+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: The Kyra Memorial Spin Room (/forum-540.html)
+---- Thread: Clark (/thread-219424.html)
- georgia_tech_swagger - 01-18-2004 01:16 AM
He wants to raise minimum wage to $7.00 an hour.
I don't know what utopia he lives in, but does he have any idea what a negative effect this will have on the economy?? We HAVE to have low end crappy jobs for less skilled works. To eliminate these jobs is to drive labor overseas and increase unemployment. OMG what an idiot.
I can see dropping tax benefits on companies that do heavy overseas work, but how is he going to define overseas work? New Balance -- which is now a popular shoe brand -- does its best to see that all materials and labor used to make their shoes comes from the United States. However, they still must import materials not readily available in the U.S. Is Clark going to take away their tax break too??
Clark is hiding behind his status as a Rhodes Scholar and a General. His economic policies bite the big one.
- flyingswoosh - 01-18-2004 09:23 AM
1) raising the minimum wage will force people who do 4 dollars worth of work to be unemployed. what an idiot clark is.
2) status as a General? I hear he didn't do a very good job in Bosnia. They quoted one general and he said "i'd never vote for Clark, he has no integrity."
- Bucknut - 01-18-2004 10:07 AM
flyingswoosh Wrote:1) raising the minimum wage will force people who do 4 dollars worth of work to be unemployed. what an idiot clark is.What's the min wage now? $7.00 an hour isn't much, there's not many adults making under that....I don't think raising it to $7 will hurt any businesses.
2) status as a General? I hear he didn't do a very good job in Bosnia. They quoted one general and he said "i'd never vote for Clark, he has no integrity."
Any man that serves his country for as long as Wesley Clark did has my respect....
Clark for Pres! :)
- rickheel - 01-18-2004 10:11 AM
If you raise the minimum wage to $7 an hour, many jobs would be lost. Until you run a company and see what the effect of low cost labor is, you have no clue. I spent about $110,000 last year on temp labor. Raise the number by $1.75 per hour, I would not spend anywhere near as much. Net effect, lost wages for those who, by and large, are not worth it anyway.
- Bucknut - 01-18-2004 10:47 AM
A teenager working after school making less than $7 is OK....But not nearly enough for an adult to support himself and family. If a company wants to send their low paying - under $7 jobs overseas, then goodbye, won't be missed by me.
- Guest - 01-18-2004 11:25 AM
rickheel Wrote:Net effect, lost wages for those who, by and large, are not worth it anyway.If you really are an employer, I'm damn glad that I don't work for you. Either you suck at hiring, or you have such a low opinion of your workers, no matter what they do, that you feel justified in paying them peanuts. If you need to pay less than $7.00 per hour to be profitable I suggest that you find a different business model and stop blaming others for your failures.
Then again, what can be expected from someone who supports a deserter while denigrating a war hero? Self-delusion, particularly the type practiced by folks who are members of the "rah-rah, go team" school of political thought, is a very powerful thing. Think about it for a second. Your boy couldn't even be bothered to do his duty to his country in the shelter his daddy found him so that he could avoid having to serve like his less fortunate countrymen. Yet, you all feel justified bashing a man who has had 19 bullets enter his body in service to the United States. All because he plays for the other "team".
As for what others who served with Clark have to say, no one rises to the level he has without pissing off a few people. Here are some quotes from some people you may have heard of, or at least, should have:
Quote:"Major Clark is one of the most outstanding officers of his grade in the U.S. Army...an officer of impeccable character with a rare blend of personal qualities and professional attributes which uniquely qualify him as a soldier-scholar. While he has the intellectual grasp of world affairs attained only by the top scholars in the field, he projects soldierly qualities of strength, character, leadership, and above all an unyielding sense of personal responsibility. It is this sense of responsibility which clearly sets him apart from his contemporaries. [He] has the intellectual, moral and physical stamina, coupled with an unrelenting quest for excellence, which insures the completion of every task to near perfection. Major Clark's earnestness, sincerity of purpose and absolute dedication convey a moral force in his work which gives him a significant voice in this headquarters..."
-General Alexander M. Haig, Jr., July 19, 1978
Quote:"Wes Clark has the character and depth to be another Marshall or Eisenhower in time of war."
-Brigadier General William W. Crouch, March 16, 1988
Quote:"Professional and moral attributes are impeccable. Strong in all areas. Best leader-thinker in the Army....a great leader who takes care of soldiers and families.... He has it all and has done it better than anyone else."
-General Edwin Burba, Jr., March 20, 1992
Quote:"Clark exhibits the best balance of professional ethics of any officer I know. Particularly noteworthy is his demonstrated selfless dedication to his men, his unit, and the Army. He exhibits absolute integrity of word, deed... he establishes and observes scrupulous ethical and moral standards."
-Colonel Lester E. Bennett, June 2, 1980
Quote:"Wes Clark has been a superb battalion commander and will be a superb brigade commander. He is an officer of the rarest potential and will clearly rise to senior general officer rank. He will be one of the Army's leaders in the 1990's."
-General Colin Powell, May 21, 1982
Quote:"He is unquestionably one in a million. A professional whose perceptions are correct, whose plans are thorough and complete, whose executions are artistic, and whose success is inevitable....I have never been more impressed with an officer's talent and dedication. He should rank with men like Douglas MacArthur, Maxwell Taylor, Creighton Abrams..."
-Colonel Charles G. Prather IV, June 23, 1977
Quote:"As the friendly force maneuvered through the treacherous region, it was suddenly subjected to an intense small arms fire from a well-concealed insurgent element. Although painfully wounded in the initial volley, Captain Clark immediately directed his men on a counter-assault of the enemy positions. With complete disregard for his personal safety, Captain Clark remained with his unit until the reactionary force arrived and the situation was well-in-hand. His courageous initiative and exemplary professionalism significantly contributed to the successful outcome of the engagement. Captain Clark's unquestionable valor in close combat against a hostile force is in keeping with the finest traditions of the military service and reflects great credit upon himself, the 1st Infantry Division, and the United States Army."
-From the Award of the Silver Star, as presented to Capt. Clark after he was wounded in battle in Vietnam, February 26, 1970
Since the focus of the Repugnican smear campaigns have shifted to Clark, I have to assume that the political winds are also shifting favorably towards my candidate of choice. As disgusting as the GOP's tactics are likely to be, that bodes well for this country. A true leader may be on his way to power, one that can lead us out of the depths of the last 4 years.
- flyingswoosh - 01-18-2004 11:47 AM
Oddball Wrote:you really don't understand what he's saying, do you? His business is a low paying sector, obviously. Which means he can't exactly hire top notch workers, so he hires people who can only do minimum wage work. If you hire someone who does $5.50 work, and pay them $7.00, you lose money. Also, you act as if many people who make $7.00/hr are raising families. That isn't true. around 80% of those workers are students.rickheel Wrote:Net effect, lost wages for those who, by and large, are not worth it anyway.If you really are an employer, I'm damn glad that I don't work for you. Either you suck at hiring, or you have such a low opinion of your workers, no matter what they do, that you feel justified in paying them peanuts. If you need to pay less than $7.00 per hour to be profitable I suggest that you find a different business model and stop blaming others for your failures.
- KlutzDio I - 01-18-2004 12:23 PM
flyingswoosh Wrote:Your figures are wrong there, Swoosh.Oddball Wrote:you really don't understand what he's saying, do you? His business is a low paying sector, obviously. Which means he can't exactly hire top notch workers, so he hires people who can only do minimum wage work. If you hire someone who does $5.50 work, and pay them $7.00, you lose money. Also, you act as if many people who make $7.00/hr are raising families. That isn't true. around 80% of those workers are students.rickheel Wrote:Net effect, lost wages for those who, by and large, are not worth it anyway.If you really are an employer, I'm damn glad that I don't work for you. Either you suck at hiring, or you have such a low opinion of your workers, no matter what they do, that you feel justified in paying them peanuts. If you need to pay less than $7.00 per hour to be profitable I suggest that you find a different business model and stop blaming others for your failures.
I suspect that figure is much lower for the nation as whole. It is probably true that locales like Lansing, Mich. and Austin, Tx. might have 80% student workers in service industry hell holes (SIHH). That number would be quite lower for exotic, tourism based locales like Va. Beach, Va. or Monterrey, Ca and Pensacola, Fl.
To adjust for the whole country, the number of students working in SIHH is about half what you claim. More importantly, I bet there are more family people working in SIHH because, oftentimes, students have families.
Just looking around my state, along with New Orleans (because I visit there regularly, and Memphis for the same reason, as well as Chattanooga), I see many adult-age people working in the service sector, the low-wage area of the service sector that is. I would venture to say the average age of the typical SIHH worker would be 40, but without hard data to go on, that is based entirely on my experience.
I would find it interesting to see how many Americans with bachelor's degrees working in SIHH. I know many people out of college for years who work at Starbucks, or the golden Arches.
Nonetheless, I'll search around and find some stats on this.
Searching.....
- T-Monay820 - 01-18-2004 12:58 PM
Note almost all of Oddballs quotes are from pre-Clinton era, with the latest in 1992. If they raise minmum wage, less people will get hired/held onto because employers won't pay their current number of employees more money if it cuts into profits.
- KlutzDio I - 01-18-2004 01:20 PM
Okay, I found some stats on this discussion.
According to Swoosh's claim on this thread, as well as one other thread, he says that 80% of the wage workers in America are students, and therefore they deserve to live in poverty (really, I don't know how this helps him out, but basically Swoosh thinks lazy people are poor. He thinks service industry workers (tourism, hotel, motel, restuaruants, coffees shops, bars, retail such as the Mall workers) are lazy people and that is why they are poor. he backs this claim up by saying the majority of min-wage and other low-wage workers are students and more adults have better jobs than these students. anyway, I challenge these claims.)
I have differed in my interpretation of experience, and now I will add some statistics to prove, at least to Swoosh, and any others particularly interested, that more and more service industry workers are adults, family people relegated to an existence of servitude in service industry hell-holes (SIHH).
An SIHH is a job such as a waitress, coffee shop worker, retail slut, hotel/motel worker, bartenders with some exceptions, newspaper boy, and part-timers [many adults put two part-time jobs together because that is all they can find].
One reason I believe this is due to the loss of our nation's manufacturing base. While factory jobs do indeed pay low, they pay better than say DaysInn chamber maids, or Starbuck's latte artists. Nonetheless, since our manufacturing sector has declined steadily since 1983 (when service industry jobs began to outpace manufacturing based jobs) more and more adults who worked these jobs are now making about $6-7 per hour making frappacinos! This would lead one to conclude that there are as many students working in SIHHs as there are adults.
<a href='http://www.unlv.edu/Finance_Admin/Diversity/workforce2000.html' target='_blank'>This site explains the transition from manufacturing work to service work...</a>
Since there are many more adults in the workforce than students (those between the ages of 15-22), that would lead one to conclude there are many more adults slaving away in SIHHs. Yet, Swoosh disagrees and says 80% of the individuals employed in SIHH are students and they deserve it, they deserve to make low wages because they are students and some day they'll make more in a different sector of the economy.
I thought his number was high. I see more adults serving eggs and coffee in sweatshop diners for about $2.13 per hour. I see more adults haranguing me for assistance at the local department store. I see more and more adult, family people working crap jobs. In fact, the numbers are about even according to the following report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Acc. to this report of minimum wage earners ONLY, about 40% are indeed over age 24 and about 30% are married with children. Now this is ONLY min. wage workers. We have already established that anything less than $10 per hour is not enough to live on (live decently without relying heavily on credit to get by), we must conclude that more and more SIHH employees are adults and are married and/or have children.
To state it more broadly, more and more adults are working low-wage jobs as the service industry has taken over our national economy.
<a href='http://stats.bls.gov/cps/minwage2002.htm' target='_blank'>Bureau of Labor Statistics report with many many additional links, stats and tables.</a>
- Schadenfreude - 01-18-2004 01:30 PM
<a href='http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefaq' target='_blank'>http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issuegui...wage_minwagefaq</a>
Quote:Who are minimum wage workers?
An estimated 6.9 million workers (5.8% of the workforce) would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage to $6.65 by 2003. Of these workers, 68.2% are adults and 60.6% are women. Close to half (45.3%) work full time and another third (34.0%) work between 20 and 34 hours per week. One third (32.9%) of these workers who would have benefited from an increase to $6.15 in 1998 are parents of children under age 18, including almost a million single parents.
The Economic Policy Institute is a labor-backed think tank.
- KlutzDio I - 01-18-2004 01:49 PM
Thanks, Schaden! :wave:
- Guest - 01-18-2004 02:28 PM
T-Monay820 Wrote:Note almost all of Oddballs quotes are from pre-Clinton era, with the latest in 1992. If they raise minmum wage, less people will get hired/held onto because employers won't pay their current number of employees more money if it cuts into profits.Gee, I guess that Clark's character changed due to Bill Clinton being elected President. :rolleyes:
- georgia_tech_swagger - 01-18-2004 05:10 PM
Bucknut Wrote:A teenager working after school making less than $7 is OK....But not nearly enough for an adult to support himself and family. If a company wants to send their low paying - under $7 jobs overseas, then goodbye, won't be missed by me.OK fine... screw all the high school and college kids vital to low end economy. Screw all the people who haven't gotten a college degree... or even a high school degree for that matter. And while you're at it, let's go ahead and close up every single fast food joint, because I don't see Ronald pushing $7.00 for a high school dropout to flip burgers.
That's just the tip of the iceburg.
- georgia_tech_swagger - 01-18-2004 05:10 PM
Schadenfreude Wrote:<a href='http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefaq' target='_blank'>http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issuegui...wage_minwagefaq</a>Isn't that a bit like Senators voting to increase their pay??
Quote:Who are minimum wage workers?
An estimated 6.9 million workers (5.8% of the workforce) would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage to $6.65 by 2003. Of these workers, 68.2% are adults and 60.6% are women. Close to half (45.3%) work full time and another third (34.0%) work between 20 and 34 hours per week. One third (32.9%) of these workers who would have benefited from an increase to $6.15 in 1998 are parents of children under age 18, including almost a million single parents.
The Economic Policy Institute is a labor-backed think tank.
- georgia_tech_swagger - 01-18-2004 05:13 PM
Even after Clinton's minimum wage uphike, which pales in comparison to this leap, there was an upturn in unemployment... and that was during the tech boom when unemployment was incredibly low.
- T-Monay820 - 01-19-2004 12:05 AM
Oddball Wrote:Gee, I guess that Clark's character changed due to Bill Clinton being elected President. :rolleyes:*cough*Kosovo*cough*
- T-Monay820 - 01-19-2004 12:05 AM
I can already see the Dem's bumper stickers:
"Honk if you got bomb in Bosnia!"
- Guest - 01-19-2004 05:47 AM
T-Monay820 Wrote:*cough* point? *cough*Oddball Wrote:Gee, I guess that Clark's character changed due to Bill Clinton being elected President. :rolleyes:*cough*Kosovo*cough*
- Guest - 01-19-2004 05:48 AM
T-Monay820 Wrote:I can already see the Dem's bumper stickers:Dems aren't big on bumper stickers, unlike Repugnicans, who vote for them. :wave:
"Honk if you got bomb in Bosnia!"