(03-05-2015 11:49 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 11:48 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 11:44 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 09:40 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I was recently in the Delta section of gates flying into LaGuardia, and they have ipads at all the restaurants and rest areas in the area. The place where I ate lunch was a little more upscale than your fast food joint and every seat in the place had an ipad to order from. Also, you paid right there via a card reader linked to the network. No waitress needed. FYI, it's already too late for the MW crowd. Now let's get down to brass tacks for what's REALLY going on. Hint: virtually every union contract that I've ever seen has wages tied to the MW, i.e. workers will be paid "X" dollars/hour above or "X" percent above the MW - and dependent upon the job class within the contracts.

Ding ding ding.

Pretty obvious to see. When you have a bunch of rent-a-mobs parading around in circles with pre-printed identical signs, chanting stuff they don't even know what it means and admitting they got a fiddy and coffee for 4 hours work, who does anyone think is behind that?

Double Hint: It ain' the fast food workers themselves, they gotta work! They only make minimum wage! It's bussed in imposters brought in by the SEIU's and other Union thugs of the world. Either to falsely raise the idiotic minimum wage or "organize" these people so they can suck the marrow out of their bones as well.

Workplace protections for fry cooks... Good grief, we've lost our collective minds.

What difference does it make who the people are or where they come from. They have a right to protest and demand more money.

And their bosses have the right to fire them.

Absolutely. That isn't a violation of their first ammendment rights.

(03-05-2015 11:48 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  What difference does it make who the people are or where they come from. They have a right to protest and demand more money.

And "they" are simply units of talent that a company will measure against its needs.

And when an increase in minimum wage is measured, less profitable stores will be closed, marginal employees will be laid off, automation will increase, and inventory will change.

And "they" will mostly be out of jobs. Congrats, you are on welfare! Just what Democrats want, a voting electorate desperate for handouts to survive.

Vote Clinton '16

(03-05-2015 12:12 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 11:49 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 11:48 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 11:44 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 09:40 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I was recently in the Delta section of gates flying into LaGuardia, and they have ipads at all the restaurants and rest areas in the area. The place where I ate lunch was a little more upscale than your fast food joint and every seat in the place had an ipad to order from. Also, you paid right there via a card reader linked to the network. No waitress needed. FYI, it's already too late for the MW crowd. Now let's get down to brass tacks for what's REALLY going on. Hint: virtually every union contract that I've ever seen has wages tied to the MW, i.e. workers will be paid "X" dollars/hour above or "X" percent above the MW - and dependent upon the job class within the contracts.

Ding ding ding.

Pretty obvious to see. When you have a bunch of rent-a-mobs parading around in circles with pre-printed identical signs, chanting stuff they don't even know what it means and admitting they got a fiddy and coffee for 4 hours work, who does anyone think is behind that?

Double Hint: It ain' the fast food workers themselves, they gotta work! They only make minimum wage! It's bussed in imposters brought in by the SEIU's and other Union thugs of the world. Either to falsely raise the idiotic minimum wage or "organize" these people so they can suck the marrow out of their bones as well.

Workplace protections for fry cooks... Good grief, we've lost our collective minds.

What difference does it make who the people are or where they come from. They have a right to protest and demand more money.

And their bosses have the right to fire them.

Absolutely. That isn't a violation of their first ammendment rights.

If you're protesting, you're not working.
If you're not working, you're costing the company money.
If you're costing the company money instead of making the company money, then you're fired.

Welcome to "having a job"

(03-04-2015 09:33 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  How many times do we have to say it? Emerging technology has zero to do with the MW...those workers will be phased out, the only variable is time.

Like outsourcing and offshoring and every other job killer, wages are only one component, but for many industries (like fast food) it is a significant one. Yes, emerging technology replaces workers... but forcing the MW higher makes it happen more quickly.

The first portable PCs were very heavy, cost thousands of dollars and did very little. It would have taken a major hike in costs to make them a practical replacement. Today, they are light, cheap and incredibly powerful. It doesn't take much to make them a viable alternative to rising wages.

I'd tell the left that usually makes this argument the same thing about tax shelters. The higher you make the tax rate, the more valuable you make the alternatives (like shelters and trusts and off-shoring). If our tax rate were say 15% across the board... gains, income, estates, whatever, there would be far less utilization of shelters... and at 90%, the utlization would be through the roof. This is the same thing. If the min wage were $2, you wouldn't see any companies going offshore for labor and technology would have to be incredibly cheap to be a viable replacement... at $15, the opposite is true.

I'm not advocating either extreme... I'm merely stating the cause and effect. Some people like to act as if there aren't any negative consequences to raising taxes or raising wages.

(03-05-2015 11:48 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 11:44 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 09:40 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I was recently in the Delta section of gates flying into LaGuardia, and they have ipads at all the restaurants and rest areas in the area. The place where I ate lunch was a little more upscale than your fast food joint and every seat in the place had an ipad to order from. Also, you paid right there via a card reader linked to the network. No waitress needed. FYI, it's already too late for the MW crowd. Now let's get down to brass tacks for what's REALLY going on. Hint: virtually every union contract that I've ever seen has wages tied to the MW, i.e. workers will be paid "X" dollars/hour above or "X" percent above the MW - and dependent upon the job class within the contracts.

Ding ding ding.

Pretty obvious to see. When you have a bunch of rent-a-mobs parading around in circles with pre-printed identical signs, chanting stuff they don't even know what it means and admitting they got a fiddy and coffee for 4 hours work, who does anyone think is behind that?

Double Hint: It ain' the fast food workers themselves, they gotta work! They only make minimum wage! It's bussed in imposters brought in by the SEIU's and other Union thugs of the world. Either to falsely raise the idiotic minimum wage or "organize" these people so they can suck the marrow out of their bones as well.

Workplace protections for fry cooks... Good grief, we've lost our collective minds.

What difference does it make who the people are or where they come from. They have a right to protest and demand more money.

Ahhh, why indeed should we care? Well for starters, it completely changes the scope of the issue. It's one thing when the perception is massaged to be about a "living wage" or the "plight of the poor". It's an entirely different issue when the perception changes to one of a group of people who are currently paid at or above market based wages who are trying to strongarm their way to even higher compensation.

(03-05-2015 12:21 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 12:12 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 11:49 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 11:48 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 11:44 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Ding ding ding.

Pretty obvious to see. When you have a bunch of rent-a-mobs parading around in circles with pre-printed identical signs, chanting stuff they don't even know what it means and admitting they got a fiddy and coffee for 4 hours work, who does anyone think is behind that?

Double Hint: It ain' the fast food workers themselves, they gotta work! They only make minimum wage! It's bussed in imposters brought in by the SEIU's and other Union thugs of the world. Either to falsely raise the idiotic minimum wage or "organize" these people so they can suck the marrow out of their bones as well.

Workplace protections for fry cooks... Good grief, we've lost our collective minds.

What difference does it make who the people are or where they come from. They have a right to protest and demand more money.

And their bosses have the right to fire them.

Absolutely. That isn't a violation of their first ammendment rights.

If you're protesting, you're not working.
If you're not working, you're costing the company money.
If you're costing the company money instead of making the company money, then you're fired.

Welcome to "having a job"

Yeah but if enough of them do it, the company may not have a choice but to raise your pay. That's why strikes are sometimes effective.

(03-05-2015 12:57 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 12:21 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 12:12 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 11:49 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 11:48 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  What difference does it make who the people are or where they come from. They have a right to protest and demand more money.

And their bosses have the right to fire them.

Absolutely. That isn't a violation of their first ammendment rights.

If you're protesting, you're not working.
If you're not working, you're costing the company money.
If you're costing the company money instead of making the company money, then you're fired.

Welcome to "having a job"

Yeah but if enough of them do it, the company may not have a choice but to raise your pay. That's why strikes are sometimes effective.

Yep. Go ask those Hostess workers how effective it is. Yep - they sure fixed them. Roll the Dice..............

(03-05-2015 01:01 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 12:57 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 12:21 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 12:12 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 11:49 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  And their bosses have the right to fire them.

Absolutely. That isn't a violation of their first ammendment rights.

If you're protesting, you're not working.
If you're not working, you're costing the company money.
If you're costing the company money instead of making the company money, then you're fired.

Welcome to "having a job"

Yeah but if enough of them do it, the company may not have a choice but to raise your pay. That's why strikes are sometimes effective.

Yep. Go ask those Hostess workers how effective it is. Yep - they sure fixed them. Roll the Dice..............

It doesn't always work but a lot of times it does.

If it wasn't for strikes and protests, our children would still be working in the coal mines.

(03-05-2015 01:04 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:01 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 12:57 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 12:21 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 12:12 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Absolutely. That isn't a violation of their first ammendment rights.

If you're protesting, you're not working.
If you're not working, you're costing the company money.
If you're costing the company money instead of making the company money, then you're fired.

Welcome to "having a job"

Yeah but if enough of them do it, the company may not have a choice but to raise your pay. That's why strikes are sometimes effective.

Yep. Go ask those Hostess workers how effective it is. Yep - they sure fixed them. Roll the Dice..............

It doesn't always work but a lot of times it does.

If it wasn't for strikes and protests, our children would still be working in the coal mines.

And so what? maybe those "children" would like that option? Maybe it helps lift their families out of poverty? I worked at 15. My son worked at 15. They were different jobs than a miner, but if that's what is available, then why not?

The compassionate leftists- forcing unemployment on one sub-set after another, one at a time. Soon enough, who pays all these public "servants"? Government?

(03-05-2015 01:16 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:04 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:01 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 12:57 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 12:21 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  If you're protesting, you're not working.
If you're not working, you're costing the company money.
If you're costing the company money instead of making the company money, then you're fired.

Welcome to "having a job"

Yeah but if enough of them do it, the company may not have a choice but to raise your pay. That's why strikes are sometimes effective.

Yep. Go ask those Hostess workers how effective it is. Yep - they sure fixed them. Roll the Dice..............

It doesn't always work but a lot of times it does.

If it wasn't for strikes and protests, our children would still be working in the coal mines.

And so what? maybe those "children" would like that option? Maybe it helps lift their families out of poverty? I worked at 15. My son worked at 15. They were different jobs than a miner, but if that's what is available, then why not?

The compassionate leftists- forcing unemployment on one sub-set after another, one at a time. Soon enough, who pays all these public "servants"? Government?

Seriously? You are going to compare a paper route to working in coal mines.

For one, coal mines have long term effects on their lungs.

(03-05-2015 01:25 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:16 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  And so what? maybe those "children" would like that option? Maybe it helps lift their families out of poverty? I worked at 15. My son worked at 15. They were different jobs than a miner, but if that's what is available, then why not?

The compassionate leftists- forcing unemployment on one sub-set after another, one at a time. Soon enough, who pays all these public "servants"? Government?

Seriously? You are going to compare a paper route to working in coal mines.

For one, coal mines have long term effects on their lungs.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

(03-05-2015 01:04 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:01 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 12:57 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 12:21 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 12:12 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Absolutely. That isn't a violation of their first ammendment rights.

If you're protesting, you're not working.
If you're not working, you're costing the company money.
If you're costing the company money instead of making the company money, then you're fired.

Welcome to "having a job"

Yeah but if enough of them do it, the company may not have a choice but to raise your pay. That's why strikes are sometimes effective.

Yep. Go ask those Hostess workers how effective it is. Yep - they sure fixed them. Roll the Dice..............

It doesn't always work but a lot of times it does.

If it wasn't for strikes and protests, our children would still be working in the coal mines.

You don't know crap about coal mines. I come from coal miners - I've been in a coal mine. You?

(03-05-2015 12:57 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Yeah but if enough of them do it, the company may not have a choice but to raise your pay. That's why strikes are sometimes effective.

You're comparing an individual or group of individuals directly protesting a company for higher wages... where both sides of the debate have representatives and there is a direct relationship for them all... i.e. some in the group of people demanding the higher wage may not keep their job if the group gets it... and the company may demand higher productivity in exchange for the higher wage...

and a third party (the government) who is neither directly responsible for paying the wage, nor directly at risk of losing their jobs mandating some wage upon others.

Since there are always more workers than business owners, and thus more voters directly for forced higher wages than voters directly against it... AND there is this misleading campaigning going on (because the effects are always on 'other' people)... There is little incentive for the government to do anything except side with the masses (in exchange for their votes), while paying a little lip service to the corporations (in exchange for their money). The power/money for the government/politicians comes from being a supposedly impartial third party but literally having all of the control.

I don't think anyone on here has a problem with people organizing and even protesting for higher wages. SUpply/demand and pricing will dictate the outcome. They simply have a problem with the government extracting their pound of flesh and then arbitrarily setting some level.

Strikes are generally effective when either
a) the public is willing to pay more for those goods and services and thus the wages are borne by those who buy the goods and services
or
b) the owners of the company are actually exploiting their workers and there are other industries or companies willing to offer the same jobs, goods or services for the same price, keep less for themselves and thus leave more money for the workers.

Strikes are generally not effective when the profit margins of the company aren't so large that they entice competition or when the market won't bear an increase in the price of the goods or services.

A mandated wage eliminates all of those 'fair' realities and it merely comes down to politics and votes by many people who don't bear any of the costs of those decisions.

(03-05-2015 02:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I don't think anyone on here has a problem with people organizing and even protesting for higher wages. Supply/demand and pricing will dictate the outcome.

This.

When unions price the companies they work for out of the market, those companies either fail or move. Hence the loss of middle class jobs.

(03-05-2015 01:25 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:16 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:04 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:01 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 12:57 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Yeah but if enough of them do it, the company may not have a choice but to raise your pay. That's why strikes are sometimes effective.

Yep. Go ask those Hostess workers how effective it is. Yep - they sure fixed them. Roll the Dice..............

It doesn't always work but a lot of times it does.

If it wasn't for strikes and protests, our children would still be working in the coal mines.

And so what? maybe those "children" would like that option? Maybe it helps lift their families out of poverty? I worked at 15. My son worked at 15. They were different jobs than a miner, but if that's what is available, then why not?

The compassionate leftists- forcing unemployment on one sub-set after another, one at a time. Soon enough, who pays all these public "servants"? Government?

Seriously? You are going to compare a paper route to working in coal mines.

For one, coal mines have long term effects on their lungs.

I used to think it was an act.

No one in this family has ever had a paper route. Worked "real" jobs. Punching a time clock and all.

As to your second part, so what? Mowing lawns can have long term affects on your lungs. Again, if being a miner is what's available, what business is it of yours or anyone else?

(03-05-2015 02:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 02:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I don't think anyone on here has a problem with people organizing and even protesting for higher wages. Supply/demand and pricing will dictate the outcome.

This.

When unions price the companies they work for out of the market, those companies either fail or move. Hence the loss of middle class jobs.

That is the check/balance of the markets. The company wants to pay 10, the union wants 15, the company decides it can continue at 12 or close at 13 and the union decides that 12 is better than zero.

With a government mandate, there IS no check/balance. Sure, you try and reach a national consensus... i.e. 10.10 rather than 15, but that isn't at all the same thing.

I'm a little bit okay with smaller areas deciding on a minimum wage... They aren't really putting people out of business... they are merely putting them out of business HERE. People will have to pay $8 for a big mac in that neighborhood or travel out of the area and get the same sandwich for $5...

I am okay with this primarily because the smaller the area, the more directly those decisions impact the people making them... and posters like the one pictured above are perfectly appropriate in response. That is the reality. You want $15, be prepared to pay more to get less... product or service or quality or convenience or jobs.

(03-05-2015 02:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 02:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I don't think anyone on here has a problem with people organizing and even protesting for higher wages. Supply/demand and pricing will dictate the outcome.

This.

When unions price the companies they work for out of the market, those companies either fail or move. Hence the loss of middle class jobs.

What about unions for people in government jobs?

I work with unionized military personnel (yes they exist).

I really cannot put into words how incredibly worthless they are.

(03-05-2015 02:29 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 02:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 02:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I don't think anyone on here has a problem with people organizing and even protesting for higher wages. Supply/demand and pricing will dictate the outcome.

This.

When unions price the companies they work for out of the market, those companies either fail or move. Hence the loss of middle class jobs.

What about unions for people in government jobs?

Incestuous comes to mind.

(03-05-2015 02:29 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 02:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 02:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I don't think anyone on here has a problem with people organizing and even protesting for higher wages. Supply/demand and pricing will dictate the outcome.

This.

When unions price the companies they work for out of the market, those companies either fail or move. Hence the loss of middle class jobs.

What about unions for people in government jobs?

The taxpayers aren't really represented by the government. The voters are. Not all voters are taxpayers and not all taxpayers can vote. Government doesn't have the same relationship with its customers (the people who might be asked to pay more) as businesses do. Customers can't easily take their business away from the government as a protest.

Government is essentially a monopoly... and monopolies, if they can't be eliminated, would be treated differently because similarly, people can't choose a different supplier.