- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: When did minimum wage become living wage?
Posted on 6/7/17 at 10:37 am to Homesick Tiger
Posted on 6/7/17 at 10:37 am to Homesick Tiger
I don't think it was the boomers
Could it be the new deal that was signed by the president during the 60's and the long term effects of it?
I'm not saying whether that's correct or not, but is it a possibility.
Could it be the new deal that was signed by the president during the 60's and the long term effects of it?
I'm not saying whether that's correct or not, but is it a possibility.
0
Posted on 6/7/17 at 10:42 am to ManBearTiger
quote:
See the discrepancy?
Not really. I wasn't trying to make any type comparison of then versus now. I straight up answered a direct question.
Posted on 6/7/17 at 10:42 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
That CEO thing is largely a canard and irrelevant. It's such a small percentage of expense, and even labor expense, for almost all companies that it just doesn't matter.
People bitching about that sound exactly like Trumpkins bitching about the Chinese takin' der jerbs. It's automation that has promulgated that gap.
Most of the extra value is going to shareholders.
People bitching about that sound exactly like Trumpkins bitching about the Chinese takin' der jerbs. It's automation that has promulgated that gap.
Most of the extra value is going to shareholders.
This post was edited on 6/7/17 at 10:44 am
Posted on 6/7/17 at 10:45 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
7.25 X 2080 hours = $15,080 a year . And this assumes that a person works every single available hour to them. No unpaid time off.
The poverty threshold for a SINGLE person in 201y is $12060. Means tested welfare allows a person to earn 140% of that and qualify for welfare. That means a single person could earn $16,884 and still qualify for welfare. That means the government itself is actually saying a single person would have to make $8.11 an hour just not to qualify for welfare. And that is not considering any dependents.
Now , since the entire minimum wage construct is an entirely made up number anyway, shouldn't that made up number be oh I don't know AT LEAST HIGH ENOUGH TO KEEP A frickING EMPLOYEE OFF THE WELFARE ROLLS?
Good point.
Raise minimum wages to 8.50 an hour and do away with welfare for any able bodied person.
This post was edited on 6/7/17 at 10:46 am
Posted on 6/7/17 at 10:49 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
Not really. I wasn't trying to make any type comparison of then versus now. I straight up answered a direct question.
What does your answering a previous question have to do with whether you see the ludicrous discrepancy between modern unskilled workers seeking to advance their suitability for the workforce and their 1970 counterparts? I illustrated all that shite because you trotted out the classic boomer pablum comparing your scrappy youth to 2017's supposedly lazy youth.
This post was edited on 6/7/17 at 10:50 am
Posted on 6/7/17 at 10:50 am to theenemy
quote:
Raise minimum wages to 8.50 an hour and do away with welfare for any able bodied person.
$10.50 would be better. But yes it would have to be coupled with stricter policies on welfare.
Posted on 6/7/17 at 10:51 am to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
hat CEO thing is largely a canard and irrelevant. It's such a small percentage of expense, and even labor expense, for almost all companies that it just doesn't matter.
People bitching about that sound exactly like Trumpkins bitching about the Chinese takin' der jerbs. It's automation that has promulgated that gap.
Most of the extra value is going to shareholders.
So you think that CEO wages rising 990% while worker wages decrease 40% is irrelevant? LOL
Posted on 6/7/17 at 10:54 am to bamafan1001
quote:
Who benefits from cheap mexican labor imported illegally? The ones that own large established businesses. Wonder why "donors" are steering the GOP away from border control...its not rocket science. We must pay the piper while they sit pretty on their pensions, retirement funds, and SS which we wont even be able to draw from despite putting into... We will pay the piper This post was edited on 6/7 at 10:07 am
With regards to SS, don't be surprised if in the not too distant future the government enacts a means test to determine if a person receives SS. The government will have to do something to shore up SS or it will implode within the next 20-30 yrs.
Posted on 6/7/17 at 10:54 am to ManBearTiger
quote:
because you trotted out the classic boomer pablum comparing your scrappy youth to 2017's supposedly lazy youth.
You're an idiot. Show me where I made such a claim. All my posts have not had any controversial statements as far as comparing now to then. I've insinuated exactly nothing.
Posted on 6/7/17 at 10:54 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
$10.50 would be better. But yes it would have to be coupled with stricter policies on welfare.
frick it. I'll give you $9.36 an hour with no subsidies (HUD, Obamaphones, medicaid, etc...) plus we hammer the illegals so you don't have to compete with them for jobs.
This post was edited on 6/7/17 at 10:55 am
Posted on 6/7/17 at 10:56 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
quote:
hat CEO thing is largely a canard and irrelevant. It's such a small percentage of expense, and even labor expense, for almost all companies that it just doesn't matter.
People bitching about that sound exactly like Trumpkins bitching about the Chinese takin' der jerbs. It's automation that has promulgated that gap.
Most of the extra value is going to shareholders.
So you think that CEO wages rising 990% while worker wages decrease 40% is irrelevant? LOL
In the grand scheme of things, yes, absolutely.
You're talking about one employee compared to thousands. He/she is getting 0.2% of a possibly labor benefits pool instead of 0.15% like he/she used to. It is, for all practical purposes, irrelevant. The only industries in which that wouldn't be the case are high end services (banking, consulting, etc.), and salaries in those are just fine.
And even then, the CEO wage rising has more to do with the type of compensation (much more equity than straight cash, usually locked-in) than the straight distribution.
It just doesn't matter. You could make a law stating that CEO's can only make X more than the lowest-paid worker, and it wouldn't fix the wealth gap one iota.
This post was edited on 6/7/17 at 10:58 am
Posted on 6/7/17 at 10:56 am to theenemy
quote:
frick it. I'll give you $9.36 an hour with no subsidies (HUD, Obamaphones, medicaid, etc...) plus we hammer the illegals so you don't have to compete with them for jobs.
I like the cut of your gib sir.
I'll come down to $10 an hour and you toss all the illegals into the ocean for all I care.
Posted on 6/7/17 at 10:57 am to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
That CEO thing is largely a canard and irrelevant. It's such a small percentage of expense, and even labor expense, for almost all companies that it just doesn't matter. People bitching about that sound exactly like Trumpkins bitching about the Chinese takin' der jerbs. It's automation that has promulgated that gap. Most of the extra value is going to shareholders.
I think you're correct, the problem is the optics, in a statistical sense it looks bad.
Posted on 6/7/17 at 10:58 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
I'll come down to $10 an hour and you toss all the illegals into the ocean for all I care.
Deal. 10 an hour and no more subsidies for able bodied persons.
Posted on 6/7/17 at 11:00 am to theenemy
quote:
Deal. 10 an hour and no more subsidies for able bodied persons.
That's more compromise than Congress has done in 48 years.
Posted on 6/7/17 at 11:02 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
Posted on 6/7/17 at 11:03 am to Homesick Tiger
Sounds like you might need to get checked for Alzheimer's old man because this:
... is the post I initially responded to in which you certainly insinuated that Boomers had it "hard" and that you, and therefore your generation, were just grittier and more capable of pulling yourself up by the bootstaps and whatever other bullshite you old farts tell yourselves to absolve your generation for not only sticking your children and grandchildren with the ticket for your excesses, but jumpstarting a culture of continually doing so.
quote:
This baby boomer at age 15 made eighty cents an hour for 10 hrs. work six days a week. This baby boomer was smart enough to realize that is not what I wanted to do the rest of my life. So, I go to college, while working other jobs, to find something better than chicken feed paying jobs that I know will not get me ahead in life. No, I never graduated but I latched on to a good job that enabled me to retire at age 60.
Not sure how the boomers are responsible for all your ill will towards us.
... is the post I initially responded to in which you certainly insinuated that Boomers had it "hard" and that you, and therefore your generation, were just grittier and more capable of pulling yourself up by the bootstaps and whatever other bullshite you old farts tell yourselves to absolve your generation for not only sticking your children and grandchildren with the ticket for your excesses, but jumpstarting a culture of continually doing so.
Posted on 6/7/17 at 11:03 am to Bass Tiger
quote:
quote:
That CEO thing is largely a canard and irrelevant. It's such a small percentage of expense, and even labor expense, for almost all companies that it just doesn't matter. People bitching about that sound exactly like Trumpkins bitching about the Chinese takin' der jerbs. It's automation that has promulgated that gap. Most of the extra value is going to shareholders.
I think you're correct, the problem is the optics, in a statistical sense it looks bad.
I agree with that, sure, especially given our current political climate. But lies, damn lies, and stats. And it wouldn't address at all the fact that CEOs are, for the most part, awarded through locked-in equity, not salary. I guess you could, in theory, start awarding huge chunks of shares to employees, but that hasn't worked out so well in the past - employees who need to pay bills tend to be risk averse and need the cash flow.
Posted on 6/7/17 at 11:07 am to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
agree with that, sure,
Even if it IS just about optics. We have policies which allow employers to rake in millions of dollars a year while paying lower level employees so little that they qualify for welfare and then brag about it by instructing those employees how to get "their fare share" of welfare dollars.
Then yall wonder why Bernie Sanders almost overcame impossible odds to become the DNC candidate for President?
If this isn't fixed, and fixed soon, we will have REAL socialists taking offices. Then we're fricked.
Posted on 6/7/17 at 11:07 am to jimbeam
Progressives and Roosevelt.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News