So Elizabeth Warren's gonna help us some more

[mulletman]

what because some of us have point of views that align more with in the realm of reality and dont live in fluffy puppy and rainbow land???

No, it has nothing to do with what your point of view is, but rather the general trend of inability to express one's point of view using facts and rational statements rather than hyperbole and mis-guided responses.


Before you reply, notice that I never referred specifically to you in either this statement or my previous one, nor have I implied to direct it at any one person or group of people who hold a specific viewpoint. It's an across-the-board commentary on debate failure.

[BraveUlysses]

No, it has nothing to do with what your point of view is, but rather the general trend of inability to express one's point of view using facts and rational statements rather than hyperbole and mis-guided responses.


Before you reply, notice that I never referred specifically to you in either this statement or my previous one, nor have I implied to direct it at any one person or group of people who hold a specific viewpoint. It's an across-the-board commentary on debate failure.

I'm pretty sure everyone else noticed that your comment was generalized but he chose to be offended. funny how that works ;)

[mrsleeve]

I was not offended, I noticed it was very generalized, but what I also noticed was the amount of censuses that this kind of thing may actually be a good thing.

I am not that easily offended

[Kershaw]

fuck you sleeve, you homo loving liberal.

[Farbin Kaiber]

^True story, he invited me to his union ceremony in Canada.

[mrsleeve]

Wow I am feeling the love today

[Farbin Kaiber]

<3

[mulletman]

I was not offended, I noticed it was very generalized, but what I also noticed was the amount of censuses that this kind of thing may actually be a good thing.

I am not that easily offended

What kind of thing? No one introduced legislation to raise the minimum wage, and no one even called for that sort of legislation to be drafted. If you read the article, Warren was simply commenting on the general idea that wages have lagged far behind the decreasing value of the dollar, cost of living, and actual quantity of work accomplished by a given worker.

From the article:
"Hold on a second there, economic conservatives: Neither Warren nor Dube was actually suggesting raising the minimum wage that high as a matter of public policy. Doing so in one go would crash companies and destroy jobs."

Both Warren and Dube were using these numbers to illustrate the economic divergence that has taken place over the last half-century between the general labor populace and the upper class. Not to introduce ridiculous legislation that would be an economic catastrophe.

The trend I've seen in those that oppose an increased minimum wage is an attitude of "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" or this, that was posted earlier in this thread:

Minimum wage is not gonna raise at the same rate as most economy. If it does it's counter productive. Want to earn more money attend community college or do it online. Plenty of ways to get out of poverty. Please don't expect the government to do it for you.

At some point you need to put forth some effort.

The problem with this idea, is the fact that all jobs are subject to the devaluation of labor, not just minimum wage jobs. That is, the entirety of society feels the effects, but perhaps not with the numbers that the minimum-wagers do. Some examples: Perhaps you're one who went to a technical school or community college and learned a trade, and you've landed a job paying you $22 per hour. The reality of the situation is... that wage barely supports a semi-middle-class quality of life for a single person anymore. If we go by the numbers introduced in the article, that job would pay the equivalent of mid $60's per hour if it were corrected for productivity. Dramatic change for the middle class? I think so. Economically disastrous? Yes, but only becausethe vast majority of societyis stuck in an under-valued job situation.

Another example based on productivity: I'm an airline pilot. Current airline flight crews consist of two people, a Captain and a First Officer. They used to be three people... Captain, First Officer, and Flight Engineer. Two are now doing the work of three. That is, the company has gotten a 50% increase in productivity from a person with my job. Since the late 90's, wages have fallen 50% or more across the board, before correcting for inflation. My job used to be able to provide a middle-class life for a family of four. At current rates, my job would not even support myself and my wife without her working. As a response to the quoted post above... I've put in the effort. I've attended two colleges, have acquired 4+ years of technical training, and met high medical standards. The root of the problem in this nation is that those that are putting forth the effort are still not seeing the results that were once attainable... not simply the idea that those who put forth no effort are looking for a massive raise.

If we continue on the current path, we will end in a situation where the majority of people require government assistance due to the fact that the majority of available jobs will not support the costs associated with living in this country. I don't want this to happen, and it seems neither do you. The answer is not a government mandated massive minimum wage, that was just a numerical exercise to prove a point. The answer is increased wages across the board. If we average the cost of a ticket on one of my flights, it's somewhere just over $100. Do you know how much each passenger would have to pay to double my pay? About 50 cents. 52 cents, actually. The impact to almost all of the general public would be minimal, if even noticeable. I work for a small airline. For larger companies, the numbers are even more insignificant.

I'm pretty sure everyone else noticed that your comment was generalized but he chose to be offended. funny how that works ;)

Strangely enough, you've just demonstrated what I was talking about the last few posts....

[Farbin Kaiber]

Another example based on productivity: I'm an airline pilot. Current airline flight crews consist of two people, a Captain and a First Officer. They used to be three people... Captain, First Officer, and Flight Engineer. Two are now doing the work of three. That is, the company has gotten a 50% increase in productivity from a person with my job. Since the late 90's, wages have fallen 50% or more across the board, before correcting for inflation. My job used to be able to provide a middle-class life for a family of four. At current rates, my job would not even support myself and my wife without her working. As a response to the quoted post above... I've put in the effort. I've attended two colleges, have acquired 4+ years of technical training, and met high medical standards. The root of the problem in this nation is that those that are putting forth the effort are still not seeing the results that were once attainable... not simply the idea that those who put forth no effort are looking for a massive raise.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't in fact they have gotten a 16.65% increase in productivity? If the 100% of total workload was divided between 3 people, you would have a 33.3% workload per person, so if one was removed, each of the two remaining laborers be picking up 50% of a 33% portion?

Maybe I'm wrong, I'm not a rocket scientist, nor an airline pilot.

[mulletman]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't in fact they have gotten a 16.65% increase in productivity? If the 100% of total workload was divided between 3 people, you would have a 33.3% workload per person, so if one was removed, each of the two remaining laborers be picking up 50% of a 33% portion?

Maybe I'm wrong, I'm not a rocket scientist, nor an airline pilot.

3 people, reduced to 2 people. Same workload. That means that the Captain and I are each now doing the job of 1.5 persons, when we used to be doing the job of 1. If 1 = 100%, then 1.5 = 150% productivity, per person.

Your math is right, just using different numbers. Half of 33.3% is 16.65, which is the increase. Said differently, that's a 50% increase for the two remaining individuals.

[mrsleeve]

I know it has not been introduced but I am referring to all you bleeding hearts and kiddies that are discussing in the thread how good an idea this is................................

[mulletman]

Alright then, let's start with the basics.


Explain to me how higher wages (not an absurd mandatory wage, as that was rhetoric to prove a point as previously discussed) is a bad thing for anyone.

[mrsleeve]

non govt mandated raises in wages are a good thing, as a few employers begin to compete over qualified personnel they will raise their rates to attract the best people. Then to continue to keep them on they will have to continue to raise their rates, while still keeping a competitive rate on what ever their product or service is. Forcing employers to pay wages higher or even approaching the value of the service actually provided by the employee is worth to the business is NOT A GOOD THING.

You want to make more money, then advance your skills, lean things, prove you can handle more responsibility, take more responsibility, work more hours, do the shit no one else wants or is willing to do, change employers, relocate......................


there's lots of ways out there to make more money as an employee. Being an employee of a particular employer is not a mandatory relationship, we are free to change employers any time we see fit, no one is forcing us to remain in the employment with one employer other than our selves (this also assumes your actually doing your job and making your employer money, and not about to get shit caned) .

have you ever run a business or been in a management position where you would have become aware of all the other costs, taxes and fees associated with having a pay roll???

[Wiglaf]

You know what else isn't a good thing? High unemployment rates. Employers aren't competing, they just hire the next person who is desperate enough to take minimum wage.

[z31maniac]

You know what else isn't a good thing? High unemployment rates. Employers aren't competing, they just hire the next person who is desperate enough to take minimum wage.

Yep, that's why I can no longer pick up free lance Writing/Editing work.

The large numbers of unemployed people has driven down wages to the point I'd rather have the free time than work for $12/hr.