• Welcome!
    |
    ||
    Logout|My Dashboard

Time for a living wage in Galveston - The Galveston County Daily News : Letters To Editor

July 26, 2014

Time for a living wage in Galveston

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 2 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. AND PLEASE TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.

64 comments:

    You must be a subscribed user to comment on this story.

  • carlosrponce posted at 5:23 pm on Fri, Jan 31, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1669

    History 101 Lesson:
    The Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House in 2009 and 2010 and yet the gap between rich and poor widened even then.

    sverige, he got Obamacare (aka ACA) passed without one Republican vote, plenty of Real Republican opposition and look how popular and successful that legislation is today.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 5:06 pm on Fri, Jan 31, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3053

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 4:31 pm on Fri, Jan 31, 2014:

    Why the increase of the gap between rich and poor? Two reasons: 1. What I alluded in my 4:18 post, authored by Elizabeth Warren, and 2. Two words - republican obstructionism.

    - - End of Economy 101 today for non-Majors - -

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 4:31 pm on Fri, Jan 31, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1669

    Don't worry, you're in prestigious company. I'd rank you up there with Uncle Joe Biden when it comes to "outrageous and demeaning". So sad that you don't see your statements as such. So five years of Obama haven't helped narrow the gap between the rich and the poor. In fact his policies have widened the gap . How is that "hope and change" working for you? By your own admission, it isn't working for the poor. And don't pull out the crying towel and blame Bush and the Republicans. Bush hasn't been there in over 5 years and the Republicans only control one-half of one third of the government.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 4:18 pm on Fri, Jan 31, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3053

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 3:03 pm on Fri, Jan 31, 2014:

    Do tell.... of such "outrageous and demeaning" posts. If that means telling it like it is and calling out folks who have been victims of bending and framing, in regard to disdain for the poor, then so be it.

    Elizabeth Warren actually explained the reason for the ever increasing gap between the rich and the poor. She says basically there have been too many economic forces that pull things down. The middle class suffers along with the lower class, gap widens. Well, none of this sounds outrageous, it sounds simple and true.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 3:03 pm on Fri, Jan 31, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1669

    Now, now, sverige, leave Grandma alone. So what's your excuse for your "outrageous and demeaning" posts?

     
  • sverige1 posted at 2:58 pm on Fri, Jan 31, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3053

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 1:28 pm on Fri, Jan 31, 2014:

    Just because someone is elderly does not give him/her a "free pass" for outrageous and demeaning speech. Couple the first sentence specifically with Mrs. Bush who was and still is mentally lucid. She knew what she was saying in 2005 in reference to Katrina. If she had to do it over again, she would likely today wish her inner "filter" would have cleaned up what she indeed say about those N.O. Katrina victims. So, she 'aint all that sweet sugar and spice. Maggie Thatcher, who many say was lacking in heart, was wrought with and general disdainfulness toward the poor and downtrodden. That's not sweet, not christian.

    Sure, she speaks her mind. Always has. More power to her, and many folks nearing 90 do more of that. Now, here's a well-known quality of being: Difficult elderly folks were once very likely difficult young folks.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 1:33 pm on Fri, Jan 31, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2641

    I believe that Barbara, if she said that, said it before the Superdome became a sewage pit. It would have been a great evacuation site if it had stayed clean and dry in there, and if the evacuees had only needed it for 24-36 hours until the storm passed, which is about how long people would have stayed had the levees not failed.

    I seriously doubt those were her sentiments when living conditions inside the dome turned to squalor and were made known.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 1:28 pm on Fri, Jan 31, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1669

    Remember what Jeb said: "she is 89 years old and if you have elderly parents or grandparents, you know they speak their mind." She was over 80 years old at the time of Hurricane Katrina. Are you picking on the elderly, sverige? Show some respect, please! God Bless the elderly!

     
  • sverige1 posted at 1:03 pm on Fri, Jan 31, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3053

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 12:37 pm on Fri, Jan 31, 2014:

    Barbara Bush, a "fine christian lady"?? [tongue] [lol]

    What Barbara Bush said shortly after Katrina: "So many of the People in the Arena (New Orleans) were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them."

    She's probably all OK for "underprivileged" folks to have sub-par minimum wage salaries....as long as it's not HER grandkids that get the chintzy jobs. Oh well, her grandkids are underpriviledged anyway. A cruddy job will work very well for them LOL

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 12:37 pm on Fri, Jan 31, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1669

    Barbara Bush is a good Christian Lady, Christians LOVE everyone.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 11:00 am on Fri, Jan 31, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3053

    LOL...about Lewinsky and Clinton. What strikes me as odd was to hear Barbara Bush say she "loved" Clinton. With his not-so-altar boy past, I'm a bit surprised she has a liking for him.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 8:57 am on Fri, Jan 31, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1669

    As I have told you before, do what makes you happy. Take as lesson from John Lennon and Paul McCartney in their pre-drug days: "I don't care too much for money, money can't buy me love." Money can't buy you happiness either. In my retired state I teach for free and I help run a museum for free- gratis, no monetary compensation but much happiness.
    Speaking of interns, I wonder if Monica Lewinsky was paid. Maybe if Bill had offered to clean that stained dress......

     
  • sverige1 posted at 8:35 am on Fri, Jan 31, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3053

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 7:41 pm on Thu, Jan 30, 2014:]

    Ponce! - If you think people are "OK" with getting minimum wage, then I will give up the sometimes stressful responsibilities I have in my current job so that I can get me a less-responsibled career in flipping burgers at Charlie's or folding sheets at the Beechcomber Inn. 'Cause you know, I'll be "OK" with spending 10 hours doing strenuous work, and I'll know my place. I'll just tell everybody - "I clean up, OK"?

    As for Pelosi's interns, I'd go for it if I had free room and board, the outlook of becoming a Washington insider, and knowing that I'm already part of the privileged. But, with this minimum wage issue, we're not talking about such privileged individuals, are we? It's not a good comparison to try to look for the similarities of having a non-to-low income between rich colleg-ed interns from the exclusive environs of the D.C. "beltway" who had their daddies hook them up with the "establishment" and compare them with struggling inner-city youth who are lucky if they even GET a job at McDonalds. Definitely an apples to oranges comparison. Argument FAIL!

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 7:41 pm on Thu, Jan 30, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1669

    They understood what the job would pay before they were hired. THEY WERE OKAY WITH IT. GET OVER IT. IT HAPPENED. They did however work to better their lot in life. They are not lifetime minimum wagers. And we are not in New York, we are in the GREAT STATE OF TEXAS!!!!
    So now you are apologizing for Nancy Pelosi, again not unforeseen. Did you agree with her "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it"?

     
  • sverige1 posted at 6:50 pm on Thu, Jan 30, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3053

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 4:14 pm on Thu, Jan 30, 2014:

    Not for a New York minute do I believe you in that you heard your students say it was "OK" that they were paid low wages. It's human nature, if one is a hard worker, to want more compensation. It's human nature to scoff at "the man" and realize that the boss doesn't get his hands dirty, yet gets to "boss" people around and do little work.

    As for Pelosi, let's be realistic. Most of those Washington D.C. interns are sons/daughters of the elite Washington crowd who are not doing the intern job to compensate for their dad's almost full-time co-mechanic job at the Pasadena Brake Check on Fairmont Parkway.

    Of course the interns' jobs are non-paying. They get the prestige of glomming onto the Washington "establishment".

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 4:14 pm on Thu, Jan 30, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1669

    sverige, Read the Book:
    Debt-Free U: How I Paid for an Outstanding College Education Without Loans, Scholarships, or Mooching off My Parents by Zac Bissonnette
    NEWS ALERT!!!!
    Nancy Pelosi Wants to Raise Minimum Wage, but Pays Her Interns NOTHING
    You forget I taught thousands of young people. Many said, "I know my job is low minimum wage, but I'm OK with that because I'm young". But they said this while in high school or working their way through college. They knew this was only temporary, And I did hear some say:"That's OK that my mom makes sub-minimum wage for folding sheets at **************. She works hard, as do I, and it 'builds our character'". They add : "It's hard work, doesn't pay well but it does put food on the table and keeps me, my brothers and sisters clothed. I'm proud of my mom."

     
  • kevjlang posted at 9:11 am on Thu, Jan 30, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2641

    I would not go so far as to say that McDonald's doesn't have a role in fixing it. Certainly, they can't fix it themselves. It would take a coordinated effort within the industry to actually fix it. However, McDonald's is also in an excellent position to be a role model, too, of how to bring their lower wages up while improving productivity, enhancing shareholder value, and continuing to provide value for their customers. Conceivably, the company that takes the lead in this could develop a competitive advantage by doing so.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 8:30 am on Thu, Jan 30, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3053

    Ponce -
    Things aren't like they were in the latter part of the 20th century. College kids could work part-time, maybe live with family and do without loans and scholarships. Not today. While mom (and dad if he's there) are struggling to keep the rented house/apartment, teen child steps in to help operate the house. The teen needs the scholarship. Teen's job needs the $ not to help finance a fancy sports car, but to help pay for the light bill. Whether he's "Charlie" or "Juan", or she's "Missy" or "Lourdes" - that's life in 2014.

    No one is going to say, "I know my job is low minimum wage, but I'm OK with that because I'm young". Nor will they say, "That's OK that my mom makes sub-minimum wage for folding sheets at the Comfort Inn. She works hard, as do I, and it 'builds our character'". People are simply not able to live the American Dream. But, the few rich fatcats live the American Dream, and then some.

     
  • Matt Coulson posted at 7:41 am on Thu, Jan 30, 2014.

    Matt Coulson Posts: 100

    What you say is true, and buying a McDonalds franchise has become very expensive. This is because they are a good investment. My point is this success is not a bad thing, and the economic and employment problems we have are not McDonalds problem to solve. By the way speaking of nice fuzzy ideas, it has always taken extraordinary effort and sacrifice to move up the economic ladder. You must set yourself apart in terms of effort and dedication. Chick fil a has a different Bussiness model with a much lower purchase cost. Perhaps that could be the route to the ultimate goal of a more expensive Bussiness. Again my point is these people can structure their businesses however they like and should be viewed in the most positive terms, they are GOOD companies. I hesitate to mention the huge charitable efforts they make because I'm sure that will be ridiculed and criticized.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 12:20 am on Thu, Jan 30, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2641

    It was the same in California. The odd/even rationing certainly contributed to the lines. You got in line on your day to make sure you had gas until the day after tomorrow.

    Certainly, the costs of everything all factor into the price you charge. But an increase in price for one thing doesn't necessarily mean the bottom line gets larger. It just depends on how prices for everything else add up and how motivated your customers are to force you to keep prices steady. Or, as many families know, if the electric bill goes up, you go looking for other ways to balance the rest of your expenses, because the paycheck isn't getting bigger.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 10:04 pm on Wed, Jan 29, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1669

    Your parameters are too large. Volumes could be written per year, the type of worker, the region, their education, etc. Too much for this little forum. Trust me, minimum wage increases CONTRIBUTE to inflation but it is not the only factor. So I concede partially on that point.
    So you were in California during the oil embargo. Texas pumps were prepared but Texans were not. They were not satisfied unless their tanks were topped off explaining the long lines at the pumps.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 9:37 pm on Wed, Jan 29, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2641

    I was in California during the embargoes. I seem to recall that our gas prices went from around 30 or so cents per gallon to over 40 cents per liter.

    I didn't know that only minimum wages drove inflation. You didn't tell me that. I always thought that a raise of 25 cents per hour cost the same to an employer whether it was for the lowest paid, middle rung, or executive worker. I sit better educated now. However, please refresh my memory on what average worker wages did during the 80s and 90s. Perhaps I'm not realizing that my case may have been out of the norm.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 9:16 pm on Wed, Jan 29, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1669

    Let's see Reagan Years Minimum Wage:
    1981-$3.35, 1982-$3.35, 1983-$3.35, 1984-$3.35, 1985-$3.35,1986-$3.35, 1987-$3.35, 1988-$3.35
    Minimum wage remained constant, low inflation
    Now Bill Clinton Minimum Wage:
    1993-95 $4.25, 1996-$4.75, 1997-2000-$5.15
    minimum wage went up 90 cents
    Where were you during the Carter years? Pumps were never recalibrated to liters in Galveston County. I remember it well, it never happened, at least not in Texas City, Galveston, La Marque, Hitchcock, Santa Fe, Alvin.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 8:47 pm on Wed, Jan 29, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2641

    Feel free to believe that wages are the only cause of inflation. You seem to think that the increase in minimum wage has a greater impact on prices than the rise of unemployment. During the Reagan and Clinton years, wages and employment rates went up, but inflation was quite modest. Care to explain how that fits your model of if minimum wages go up, consumer prices skyrocket in retaliation?

    During the Carter administration, the oil embargoes were more responsible for rising costs than minimum wage raises, or have you forgotten about that period where US gas pumps were priced in liters because they couldn't handle prices over a dollar per unit, since, after all, gas prices were nominally around 30 cents per gallon leading up to that.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 8:35 pm on Wed, Jan 29, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2641

    The model today is far different than it was 50 years ago. People that buy franchises today are people that "made it" somewhere else. They are not people that worked their way up from janitor to cook to shift lead to store manager and then scrimped and saved for ten years. You have to come upon $750,000 in liquid assets to be considered to be a franchisee.

    If your choices are to be poor and live on welfare, or work at McDonald's and be poor, because, as many people are quick to point out, Obama and the liberals killed all the good jobs, then how can we make your model work under the current situation? The job doesn't pay well enough to afford living, so it doesn't pay enough to finance education or training for a good job, and even if it did, are there enough good jobs out there? Working through the ranks may eventually get you to a living wage, but will it come anytime soon for many?

    The model you lay out is really nice and fuzzy. But, what changes are necessary to make it realistic again? 50 years ago, 4 dollars a day got you a lot closer to subsistence than 60 dollars a day gets you now. 30 years ago, I would have felt almost rich with 1200/month. Today, you'd have a hard time covering rent, let alone transportation, food, utilities, and clothing.

    I'll bet that this weekend as we're dipping our Doritos into the guacamole, more of the inflation in cost compared to 20 years ago is due to the wage increases from the middle up than from the middle down. Of course, we're all part of the problem, and we shouldn't avoid trying to be part of the solution, whatever that may be.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 8:07 pm on Wed, Jan 29, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1669

    And why was the inflation rate up during certain periods. If you examine closely, inflation was up when the minimum wage was increased. I left off 1975 because the price was the same as in 1970 during the Nixon-Ford presidencies $0.55. What made it more than double to $1.25 by 1980? Could it be the minimum wage increases during the James Earl Carter years when Democrats ruled White House and Congress? Think about it. It's not rocket science.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 7:57 pm on Wed, Jan 29, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1669

    As I said elsewhere in this forum, I had a minimum wage job. I never felt condemned that my hard work was not reaping its just reward. I never felt that the job was "crappy". My Dad taught me whatever you do, even cleaning toilets (which I did), pulled weeds (which I did), served coffee to the boss (which I did), etc. do your best.
    "All labor that uplifts humanity has dignity and importance and should be undertaken with painstaking excellence. Whatever your life's work is, do it well. A man should do his job so well that the living, the dead, and the unborn could do it no better." - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
    And a special message to sverige from Dr. King: "Never succumb to the temptation of bitterness. "

     
  • Matt Coulson posted at 7:39 pm on Wed, Jan 29, 2014.

    Matt Coulson Posts: 100

    Let's try this. You have a hamburger stand. You get some good ideas, kind of original ideas, about how to expand and keep consistent taste and quality. You become successful, very successful, you end up with one of the great companies ever created. Franchises make small businessmen prosperous, they send their kids to college, they raise kids etc. You have different kinds of employees, some have jobs others have careers. The job people are glad to have a place to work, with multiple shifts so that they can fit in other things ( school, child care etc.) . The career people work, save and hope that they can purchase a franchise one day. Every thing seems to be fine untill changes in the nation start to erode job creation in other areas of the economy. People who had careers in other fields begin working in your jobs. The fact that they can't support their life on your jobs becomes a cause for some people. Why do you have to change the successful model that has served you and others so well?

     
  • kevjlang posted at 7:08 pm on Wed, Jan 29, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2641

    Look closer at those increases. Compare them to the overall inflation rate. The price of beef, lettuce, and tomatos has increased at a far greater rate than that. Sorry, but that does far more to support my argument than yours. Less than 4% inflation per year is not even enough to cover the inflation rate of the food, yet you want to try to attribute it merely to the 40% increase in minimum wage? It sure seems to me that for the past decade-and-a-half, McDonald's has been doing quite well at shielding both investors and consumers from the bulk of their wage and food cost inflation.

    From the looks of things, it's quite apparent that McDonald's, at least, has the demonstrated capability to see wages go up another 40% without passing on the full cost of that to customers or shareholders. I would guess that the price would go up some. I'll bet that they'd manage to keep the price below $5.00, though. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they were also able to manage menu pricing so that their more cash-strapped customers would be able to find similar value on the menu for about the same ticket price as the current Big Mac meals.

    For some reason, you seem to think that business people are some kind of weak creatures that can't manage cost increases. They are a lot smarter and a lot more creative than you give them credit for.

    That said, while I think that a $10.10/hr wage is a noble idea, I'd like to see it phased in. Perhaps a company like McDonalds could be tasked to get theirs to $10.10 over a 3 year period (at which time, inflation might take it to around $10.25 or $10.50. Perhaps smaller companies might get 5 years to reach the target.

    And, yes, I buy the argument, to an extent, that we don't really want people to look at these jobs as destinations. However, are they any more likely to move out of these jobs if they're getting $7.25/hr + $2.85/hr equivalent in WIC than if they're getting paid $10.10/hr with no WIC? And, which is better for the economy: paying them $7.25/hr and living 6 wage earners in a 2 bedroom apartment, or paying them $10.10/hr and having maybe 3 in a 2 bedroom apartment? Which is better for the children: paying the parents $7.25 per hour for 50 hours or $10.10 per hour for 40?

    I just don't think it's as easy as if you give them a higher wage it's just going to make things worse on everybody. There are a lot of variables to consider.

    All things considered, I think it's a good idea to have the people in those "minimum wage" jobs getting paid better. I don't see how it would wind up costing us more than what it currently costs us. If it cuts welfare dependency, that there would save us a lot more than what McDonald's slaps onto the price of a Big Mac. Of course, I would prefer that business takes the lead on this rather than government. However, I'm not sure that a critical mass of businesses will step forward without some kind of government incentives or mandates.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 6:26 pm on Wed, Jan 29, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3053

    Hope has to be cultivated and encouraged. Now, really...look at it seriously. If you had a low-income job, wouldn't you feel condemned that your hard work is not reaping its just reward?

    I challenge you to ask a poor worker if he's delighted to have a crappy paying job.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 2:40 pm on Wed, Jan 29, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1669

    Low income earners have the option to better their lot in life. NO ONE is a "Slave" to their destiny. And who are you to judge that people that are in low income minimum wage jobs are condemned to that existence for the rest of their lives? You are very pessimistic. What happened to that "Hope" your fearless leader promised?

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 2:22 pm on Wed, Jan 29, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1669

    kevjlang,Maybe you've been paying over $3 for a Big Mac over the years but I have not.
    1967- $0.45
    1970- $0.55
    1980- $1.25
    1986- $1.60
    1990- $2.20
    1995- $2.32
    2000- $2.51
    2005- $3.06
    2011- $3.80

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 2:00 pm on Wed, Jan 29, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1669

    sverige, I had quite a few students who worked fast food, grocery stores, mowing lawns, etc. all at minimum wage. Are they still working at minimum wage? NO! The education and experience gained helped them prosper in the post high school workplace. And then there is my example, I delivered the Texas City Daily Sun and Galveston News while in Elementary, worked at a lumber yard (Hoffman) summers at minimum wage while in junior high and high school. Did I ever complain? NO. I helped my family out with expenses and saved money to go to SHSU. I never needed a college loan and I never had a student named Charlie.

     
  • Bigjim posted at 1:42 pm on Wed, Jan 29, 2014.

    Bigjim Posts: 351

    carlosrponce
    “This analysis is misleading. Of course, if you earn more, you pay more taxes. What we are forgetting is what percentage of earned income is taxed? For example, if you earn $20,000., then what percentage of your income is taxed, versus an income of $200,000.? When viewed in this way, lower income households and companies tend to pay a higher percentage of their total income in taxes than those with higher incomes. Also, those with higher incomes have more tax deductions available to them than their not so fortunate counterparts, which makes it even more unfair. Blaming the rich though, is pointless; they provide most of the jobs that are left in this country. Are we going to keep taxing them out of the country? Going to a 10% or lower flat rate tax and eliminating all IRS tax regulations makes more sense. It will save millions (no maybe billions), because it takes a lot of money to write, regulate, and enforce all those rules“.
    Also don’t forget The wage base in 2014 for Social Security is $117,000. If someone makes less than $117,000 they will pay a higher % overall as they will not stop paying the tax. Where as someone say making $500.000, would stop paying at $117,000 making the % of tax they pay on all the money they make less.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 12:41 pm on Wed, Jan 29, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3053

    PROVERBS 19:17

    "Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will repay him for his deed."

     
  • miceal o'laochdha posted at 12:18 pm on Wed, Jan 29, 2014.

    miceal o'laochdha Posts: 484

    Pete Seeger died yesterday...

     
  • sverige1 posted at 11:56 am on Wed, Jan 29, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3053

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 8:36 am on Wed, Jan 29, 2014:

    Well, carlosjponce - In relation to your experiences as past public school teacher, I can't help but to inquire. Did you ever come across perhaps a teenager who was working nights/weekends to help support his/her family because mom and/or dad couldn't muster enough income to adequately provide for the family?

    I betcha if you came across that kind of scenario, your response wouldn't be a pat "Well, all of these jobs don't need all that pay. Your kind of job at McD's simply isn't that deserving of more pay. Sorry, Charlie."

    As our President said last night, no job (whether it be cleaning a building, dishwashing, or making beds) should keep one at the poverty level. You know, those custodial jobs are tough. It's quite a challenge to work in the realm of the management and maintenance of a building.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 11:24 am on Wed, Jan 29, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2641

    Then, perhaps you can explain to me how McDonald's has maintained the price of Big Macs for years despite the incremental increases in the state and federal minimum wages.

    If you'll do just a little bit of surface scratching, instead of just throwing out propaganda, you'll find lots of examples of companies that maintained profit margins while dealing with cost increases in some areas without dollar-for-dollar increases (and in many cases without increases at all) in the prices consumers paid.

    Many companies have actually found ways, through increased productivity, or better cost management in other areas, to actually DECREASE prices despite increases in employees and wages.

    Now, am I saying that every company can do that, or that every company can offset significant increases in its wage bucket with equal decreases in costs elsewhere in order to avoid passing on the cost increases? Of course not. I am saying, though, that there is no AXIOM that if you increase a worker's pay that you must increase the price that customers pay.

     
  • Matt Coulson posted at 9:56 am on Wed, Jan 29, 2014.

    Matt Coulson Posts: 100

    The people in the tax bracket that includes minimum wage pay little or no income tax. What is deducted is given back in their tax return. They do get the benefit of social security for participating in this process. Of course we can't give back sales tax, property tax etc, but have you ever seen the property tax bill on an property in a wealthy area, it is often more than many of us earn. Now if you want to talk about the burden that the upper middle class carries in this country we could have a productive discussion. There are lots of programs public and private to help the poor. More taxes and extended programs are not the answer. Your constant insistence that the poor must stay that way forever is disrespectful and degrading. Makes people wonder about your motivations. Instead of trying to "get" some group, how about encouraging everyone to be a good member of the human family. Accusing the heavily taxed rich of being horrible selfish people is not productive it is divisive which seems to be the only tune this current group seems to know.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 9:31 am on Wed, Jan 29, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3053

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 8:30 am on Wed, Jan 29, 2014:

    For clarification of accuracy, you need to make sure that you're comparing "as wealthy" progressives to their wealthy conservative counterparts.

    There are many high-profile extremely wealthy progressives who are known for their giving and philanthropic ways. Oprah and Brad Pitt are 2 examples of such.

    As for tipping, I am a middle-class progressive who not only tips when appropriate, but I also offer words of encouragement to the service providers. It is an often-known observation that most "conservatives" possess an elitist personality. They are the ones who miff at the working-class and complain the most about the service they feel they aren't getting. Conservatives have a way of feeling they're more entitled and "more deserving" of special treatment.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 9:26 am on Wed, Jan 29, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3053

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 9:06 am on Wed, Jan 29, 2014:

    Well, ponce. You proved my point. Your original statement was as ridiculous as my satirized statement, where I inserted brackets and bold letters. I suppose you didn't get the sarcasm. I do recall in basic history 101 that slaves had no choice of their destiny. Many of these low-wage workers have no choice either, contrary to your opposite stance. Many can't find an alternative.

    That's why we must not let workers be "slaves" to their destiny, and we as Christians, need to be their voice for social justice. As for Ronald Reagan - he WAS from the government, but he was little to no help.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 9:13 am on Wed, Jan 29, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1669

    " [I}f the cost of one thing goes up, the cost of everything goes up." It has been that way ever since I was born. My dad quit working at the Tin Smelter in 1958 and took a non-union job. Whenever the unions got a pay raise, the price of everything in Texas City went up, except his salary. Compare the prices at "Pick and Pay" before and after the strike. Everything goes up^. And that's the way it is.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 9:06 am on Wed, Jan 29, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1669

    I find it strange that you are now defining what Christianity is based on your previous posts.
    You stated "No one forces them [SLAVES] to work there. " Who are you kidding? Slaves were always forced to work on the plantations. No choice. Your statement is false. Failure on your part! To compare modern work to slavery is a slap in the face of slaves and their descendents. HOW DARE YOU!
    Your statement "Government should be the "voice" of those who do not have a voice is your opinion, not a fact. The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Ronald Reagan

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 8:36 am on Wed, Jan 29, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1669

    To Kevjlang: Am I rich? With the Lord Jesus I have all the treasure anyone could ask for. As for monetary wealth, I am a retired public school teacher living on a TRS annuity. I tithe to my church and also give to worthy charities. No guilt here but I will think of you the next time I give my Church another thousand.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 8:34 am on Wed, Jan 29, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3053

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 8:02 am on Wed, Jan 29, 2014:

    Government should be the "voice" of those who do not have a voice, so I disagree with your statement. Let us insert a variation of wordage to your original statement:

    - "Government should not dictate what a PLANTATION DOES UPON its workers. No one forces them [SLAVES] to work there. They know how much they are going to be paid [NOTHING] before they start working." -

    Ponce, that isn't very "christian", now is it?

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 8:30 am on Wed, Jan 29, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1669

    So you never tip them. At least you are keeping in character. Statistics show that Conservatives give more in tips and to charities than their Progressive brothers and sisters.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 8:26 am on Wed, Jan 29, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1669

    The top 10 percent of income earners paid 71 percent of all federal income taxes.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 8:04 am on Wed, Jan 29, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1669

    Look under TEXAS law.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 8:02 am on Wed, Jan 29, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1669

    sverige, you just don't get it. Government should not dictate what a business pays its workers. No one forces them to work there. They know how much they are going to be paid before they start working. The shock comes when they discover how much is withheld for taxes. Minimum wage jobs are not meant to be permanent but a place where you obtain experience and move on and up. If you really want to fix things tell your legislator to stop the loopholes that prevent some from paying their full amount.
    Remember, those who supported Wendy in the last legislative session also chanted "Hail Satan!" Birds of a feather....

     
  • Matt Coulson posted at 7:57 am on Wed, Jan 29, 2014.

    Matt Coulson Posts: 100

    What percentage of the nations taxes do the top 10% of earners pay?

     
  • sverige1 posted at 7:54 am on Wed, Jan 29, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3053

    Response to kevjlang posted at 10:35 pm on Tue, Jan 28, 2014 in response to
    carlosrponce posted at 6:28 pm on Tue, Jan 28, 2014:

    So, you see, ponce....Kevin is correct. There's plenty of highly-paid millionaire types who stratify the major corporations. If the "top" person and a few more of his immediate underlings give up their exorbitant salaries, then the lower paid workers' salaries will be covered. You and I will not have to pay them a bigger tip.

    BTW - do any of you actually tip McDonalds workers? Or grocery baggers? When I get my groceries bagged up, I never ask them to go with me to load them up in the car. Ipso facto, I never tip them. Never.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 7:45 am on Wed, Jan 29, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3053

    Response to carlosrponce posted at 6:28 pm on Tue, Jan 28, 2014:

    Ponce! - You miss the point. Neither you nor I are rich enough to circulate enough revenue to cover the sub-paid McDonalds worker. The CEO of such company is. So are the other mega-millionaires who do not proportionally pay their fair share of taxes.

    Therefore, while I feel sorry for the thousands of sub-paid workers, I cannot afford to give them a big tip. But, the likes of Mr. McCaul from Texas (one of the richest congressmen in the country who happens to be from Central TX) can. You are right - the rich "are already paying higher taxes", but they are not paying nearly the proportion they make to taxes. You and I are paying more in proportion.

    EXAMPLE: A quarter of millionaires (94,500 of these) paid less than 26.5% of their income on taxes. This is while 10% of moderate income taxpayers - those of us making less than 100,000 dollars a year (10.4 million of these) paid MORE than 26.5% in taxes. Again, you and I can't afford to generously tip nor increase the minimum wage workers. Bill Gates and Jim Walton can.

    - This concludes this morning's lesson on basic ECO 101 for non-majors. -

    - WENDY DAVIS for GOVERNOR -

     
  • kevjlang posted at 10:38 pm on Tue, Jan 28, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2641

    carlosrponce, are you rich? If not, then, according to your logic, I suppose you feel bad about not paying your share. Feel free to send in an extra thousand or so, if you want to ease your conscience. While you're at it, go ahead and send another thousand--my share--and ease mine, too. [beam]

     
  • kevjlang posted at 10:35 pm on Tue, Jan 28, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2641

    carlosrponce, are you assuming that the companies paying those workers are only employing people below the living wages? If so, you are not thinking about many real corporations. You certainly aren't considering Home Depot, Moody Gardens, Target, Landry's etc. Most companies have a pool of expenses called wages that are distributed through many levels of the workforce. The money they don't pay to the people at the bottom is money they pay to those at the top. If they raise wages to those at the bottom, they CAN reduce wages to those in the middle and at the top to maintain their costs. Is it possible that companies value those near the top a bit too much and those near the bottom not enough? Could be, based on how much some CEOs get paid for losing money.

    It is a fallacy to believe that the price McDonald's pays the guy taking your order directly impacts the price you pay for the order. If they give every person on his 8 person shift a pay raise of $5/hr, they could offset it by cutting the costs of some of their senior executives. It COULD double the price of the hamburger. On the other hand, depending on how they redistribute their costs, it COULD also reduce the price of the hamburger.

    When it comes to business costs, you need to avoid the fallacy that if the cost of one thing goes up, the cost of everything goes up.

     
  • Bigjim posted at 9:11 pm on Tue, Jan 28, 2014.

    Bigjim Posts: 351

    Carlosrponce
    My bad I though that we were doing away with the laws that covered wages and contract law. Which one of the following acts were you referring to.

    The Act for the Prevention and Suppression of Combinations formed in restraint of Trade.
    Sherman Act of 1890
    Standard Oil Company that push the workers into forming unions. Also was the reason Standard Oil company was busted up into what was called the little sisters. A lot of family worked them including myself.

    Clayton Act
    The structure-conduct-performance paradigm of the Harvard School. Were these the one’s you were thinking of or did you have some other law or act you were thinking of.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 8:16 pm on Tue, Jan 28, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1669

    Bigjim, You obviously never studied contract law, nor the law against monopolies. The scenarios you predict are clearly against the current laws on the books of this state and country.

     
  • Bigjim posted at 7:50 pm on Tue, Jan 28, 2014.

    Bigjim Posts: 351

    I see this scenario playing out differently . With no Minimum wage, person go’s to work for x dollars. After awhile boss say’s you need to take a pay cut or we will hire someone else.
    With no protection to prevent this from happening all the bosses will get together and all bosses will pay less not more. The bosses have no need to pay more, because none of the bosses will pay more then the very lowest wage as they have banded together.


     
  • carlosrponce posted at 6:28 pm on Tue, Jan 28, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1669

    Gee sverige, you're awfully generous with other people's money. As for me I'll take my paycheck, flash it it front of a demlibs face and paraphrase BO -"You didn't earn that!"
    sverige, if you don't think the person who made your Big Mac, Jumbo Jack, Whataburger or bagged your groceries makes enough money then give each a big tip if you feel guilty about them making a sub "Living Wage."
    And if you raise their salaries to a "living wage" then they will be in a higher income bracket and pay some taxes. The top 25% of wage earners pay 85% of total Income taxes. The bottom 50% of wage earners pay 3% of the total income taxes paid. The rich are ALREADY paying higher taxes.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 4:49 pm on Tue, Jan 28, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3053

    Incorrect, ! IHOG !

    It's the stinking rich millionaires who should be paying higher taxes. Raising the minimum wage ought not also raise those workers' taxes.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 1:25 pm on Tue, Jan 28, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1669

    Government should not dictate any wage to the private sector. Market forces should govern the amount of money anyone is paid. While some wages would fall, you would see an overall increase in take home salaries of the majority. Witness the following scenario: A person goes out looking for a job that requires few if any skills. What do you pay? #1 Minimum Wage, #2 Minimum wage, #3 Minimum wage, etc. It's an employer's market. No need to offer more. Without minimum wage constraints: What do you pay #1 X number of dollars. You then reply the person down the road offers you more plus benefits. If #1 needs an employee they will meet or beat the other offer. It becomes an employee's market. Let the market forces prevail and you will see progress.

     
  • Bigjim posted at 1:01 pm on Tue, Jan 28, 2014.

    Bigjim Posts: 351

    “Higher taxes is what Dem's are after with raising the minimum wage.
    Creating inflation raises taxes“.
    So this do everyone a favor and reduce min. wage back to $1.80 like when I started working. This should include all including the people in charge . Would not want them to pay high taxes.
    Or we could increase mim. wage and have people able to afford to live. Remember most mim. wage jobs are part time so the company’s do not have to pay for any benefits.

     
  • IHOG posted at 10:54 am on Tue, Jan 28, 2014.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    Carlos.

    You forgot to mention everyone getting higher pay would also pay higher taxes.
    Higher taxes is what Dem's are after with raising the minimum wage.
    Creating inflation raises taxes.

     
  • IHOG posted at 10:48 am on Tue, Jan 28, 2014.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    If wealthy proprietors of Galveston’s businesses paid their hardworking employees a living wage?
    ????
    Would employees work harder to be worth their pay?
    Would wealthy proprieters be more selective about who they hired?
    Only hiring people they figured could be worth their pay and not hiring any from the bottom of the barrel.

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 8:35 am on Tue, Jan 28, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1669

    Let's say you get your "living wage" in Galveston. All businesses that pay minimum wage would then raise the income of all workers. To make up for the increased wages they would then have to increase the retail price of their goods and services. Everyone would have to pay more, including those who got a "living wage" increase. They would wind up in the same boat they started in. The government already takes care of those with low or no income through the Lone Star EBT cards. But God did not call upon the government to feed the poor and needy, He calls upon each of us to do it. "Whatsoever YOU do to the least of My people, that you do unto Me." Jesus did not call upon the government to feed the hungry, He's calling on YOU.