Originally Posted by unclegus:

 You apparently are not aware that I am a licensed contractor myself. I have to give estimates all the time knowing that someone else is going to put in a bid lower than me. What is important is that you get what you pay for and the lowest price is not always the cheapest estimate.  I always make it clear that my employees are suitably compensated and they are covered under workers compensation and am insured to protect the homeowner. 

 

I agree, gus. That is why I said "2 equally qualified contractors" in my example. 

Originally Posted by unclegus:
Originally Posted by mad American:

Uncle, illegal is illegal, I have always thought that.  I challenge anyone on here that thinks a teenager flipping burgers should make fifteen dollars an hour to jump through all the hoops required to open and run a business in todays economy and pay a non skilled worker fifteen dollars an hour.  I would be willing to bet that an owner operator of a hot dog cart in New York doesn,t average fifteen dollars an hour.  I feel bad for all the families affected by the closing of Rudy Farms.  That company has been a pretty good employer for people that were between jobs for a long time.  There are a few long term employees there, but most take a job there hoping to move on.


For your information, I am happy with the minimum wage being right where it is. However I do feel that a skilled worker should be better compensated and there should not be such a big gap between the CEO's and the people who actually do the physical labor.

 

Are you also opposed to the pay gap between the rock star and the guy unloading the sound equipment from the truck?

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

you are aware the 'rock star' basically gets paid commission, right? and the 'roadie' has a set pay schedule. i like apples and oranges.. but, i know better than to compare the two.

Well if that is justification CO, then why the uproar over CEO's who are paid millions when a company is successful?  I have never heard of a rock star not being paid when his or her music sucks?  What Kenny said is no different than any other job where one group does the physical labor and another group reaps the rewards.

I don't like to see CEO's making millions when employees are being paid squat, but there are plenty of situations similar to this that go by uncorrected because they are considered acceptable.

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

you are aware the 'rock star' basically gets paid commission, right? and the 'roadie' has a set pay schedule. i like apples and oranges.. but, i know better than to compare the two.

The fact still remains that if Bono was willing to work for less than the poor roadie getting paid minimum wage could make more. 

 

The same be could be said for the movie star that gets paid $15m for a picture while the camera grip makes peanuts. 

 

Why is it ok for huge pay gaps to exist in these areas?

 

Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by unclegus:
Originally Posted by mad American:

Uncle, illegal is illegal, I have always thought that.  I challenge anyone on here that thinks a teenager flipping burgers should make fifteen dollars an hour to jump through all the hoops required to open and run a business in todays economy and pay a non skilled worker fifteen dollars an hour.  I would be willing to bet that an owner operator of a hot dog cart in New York doesn,t average fifteen dollars an hour.  I feel bad for all the families affected by the closing of Rudy Farms.  That company has been a pretty good employer for people that were between jobs for a long time.  There are a few long term employees there, but most take a job there hoping to move on.


For your information, I am happy with the minimum wage being right where it is. However I do feel that a skilled worker should be better compensated and there should not be such a big gap between the CEO's and the people who actually do the physical labor.

 

Are you also opposed to the pay gap between the rock star and the guy unloading the sound equipment from the truck?


I am sure the roadies make a fair wage. We can go on and on with examples where yes the worker should be compensated better than they are.

 

The problem I see with the current minimum wage is it is so low, that people working full time at that wage can apply for food stamps, and in fact are encouraged to do so by Walmart and McDonalds.

A full time worker  SHOULD make enough to not be eligible for food stamps, in other words, a living wage.

the R's always want to bring in the teenager into the discussion, and I can be ok with an "apprentice" wage for them, but the vast amount of people working foro minimum wage are not teens, but are people with families, and full time (or nearly full time) jobs just trying to live.

 

Originally Posted by seeweed:

The problem I see with the current minimum wage is it is so low, that people working full time at that wage can apply for food stamps, and in fact are encouraged to do so by Walmart and McDonalds.

A full time worker  SHOULD make enough to not be eligible for food stamps, in other words, a living wage.

the R's always want to bring in the teenager into the discussion, and I can be ok with an "apprentice" wage for them, but the vast amount of people working foro minimum wage are not teens, but are people with families, and full time (or nearly full time) jobs just trying to live.

 

http://americanactionforum.org...nd-combating-poverty

An analysis of data from the 2012 Current Population Survey (CPS) March Annual Social and Economic (ASEC) Supplement, which reports information from 2011, reveals that very few people earn the minimum wage. In 2011, 58.9 percent of all wage and salary workers were paid hourly rates. Of those, only 3.2 percent earned at or below the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. When looking at all wage and salary workers, minimum wage workers accounted for a mere 1.9 percent.

Looking specifically at how minimum wage relates to poverty, only 0.3 percent of people in families with incomes below the relevant 2011 federal poverty lines worked an hourly job and made at or below the minimum wage. The minimum wage does not help people in poverty who actually work. When examining the working poor, only 7.8 percent of all hourly-paid workers in poverty earn at or below the minimum wage (6.3 percent of all wage and salary workers in poverty).

In 2011, only 1.2 percent of people in families with incomes below the federal poverty threshold earned an hourly wage at or below $9 per hour and only 1.5 percent earned a wage at or below $10.10 per hour. Even among all those who work and are in poverty, only 28.5 percent earn at or below $9 per hour and 36.2 percent earn at or below $10.10 per hour. These figures suggest that increases in minimum wage to $9 and $10.10 not only would fail to assist almost 99 percent of all people in poverty, but they would also neglect the vast majority of people in poverty who are actually working.

 

 

Originally Posted by seeweed:

The problem I see with the current minimum wage is it is so low, that people working full time at that wage can apply for food stamps, and in fact are encouraged to do so by Walmart and McDonalds.

A full time worker  SHOULD make enough to not be eligible for food stamps, in other words, a living wage.

the R's always want to bring in the teenager into the discussion, and I can be ok with an "apprentice" wage for them, but the vast amount of people working foro minimum wage are not teens, but are people with families, and full time (or nearly full time) jobs just trying to live.

 

Fyi, workers under the age of 25 make up 50% of the people that make minimum wage. 

 

 

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

fyi, kenny..50% of those making min. wage are OVER 25.. now what?

It doesn't matter because so few people make minimum wage to begin with. Also, most people who make minimum wage are not poor. 

 

I would rather see an increase in the earned income tax credit but have it where people receive as part of their monthly paycheck instead of when they file their taxes. 

Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by seeweed:

The problem I see with the current minimum wage is it is so low, that people working full time at that wage can apply for food stamps, and in fact are encouraged to do so by Walmart and McDonalds.

A full time worker  SHOULD make enough to not be eligible for food stamps, in other words, a living wage.

the R's always want to bring in the teenager into the discussion, and I can be ok with an "apprentice" wage for them, but the vast amount of people working foro minimum wage are not teens, but are people with families, and full time (or nearly full time) jobs just trying to live.

 

Fyi, workers under the age of 25 make up 50% of the people that make minimum wage. 

 

 

=========

I had a wife, and 2 kids and a home mortgage by the time I was 25. What does that have to do with anything ?

 edited to add : FYI

 

For all ya'll anti minimum wage people, if you drop it to zero, would unemployment drop to zero?  What I posted is silly, just as silly as Oliver North on his radio talk show about 14 or 15 years ago when the talk was about raising it to $5.25.  "My employees are highly skilled and dependable and are happy with what I am paying them now.

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by seeweed:

The problem I see with the current minimum wage is it is so low, that people working full time at that wage can apply for food stamps, and in fact are encouraged to do so by Walmart and McDonalds.

A full time worker  SHOULD make enough to not be eligible for food stamps, in other words, a living wage.

the R's always want to bring in the teenager into the discussion, and I can be ok with an "apprentice" wage for them, but the vast amount of people working foro minimum wage are not teens, but are people with families, and full time (or nearly full time) jobs just trying to live.

 

Fyi, workers under the age of 25 make up 50% of the people that make minimum wage. 

 

 

=========

I had a wife, and 2 kids and a home mortgage by the time I was 25. What does that have to do with anything ?

 edited to add : FYI

 

see my other post in response to you. Very few people make minimum wage and the majority are not poor. 

 

The minimum wage argument is a great political talking point but that is about where it ends. 

 

If simply raising the minimum wage were the answer then we could raise it to $25 and there would be zero poverty. 

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

For all ya'll anti minimum wage people, if you drop it to zero, would unemployment drop to zero?  What I posted is silly, just as silly as Oliver North on his radio talk show about 14 or 15 years ago when the talk was about raising it to $5.25.  "My employees are highly skilled and dependable and are happy with what I am paying them now.

We are still waiting on you to prove a correlation between union membership numbers and unemployment rates. 

I never said that unions create jobs, I asked if unemployment was lower when union membership was higher.

Looking at Bureau of labor statistics and Wikipedia, I found this:  In 1953 union representation was 35% and unemployment was 3%.  In 2014, union representation was 11.3% and unemployment was between 6 and 7 percent.  I found my answer.

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

I never said that unions create jobs, I asked if unemployment was lower when union membership was higher.

Looking at Bureau of labor statistics and Wikipedia, I found this:  In 1953 union representation was 35% and unemployment was 3%.  In 2014, union representation was 11.3% and unemployment was between 6 and 7 percent.  I found my answer.

________________________________________

Again, you picked the period just after WWII, when the US was the only major industrial power with standing plants and an workforce not decimated. 

 

During the 1930s, union membership was high, but unemployment was about 23.6  percent in 1932;

Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by jtdavis:

I never said that unions create jobs, I asked if unemployment was lower when union membership was higher.

Looking at Bureau of labor statistics and Wikipedia, I found this:  In 1953 union representation was 35% and unemployment was 3%.  In 2014, union representation was 11.3% and unemployment was between 6 and 7 percent.  I found my answer.

________________________________________

Again, you picked the period just after WWII, when the US was the only major industrial power with standing plants and an workforce not decimated. 

 

During the 1930s, union membership was high, but unemployment was about 23.6  percent in 1932;

Uh, unions, although started in the post civil war era, started gaining ground in membership and political power during the FDR admin who supported them. However, unions at that time were somewhat a comglomerate of separate entities, and only really became a force to be reckoned with in 1955 when the AFL-CIO came into being.
If you like to pontificate on how wonderful things were back in the 50s , that was the union heyday.

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by jtdavis:

I never said that unions create jobs, I asked if unemployment was lower when union membership was higher.

Looking at Bureau of labor statistics and Wikipedia, I found this:  In 1953 union representation was 35% and unemployment was 3%.  In 2014, union representation was 11.3% and unemployment was between 6 and 7 percent.  I found my answer.

________________________________________

Again, you picked the period just after WWII, when the US was the only major industrial power with standing plants and an workforce not decimated. 

 

During the 1930s, union membership was high, but unemployment was about 23.6  percent in 1932;

Uh, unions, although started in the post civil war era, started gaining ground in membership and political power during the FDR admin who supported them. However, unions at that time were somewhat a comglomerate of separate entities, and only really became a force to be reckoned with in 1955 when the AFL-CIO came into being.
If you like to pontificate on how wonderful things were back in the 50s , that was the union heyday.

So do you think the 50's were rockin' because of the unions or because we were the only shop in town after WW2?

 

 

Here is an article about the damage that unions were doing to the convention business in my town of Chicago. It finally took Rahm convincing them that they were pricing themselves out of a job and damaging the economy to get them to finally make some concessions.

 

This was not in the article but it costs $1200 more to put in an ice machine at McCormick Place in Chicago than it does at the Orlando Convention Center. It is solely because you have to overpay a couple of Union guys to do the job. 

 

No wonder people got fed up dealing with these nitwits.

 

 

http://www.businessweek.com/ap...alnews/D9QGU3J80.htm

Unions agree to Chicago convention center changes

 

After watching trade shows abandon Chicago and take millions of dollars with them, unions agreed to a host of work rule changes that will make the city's massive convention center a friendlier and cheaper place for companies and industries to show their wares.

The deal, announced Friday, came after Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn helped convince two major unions to accept it.

"This is the worst news for Orlando (Fla.) and Las Vegas," Emanuel said, referring to two cities that have lured trade shows away from Chicago's McCormick Place in recent years.

The agreement with the Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters and the Teamsters Local 727 does away with many of the practices that have infuriated trade show exhibitors for years, not to mention contributed to the lore about unions with so much clout in the city that jobs as small as changing a light bulb or hammer a single nail didn't get done unless a union worker did it.

It is also a major victory for Emanuel, who has clashed with unions since he took office in May, and even blamed organized labor leaders' unwillingness to bend on work rules to bring costs down as the reason why he was announcing that he would lay off as many as 625 workers over the summer. McCormick Place, with the estimated $8 billion it generates and 66,000 jobs it supports, is considered crucial to his efforts to generate revenue at a time when the city is facing a $636 million deficit.

"Everybody gave a little but everybody won a lot because people are going to work," said the mayor, who engaged in what were described as grueling negotiations with the unions in recent days.

Under the agreement, exhibitors would be allowed to use their own ladders and tools and load and unload their own vehicles -- jobs the work rules of the convention center specified must go to union workers. Further, the reforms include an agreement to reduce the size of union work crews from three to two-person crews and lengthen the window of time during a workday in which a union worker is paid straight time.

The provisions were just the kind of things that the unions were fighting in a federal lawsuit they filed after state lawmakers passed legislation that changed work rules to lower labor costs at McCormick Place. The fact that the unions -- which won a major victory earlier this year when a federal judge tossed out the reforms enacted by lawmakers -- accepted the deal illustrates their understanding that the old work rules were helping drive conventions from the city and the danger that in tough economic times, more could follow.

"We just couldn't have shows leaving," said Chicago Federation of Labor President Jorge Ramirez, after he and other union leaders appeared with Quinn and Emanuel at McCormick Place to announce the deal.

In the last few years, a number of shows have pulled out, including a plastics industry trade show that in 2009 announced that it was moving its 2012 and 2015 shows to Orlando after nearly 40 years in the city. That same year, the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society was so troubled by the high costs and unbending union rules it found at McCormick Place that it decided it too was taking its 2012 show to Las Vegas.

Perhaps just as significantly, Emanuel said the legal battle was hurting both the city's ability to keep conventions from leaving and attracting new ones.

"It lifts a cloud that existed over McCormick Place and all the shows that were on hold and the shows that were looking to make a decision now have the certainty that they need to book shows here in the city of Chicago," he said.

Shows like that of the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society. After deciding it was through with Chicago after its 2009 show, the work-rules legislation prompted the group to announce earlier this year that it would return in 2015 and 2019. But the legal uncertainty had the group wondering if it wanted to take its show -- which attracts 35,000 visitors and generates about $50 million -- elsewhere.

"We had a lot of cities knocking at our door saying, `Hey, doesn't look like Chicago is going to work for you now. ... Do you want to take another look at us?'" said Karen Malone, the organization's vice president of meeting services.

Emanuel said the agreement will pay off almost immediately, adding that on Thursday, representatives of the hotel industry told him that as much as half a billion dollars to build new hotels and rehab existing ones will now go forward because of the deal.

 

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by jtdavis:

I never said that unions create jobs, I asked if unemployment was lower when union membership was higher.

Looking at Bureau of labor statistics and Wikipedia, I found this:  In 1953 union representation was 35% and unemployment was 3%.  In 2014, union representation was 11.3% and unemployment was between 6 and 7 percent.  I found my answer.

________________________________________

Again, you picked the period just after WWII, when the US was the only major industrial power with standing plants and an workforce not decimated. 

 

During the 1930s, union membership was high, but unemployment was about 23.6  percent in 1932;

Uh, unions, although started in the post civil war era, started gaining ground in membership and political power during the FDR admin who supported them. However, unions at that time were somewhat a comglomerate of separate entities, and only really became a force to be reckoned with in 1955 when the AFL-CIO came into being.
If you like to pontificate on how wonderful things were back in the 50s , that was the union heyday.

________________________________________________

Comparing two facts, correlation, does not mean they are interactive or, cause and effect. For example, wet sidewalks do no cause rain, even though wet sidewalks always happen during the rain. 

 

 

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post

×
×
×
×