the only obligation that these larges firms have to help maintain our society then your utterly clueless on how to achieve economic sustainability.



The part in bold is the model.

I'll add those who think they are "middle-class" who take out 30 year mortgages.  A Baby Boomer could pay off a thirty-year mortgage and come out ahead in most cases, sometimes get a good amount of appreciation in your home as the "largest asset."

But for Gen X, Y, and in particular the Millenials, it is mostly 'paying for a place to live.'


----------



## Gregzs (Jan 4, 2014)

13 states raising pay for minimum-wage workers

13 states raising pay for minimum-wage workers



The retail-worker strikes that swept the nation in 2013 did not move Congress to raise the minimum wage, but a growing number of states are taking action. 

The minimum wage will rise in 13 states this week, and as many as 11 states and Washington, D.C., are expected to consider increases in 2014, according to the National Employment Law Project. Approval is likely in more than half of the 11, says NELP policy analyst Jack Temple. 

The trend reflects growing concerns about the disproportionate spread of low-wage jobs in the U.S. economy, creating millions of financially strained workers and putting too little money in consumers' pockets to spur faster economic growth.

On Jan. 1, state minimum wages will be higher than the federal requirement of $7.25 an hour in 21 states, up from 18 two years ago. Temple expects another nine states to drift above the federal minimum by the end of 2014, marking the first time minimum pay in most states will be above the federal level.

"2014 is poised to be a turning point," Temple says. "States are seeing the unemployment rate is going down but job growth is disproportionately concentrated in low-wage industries. (They're) frustrated that Congress is dragging its feet." 

Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and Rhode Island legislatures voted to raise the minimum hourly wage by as much as $1, to $8 to $8.70, by Wednesday. In California, a $1 increase to $9 is scheduled July 1. Smaller automatic increases tied to inflation will take effect in nine other states: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. 

Meanwhile, states such as Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maryland, Minnesota and South Dakota plan to weigh minimum-wage hikes next year through legislation or ballot initiatives. 

In Minnesota, the state House and Senate have each passed bills to raise the minimum wage and plan to iron out their differences early next year after failing to approve similar measures the past two decades. 

"You're coming out of a deep recession, and people are landing jobs, but they're low-paid," says state Rep. Ryan Winkler, sponsor of the House bill. 

The legislative movement has been partly fueled by walkouts this year in at least 100 cities by fast-food workers who are calling for $15-an-hour pay and the right to form unions. Wal-Mart workers have staged similar protests. 

While the demonstrations were not explicitly intended to prompt minimum pay increases, they've made the issue" more urgent," Temple says. 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 3.6 million hourly paid workers received wages at or below the federal minimum in 2012?almost 5 percent of all employees on hourly pay schedules. 

President Obama recently said he supports legislation in Congress that would lift the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour in three steps over two years and then index it to inflation. But the measure faces an uphill climb in Congress. 

Proponents of minimum-wage hikes note that low-wage jobs have dominated payroll growth in the 4-year-old recovery, and increases over the past four decades have not kept pace with inflation. 

Opponents say the increases raise employer expenses and will lead to layoffs. "If your costs are going up and you can't raise prices, you have to find a way to produce the same product at a lower cost," says Michael Saltsman, a research fellow at the Employment Policies Institute.

Where minimum wage is going up 

On Jan. 1, the minimum wage in 13 states will increase to these amounts.


----------



## Swiper (Jan 4, 2014)




----------



## LAM (Jan 4, 2014)

Swiper said:


>



LOL!  that's all you got is one graph...


----------



## Swiper (Jan 4, 2014)

LAM said:


> LOL!  that's all you got is one graph...



it's a proven fact. you need to start living in reality.


----------



## Bowden (Jan 4, 2014)

OfficerFarva said:


> Lol Bowden, you're a joke. You probably have no idea what 'hard work' is.  Now you're telling me you can't retire off of a 6 digit income after 30 years



It depends on how much of your income you can save for retirement and what standard of living you want in retirement.
Most people have no clue as to how much money it takes to retire on and live at the same standard of living they had prior to retirement.

In example someone starting a career at 25 that is making 100k a year and that saves 25% of their income for 30 years would not have saved enough for retirement at 55.
If they live to 92, they would be around 1.8 million dollars short of having enough saved for retirement to maintain their standard of living.
Go here and plug the numbers into this calculator.

Retirement Calculator | CNNMoney

This calculator estimates how much you'll need to save for retirement.  To make sure you're thinking about the long haul, we assume you'll live  to age 92. But you could live to be 100 or incur large medical bills  early on in retirement that may raise your costs even further. Social  Security is factored into these calculations, but other sources of  income, such as pensions and annuities, are not.  All calculations are  pre-tax.This calculator estimates how much you'll need to save for retirement.  To make sure you're thinking about the long haul, we assume you'll live  to age 92. But you could live to be 100 or incur large medical bills  early on in retirement that may raise your costs even further. Social  Security is factored into these calculations, but other sources of  income, such as pensions and annuities, are not.  All calculations are  pre-tax.


----------



## Bowden (Jan 4, 2014)

Based on this thread some of you do not think about the future and are in for a nasty reality shock as to how much you are going to be dependent on government benefits for survival when you retire if you ever can.
Anyone that is not saving and investing to hit a target at least *8 of their pretax gross salary for retirement savings had better pray that uncle sam is always around to take taxes from other people and redistribute their money to you.


----------



## LAM (Jan 4, 2014)

OfficerFarva said:


> Or own some land and learn to become self reliant.



easily said when you are in your 40's and 50's but no so easily done when your in your 70's and 80's


----------



## Bowden (Jan 4, 2014)

Swiper said:


>



The unemployment trends cannot be attributed just to increases in minimum wage.
The trend of increases in teenage unemployment illustrated on that graph is associated with the overall trend increase in unemployment that started during the later part of 2007 just before the great recession hit in early 2008


----------



## Bowden (Jan 4, 2014)

Graph: Unemployment rate (seasonally adjusted)

*Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey*
*Source:* Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey











*Series Id:           *LNS14000000
Seasonally Adjusted
*Series title:        *(Seas) Unemployment Rate
*Labor force status:  *Unemployment rate
*Type of data:        *Percent or rate
*Age:                 *16 years and over


YearJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecAnnual20035.85.95.96.06.16.36.26.16.16.05.85.720045.75.65.85.65.65.65.55.45.45.55.45.420055.35.45.25.25.15.05.04.95.05.05.04.920064.74.84.74.74.64.64.74.74.54.44.54.420074.64.54.44.54.44.64.74.64.74.74.75.020085.04.95.15.05.45.65.86.16.16.56.87.320097.88.38.79.09.49.59.59.69.810.09.99.920109.89.89.99.99.69.49.59.59.59.59.89.320119.19.08.99.09.09.19.09.09.08.98.68.520128.38.38.28.18.28.28.28.17.87.97.87.820137.97.77.67.57.67.67.47.37.27.37.0


----------



## LAM (Jan 4, 2014)

OfficerFarva said:


> Have 10 kids, one of them should take care of you.



That's exactly why a lot of people in poverty have large families in other country's and generations ago in the US.  Childless married couples had nobody to take care of them in old age.


----------



## LAM (Jan 4, 2014)

Bowden said:


> The unemployment trends cannot be attributed just to increases in minimum wage.
> The trend of increases in teenage unemployment illustrated on that graph is associated with the overall trend increase in unemployment that started during the later part of 2007 just before the great recession hit in early 2008



that's also why it doesn't scale linearly, but it's a good try for the low wagers. Comparative economics across the OECD blows that graph away with empirical data.


----------



## Swiper (Jan 4, 2014)

*Minimum Wage, Maximum Stupidity*

*by Peter Schiff*​_July 13, 2009

_​
In a free market, demand is always a function of price: the higher the price, the lower the demand. What may surprise most politicians is that these rules apply equally to both prices and wages. When employers evaluate their labor and capital needs, cost is a primary factor. When the cost of hiring low-skilled workers moves higher, jobs are lost. Despite this, minimum wage hikes, like the one set to take effect later this month, are always seen as an act of governmental benevolence. Nothing could be further from the truth.​When confronted with a clogged drain, most of us will call several plumbers and hire the one who quotes us the lowest price. If all the quotes are too high, most of us will grab some Drano and a wrench, and have at it. Labor markets work the same way. Before bringing on another worker, an employer must be convinced that the added productivity will exceed the added cost (this includes not just wages, but all payroll taxes and other benefits.) So if an unskilled worker is capable of delivering only $6 per hour of increased productivity, such an individual is legally unemployable with a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
Low-skilled workers must compete for employers' dollars with both skilled workers and capital. For example, if a skilled worker can do a job for $14 per hour that two unskilled workers can do for $6.50 per hour each, then it makes economic sense for the employer to go with the unskilled labor. Increase the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour and the unskilled workers are priced out of their jobs. This dynamic is precisely why labor unions are such big supporters of minimum wage laws. Even though none of their members earns the minimum wage, the law helps protect their members from having to compete with lower-skilled workers.
Employers also have the choice of whether to employ people or machines. For example, an employer can hire a receptionist or invest in an automated answering system. The next time you are screaming obscenities into the phone as you try to have a conversation with a computer, you know what to blame for your frustration.


There are numerous other examples of employers substituting capital for labor simply because the minimum wage has made low-skilled workers uncompetitive. For example, handcarts have replaced skycaps at airports. The main reason fast-food restaurants use paper plates and plastic utensils is to avoid having to hire dishwashers.
As a result, many low-skilled jobs that used to be the first rung on the employment ladder have been priced out of the market. Can you remember the last time an usher showed you to your seat in a dark movie theater? When was the last time someone other than the cashier not only bagged your groceries, but also loaded them into your car? By the way, it won't be long before the cashiers themselves are priced out of the market, replaced by automated scanners, leaving you to bag your purchases with no help whatsoever.
The disappearance of these jobs has broader economic and societal consequences. First jobs are a means to improve skills so that low-skilled workers can offer greater productivity to current or future employers. As their skills grow, so does their ability to earn higher wages. However, remove the bottom rung from the employment ladder and many never have a chance to climb it.
So the next time you are pumping your own gas in the rain, do not just think about the teenager who could have been pumping it for you, think about the auto mechanic he could have become ? had the minimum wage not denied him a job. Many auto mechanics used to learn their trade while working as pump jockeys. Between fill-ups, checking tire pressure, and washing windows, they would spend a lot of time helping ? and learning from ? the mechanics.


Because the minimum wage prevents so many young people (including a disproportionate number of minorities) from getting entry-level jobs, they never develop the skills necessary to command higher paying jobs. As a result, many turn to crime, while others subsist on government aid. Supporters of the minimum wage argue that it is impossible to support a family on the minimum wage. While that is true, it is completely irrelevant, as minimum wage jobs are not designed to support families. In fact, many people earning the minimum wage are themselves supported by their parents.
The way it is supposed to work is that people do not choose to start families until they can earn enough to support them. Lower-wage jobs enable workers to eventually acquire the skills necessary to earn wages high enough to support a family. Does anyone really think a kid with a paper route should earn a wage high enough to support a family?
The only way to increase wages is to increase worker productivity. If wages could be raised simply by government mandate, we could set the minimum wage at $100 per hour and solve all problems. It should be clear that, at that level, most of the population would lose their jobs, and the remaining labor would be so expensive that prices for goods and services would skyrocket. That's the exact burden the minimum wage places on our poor and low-skilled workers, and ultimately every American consumer.
Since our leaders cannot even grasp this simple economic concept, how can we expect them to deal with the more complicated problems that currently confront us?
Minimum Wage, Maximum Stupidity by Peter Schiff



*Singapore has no minimum wage, a 2% underemployment rate and the third highest incomes in the world*


----------



## Swiper (Jan 4, 2014)

Bowden said:


> The unemployment trends cannot be attributed just to increases in minimum wage.
> The trend of increases in teenage unemployment illustrated on that graph is associated with the overall trend increase in unemployment that started during the later part of 2007 just before the great recession hit in early 2008



sure it can. the recession didn't start until late 2008.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jan 4, 2014)

Bowden said:


> Based on this thread some of you do not think about the future and are in for a nasty reality shock as to how much you are going to be dependent on government benefits for survival when you retire if you ever can.



I think many - including a certain percentage of Baby Boomers will work until they drop.  Gen Xers, Yers, and Millenials will work until they are too old to work physically or mentally.  The scary part is: what type of jobs will they have?

The few that are investing money in certain areas, that have enough to invest and get sufficient returns will be able to sop working before they are too old to work.

Statistically, that is a small number. 



> Anyone that is not saving and investing to hit a target at least *8 of their pretax gross salary for retirement savings had better pray that uncle sam is always around to take taxes from other people and redistribute their money to you.



8 percent?  I remember that figure.  It was the standard target before the Financial downturn.

Now, how many people are getting 8% returns?


----------



## LAM (Jan 5, 2014)

Swiper said:


> *Minimum Wage, Maximum Stupidity*
> 
> *by Peter Schiff*​_July 13, 2009
> 
> ...



Peter Schiff is an investment broker and commentator and not a trained economist.

And in your reference to Singapore you lack to mention that it has a national collective bargaining agreement which is why there is no minimum wage laws.  The number of highly functioning economy's in the world that have no minimum wage laws OR national collective bargaining equals ZERO.


----------



## Bowden (Jan 5, 2014)

Big Smoothy said:


> I think many - including a certain percentage of Baby Boomers will work until they drop.  Gen Xers, Yers, and Millenials will work until they are too old to work physically or mentally.  The scary part is: what type of jobs will they have?
> 
> The few that are investing money in certain areas, that have enough to invest and get sufficient returns will be able to sop working before they are too old to work.
> 
> ...



The 8 refers to a pretax salary multiplier not a 8% return on investment.
Someone making say pretax 100k a year at a minimum should target to have 800k saved for retirement when they retire.
As to 8% ROI, I have one investment that has increased 49% since I bought it two years ago.

There are opportunities out there, you just have to do in-depth Due  Diligence and ignore all of the noise you see on the financial channels.

The people that put  money into stocks and then held when it seemed that the financial world was coming to an end are up huge.
In example in 2009 I bought a S&P index mutual fund at under 700 and now it is at 1831


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jan 6, 2014)

Bowden said:


> The 8 refers to a pretax salary multiplier not a 8% return on investment.
> Someone making say pretax 100k a year at a minimum should target to have 800k saved for retirement when they retire.
> As to 8% ROI, I have one investment that has increased 49% since I bought it two years ago.
> 
> ...



Good on you Bowden.

Yes, it's about being smart.  Research.  

Cheers.


----------

