Nope. Not Torture.

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by taznut
http:///forum/post/3061817
and i just dont understand the position you are taking (and a lot of others do as well)... i dont mean to come across as crude but its selfish and shows zero concern for other people... did you ever work one of these "entry level jobs"? if so you would know what it is like trying to live off that wage... your stance of "i bettered myself and so can you, if you dont its your fault and you should screw off" is selfish to say the least... as i have said before, i dont doubt that it is possible to work up the line, and "make something of yourself" but i also know that it is impossible for everyone to do this... can you have all managers without employees??? someone has to be on the bottom... some people dont mind being at the bottom, they either dont mind their job or they dont want to be in a leadership role... should they be punished??? a building wont stand without a foundation...
back to that article... Wal Mart said its average pay for "pee ons" was something like $9.60/hr... working this at fulltime still leaves people in poverty... should this be allowed?? someone works full time and still has to use welfare??? this of it this way, you are paying for this... so again, when shopping at wal mart the next time figure that into the cost of your goods...
stdreb27- would you be willing to pay 1.5% more at Lowes if the employees were going to get $5k more a year??? what about 0.5% more at wal mart for them to get $1/hr more???

Let me break out the crayons and draw you a picture. YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT A FAMILY ON AN ENTRY LEVEL JOB.
I have no college degree. I've gone through periods of unemployment, I've worked crap jobs. Living within my means has always worked out pretty well for me.
My wife had a 12 year old son when I met her. The Sperm donor was never in the picture. With a little help from her parents the wife put her self through school with no government aid. We decided after we got married we would wait to have a kid together until we were in a better position to provide for two of the little varmints. Then BAM!!! I get killed in a car wreck. So 7 months later settlements start rolling in and financially things are better. Because of our responsible financial decision we went months on a single salary only having to dip into a small amount of savings to get by, Never had to beg barrow or steal a cent.
Of course now the blissful little socialists want to raise my taxes to support all the idiots who don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that cars, kids and toys are expensive. I do say they can all screw off!. I've worked hard to earn what I have. I have been highly responsible with the money I got as a result of losing the ability to perform in a 15 year career that wasn't a high paying job but one in which the factory reps considered me among the best in the country at. With disability and the return on my investments I am close to what I could be making if I were still working. Of course because a lot of that income is from the evil capitol gains the socialists want to bump my tax rate higher. I guess I should have just blown the money on cars and trips and went on welfare.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3061885
Entry level positions at ANY retail company are targeted for people who are:
1) Looking for their first job while in high school.
2) Needing a job while going to college to 'pay the bills'.
3) A retired geriatric who wants to supplement his/her SS or pension money.
Jobs like this should never be considered what I term 'career employment opportunities', unless you do have aspirations of moving into management. If you try paying these position's wages that would put someone over what you term the 'poverty level', what happens to the 3 groups I listed above? Are they religated to McDonald's, Wendy's, and all the fast food restaurants when they want to find work? You think Walmart would want to pay a 16-year old high school kid $12.00/hr to stock Toy Dept. shelves? My daughter is working at Six Flags this summer for a $7/hr. She couldn't be happier. She has a friend working as a lifeguard making $10/hr. But it's a job that gives them 'play money', and it also gives them work experience for when they do try to find a more lucrative job when they get out of college. These are the groups entry level positions are targeted for. I don't think any company intends them to be jobs that someone could make a living off of.
If I had read this first I could have saved myself a few minutes worth of typing. If you ever find yourself in the denver area we gotta have a beer

 

[uneverno]

All of that assumes a functional economy with an unemployment rate of ~4.5%, neither of which we have at the moment.
Now what?

 

[oscardeuce]

Which notes aren't borrowed?

Notes backed by gold or silver.
I remember the good old days

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3061942
All of that assumes a functional economy with an unemployment rate of ~4.5%, neither of which we have at the moment.
Now what?
Instead of buying IPODS, cell phones, video games and other assorted toys there should be some savings.

 

[taznut]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3061885
Entry level positions at ANY retail company are targeted for people who are:
1) Looking for their first job while in high school.
2) Needing a job while going to college to 'pay the bills'.
3) A retired geriatric who wants to supplement his/her SS or pension money.
Jobs like this should never be considered what I term 'career employment opportunities', unless you do have aspirations of moving into management. If you try paying these position's wages that would put someone over what you term the 'poverty level', what happens to the 3 groups I listed above? Are they religated to McDonald's, Wendy's, and all the fast food restaurants when they want to find work? You think Walmart would want to pay a 16-year old high school kid $12.00/hr to stock Toy Dept. shelves? My daughter is working at Six Flags this summer for a $7/hr. She couldn't be happier. She has a friend working as a lifeguard making $10/hr. But it's a job that gives them 'play money', and it also gives them work experience for when they do try to find a more lucrative job when they get out of college. These are the groups entry level positions are targeted for. I don't think any company intends them to be jobs that someone could make a living off of.
again, this is what we are left with... retail jobs... you may think these jobs are for HS and college kids and retirees, which is true to an extent... in the store i work in these 3 groups make up around half of the people working at the bottom... but i live in a city with a university... during the school year the population is about 50,000 people... during the summer about 25-30000...
again, HALF of the people at this store fit those categories in a university town...
so the other half are what??? to lazy to do something better??? to stupid to find a real job??? i dont get what your problem is with people earning enough to survive... just because these jobs are targeted at the above groups doesnt mean they are working them...
and again, retail is growing... we are losing a lot of jobs across seas and with the economy the way it is a lot of places are closing... there will always be jobs here but the type and the quality are changing and the wages should reflect that...

 

[taznut]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3062164
Instead of buying IPODS, cell phones, video games and other assorted toys there should be some savings.
if people stop buying we lose more jobs... this is the dilemma we are in... spending got us into the mess (mainly the spending of money that wasnt ours) and the only way to get out without getting A LOT worse is to spend more...
the jobs (and wages) i am talking about contribute a lot to this... at these wages it is near impossible to pay for the things that you need to survive (rent, food, car to get to work, etc), forget about getting sick and EVER having anything you want... how in the hell are you suppose to save anything???

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by taznut
http:///forum/post/3062437
again, this is what we are left with... retail jobs... you may think these jobs are for HS and college kids and retirees, which is true to an extent... in the store i work in these 3 groups make up around half of the people working at the bottom... but i live in a city with a university... during the school year the population is about 50,000 people... during the summer about 25-30000...
again, HALF of the people at this store fit those categories in a university town...
so the other half are what??? to lazy to do something better??? to stupid to find a real job??? i dont get what your problem is with people earning enough to survive... just because these jobs are targeted at the above groups doesnt mean they are working them...
and again, retail is growing... we are losing a lot of jobs across seas and with the economy the way it is a lot of places are closing... there will always be jobs here but the type and the quality are changing and the wages should reflect that...
I'm not say people who take low-paying jobs are stupid and lazy. I'm saying those type of positions should never be considered as long-time employment, where you depend on them to maintain a standard of living. The retail industry can't afford to pay competitive wages whereby someone could live above the poverty level, and at the same time keep their prices low. The Big Box stores like Walmart, Lowes, Target, etc. MAY be able to pull that off, but what do the smaller, struggling retail outlets do to compete? If I was looking for a job and saw Walmart was paying $12/hr to bag groceries, and my local hometown grocery store was only paying $9/hr for the same job, where would I work? So let's shut down the local grocery store because they can't keep employees to run their business.
Retail stores keep their entry-level wages low because it allows them to adjust their employee levels based on cyclical trends during the year. Look how many people Walmart hires during the Christmas season. They probably hire anybody that walks into the door just to have the staffing available for the heavier traffic. After Christmas is over, they adjust their employment levels accordingly. Look at your store. You say you live in a college town, where the population drops during the summer months. Since you don't have as much traffic, you don't need as many employees. Retail stores realize most people taking these kind of positions will not hang around long-term. Most retail companies don't want them to. They know that as soon as one of these people leave, there's three or four behind them (mostly from one of the three groups I described) that will take the position they left for the same low wage. Yes, you will have those group of individuals that have no other choice but to take these jobs in order to make a living, but it's a minority group. No Big Box store is going to increase their prices to raise the earnings for a minority group that consists of less than 10% of their employees.

 

[taznut]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3062459
I'm not say people who take low-paying jobs are stupid and lazy. I'm saying those type of positions should never be considered as long-time employment, where you depend on them to maintain a standard of living. The retail industry can't afford to pay competitive wages whereby someone could live above the poverty level, and at the same time keep their prices low. The Big Box stores like Walmart, Lowes, Target, etc. MAY be able to pull that off, but what do the smaller, struggling retail outlets do to compete? If I was looking for a job and saw Walmart was paying $12/hr to bag groceries, and my local hometown grocery store was only paying $9/hr for the same job, where would I work? So let's shut down the local grocery store because they can't keep employees to run their business.
Retail stores keep their entry-level wages low because it allows them to adjust their employee levels based on cyclical trends during the year. Look how many people Walmart hires during the Christmas season. They probably hire anybody that walks into the door just to have the staffing available for the heavier traffic. After Christmas is over, they adjust their employment levels accordingly. Look at your store. You say you live in a college town, where the population drops during the summer months. Since you don't have as much traffic, you don't need as many employees. Retail stores realize most people taking these kind of positions will not hang around long-term. Most retail companies don't want them to. They know that as soon as one of these people leave, there's three or four behind them (mostly from one of the three groups I described) that will take the position they left for the same low wage. Yes, you will have those group of individuals that have no other choice but to take these jobs in order to make a living, but it's a minority group. No Big Box store is going to increase their prices to raise the earnings for a minority group that consists of less than 10% of their employees.
there will always be employees to staff a store... if there are not enough people to staff the stores there probably isnt enough people in the town to support the two...
as for my store... we do through the "100 days of hell" during the summer months so we actually need more people (but they dont hire seasonal help so we are always swamped), we are always understaffed... this is another reason i think we should make more... we have fewer staff than most of the stores around us and we are the top selling store in the region... the store is also smaller than the others because it wasnt designed to do the level of business we do...
again, the 3 groups you mentioned make up a little over 50% of our staff, not 90...

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3062090
Notes backed by gold or silver.
I remember the good old days
Where can I get some, and where can they be redeemed? I would happily exchange a paper dollar for a Morgan, or a $20 bill for a Double Eagle.

Hell, a pre '82 penny (all copper, not clad zinc) is worth triple face, and a current nickel is worth 8¢ in metal value these days. Your tax dollars at work, on the nickel anyway. That's why Congress recently passed a law that coins couldn't be melted down for metal value.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by taznut
http:///forum/post/3062709
there will always be employees to staff a store... if there are not enough people to staff the stores there probably isnt enough people in the town to support the two...
as for my store... we do through the "100 days of hell" during the summer months so we actually need more people (but they dont hire seasonal help so we are always swamped), we are always understaffed... this is another reason i think we should make more... we have fewer staff than most of the stores around us and we are the top selling store in the region... the store is also smaller than the others because it wasnt designed to do the level of business we do...
again, the 3 groups you mentioned make up a little over 50% of our staff, not 90...
Think your store is more the exception than the rule. Probably the norm for a Big Box store in a smaller town. Living in Mayberry is different than living in New York, Dallas, or Little Rock. What's the cost of living in Iowa as compared to a larger metropolis? What's the median price range for houses and rental properties in your area?

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3062459
I'm not say people who take low-paying jobs are stupid and lazy. I'm saying those type of positions should never be considered as long-time employment, where you depend on them to maintain a standard of living. The retail industry can't afford to pay competitive wages whereby someone could live above the poverty level, and at the same time keep their prices low. The Big Box stores like Walmart, Lowes, Target, etc. MAY be able to pull that off, but what do the smaller, struggling retail outlets do to compete? If I was looking for a job and saw Walmart was paying $12/hr to bag groceries, and my local hometown grocery store was only paying $9/hr for the same job, where would I work? So let's shut down the local grocery store because they can't keep employees to run their business.
Retail stores keep their entry-level wages low because it allows them to adjust their employee levels based on cyclical trends during the year. Look how many people Walmart hires during the Christmas season. They probably hire anybody that walks into the door just to have the staffing available for the heavier traffic. After Christmas is over, they adjust their employment levels accordingly. Look at your store. You say you live in a college town, where the population drops during the summer months. Since you don't have as much traffic, you don't need as many employees. Retail stores realize most people taking these kind of positions will not hang around long-term. Most retail companies don't want them to. They know that as soon as one of these people leave, there's three or four behind them (mostly from one of the three groups I described) that will take the position they left for the same low wage. Yes, you will have those group of individuals that have no other choice but to take these jobs in order to make a living, but it's a minority group. No Big Box store is going to increase their prices to raise the earnings for a minority group that consists of less than 10% of their employees.
This is very dissapointing. you are actually making sense.

Taznuts,
Why should we hurt a large group of people a little bit, to help a handful of people?

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3065087
This is very dissapointing. you are actually making sense.

Taznuts,
Why should we hurt a large group of people a little bit, to help a handful of people?
I can't speak for Taznuts but I think that is what civilized societies do. They help fellow citrizens that are in need.
The problem is seperating out those in need from those who chose to be a burden on society. From my perspective the deadbeats are taking food out of the mouths of the people that truly need it. They are lowly scum.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3065975
I can't speak for Taznuts but I think that is what civilized societies do. They help fellow citrizens that are in need.
The problem is seperating out those in need from those who chose to be a burden on society. From my perspective the deadbeats are taking food out of the mouths of the people that truly need it. They are lowly scum.
Zactly!
Thats why I think their should be work requirements attached to aid. Someone who truly wants to support themselves won't think twice about having to pick up dog poop or rake leaves and trash in a park or cean bed pans at a hospital. The lowlifes think that type of work is beneath them and will get bounced from the program.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3065975
I can't speak for Taznuts but I think that is what civilized societies do. They help fellow citrizens that are in need.
The problem is seperating out those in need from those who chose to be a burden on society. From my perspective the deadbeats are taking food out of the mouths of the people that truly need it. They are lowly scum.
Why should we be forced to?
I give a significant portion of my income to charities. But it should be my choice, not a requirement... (which is the next step in Taznuts logic.)
But this concept is nothing new, and done on a regular basis today. And this isn't just for "citizens in need." This concept is routinely used in subsidization of various industries. A good example is the sugar industry. At one time, our sugar was not competitive on the world market. So we decided to give them a small portion of every ones taxes. So these same wealthy sugar producers could continue producing sugar in the USA. Then to top it off, the government restricted sugar imports. Which greatly increased the prices of Sugar in the USA. So we pay subsidies to the sugar companies, then we pay a premium every time we buy something with sugar in it. All to help a handful of producers who are in an industry that is no longer viable in the USA.

 

[uneverno]

Just a single example of corporate welfare...

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3066300
Just a single example of corporate welfare...

Is it really welfare if they are simply getting a partial rebate on their taxes?
I don't have a problem with local ior state governments offering tax deals to lure a business in but I don't like the feds subsidizing any businesses. Came to that conclusion years ago after hearing a farmer whine about a cut in government payments he got for not farming some of his land. The guy had a house that looked like a mansion to me. Why are we the people paying him for not working?
S0-Called corporate welfare is the exact reason why government should never be involved in business. Having health and safety regs is one thing but when some fool that has never ran anything but his nose in his life attempts to tell people how to run their business you get Fanny, Freddie and GM.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3066313
Is it really welfare if they are simply getting a partial rebate on their taxes?
I think it has to be defined as such. The bean counting thing is a zero sum game. If someone's getting a rebate, someone else is giving it to them. The books still have to be balanced and gov't has no money of their own, i.e. what they give to one they must therefore take from another. That money needs to be paid back at some point. By us. With interest.
So, we've subsidized the businesses w/ our tax dollars. That's welfare.
Now, if the gov't were to reduce their budget commensurate to the revenue shortfall they just created, then I'd say it was not welfare because nothing has been taken from anyone in the process. They tend not to do that though.
Having said that does not mean I'm opposed to welfare - for individuals - not for corporations. Political viewpoint however, does not allow one to ignore the laws of mathematics, regardless of how much our politicians (R&D both) seem to think so.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3066333
I think it has to be defined as such. The bean counting thing is a zero sum game. If someone's getting a rebate, someone else is giving it to them. The books still have to be balanced and gov't has no money of their own, i.e. what they give to one they must therefore take from another. That money needs to be paid back at some point. By us. With interest.
So, we've subsidized the businesses w/ our tax dollars. That's welfare.
Now, if the gov't were to reduce their budget commensurate to the revenue shortfall they just created, then I'd say it was not welfare because nothing has been taken from anyone in the process. They tend not to do that though.
Having said that does not mean I'm opposed to welfare - for individuals - not for corporations. Political viewpoint however, does not allow one to ignore the laws of mathematics, regardless of how much our politicians (R&D both) seem to think so.
So not making a corporation pay as much is the same as feeding and housing someone for free? I think not.
But whatever you want to call it I think it is wrong in both cases assuming the recipient is able bodied. If for instance you are growing wheat and there is a glut you need to grow a different crop, not expect the government to pay you not to grow as much wheat so the price will go up.
By the same token I don't think it is right for the government to tax a business just because they dont like what they do. The cigarette tax is a joke. I can see upping the taxes to cover health care expenses the government has because of smoking related illness. But increasing the taxes again to pay for CHIP? That is absurd and a abuse of the worst kind.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3066362
So not making a corporation pay as much is the same as feeding and housing someone for free? I think not.
It most definitely is the same thing. Both are getting something for free.
By not making the coporation pay, someone else has to make up the deficit. That's a transfer of wealth (and in the wrong direction, I might add.)
W/ regard to the rest of your statement, I agree. Don't even get me started on agriculture subsidies (which include tobacco) or sin taxes.