Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood
If we want France's healthcare system we must want to stop wearing deodorant and to start making smelly cheese.
---------- Post added at 09:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:51 AM ----------
The point I was trying to make to Ace was this: just because SOME of the minimum wage workers will have a skill set that allows them to be promoted to better paying jobs doesn't mean we shouldn't consider the higher % that don't. Rejecting the idea of a livable minimum wage based on the one guy at each McDonald's who will get a promotion seems (wait for it....wait for it....) elitist to me
|
First, in general, I find it kind of sick that for some it is o.k. to work hard to get ahead, and then for them to make excuses for others and discourage them from doing the same thing.
Second, the concept of a centralized government imposed "livable wage" is a joke. Real wages are based on productivity or "adding value". The best way to help people earn "livable wages" is to make sure they have marketable skills being demanded in the market place. If all we needed was for government to lay down an edict so that everyone makes a "livable wage", why not raise the minimum wage to $20/hr., $30/hr., hell let's make everyone millionaires, and pay 'em $1 million per hour? Do you know why that doesn't work? It is simply inflationary, no value is being added, there is not a comparable increase in productivity.
This is why I ask the basic question, do liberals or "do gooders" actually think this stuff through?
Another example is Wal-Mart in inner city neighborhoods. I am talking about neighborhoods with high unemployment, and limited shopping choices. In some Chicago neighborhoods for example, it is difficult for people to even buy fresh fruit and vegetables, but the liberals running the city won't let Wal-Mart build. We are talking jobs, low costs for the consumer, taxes, urban renewal, etc. Is it all because of unions?
Quote:
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is mounting a new push to expand in Chicago, hoping that its promises of jobs and sales-tax dollars will prove more tempting in the recession than when city leaders first rebuffed the discount chain earlier this decade.
The world's largest retailer, which so far has been able to build only one store in the nation's third-largest city, hopes to open a half-dozen more in the coming years, according to the company and politicians familiar with its plans. It has been heavily courting Chicago leaders and is studying a dozen potential sites.
Wal-Mart, whose stores are largely concentrated in rural and suburban markets, has long struggled to penetrate the largest American cities amid fierce opposition from politicians sympathetic to organized labor and small business groups concerned the discounter would steal sales from smaller retailers.
But the company now sees the Windy City as a potential proving ground for urban development strategies it could later bring to other resistant markets, including New York and Los Angeles.
Wal-Mart still faces many of the same obstacles it has encountered in the past -- notably labor unions deeply hostile to a company known for resisting worker attempts at unionization.
Wal-Mart's renewed Chicago push comes at a time when the company's domestic new-store expansion is slowing and it has begun to feel the drag of the recession. Wal-Mart disclosed plans Tuesday to terminate 700 to 800 workers at its Bentonville, Ark., headquarters, following similar recent moves to cut administrative staff by rivals Best Buy Co., Target Corp. and Sears Holdings Corp.
A Wal-Mart spokesman said the cuts in merchandising, marketing and real estate operations reflect the retailer's plans for fewer new stores and more remodeling of existing stores. As part of the restructuring, Wal-Mart said it plans to add an undisclosed number of jobs at its apparel office in New York.
The company acknowledges that opposition remains strong in Chicago, but believes it can make a better case for more stores now.
The average wage of workers in the existing Chicago Wal-Mart is more than $11 an hour. Wal-Mart claims that Chicago residents spend half a billion dollars a year at its stores outside city limits, crimping the city's tax revenue.
|
Wal-Mart Figures Time Is Ripe for Chicago Push - WSJ.com
With MCD and Wal-Mart we have two very clear examples of how liberals in government are hurting poor urban people and government could very easily work with business rather than against business to create jobs and opportunity, in addition to giving consumers choice, increasing the tax base, promoting urban renewal, and neighborhood pride.
---------- Post added at 03:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:57 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
This source suggests 40% of minimum wage earners as the sole source of income for their households.
|
I apologize in advance for the people who are going to be upset because I dare ask a question regarding a study that supports their belief.
How does the study define "household"?
What happens to these percentages right after an increase, compared to one year later, two years later? For example, if we raised the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.00, overnight you will have a large percentage of those who made $7.26 or more now making the new minimum. Couldn't that skew the point of the study?
The study pointed out Texas, but Texas has no state income tax and uses the federal minimum wage. For example California uses a higher minimum than the Federal and has high state income tax and other tax rates. How does the study account for that?
I don't expect any answers, just thinking out loud, so to speak. Thinking and asking questions is a habit with me, again I apologize to those offended by that.