Study analyzes the impact of minimum wage hikes in CA

I don't find Mc - Hardees - burger king fun to eat anymore, chewy and different tasting, even Arby Roast beef Tough/chewy..Rubin sammich awful !
1/3 of our beef is import from Canada's dairy herds million.
 

There would be no need for a minimum wage in a classless society. I see no reason to have an upper class with such staggering differences in personal wealth. It makes the whole system of domestic tranquility impossible. I wonder why we don't hold our constitution as the guide to wages/personal wealth. Whatever and how ever it is arranged, it should be for the well being of the masses.
What you earn should be about how good you are at what you do. It was for me. Sort of tired of Liberal explanations of paychecks.
 
There would be no need for a minimum wage in a classless society. I see no reason to have an upper class with such staggering differences in personal wealth. It makes the whole system of domestic tranquility impossible. I wonder why we don't hold our constitution as the guide to wages/personal wealth. Whatever and how ever it is arranged, it should be for the well being of the masses.
I was listening to Yanis Varoufakis this afternoon and he was talking about how important wars are for fueling capitalism. He also made an interesting point that as 'capitalism' allows/encourages the corporations to eliminate the workers ability to get raises and achieve an improving standard of living, they're inevitably shooting themselves in the foot because 'poor' people, quit purchasing from those corporations. I suppose that's where the wars come in, because at least some corporations will continue to rake in the big bucks and a few workers (the guys building the bombs - at least until AI puts them out of work too) will continue to earn enough money to buy crap from the other corporations.
 

Instead of being realistic, you offer up this pretend scenario of $100 minimum wage. What was the point of that? And I'm not sure what beliefs you're 'accusing' me of or which opinions I share with others. I also don't believe that I've gotten emotional about anything, particularly my 'faith' or philosophy to which you allude. But if you insist on reading things into my comment, then so be it. You are likewise entitled.
The term "beliefs" is used in a condescending and demeaning manner to differentiate from the supposedly correct set of "facts" which aren't articulated, nor referenced.

The only evidence offered up in the thread is in the study referenced in the article, the rest is feelings, musings, and anecdotes.
 
Maybe the government should provide basic housing, food, and clothing — just a small room for you to sleep, a cafeteria where you can eat, and donated clothing. If you want anything else, you need to work for it. At the same time, eliminate welfare.

A system like that would provide people with stability and security and would eliminate the abuses of our welfare system.
 
Maybe the government should provide basic housing, food, and clothing — just a small room for you to sleep, a cafeteria where you can eat, and donated clothing. If you want anything else, you need to work for it. At the same time, eliminate welfare.

A system like that would provide people with stability and security and would eliminate the abuses of our welfare system.
Well, I think the method used in the old Mincome experiment that happened in Manitoba many years ago, is a good way to start. The fact that UP TO 50% of any extra dollars earned could be clawed back from the guaranteed pay check, encourages people to continue working because it would still give workers an increased wage but not encourage them to just quit working altogether and allow the country to support them because the amount wasn't so substantial that they'd be better off.
 
There would be no need for a minimum wage in a classless society. I see no reason to have an upper class with such staggering differences in personal wealth. It makes the whole system of domestic tranquility impossible. I wonder why we don't hold our constitution as the guide to wages/personal wealth. Whatever and how ever it is arranged, it should be for the well being of the masses.
IMO we should all be given the opportunity for a fair start in life and be able to work for the things that are important to us.

For some it’s about personal growth and satisfaction, for me it was simply about the money that I needed to live a comfortable life.

I decided early on that if I needed to trade my life/time for money I was going to go for the best rate of exchange that I could find in order to minimize the time required to achieve my goals.

Life isn’t always fair and as members of a civilized society we need to recognize that and make provisions for people that need help.

I’ll stick with the current system, warts and all.
 
My husband ran a business for 30 years so I'm well aware of the interests of businesses. However, governments are elected by 'the people' and allowing businesses to abuse this situation like they are, is a betrayal of the voters in my opinion. At least our government is changing the numbers that they will approve going forward. Seems like they are listening.
I agree with you. There's no reason that the seasonal worker program couldn't be expanded and better monitored. I've quite often said that if the U.S. government actually wanted, or felt they needed to close the border they would do so. There's a reason it's left the way it is.
 
There would be no need for a minimum wage in a classless society. I see no reason to have an upper class with such staggering differences in personal wealth. It makes the whole system of domestic tranquility impossible. I wonder why we don't hold our constitution as the guide to wages/personal wealth. Whatever and how ever it is arranged, it should be for the well being of the masses.
Let's not forget, the framers of the US Constitution were wealthy landowners.
 
There are plenty of more complete "tests" of these theories, and at national scale running for far, far longer.

North Korea is one. Cuba another. Communist China under Mao. USSR under Stalin. Italy under Mussolini. Germany under Hitler.

All of these attempted to run an economy under socialist theory of exactly this kind.
 
What you earn should be about how good you are at what you do. It was for me. Sort of tired of Liberal explanations of paychecks.
I think that is a reality overlooked, but should include what a job entails. This thread is about minimum wage for fast food workers an entry level job. I think what surprises me most about the minimum wage hike in Cal. Why in Cal. isn't there a demand for higher wages by those employed in jobs that require a lot of skill & training.

Or maybe there is I'm just not aware since I'm no longer in the workforce.

What Kind of Training Is Required?
No formal training or certification is required to become a fast food worker. Many fast food restaurants have a training program in place that teaches prospective employees how to perform the job. Training might consist of watching training videos, shadowing another worker or just learning on the fly. Training is generally quite quick.

https://learn.org/articles/be_a_fas...ing or certification,just learning on the fly.
 
Some people think that the minimum wage is a privilege set by the Government to be the best for the economy. Others think that it should be adjusted to the circumstances so that people can make enough to live. I lean towards the second one.
 
Minimum wage should be enough for a single person to afford an apartment, food, and clothing... the basic necessities of life. That's not the case in many cities across the country today. We have homeless people working full time. That has got to be demoralizing and depressing.
I started working in the 1970s when the minimum wage was about $2.15 per hour. That's about 16.22 today, adjusted for inflation. There was never any expectation that a single person would be able to live on that amount of money.

There were higher paying jobs available, for instance in construction, and one could theoretically support oneself. But those jobs involved risk, hard physical labor and a willingness to learn some kind of skill.
 
There were higher paying jobs available, for instance in construction, and one could theoretically support oneself. But those jobs involved risk, hard physical labor and a willingness to learn some kind of skill.
There were also other factors such as reliably showing up, showing up on time, being awake on the job, not dragging down co-workers trying to get them to do your work, showing loyalty and achieving longevity at the job which improves productivity (by working faster, more accurately, and more flexibly).

Usually you're expected to bring some skill to the job, not expect to be trained on the job except in specifics of the particular job.

Basically your compensation would reflect your value to the employer and ultimately your co-workers and community.
 
Meritocracy works for those who can, it does not well for those who can't.
That's what "equal opportunity" is about.

You seem to think "equal outcomes" are more just. Is that it?

By this logic sports figures, actors, and musicians should be hired by quota. And the people who work on cars, airplanes, in medicine... where does this absurdity end?

Or maybe you are just stating a fact.
 
Back in the day, Henry Ford paid his employees very well...so they could afford to buy his cars.
Ford had a hard time keeping workers and the company had a 380 percent turnover rate. The leap to $5 per day attracted workers and stabilized the workforce.

Paying your employees so they can afford your product is a nonsensical concept. If that were the case, every maker of yachts and luxury goods would pay huge sums to their workers.

The real story is here:

The Story of Henry Ford's $5 a Day Wages: It's Not What You Think
 
I've always thought that the reluctance to increase minimum wages was an excuse to keep poor people poor. I dare any politician who was against it to live off the incomes of those who are on minimum wage. Well, except for Senator Corey Booker (N.J.). He allegedly did it a few years back when he was mayor of Newark, N.J. I forgot for how long but it may have only been a couple of weeks.
 
I started working in the 1970s when the minimum wage was about $2.15 per hour. That's about 16.22 today, adjusted for inflation. There was never any expectation that a single person would be able to live on that amount of money.

There were higher paying jobs available, for instance in construction, and one could theoretically support oneself. But those jobs involved risk, hard physical labor and a willingness to learn some kind of skill.
I also started working in the '70s. There was no construction going on and not much of anything going on, other than working in a factory or at a convenience store — both of which I did and both of which paid just over minimum wage. It was either that or become homeless, which I also experienced for a few months.

That was when all the factory jobs were going overseas. The factory where I worked closed up around 1980 and moved their operations overseas. It was a Tuck Tape factory. I was responsible for making the cardboard tube that the tape got wrapped around. :ROFLMAO:
 


Back
Top