General Political Thread

[Guest Don Draper]

What about child support payments by the father? Things like that get left out of the equation.

I'm not really comfortable with minimum wages being set on the assumption of a nuclear family-based income.

[Hixter]

I'm not really comfortable with minimum wages being set on the assumption of a nuclear family-based income.

I'm not suggesting that. I'm just pointing out that there's often more than meets the eye when we are faced with stories about people living on $7.25 per hour.

[Guest Don Draper]

I'm not suggesting that. I'm just pointing out that there's often more than meets the eye when we are faced with stories about people living on $7.25 per hour.

I don't think there should be any scenario where a person working full-time for a large corporation should have to worry about being able to feed their family and secure housing (barring obvious Octomom, etc. exceptions).  I'd rather a single, 20-something earn "too much" than a single mother with three kids be on public assistance/out of money before the end of the month.

[uncool2pillow]

I'm all for public assistance, believe me.  I think it's a godsend for those who need it.  But I also think it's horseshit that the government has to pick up the slack for major corporations who would rather sink more money into executives than provide employees a livable wage.  In my opinion the government is subsidizing the corporations' staffing overhead, and I'd rather opt to foot the bill by patronizing these businesses than foot the bill as a matter of course.

This.

[caliber66]

No, but I haven't seen anyone reporting on the plight of minimum wage workers ask them if they live with their parents or receive housing or food benefits, either.

 

A new enlistee earns $1400 per month in base pay and receives $350 per month in meal allowances. He/she is then required to pay for his/her meals at the chow hall. I assume that $350 will just cover 3 meals a day in the chow hall, but it won't go far off post.

 

A few things to consider:

 

1) Military members are not paid hourly, so there's no overtime involved. They typically work far more than 40 hours per week; (Anecdote Alert) my friends worked 12-hour days 7 days per week in Afghanistan and Iraq. That really changes the dollars per hour equation.

 

2) Sometimes your "room and board" consists of eating cold meals out of a plastic bag while living and sleeping in a hole in the ground. (One that you dug yourself, of course.)

 

 

And then there's that whole getting shot at and blown up thing ...

 

1. Military members in Afghanistan and Iraq are compensated more than soldiers who aren't in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

2. Do they have to pay for their MREs? Also, MREs now include a chemical heater, so they don't have to eat them cold.

[Guest Don Draper]

And if this is our line of reasoning, then why should the government subsidize the lives of minimum wage workers when servicemen and women make less?  Raise the minimum wage, raise the wage for the servicemen.

[Hixter]

I don't think there should be any scenario where a person working full-time for a large corporation should have to worry about being able to feed their family and secure housing (barring obvious Octomom, etc. exceptions).

Should fast food workers in places like Manhattan, the Bay Area or Orange County be paid $40 or $50 dollars per hour to be able to afford to live there?

 

1. Military members in Afghanistan and Iraq are compensated more than soldiers who aren't in Afghanistan and Iraq.

They are paid an additional $7.50 per day. How many of us would walk through IEDs for seven dollars?

 

And if this is our line of reasoning, then why should the government subsidize the lives of minimum wage workers when servicemen and women make less?  Raise the minimum wage, raise the wage for the servicemen.

Who pays those billions of dollars? (The answer is us.)

[KevinG]

It's now December and, as the CBS correspondent noted, signup figures haven't been released and the administration is stonewalling. 

 

But regardless of that the "fact" you stated still has no basis in the conversation.  Just because 50K people signed up for a gambling website and only 700 where able to sign up on a website that was not working is meaningless.  It is an oversimplification of what is going on.    Reports are that over 100K have signed up through healthcare.gov (this does not include numbers form State run Health Care exchanges which in places like CA are much much greater).  But hey it is a lot easier and funnier to through out meaningless numbers.  Also the correspondent tweets (and by the way it is sad when tweets are an acceptable form of journalism) seem to me more concerned with security of the website rather than the numbers (though she does wonder what they are).  

 

The fast food protesters are demanding $15/hr, which is more than many enlisted service members earn. Despite what you'd like to believe, I put plenty of thought into my statement, although it was a very simple one.

 

It was not simple it was simplistic.  It used the "military card" to deflect from the real problem.  From the website I quoted (which was designed to help the military transition to civilian life) points out to get equivalent pay with benefits a civilian annual salary would needs to be nearly twice that of a military one.  A military salary includes far more benefits then any minimum wage job and in fact more than most civilian jobs.  But again it is easier to throw down burger flippers shouldn't make more than the military, then think about the nuance of the issue at hand.  

 

 

Also, let's not forget that someone making $15k per year will qualify for food stamps, subsidized housing and some sweet Obamacare subsidies.

 

This might be my favorite thing that you have ever said.  I really hope the irony is not lost to those that read this statement.  You would much rather have a low minimum wage and then subsidize through your taxes the rest of their cost of living, then have a corporation pay a living wage.  Your tax dollars subsidizing people who live on minimum wage. 

 

In 2011 the CEO of McDonald's made 8.75 million dollars.  Which hourly is 4,206.73 dollars.  A cashier average wage is about $7.76.  So the job that the CEO does is over 550 times more important than that of cashier?  Also there are several other top executives at McDonald's who make in the millions as well.  Are they really worth that?

[Guest Jules]

In 2011 the CEO of McDonald's made 8.75 million dollars.  Which hourly is 4,206.73 dollars.  A cashier average wage is about $7.76.  So the job that the CEO does is over 550 times more important than that of cashier? 

 

Yes. Probably more than that.

[caliber66]

They are paid an additional $7.50 per day. How many of us would walk through IEDs for seven dollars?

 

 

Irrelevant question. The soldiers are paid what they are paid, and they are asked to do what they are asked to do. 

 

Regardless, that's an additional $255/month when they are in combat, plus they qualify for a family separation allowance of $250/month, and they may qualify for any number of bonuses, including flight pay, special skill proficiency pay, etc. They get free healthcare. They get a housing allowance ($490/month for an E-1, $650 if he/she is married). And don't forget locality cost of living adjustments - a soldier living in Northern Virginia gets paid more than one living at Fort Leavenworth. 

[Atticus]

In 2011 the CEO of McDonald's made 8.75 million dollars.  Which hourly is 4,206.73 dollars.  A cashier average wage is about $7.76.  So the job that the CEO does is over 550 times more important than that of cashier?  

 

it's not about importance, it's about value.  The President's salary is $400,000.00 but I don't think anyone would argue that his job is less important than a corporate CEO.  I sometimes wonder how many people wailing and moaning about CEO salaries have actually spent any time knowing a CEO.  I am not saying that some CEOs' salaries aren't bloated or entirely out of whack (I'm sure there are)--but many of them work insane hours under even more insane pressure, and they are booted if they do not perform.  It takes a certain kind of talent to run a multi-billion dollar corporation that is not widely had.  I have less of a problem with a CEO of a profitable corporation making millions than I do an athlete making tens of millions (and yes, I recognize that it takes a certain kind of talent to hit a 98 mph fastball, but I still don't think it merits $17 million/year)

[NoJ]

I like MREs, they are sorta tasty.

[caliber66]

Depends on the MRE, but yeah. They will plug you up, though.

[Hixter]

It used the "military card" to deflect from the real problem.

No, it didn't. Perhaps you think that was my intention, but it was not.

 

You would much rather have a low minimum wage and then subsidize through your taxes the rest of their cost of living, then have a corporation pay a living wage.

Please define what you think a living wage would be, what the standards of "living" would be, and how it would be paid for.

 

So the job that the CEO does is over 550 times more important than that of cashier?  Also there are several other top executives at McDonald's who make in the millions as well.  Are they really worth that?

Yes and yes.

 

Regardless, that's an additional $255/month when they are in combat

Most members of the military never see any combat. Those who do spend a small fraction of their time in service in a combat zone.

 

plus they qualify for a family separation allowance of $250/month

Only if they are married. And the married folks will typically only collect it for a year or two out of a 20-year career.

 

They get a housing allowance ($490/month for an E-1, $650 if he/she is married).

Unmarried soldiers get no housing allowance - they live in the barracks. Married soldiers only get an allowance if base housing isn't available.

 

And don't forget locality cost of living adjustments - a soldier living in Northern Virginia gets paid more than one living at Fort Leavenworth. 

I'm very familiar with it and I know that it typically isn't enough to entirely cover rent/ownership, utilities and maintenance.

 

I like MREs, they are sorta tasty.

I haven't had one since 1989, but I sure don't remember them as tasty.

[Guest Don Draper]

Should fast food workers in places like Manhattan, the Bay Area or Orange County be paid $40 or $50 dollars per hour to be able to afford to live there?

 

The obvious way to solve this problem would be to make a minimum wage that is region specific.  This, of course, is not uncommon in almost every other sector.  My professional peers in areas like California earn about $30k more than I do for this reason. Because it is a standard practice, it doesn't seem at all cumbersome: the Department of Labor already keeps a tally of average wages per industry per county.  

 

For me it keeps coming back to: I'm happy to use my tax dollars to support military wages, because this is a service that I benefit from always.  I'm not happy using my tax dollars to support Arby's workers, because I don't benefit from Arby's.  I would rather pay Arby's on a per-case basis.  And I would rather Arby's support it workers because Arby's can.

 

Corporations have the money to pay for the staff and so they should.  I'm likely paying more in taxes to keep the price of a McDouble at $1.19 then I would be paying if I ate them regularly at the adjusted price.

[Guest Don Draper]

it's not about importance, it's about value.  The President's salary is $400,000.00 but I don't think anyone would argue that his job is less important than a corporate CEO.  I sometimes wonder how many people wailing and moaning about CEO salaries have actually spent any time knowing a CEO.  I am not saying that some CEOs' salaries aren't bloated or entirely out of whack (I'm sure there are)--but many of them work insane hours under even more insane pressure, and they are booted if they do not perform.  It takes a certain kind of talent to run a multi-billion dollar corporation that is not widely had.  I have less of a problem with a CEO of a profitable corporation making millions than I do an athlete making tens of millions (and yes, I recognize that it takes a certain kind of talent to hit a 98 mph fastball, but I still don't think it merits $17 million/year)

I've gotten to work with several CEOs in a professional capacity, each at organizations of varying sizes.  I completely understand the pressure they face, and I'm totally impressed by the way the CEO and his assistant are as synchronized as an arm and its hand.  

 

But c'mon, you can't say that $16 million versus $50 million is anything that even registers on their radar as far as quality of life.  You just can't.  Like in Forrest Gump: "there's only so much money a person needs; the rest is just for showing off."  

 

Or the Eddie Izzard sketch about mass murderers.  The first time I heard this, the way he treats large numbers, that's like CEO pay.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk_pHZmn5QM

 

(I'm not smart enough to learn how to embed a video.  Can one of you guide me so that I can be right on the internet in a more aesthetically-pleasing way?)

[IRememberDBoon]

no. not more than that. are you high?

[dagwave]

i'm not sure what just happened.

[Hixter]

The obvious way to solve this problem would be to make a minimum wage that is region specific.  This, of course, is not uncommon in almost every other sector.  My professional peers in areas like California earn about $30k more than I do for this reason. Because it is a standard practice, it doesn't seem at all cumbersome: the Department of Labor already keeps a tally of average wages per industry per county. 

But how would it actually work? What would the standard of living look like? Should someone who flips burgers be paid enough to live where home prices are in the 7 digits and rents are $2000 or $3000 per month? We're not just talking about fast food workers, we're talking about people who work in hotels, grocery stores, shops and laborers. We're talking about doubling the pay of millions (perhaps tens of millions) of workers -- no small feat. And, in the end, consumers like you and I will pay for it every time we buy something.

 

Corporations have the money to pay for the staff and so they should.

That's not necessarily true. McDonald's has 1.8 million people working in 34,000 stores. If their labor costs were to double then so would their prices, leading to decreased sales, massive store closures and hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers.

 

More likely, however, would be that the corporation would strive to maintain its income by utilizing robots and other automated systems, causing the loss of a million or more jobs.

[Guest Don Draper]

Here's a fact sheet about the strike that contained information I didn't know - with links to sources, always a plus.  According to this, McDonald's has substantially fewer employees.

 

You and I agree that minimum wage workers need more money than they currently earn, in order to live.  You're okay paying for it yourself, and I think that their employers should.

 

Of course more businesses will use automated services, and that will happen regardless of whether we raise the minimum wage.  And I'll be honest, I prefer using an automated check out.  That's not a wage issue so much as a population issue though.  The population continues to grow and automating services becomes easier and cheaper.  What do we expect will happen?

[Hixter]

You and I agree that minimum wage workers need more money than they currently earn, in order to live.  You're okay paying for it yourself, and I think that their employers should.

Anything the employer pays will come out of the consumer's pocket in the end through higher prices. Forcing businesses to raise prices will result in business closures and more unemployment. $7.25 per hour is better than zero dollars per hour.

[Guest Don Draper]

Anything the employer pays will come out of the consumer's pocket in the end through higher prices. Forcing businesses to raise prices will result in business closures and more unemployment. $7.25 per hour is better than zero dollars per hour.

 

Like I said, if they raise the minimum wage, I won't have to subsidize the life of an Arby's worker, because I'm not ever going to eat there.  

 

If the minimum wage is raised, then it's raised across the board.  History has shown that people enjoy burgers, and they're not going to stop eating them because all the burgers at the chains cost more. Shit, people still smoke and cigarette taxes are obscene.  You can't tell me that paying servers/cashiers, say, $10/hour instead of $7.25 is going to sink a corporation like McDonald's or Publix.

 

Oh, and the NPR story that I mentioned a few days ago: it featured a woman who runs out of food assistance/money by the 20th of each month.  If that woman had more money...she would spend it, right?  To eat?  Probably at a store with minimum wage workers, I'm guessing.  This money isn't going to be socked away or disappear from the stream of commerce.

[caliber66]

That's not necessarily true. McDonald's has 1.8 million people working in 34,000 stores. If their labor costs were to double then so would their prices, leading to decreased sales, massive store closures and hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers.

 

 

It wouldn't come close to doubling prices, but they would of course go up.

[howdjadoo]

Cheers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[John Smith]

Minim wage was 2.20/hr when I worked at McD 's going by the logic presented here and nearly continuously by the right, theinimim wage of 7 something an hour should have crippled and nearly killed McD's by now. Yet today there are more stores than ever And I just don't understand how that is possible.

 

Also the number of employees is almost irrelevant, it makes it seem like they will all be paid full time. The real figure to look at is man hours worked or projected to work.