$15/hr Min Wage - We told you so

[rogue06]

Hence, the problem with liberal math. They tend to think that you can change one factor, and a business owner will NOT adapt.... same with taxes or fees. Liberals suffer greatly from the law of unintended consequences.

That was exactly what we saw when the Obama Administration decided that full time employees will now be defined as those working 30 hours/week for the purpose of getting them covered by Obamacare. Lo and behold, employers started hiring more and more part-timers and not allowing them to work 30 hours/week. It is amazing that they were too dense to have not anticipated this obvious reaction.

[Psychic Missile]

No, I did NOT abandon -- Please forgive me if I don't cling to every word you write... for a lot of the discussion, I didn't even realize you were talking about me! I'm here. Teal isn't.

You left said you were leaving the discussion. Same difference.

OK, so THAT's the statement you butchered into some kind of universal declaration?

How bout trying again --- what, exactly, is wrong with that statement?

It's a nothing statement. If I'm right or wrong it's based on the reasonability and factual basis of my argument, not on how easy my argument is to make or my lack of direct experience. Your argument can be made in just about any situation, and it results in nothing. "It's always easy for a man who isn't President to come up with rules for how the President should run things." "It's always easy for a man with no psychiatric background to come up with rules for how transexuals should be treated." "It's always easy for a man with no climatology experience to come up with rules for how climate change should be prevented".

[Cow Poke]

You left said you were leaving the discussion. Same difference.

Where did I say I was leaving the discussion?

It's a nothing statement.

So, you're trying to make a mountain out of it?

If I'm right or wrong it's based on the reasonability

An area where you're severely lacking.

and factual basis of my argument,

Yes, FACTS, not opinions you read on the internet.

not on how easy my argument is to make or my lack of direct experience. Your argument can be made in just about any situation, and it results in nothing.

You don't know squat about how business really works --- only what you read.

[Carrikature]

Teal, you really can't just make up rules because that's what you want to believe.

"Entry level" is entry into the workforce. It's a starting job. It's somewhere you can prove your dependability, and build some credibility.

I'm not sure that quoting Wikipedia for 'commonly used' works against Teal's 'traditionally means nor...should mean now'.

The whole point is that 'entry level' has become synonymous with a job anyone can get. What's overlooked, to Teal's point, is that "opportunity for advancement" is still believed to be part of an entry level job. That's just not the case anymore. Wal-Mart isn't looking to their stockers to become potential managers. They're looking for their stockers to be stockers. That job is going nowhere fast. It's a stocking position. Even a cashier's position, as challenging as it may be in reality, is more of the same. Wal-Mart needs cashiers a lot more than it needs potential managers. It *might* be the case, maybe, that a hard-working cashier can make manager eventually. Might. Maybe. Provided they are noticed in the first place, that positions in between are available, and any other number of factors. This doesn't favor the rags to riches story.

[Carrikature]

This is what I don't get... "the only jobs available". I've been "between jobs" many times, but never ever "out of work". I operated my own chimney sweep business (Holy Smoke Chimney Sweeps ), shoveled sand out of box cars, worked a combination of part time jobs through Manpower, trained horses, mucked horse barns, mopped the floor at the local mall from midnight to 5 AM, drove a newspaper motor route, mowed lawns, ran my own computer consulting business, assembled farm implements.... most of the temporary positions I worked weren't even advertised - I walked in and offered to do things I saw needed done....

Without discounting any of this, I suspect a lot of this happened in a different time period.

Ultimately, I ended up working in a company where I was responsible for 800 employees.

This feels like a non sequitur. Unless these other jobs led to this responsibility, how is that relevant? Hard work counts for a lot, but it's not everything.

This notion that "the only jobs available" are ones that somebody else hires you for really gets me. While I was in seminary, I worked a full time job AND the "mop the mall at night" job while carrying 17 hours of classes.

And I think this ties back to a different time period. But even if it's not, compare this to KG's situation. Two kids, single income earner. He could probably mow lawns, but he can't feed a family off of that. And there's some level of "might feed a family" that intersects "will never see the family", too. I don't think people are as willing to do that as they used to be.

I had ZERO capital when I started my computer consulting business - my daughter had zero capital when, at age 7, she started her own candy business. As for "business sense", it doesn't take a Harvard education to know I need to find a need, and figure out a way to get paid to fill it.

Except, by your own admission, you started businesses while already gainfully employed. It's an apples and orange comparison, here. I find it hard to believe you're citing a kid's business as if that's relevant to adults seeking to make a living. If a 7yo makes a buck, she's happy. At 6, mine helps clean the house for a quarter. She could lose money in a business and just be excited to have her own business.

[Cow Poke]

Without discounting any of this, I suspect a lot of this happened in a different time period.

Most of it, probably, yes.

This feels like a non sequitur. Unless these other jobs led to this responsibility, how is that relevant? Hard work counts for a lot, but it's not everything.

That's where I gained the knowledge and expertise.

And I think this ties back to a different time period. But even if it's not, compare this to KG's situation. Two kids, single income earner. He could probably mow lawns, but he can't feed a family off of that. And there's some level of "might feed a family" that intersects "will never see the family", too. I don't think people are as willing to do that as they used to be.

I don't think people are nearly as willing to sacrifice as they used to be. "Seeing the family" is important, but "seeing" them in poverty? And, I think a lot of this may come back to me being a dinosaur... we had a two parent home where the wife was more than willing to stay home and take care of the kids while I supported the family.

Which, of course, brings up another point - that the argument is made (a whole nuther discussion, maybe) that it's impossible for a family to get by unless both of the parents work. (assuming there are, indeed, two parents)

Except, by your own admission, you started businesses while already gainfully employed.

Sometimes, yes..... often I worked multiple part time jobs, or a full-time job and some part-time stuff. I often served as staff member in a Church at little to no salary while working other jobs.

It's an apples and orange comparison, here. I find it hard to believe you're citing a kid's business as if that's relevant to adults seeking to make a living.

It was her entrepreneurial spirit at a young age that I was pointing out.

If a 7yo makes a buck, she's happy. At 6, mine helps clean the house for a quarter. She could lose money in a business and just be excited to have her own business.

My first "real job" (to whatever sense it was "real") was a paper route. Yeah, I know we don't have those anymore, but as a KID, I had to learn to buy the right number of newspapers and sell them (in effect) to make a profit, managing my own business. I think that kind of thing is sorely missing these days. Heck, they don't even teach that in the public schools!

[Terraceth]

My first "real job" (to whatever sense it was "real") was a paper route. Yeah, I know we don't have those anymore, but as a KID, I had to learn to buy the right number of newspapers and sell them (in effect) to make a profit, managing my own business. I think that kind of thing is sorely missing these days. Heck, they don't even teach that in the public schools!

We still have paper routes. Not as many papers to deliver, but we have them.

I never had to learn to buy the right number of newspapers, though. They just gave the correct amount to me each day and then I went and delivered them.

[Cow Poke]

We still have paper routes. Not as many papers to deliver, but we have them.

The only "paper routes" I know of around here are where you drive down the street in a car pitching newspapers into yards. I actually "walked a beat".

I never had to learn to buy the right number of newspapers, though. They just gave the correct amount to me each day and then I went and delivered them.

Yeah, there was a concerted effort to teach kids "business", and we even got bonuses for getting new customers, and keeping existing ones. We had a route supervisor who would work with us and teach us things like "if you need 230 newspapers, order 240, and give the extras to perspective customers for free". We didn't have to do that, but they taught it as "investing in your business".

The thing I HATED, though, was that they paid people to go door to door selling 'half price subscriptions', and the people got paid by the number of new subscribers. Often, they would sign somebody up even if they said no, I would faithfully deliver to that address, then when it was time to collect, the people would say "I never ordered that paper!"

[Cow Poke]

I'm not sure that quoting Wikipedia for 'commonly used' works against Teal's 'traditionally means nor...should mean now'.

The whole point is that 'entry level' has become synonymous with a job anyone can get. What's overlooked, to Teal's point, is that "opportunity for advancement" is still believed to be part of an entry level job. That's just not the case anymore. Wal-Mart isn't looking to their stockers to become potential managers. They're looking for their stockers to be stockers. That job is going nowhere fast. It's a stocking position. Even a cashier's position, as challenging as it may be in reality, is more of the same. Wal-Mart needs cashiers a lot more than it needs potential managers. It *might* be the case, maybe, that a hard-working cashier can make manager eventually. Might. Maybe. Provided they are noticed in the first place, that positions in between are available, and any other number of factors. This doesn't favor the rags to riches story.

I think part of the disconnect is that some are using "entry level" with regards only to that particular employer. Some of us (I don't remember who said it first) point out that it's "entry level into the workforce", not necessarily an advancement within that same company. You'd do the cashier thing at Walmart as an "entry into the workforce", establishment some work history, while looking for your next opportunity.

Meanwhile, I was discussing this whole topic with some of my Jobs For Life colleagues, and maybe you're right --- I'm a dinosaur in a bygone era --- they're seeing more and more "kids" expecting to 'advance quickly', but with stinking attitudes and horrible work ethic.

My wife does a lot of hiring at Texas A&M, and she tells me stories about people coming in for their interview, and checking their texts and email on their phones the whole time DURING the interview. One young lady actually brought HER MOTHER to the interview!

[Bill the Cat]

I think part of the disconnect is that some are using "entry level" with regards only to that particular employer. Some of us (I don't remember who said it first) point out that it's "entry level into the workforce", not necessarily an advancement within that same company. You'd do the cashier thing at Walmart as an "entry into the workforce", establishment some work history, while looking for your next opportunity.

Meanwhile, I was discussing this whole topic with some of my Jobs For Life colleagues, and maybe you're right --- I'm a dinosaur in a bygone era --- they're seeing more and more "kids" expecting to 'advance quickly', but with stinking attitudes and horrible work ethic.

My wife does a lot of hiring at Texas A&M, and she tells me stories about people coming in for their interview, and checking their texts and email on their phones the whole time DURING the interview. One young lady actually brought HER MOTHER to the interview!

Yeah. We had a kid here at my work who graduated college in 2014, got a year of experience, passed a certification exam, and demanded $130K from a perspective employer, like he deserved it or something...

[Sparko]

And I think this ties back to a different time period. But even if it's not, compare this to KG's situation. Two kids, single income earner. He could probably mow lawns, but he can't feed a family off of that. And there's some level of "might feed a family" that intersects "will never see the family", too. I don't think people are as willing to do that as they used to be.

No offense to KG, but I think your post typifies a lot of the problems in the world.
[soapbox]
Sure I feel for KG and it is 3 kids, not two. But the attitude that just because someone is in a tight spot that the business owners somehow OWE him a living is just wrong. He isn't OWED a good living. It isn't the responsibility of the Government or Walmart or McDonald's to feed his family. It is HIS responsibility. It is up to him to find a job to feed them. He is the one who got himself into the situation. The government didn't force three children on him. It is up to him to get himself out. Hopefully with the help of fellow Christians and friends and family. But it is NOT the responsibility of some fast food restaurant to pay him enough to support 5 people on minimum wage.

[/soapbox]

[demi-conservative]

The entire community is to blame, not just walmart. It's not like walmart puts guns to people's heads and forces them to shop there. The community sold each other out for a few bucks.

Yes, but libs being libs, will just blame most convenient target, employers.

Same with healthcare: system is crap, and poor neglected because community breakdown, but problem has to be 'those Repubs blocking Obamacare!!!'

[Starlight]

No offense to KG, but I think your post typifies a lot of the problems in the world.
[soapbox]
Sure I feel for KG and it is 3 kids, not two. But the attitude that just because someone is in a tight spot that the business owners somehow OWE him a living is just wrong. He isn't OWED a good living. It isn't the responsibility of the Government or Walmart or McDonald's to feed his family. It is HIS responsibility. It is up to him to find a job to feed them. He is the one who got himself into the situation. The government didn't force three children on him. It is up to him to get himself out. Hopefully with the help of fellow Christians and friends and family. But it is NOT the responsibility of some fast food restaurant to pay him enough to support 5 people on minimum wage.

[/soapbox]

Sparko your attitude disgusts me. You imply that there is no social or moral responsibility to help others. You imply that if people find themselves in a bad situation then it is entirely THEIR fault and if they can't get out of it no matter how hard they try then it is THEIR fault. No, no, and no. That's an immoral, and utterly despicable attitude.

Try reading the gospels for starters. Then try learning some basic human compassion and love.

Your focus on loading your dumb hobby-horse of personal responsibility onto the backs of the poor and suffering only seems to serve in practice to try and alleviate yourself of moral blame for not providing any form of assistance.

And furthermore when we discuss political economic policies like the minimum wage, we are talking about how to optimize the system. If the current system is leading to lots of people being in bad situations, then it is a bad system. If a differently configured system leads to less people being in bad situations, then that would be a better system. The question of whether it is "the responsibility" of the owner of the restaurant to pay people enough is irrelevant, it is the moral responsibility of society to optimize the system through having optimal economic policies that lead to the least number of people being in such bad situations as possible, and to help those who do fall through the cracks.

[Sparko]

Sparko your attitude disgusts me. You imply that there is no social or moral responsibility to help others. You imply that if people find themselves in a bad situation then it is entirely THEIR fault and if they can't get out of it no matter how hard they try then it is THEIR fault. No, no, and no. That's an immoral, and utterly despicable attitude.

way to misread what I said. I said it wasn't some random employer's responsibility for the trouble you got yourself into. I also said, "Hopefully with the help of fellow Christians and friends and family." -- it IS our responsibility to help our neighbors and family. Not McDonald's. They are a business. Sure it is nice if the owner of a business wants to help his employees and pay them more, but they have their own families to take care of too. If they give away all of their profits, they suffer. If they go out of business, everyone suffers.

The rest of your diatribe is dismissed as the attempted guilt-trip that is is.

Try reading the gospels for starters. Then try learning some basic human compassion and love.

Your focus on loading your dumb hobby-horse of personal responsibility onto the backs of the poor and suffering only seems to serve in practice to try and alleviate yourself of moral blame for not providing any form of assistance.

And furthermore when we discuss political economic policies like the minimum wage, we are talking about how to optimize the system. If the current system is leading to lots of people being in bad situations, then it is a bad system. If a differently configured system leads to less people being in bad situations, then that would be a better system. The question of whether it is "the responsibility" of the owner of the restaurant to pay people enough is irrelevant, it is the moral responsibility of society to optimize the system through having optimal economic policies that lead to the least number of people being in such bad situations as possible, and to help those who do fall through the cracks.

[Cow Poke]

Sparko your attitude disgusts me. You imply that there is no social or moral responsibility to help others. You imply that if people find themselves in a bad situation then it is entirely THEIR fault and if they can't get out of it no matter how hard they try then it is THEIR fault. No, no, and no. That's an immoral, and utterly despicable attitude.

Try reading the gospels for starters. Then try learning some basic human compassion and love.

Your focus on loading your dumb hobby-horse of personal responsibility onto the backs of the poor and suffering only seems to serve in practice to try and alleviate yourself of moral blame for not providing any form of assistance.

And furthermore when we discuss political economic policies like the minimum wage, we are talking about how to optimize the system. If the current system is leading to lots of people being in bad situations, then it is a bad system. If a differently configured system leads to less people being in bad situations, then that would be a better system. The question of whether it is "the responsibility" of the owner of the restaurant to pay people enough is irrelevant, it is the moral responsibility of society to optimize the system through having optimal economic policies that lead to the least number of people being in such bad situations as possible, and to help those who do fall through the cracks.

You're really confused, Star....

If you want to invoke the Gospels, or even the whole of the New Testament, it's not about the law forcing us to do things, or the government doing things in our stead - it's about the heart, and us WANTING to help one another. Which I do, and I'm sure Sparko does as well.

It's just not your business to force us to help the people you think we should help.