Text Size

No Holds Barred

Issue 4

Need to get something off your chest? Have a topic that doesn't fit one of the other forums? Rant away in here. Mature audiences only, not for the easily offended.

Moderators: peeker643, swerb, Ziner

Unread postby FUDU » Sat Aug 23, 2008 10:44 am

waborat wrote:
FUDU wrote:
First off there isn't that much difference in owing/running a business as opposed to investing in one, the investor still has his/her money on the line.




Jesus H Christ, You are kidding right???


In regards to putting your money out on a line, no there isn't.

Actually in a way it takes way more guts to invest, b/c all you are doing is giving somebody money and allowing them to do with it as they see fit, having no to very little influence on your part.

If it fails, you as the investor lose, that's it game over.

In terms of putting in the time and efforts then of course the business owner has more on the line.
Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect.
"I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

2011 TCF Stratomatic Champ
User avatar
FUDU
 
Posts: 13356
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:02 am
Favorite Player: Me
Least Favorite Player: You

Unread postby waborat » Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:19 pm

FUDU wrote:
waborat wrote:
FUDU wrote:
First off there isn't that much difference in owing/running a business as opposed to investing in one, the investor still has his/her money on the line.




Jesus H Christ, You are kidding right???


In regards to putting your money out on a line, no there isn't.

Actually in a way it takes way more guts to invest, b/c all you are doing is giving somebody money and allowing them to do with it as they see fit, having no to very little influence on your part.

If it fails, you as the investor lose, that's it game over.

In terms of putting in the time and efforts then of course the business owner has more on the line.


hmmm, it takes more guts to invest? How about the day to day pressures of keeping food on the table for your employees by finding people to purchase your goods and/or services?...How about business owners who must have the 100% passion, motivation & resources to keep the business afloat?

Investors have the option of getting out at any time...unfortunately, there are very few committed investors who stay for the long haul...some successful traders are active not passive...you should never invest your money in a company unless you have sufficient knowledge in the company...it's the one's who don't do their homework and are impatient who fail and they deserve to

Like warren Buffett says "investing is laying out money now to get more back in the future"...No more and no less, it's a security...If your security doesn't meet your expectations then you have no obligation to hold that security...a business owner doesn't have that same priviledge

Also, you have to remember that with large corporations that it doesn't matter how much money you invest in them because the company gets it's capital from the IPO and borrowing...It's neutral trading when you invest....the question whether to get in or get out is your business decision that you make for your own purposes and doesn't affect the company
User avatar
waborat
 
Posts: 4096
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:04 pm
Location: Concord
Favorite Player: Megyn Kelly
Least Favorite Player: Single digit temps

Unread postby FUDU » Sat Aug 23, 2008 1:27 pm

How about the day to day pressures of keeping food on the table for your employees by finding people to purchase your goods and/or services?.


In the frame work of this debate that doesn't seem to be too much a concern for those opposed to the concept of a minimum wage?

You cannot in one hand say you are against paying a standard minimum wage raise, then in the other hand say you are concerned about the food on the table of your employees.

Like warren Buffett says "investing is laying out money now to get more back in the future"...No more and no less,


The same could be said for going into business for oneself, it is to gain something bigger/better later for the efforts put in now.

You think people go into business for their health or to pass the time in between the coming of the locusts?
Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect.
"I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

2011 TCF Stratomatic Champ
User avatar
FUDU
 
Posts: 13356
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:02 am
Favorite Player: Me
Least Favorite Player: You

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Sat Aug 23, 2008 9:24 pm

FUDU wrote:
waborat wrote:
FUDU wrote:
First off there isn't that much difference in owing/running a business as opposed to investing in one, the investor still has his/her money on the line.




Jesus H Christ, You are kidding right???


In regards to putting your money out on a line, no there isn't.

Actually in a way it takes way more guts to invest, b/c all you are doing is giving somebody money and allowing them to do with it as they see fit, having no to very little influence on your part.

If it fails, you as the investor lose, that's it game over.

In terms of putting in the time and efforts then of course the business owner has more on the line.


Wow, what a bunch of bullshit.

There's a huge difference between investing and actually running a business. You are accountable to other investors and they can take legal action against you when you run a business if they think you screwed them over in any way.

Most business owners do invest their own money. They may have others that sign on with additional funds, but that doesn't mean they haven't put anything on the line.

And as for having very little influence as an investor, I don't know what you're investing in. I've had significant influence on investments when I've dropped money on things that are more locally or regionally run. I'm an active investor that keeps an eye on when things are going well and when they are not and I do provide suggestions and help at times.

I do a lot of research and interviewing before I invest money, so it is work, but it's a hell of a lot different from running a business.

Anyone who says differently has probably never actually run a business. It's a lot different when you have to deal with pressure from investors, create a profitable budget with reasonable margins, and deal with all the other stuff involved.

Investors are not always out of luck if something failed. Sometimes they can recover funds and it is often the guy who was running the show who could be on the hook.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Sat Aug 23, 2008 9:26 pm

FUDU wrote:You cannot in one hand say you are against paying a standard minimum wage raise, then in the other hand say you are concerned about the food on the table of your employees.


So you think that most 16 year olds are using the minimum wage to keep food on their table or do you think they use it to party or save up for a car or something?
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Sat Aug 23, 2008 9:39 pm

FUDU wrote:Secondly throughout you mentioned the ability to control the pay of the employee, based on how good they are etc... Well there has to be incentive to draw employees in, even in the entry level pimple face market of potential workers. Do you want the reputation of the local small business that doesn't pay well, b/c trust me that will put a halt to your business just like anything else. Also the potential employee doesn't need the employer as much as the employer needs that employee in small business, and actually that holds true across the board on a micro level, not as much on a macro level. There are plenty of individuals looking for work in the minimum wage range that can do without a potential job if that employer is trying to nickel and dime his compensation.


Spoken like someone who just doesn't understand the market.

Of course you need to draw employees in. You'll need to pay what other similar businesses are paying, but then the market sets it and not the government. This is how things generally work above the minimum wage pay grade and why it is unnecessary. If no grocery store is willing to pay baggers more than $4 an hour to start then good luck convincing one to pay you $7 without any experience or any record of good attendance, etc.

Ultimately that makes all pay rates set by scarcity. The more difficult it is to find someone with a certain skillset or sets, the more the entry level rate for that pay.

Sometimes you don't need the employee, btw. Some employees are hired to provide a bit more flexibility in scheduling, service, etc depending on the business. You see, no one is irreplaceable - and that includes whoever is running the show.

I probably agree with our POV more than you would believe or more than I am letting on but my main point here is that there can be a reasonably decided amount of compensation for work, work in general not just specific jobs and tasks. I think right now they got it right in Ohio at $6.85 I believe.


Why did they get it right at $6.85 and will it be right if it bounces up seriously due to inflation and causes further inflation because of it?

Why should the government determine that rate? Why should all fields be given that rate? Should the grocery bagger get the same as the guy washing cars, a man who probably puts in a lot more physical effort for his job?

Why not have a minimum wage for each specified job while we're at it? Construction workers start at $9.50. DJs at $7.75.

It's just so ludicrous for government that is not involved in business to set wages. One more entitlement instead of encouraging people to work hard and climb up the ladder it actually prevents motivated workers in lower end jobs from achieving much of anything.

Get rid of the minimum wage and the people that don't want to work hard and don't want to put any pride in their work are the ones worried about where they'll get food from. You see, I don't believe people have an inherent right to eat or have a house over their heads. If you earnestly work hard then I concede that, but to those who do not wish to work I do not. There are plenty of people that coast along on minimum wage, pick up food stamps, etc. Why not lower their wages and actually give that money to the people that are actually trying?
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby waborat » Sun Aug 24, 2008 12:33 pm

FUDU wrote:
How about the day to day pressures of keeping food on the table for your employees by finding people to purchase your goods and/or services?.


In the frame work of this debate that doesn't seem to be too much a concern for those opposed to the concept of a minimum wage?

You cannot in one hand say you are against paying a standard minimum wage raise, then in the other hand say you are concerned about the food on the table of your employees.

Like warren Buffett says "investing is laying out money now to get more back in the future"...No more and no less,


The same could be said for going into business for oneself, it is to gain something bigger/better later for the efforts put in now.

You think people go into business for their health or to pass the time in between the coming of the locusts?


You just don't get the minimum wage argument. Everyone from the consumers, the employees to the owners get shafted in the long run when the government gets involved. In my business I have to pay people above minimun wage because that's what the construction market bears. My guys would never come to work for me if they know that they can go to DQ and make the same by pouring slurpees. I don't have a problem with paying them more. What I do have a problem with is being told that the entire wage system will change when the minimum must go up. When you have to bring in anybody at a dollar or more higher then it creates a trickle up for everyone in the company to retain them. Believe me, it doesn't take the money out of MY pocket (as I'm sure you are thinking). It takes away from their benefits, it raises prices for my clients and it makes it a lot more difficult to grow the company (equipment, property, insurances, etc).

Most small business owners work on a very small profit margin (usually 10-15% annually). That's not a whole lot to grow with and it makes it much tougher when the government sticks their nose in it further. You would think that they would appreciate the small businesses more, but they would rather have you live off of the government. That's what keeps these politicians and union bosses in their jobs.

My response to your second question is that yes, most of us small business owners did do this for other reasons then just making money. We did it for a lot of other reasons: making our own policies and rules, freedom and being able to control our own future, to be cutting edge, to train and treat our employees the way we would want to be treated, and yes even health reasons. The money at the end of the day is just a bonus to the fruit of our labors.

We need to treat our clients, employees and vendors with the utmost respect or we have nothing. We don't need the government getting involved and telling us what to do as far as benefits go. It's a free market and employees have the right to choose another postion in another company if they feel that they are being treated unfairly and they should. Having an even playing field is not good for any one and is just another in a long line of socialistic views.
User avatar
waborat
 
Posts: 4096
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:04 pm
Location: Concord
Favorite Player: Megyn Kelly
Least Favorite Player: Single digit temps

Unread postby skatingtripods » Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:27 pm

A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe
User avatar
skatingtripods
Sloth Duncan
 
Posts: 14346
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:27 pm
Location: Cleveland
Favorite Player: Mike Aviles
Least Favorite Player: Every Detroit Tiger

Unread postby waborat » Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:56 pm

Skating Tripods wrote:Who didn't see this coming?

http://www.newsnet5.com/health/17281200/detail.html


Exactly....all this thing will do is take away from something more important for employees, yet promote people to miss time for just about anything throughout the year...I mean honestly, WHO isn't going to take all 56 hours that they have coming to them each year? Which means future raises and benefits will be tougher to come by
User avatar
waborat
 
Posts: 4096
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:04 pm
Location: Concord
Favorite Player: Megyn Kelly
Least Favorite Player: Single digit temps

Unread postby FUDU » Sun Aug 24, 2008 7:09 pm

wab and mac I understand your concerns with the government stipulating things, I too don't like too much government involvement and oversight. However don't forget the people voted on the minimum wage thing, in Ohio at least, so the people spoke and you cannot completely view it as typical "government interaction".

Also, one of you mentioned many business owners (or most) do in fact go into business for other reasons beyond the money, while I don't see it that way I'll except you word on it for the sake of this discussion. So then if the money isn't the real object or goal why would you as the business owner care about having to pay a little more to your employees due to a minimum wage standard, you logic there doesn't follow through?

Let's remember that there is also a cost to being a consumer as well and not just a cost in regards to a "price" way pay. For IE one may be a frequent customer of one specific place of business and it is often b/c of things outside of the monetary cost of the product or service. That consumer may well be willing to pay a little more money at that place b/c of something like the people they deal with. So while a minimum wage may cause a product or service to go up in cost consumers are often willing to accept it for the peace of mind of good service/product in return.

So as I said with business owners having no business being in business if they cannot handle minimum wage standards that too holds true for consumers. A consumer has no place being in the market for a particular product or service if they cannot truly afford it.

What this discussion really brings to light is the need for an objective view one our parts (as a society) of just how much money is needed for a basic standard of living, a minimum cost to survive so to speak.

I personally see little wrong with placing a minimum dollar amount on the efforts of us as men (and women of course) in terms of labor provided if in fact our goal as a society is to improve our quality of life and standards of living.
Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect.
"I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

2011 TCF Stratomatic Champ
User avatar
FUDU
 
Posts: 13356
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:02 am
Favorite Player: Me
Least Favorite Player: You

Unread postby skatingtripods » Sun Aug 24, 2008 7:11 pm

waborat wrote:Exactly....all this thing will do is take away from something more important for employees, yet promote people to miss time for just about anything throughout the year...I mean honestly, WHO isn't going to take all 56 hours that they have coming to them each year? Which means future raises and benefits will be tougher to come by


It's the right thing to do if you're a business owner. Seven paid sick days = one week's vacation. In turn, that equals one less week of vacation. Too damn bad.

Another problem with this will be that you may have to add someone else, or multiple people, to the staff. At least with vacations, they are planned ahead of time. Sick days can spring up whenever and could leave bosses and/or other workers shorthanded. Shit, people will take off when their kids get sick.

I'm so tired of seeing these bullshit issues that discourage business and entrepeneurship. No wonder the economy's in the tank.
A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe
User avatar
skatingtripods
Sloth Duncan
 
Posts: 14346
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:27 pm
Location: Cleveland
Favorite Player: Mike Aviles
Least Favorite Player: Every Detroit Tiger

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Sun Aug 24, 2008 7:19 pm

Skating Tripods wrote:It's the right thing to do if you're a business owner. Seven paid sick days = one week's vacation. In turn, that equals one less week of vacation. Too damn bad.

Another problem with this will be that you may have to add someone else, or multiple people, to the staff. At least with vacations, they are planned ahead of time. Sick days can spring up whenever and could leave bosses and/or other workers shorthanded. Shit, people will take off when their kids get sick.

I'm so tired of seeing these bullshit issues that discourage business and entrepeneurship. No wonder the economy's in the tank.


I really dislike the concept of straight sick days. I've preferred and used the PTO bank concept for years. You bank a certain amount of time off per 40 hours of work and can use it for sick time, vacation time, etc. It all comes from the same bank. As an incentive to not take time off employees can cash in their PTO time and can also store up 12 weeks worth before they have to use it or cash some in.

Straight sick days just encourage people to call in sick when they know they have sick time. PTO finds people usually only calling in sick when they really are.

Not every business can afford to do something like that, but I've always offered paid time off the full time workers that increases the longer someone stays with the company. The longest tenured employees end up picking up about six weeks of PTO a year and can use it all as vacation time if they'd like. Most in the past haven't taken much more than three weeks in a year.

I think it's much wiser to encourage businesses to move towards a system like that that rewards longterm commitment and discourages phony sick calls.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby waborat » Mon Aug 25, 2008 10:25 am

Skating Tripods wrote:
waborat wrote:Exactly....all this thing will do is take away from something more important for employees, yet promote people to miss time for just about anything throughout the year...I mean honestly, WHO isn't going to take all 56 hours that they have coming to them each year? Which means future raises and benefits will be tougher to come by


It's the right thing to do if you're a business owner. Seven paid sick days = one week's vacation. In turn, that equals one less week of vacation. Too damn bad.

Another problem with this will be that you may have to add someone else, or multiple people, to the staff. At least with vacations, they are planned ahead of time. Sick days can spring up whenever and could leave bosses and/or other workers shorthanded. Shit, people will take off when their kids get sick.

I'm so tired of seeing these bullshit issues that discourage business and entrepeneurship. No wonder the economy's in the tank.


I couldn't agree more
User avatar
waborat
 
Posts: 4096
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:04 pm
Location: Concord
Favorite Player: Megyn Kelly
Least Favorite Player: Single digit temps

Unread postby furls » Mon Aug 25, 2008 4:57 pm

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.

This quote is often attributed to Alexander Tytler, exact origins unknown, but it was written about 200 years ago. Rings pretty true to me. RIght now I would guess that we are right between apathy and dependence.

Increased taxes and government cuts are required in order to reduce the deficit and bolster the strength of the US dollar abroad. No one likes higher taxes, so it is easier to sell/get elected based on a bill of goods that are not in the country's best interests.

The economy, particularly in Ohio is so weak right now that higher taxes is the last thing anyone wants to here, but the reality is that we as a nation and a government are writing checks for cheeseburgers today while ignoring the balance in the checking account.
Coming from a Wolverine, we're the football equivalent of a formerly abused wife of a meth addict who just remarried the safe nice guy. We're just glad we have someone who's aware that it's a rivalry and that tackling on defense is integral. Baby steps.

-Kingpin74
User avatar
furls
Buckeye Insider
 
Posts: 6422
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:33 pm
Favorite Player: Chic Harley
Least Favorite Player: Desmond Howard

Unread postby jfiling » Mon Aug 25, 2008 6:51 pm

It's the right thing to do if you're a business owner. Seven paid sick days = one week's vacation. In turn, that equals one less week of vacation. Too damn bad.[/quote]

Actually, seven paid sick days is closer to a week and a half vacation. Every job I've worked only requires 5 vacation days to take a week off.
jfiling
Old School Writer
 
Posts: 3874
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:14 pm
Location: Akron, Ohio
Favorite Player: Silky Johnston
Least Favorite Player: Buck Nasty

Unread postby Orenthal » Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:20 pm

FUDU wrote: Do you want the reputation of the local small business that doesn't pay well, b/c trust me that will put a halt to your business just like anything else.


How about the fact Mac is able to pay one of his employee's $10+? That kid is going to bring in more high qualified, hard working people. The kid making $5 will probably turn over again and again justifying the low pay rate.

I was at a COSE seminar for the paid vacation proposal. They basically said that if you have any current form of paid time off that it should be eliminated. The language of the proposal mandated that this would be additional time off, and that the employer could not reduce current paid time off upon passing. Also the time increments were 15 minutes, and the employee could go 3 days absent without a doctors note. Then they would have 30 days to produce a doctors note.

This all boils down to labor unions, thru gov't, telling the business owner how to run their business.
User avatar
Orenthal
 
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:18 pm
Location: The Midd Heights
Favorite Player: Dan Gilbert
Least Favorite Player: Blacks, Gays, Poor

COSE Website...

Unread postby Orenthal » Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:31 pm

User avatar
Orenthal
 
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:18 pm
Location: The Midd Heights
Favorite Player: Dan Gilbert
Least Favorite Player: Blacks, Gays, Poor

Unread postby FUDU » Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:01 pm

If these small business owners, let's say one like mac, hire a kid at minimum wage and that kid does a fantastic job his first week and increases business and revenues virtually on the spot is that business owner going to give that kid a raise of let's say a buck over minimum wage?

You're delusional if you answer yes.

While many of these small business owners do not like the minimum wage (again I can at least see their concerns) they exploit it just the same.
Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect.
"I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

2011 TCF Stratomatic Champ
User avatar
FUDU
 
Posts: 13356
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:02 am
Favorite Player: Me
Least Favorite Player: You

Unread postby Orenthal » Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:22 pm

FUDU wrote:If these small business owners, let's say one like mac, hire a kid at minimum wage and that kid does a fantastic job his first week and increases business and revenues virtually on the spot is that business owner going to give that kid a raise of let's say a buck over minimum wage?

You're delusional if you answer yes.

While many of these small business owners do not like the minimum wage (again I can at least see their concerns) they exploit it just the same.


I work for probably the only legitimate FBE contractor in Cleveland, and I can tell you for a fact, we have given people raises after the first day.

However I'd be giving only half the truth if I also did not admit that being in the construction field we never pay anyone the minimum wage, as the market rate for our labor is several dollars above the minimum. Being an open shop in Ohio our biggest problem is prevailing wage, which is hardly a prevailing market wage, and hardly fair to anyone but the unions. (Let's save that thread for another day)

So actually I do understand some of your points Donny. My biggest complaint is government dictating to the business owner how to run their business, when government is probably the most ill equipped to do so.

With mass media being what it is do we really need all these archaic protectionisms?

edited for poor word flow :)
User avatar
Orenthal
 
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:18 pm
Location: The Midd Heights
Favorite Player: Dan Gilbert
Least Favorite Player: Blacks, Gays, Poor

Unread postby Madre Hill, Superstar » Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:24 am

BDFD wrote:Another question: How many of you already have paid sick time from the company you work for?


Three sick days (already blown due to a beginning of the year flu bug) plus three personal days here.
"The fucking Who...... If I want to watch old people run around ill go set fire to a nursing home." - CDT
User avatar
Madre Hill, Superstar
Eternal Optimist
 
Posts: 4656
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:06 am
Location: Parma, OH
Favorite Player: The Playa
Least Favorite Player: The Game

Unread postby Hi Oktane » Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:31 pm

Issue to be pulled from ballot by its backers (SEIU). Citing "shrill and vitriolic ballot campaign marred by misinformation and disinformation." Odd, but good news for the state.
"At least the Scots didn't have to tune in with the rest of the country and watch their women get plowed by Longshanks and his men."
~Commodore Perry on the difference between baseball's flawed economics : Indians :: prima nocta : Scots
User avatar
Hi Oktane
TPS Report Grader
 
Posts: 4835
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 8:23 pm
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Favorite Player: Brother Red
Least Favorite Player: IHS

Unread postby BooyaCS » Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:57 pm

My sick time is based on hours so I have 38 hours worth of sick time available to me (it accumulates and doesn't go away if you don't use it).

So you think that most 16 year olds are using the minimum wage to keep food on their table or do you think they use it to party or save up for a car or something?


Isn't that what the American dream is? You work get paid move up and make more money. If you don't have a minimum wage what is to stop employers from paying an employee 2 cents a day? That is just over $7 a year.

And BTW I am against this sick days bill.
Last edited by BooyaCS on Thu Sep 04, 2008 5:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
BooyaCS
 
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:54 pm

Unread postby Ziner » Thu Sep 04, 2008 5:02 pm

BooyaCS wrote:
Isn't that what the American dream is? You work get paid move up and make more money. If you don't have a minimum wage what is to stop employers from paying an employee 2 cents a day? That is just over $7 a year.


Seriously? Seriously? What would stop it is simple economics. People have a value. If someone wants to work for 2 cents a day go ahead. Chances are the employer will not find employees for that price therefore they will have to increase their wage. Isnt that how every level of wages work except the bottom? You get paid what someone thinks you are worth, if you dont like it you find a new job. People are not assigned jobs in the united states and you can quit whenever you want.
In the end, we're all "only for a limited time," you guys.
User avatar
Ziner
Tot-Lovin' Hippy
 
Posts: 7062
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:04 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Favorite Player: Tater Tots
Least Favorite Player: Yam Fries

Unread postby BooyaCS » Thu Sep 04, 2008 5:04 pm

No shit but then you can get greedy owners that say no matter what the work it is only worth 100 a day because I want more money.
BooyaCS
 
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:54 pm

Unread postby Ziner » Thu Sep 04, 2008 5:10 pm

BooyaCS wrote:No shit but then you can get greedy owners that say no matter what the work it is only worth 100 a day because I want more money.


that makes no sense and you missed the entire point. Employees not Employers decide where they work and for how much. If it isnt enough money than the Employee has the right to find a new job. That greedy Employer can not run his business with no employees. When I feel underpaid at my job I ask for a raise and if it denied I look for a job that will pay me what I believe my market value is.
In the end, we're all "only for a limited time," you guys.
User avatar
Ziner
Tot-Lovin' Hippy
 
Posts: 7062
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:04 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Favorite Player: Tater Tots
Least Favorite Player: Yam Fries

Unread postby BooyaCS » Thu Sep 04, 2008 5:27 pm

It does make sense because I have a feeling that once you drop the minimum wage that every business will look at their employees as overpaid. Thus giving them the right to drop their salary incredibly.

Sure the employee can work any place they want. However what if the average salary drops below 10,000 a year for the highest paying jobs? The argument is that minimum wage sets the bottom threshold and that no one can pay under that. It will help to drive up the maximum amounts of money people can make.

Now the comes the main problem (and one of the few Dems I have had a problem with) when Franklin Delano God took us off the Gold Stanard I feel that created this mess with inflation at a high.
BooyaCS
 
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:54 pm

Unread postby Ziner » Thu Sep 04, 2008 5:43 pm

and what would happen if that happened would be the biggest deflation you have ever seen. then once things settled in people would still be the same as they are now compared to each other. Answer me this.

What do you think minimum wage should be and why should it be that dollar amount?
In the end, we're all "only for a limited time," you guys.
User avatar
Ziner
Tot-Lovin' Hippy
 
Posts: 7062
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:04 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Favorite Player: Tater Tots
Least Favorite Player: Yam Fries

Unread postby waborat » Thu Sep 04, 2008 5:53 pm

BooyaCS wrote:No shit but then you can get greedy owners that say no matter what the work it is only worth 100 a day because I want more money.


Image
User avatar
waborat
 
Posts: 4096
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:04 pm
Location: Concord
Favorite Player: Megyn Kelly
Least Favorite Player: Single digit temps

Unread postby jfiling » Thu Sep 04, 2008 6:11 pm

BooyaCS wrote:It does make sense because I have a feeling that once you drop the minimum wage that every business will look at their employees as overpaid. Thus giving them the right to drop their salary incredibly.

Sure the employee can work any place they want. However what if the average salary drops below 10,000 a year for the highest paying jobs? The argument is that minimum wage sets the bottom threshold and that no one can pay under that. It will help to drive up the maximum amounts of money people can make.

Now the comes the main problem (and one of the few Dems I have had a problem with) when Franklin Delano God took us off the Gold Stanard I feel that created this mess with inflation at a high.


Ouch. Your lack of economic understanding actually hurts me. I'll give you a case from the opposite side that will show how wrong you are.

There is no law regulating the maximum price a fast food restaurant can sell a hamburger for. Therefore, why aren't hamburgers being sold for $100 each? As soon as you understand the answer to that question, you'll realize why your argument holds no water.
jfiling
Old School Writer
 
Posts: 3874
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:14 pm
Location: Akron, Ohio
Favorite Player: Silky Johnston
Least Favorite Player: Buck Nasty

Unread postby Madre Hill, Superstar » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:11 pm

Ziner wrote:Employees not Employers decide where they work and for how much. If it isnt enough money than the Employee has the right to find a new job.


To quote the man: "I've got a right to go to work but there's no work to be found." Its not always that easy.
"The fucking Who...... If I want to watch old people run around ill go set fire to a nursing home." - CDT
User avatar
Madre Hill, Superstar
Eternal Optimist
 
Posts: 4656
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:06 am
Location: Parma, OH
Favorite Player: The Playa
Least Favorite Player: The Game

Previous

Return to No Holds Barred

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 181 on Sat Feb 16, 2013 4:50 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest