FWD: Truth About $15.00 An Hour

Subject: Truth About $15.00 An Hour
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 09:24:17 -0500

Something you may want to pass around and post on your Facebook account! 


gruaud said...

My goodness, this is offensive. When I think these greedy fucks can't sink any lower, they drill even deeper into the bullshit.

Just for starters, the average active-duty soldier has a compensation package valued at $99,000. That includes health care, retirement pay, day care, housing, education, and food.

Average minimum wage take-home pay is about $15,000. Over $3000 below the federal poverty line. Try feeding a family on that.

Anyone who begrudges a fair wage for honest work wants wage-slavery. That's not going to fly with an extremely large bloc of voters.

Thank god for voter suppression and gerrymandering tactics, eh?

Anonymous said...

I'm pretty sure our troops wouldn't mind being compensated properly for the work they do, either.

Here's a fun little chart that gets to the heart of the problem: the United States continues to make more and more money over time... but workers don't. Are all the people making $250,000+ a year really "worth it", compared to any ten average Americans?

Anonymous said...

Wait, so this is saying we can have an increase in the minimum wage if the DoD allocates less of its budget to Lockheed-Martin and more to enlisted pay?
On behalf of all progressives, you've got yourself a deal! Done and done. Now just get me Paul Ryan on the phone and see how keen he is on this idea.

Schitzengiggles said...

Riiiiiight. So let's see, when your narrative calls for railing against wages for unskilled labor, you whip out how poorly the fine men and women in our armed forces (God bless these folks sincerely!)are treated. Yet take those same people who you are using to make a point, bring them home where there are no jobs - not even those you are railing against, they go on welfare, or need medical treatment for PTSD or whatever from protecting YOUR rights to spread this bullshit and you would throw them under the bus as "takers" and "lazy good-for-nothings sucking off the gubmint teat". Fuck you assholes.

Anonymous said...

Perfect for the "spoon feed me information" crowd. None of them will stop to think about the other things the armed forces get, like the GI bill, retirement benefits, healthcare, housing, the list goes on and on. They deserve every bit that they get and more; but it's just not comparable in any way to a McDonald's job with no benefits.

LiberalGunner said...

Much more wrong than the numbers a few you get a per diem I believe still tax free down range dependent increases and also a housing allowance. Still have guys on food stamps and they do deserve more. Just like burger flippers

CharlieE said...

People who work at McDonald's are untrained, but people in the infantry are highly skilled?

I'll clue you in - both groups of people acquired their skills the same way: They were trained by their employers after they were hired.

I've never understood why the Right worships 18 year olds who join the army while treating those who do not with contempt.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand why the comparison was made between military and entry level service employees...only serves to get the emotion going on an issue that for me is really "are you worth this or that wage?".

Two points in response to comments above are:
- if you can't feed a family on your wage, wait to have the family. Simply doesn't make sense the argument about a decent wage to feed a family in general. Sure, specific situations are out of some family's control, but not most.

- You need only to visit your local slop shop or Walmart to get a taste of what a worker is or isn't worth. Crappy service, crappy attitude, OR too many people yapping with each other or idly standing around when customers need waited on. Look, you like the wage, don't work there. You sign up for whatever reason, you should put in an honest day's work for whatever wage.

gruaud said...

Your reasoning is facile.

It assumes that you didn't already have a family. What if you had a family, got laid off, and are desperate for work? You'd do anything.

There are literally hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, in this boat. The economy may have recovered from the bankster-induced recession, but the workers are still getting royally screwed.

And why not? The plight of the US worker is of no concern to multi-national corporations.

Anonymous said...

There are literally hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, in this boat.

In fact, I guarantee there are millions. There have been 8.8 million jobs lost since the recession started. And even better:

"In the U.S., jobs paying between $14 and $21 per hour made up about 60% those lost during the recession, but such mid-wage jobs have comprised only about 27% of jobs gained during the recovery through mid-2012. In contrast, lower-paying jobs constituted about 58% of the jobs regained."

Did fast-food workers cause the recession? Did Walmart employees cause the housing crash? Did "too many young people yapping" set the wages they were paid while their companies raked in continually-increasing profits?

Anonymous said...

Save the big words for another blog, gruaud..."facile"? Really...haha.

Go to wally world then come back and tell us what percentage of the employees deserve more than they're getting. Generally, workers have lost the work ethic, forget that it is called work for a reason, and can improve their lot by pulling on their big boy/girl pants and stop whining.

Oh...the economy hasn't recovered from the DC-induced recession (banks do what the fed and congress influence them to...do some research on what drove the risky loans to people who couldn't afford the homes they "bought") and we can thank these poor sad workers you feel so much pity for for voting in the current crop of idiots in DC and at the state, county, city level. boo hoo...big bad multi-national corp. Yeah, right.

Anonymous said...

You have an astounding capacity to blame the people with the least political and economic power for the problems you say are caused by Washington and the banks.

Perhaps you could deal in facts instead of shaking your cane at the kids on your lawn? It will certainly be more convincing to the crowd here.

Anonymous said...

"do some research on what drove the risky loans to people who couldn't afford the homes they "bought"

Well, if you insist: http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/bloombergs-awful-comment-what-can-we-say-for-certain-regarding-the-gses/

Yeah, it turns out the argument was that the banking crises was caused by poor people is 100%, utter BS. It was caused by big banks selling bogus loan, lying to consumers and betting the loans would fail. For people who preach constantly about "personal responsibility," conservatives are super quick to jump to the defense of job destroyers.

Also, if you have a problem with the service at Wal-Mart, I suggest you talk to a custom service rep. Working Americans should not have to live in poverty simply because you think you're better than retail. If Wal-Mart can afford to $15 billion in stock buyback to lazy moochers who don't work(The Walton family,) they can afford and extra $3/hour to the people who make them that $15 billion.

CharlieE said...

Save the big words for another blog, gruaud..."facile"? Really...haha.

Ah, yes. Another reminder from the Right that people who are educated are out of touch "elitists."

Funny how they seem to have contempt for both the educated and the uneducated poor, not to mention those who choose to run a cash register for a living.

Doesn't really leave many people to admire, does it?

Of course, if the much-admired captains of industry weren't so niggardly with their wages, they might find that competent people applying for their cash register jobs.

gruaud said...

'Facile' isn't a big word, dummy. If you can think of a better word that perfectly summarizes your ridiculous assertions, fire away.

Oh, and a Walmart employee was rude to you, so let's abolish Minimum Wage.

That'll show 'em.

Anonymous said...

What would you move the minimum wage to gruaud? And, what will that fix (do us all a favor and draw it out past "...families who need it will have more money..." since as I am sure you understand, that then has an affect on the rest of the economic equation)?

gruaud said...

You tell me.

Why have a minimum wage at all? Tell me why a minimum wage is unnecessary, and why the cost of living index is related or unrelated to wages. Even moderate Republicans recognize that a minimum wage has to be tied to COL. Or it could be tied to another index and workers and the economy still come out ahead: inflation, average wage, productivity, or (heaven forbid!) the earnings of the 1% uber-class.

Then tell me what effect (not 'affect') a higher minimum wage will have on society from both microeconomic and macroeconomic standpoints.

Take your time.

Anonymous said...

Let's ask a better question: You think wage workers' pay should not be increased because you scoff at the thought that "families who need it will have more money."

Yet executive compensation has grown from 42x workers' wages to 354x. Why is it okay for them, but not their workers?

Meanwhile, corporations continue to stockpile savings, sucking money out of the economy.

Plus, GDP soars while worker compensation has stagnated.

And let's not forget (again!) that for all your concern over the economic impact of raising the minimum wage, 8.8 million jobs vanished due to the poor stewardship of Wall Street and the banks.

So really, the question is: Does anyone deserve a raise more than the workers?

Anonymous said...

"since as I am sure you understand, that then has an affect on the rest of the economic equation?"

I'm glad you asked! It will have an overall positive effect on all Americans across the board, decreasing spending & unemployment, raising revenue, putting more money into the economy and having little to no effect on inflation costs.
That's because in a recession, inflation is at what we call a zero-lower bound or liquidity trap. It means that the economy is so stymied, that inflation and interest rates are at effectively zero. Increasing the minimum wage just puts more money into circulation, which is what the economy desperately needs right now. We could do the same thing with a massive spending bill, but conservatives are dead set against that.

The only negatives consequences would be inflation(which we don't need to worry about in a depressed economy. It's like worrying about drowning in a desert) and increased business costs. But the money put back into circulation by the wage increase more than off-sets those business costs because more people have more money to spend at those businesses; especially retail stores which thrive on liquidity easing.

But don't take my word for it, listen to 25 noted economists, including 7 Noble laureates:
Don't take my

So, in short, raising the minimum wage increases employment, decreases government spending and increases government revenue to pay down the debt.
Why don't conservatives like it again?

Anonymous said...

Question asked...and ignored. Ok, you haven't sat down and figured out what the actual wage rate should be...what it could be...what it can be given it needs to be offset by higher productivity, lower profits, or higher prices. Oh, you'll come back with some snippy remark, but in the end it will come from one of these three things.

So, given you don't have a number you have thought through as a min wage rate, I'll reply to some of the other comments....let's see how this goes and what affect/effect it has (haha...so petty. But, thanks for calling this out as it is very helpful for us here).

I never said an employee at walmart was rude. I said they had lost their work ethic.

I don't view the family whose father in the beginning worked his butt off and invested time and money to create Walmart as moochers. A pity you do. Given your position on this, you would have all entrepreneurs share more profit with their employees. That's not going to generate a lot of interest in those who might start businesses and who hire the poor and others.

"....Exec compensation now 354x worker wages...". First, that's the job they signed up for. Second, when it works out I'm sure we wouldn't hear you whining about how well your pension fund is doing (nor would the hundreds of thousands of others who rely on dividends/etc earned when stocks go up). Third, what would you see as a fair amount? Finally, before you go mucking with this, keep in mind that this system you apparently despise so much has created more wealth for everyone involved in it than any other. If you want us all to be paid the same, you forget you're dealing with humans - they simply aren't wired that way.

"...corporations continue to stockpile savings...". Wow...whoever posted this could not have actually read the article. It clearly cites the myths around these claims of 'hoarding'. Wow...So this is what goes on on these blogs, huh? Make statement w/o reading the stuff? HAHA. Loser!

"...GDP soars while worker compensation has stagnated." Not sure I'd call it soaring or stagnating, but interesting data, thanks.

"...8.8 million jobs vanished due to the poor stewardship of Wall Street and the banks..." Not enough were held accountable - agreed.

"...Does anyone deserve a raise more than the workers?" No one does until after the workers or management picks an offset from Profit, Price, Productivity.

Conservatives (I guess. Not sure this only applies to whatever your definition of that is) don't like it because it address a miniscule piece of of the problem, doesn't have a noticeable effect on the items you cite, and in the end is an emotion-filled topic that takes time away from the bigger problems.

How about instead of an increase in min wage, which you nor anyone else can tell us what the right wage should be and how much that fixes something for how many people, would you think a tweak in the earned income tax credit would address the need?

gruaud said...

"Question asked...and ignored."
Well, I guess we see where this guy is coming from. You have nothing of substance to offer, demand content from others, and then snipe at it.

I stated that minimum wage should be tied to the cost of living index, right off the bat. At a minimum. The Dems want it raised to $10.10/hr. I don't think it goes far enough, but it's a start.
A large swath of economists calculate that the hike would grow the economy by $22 billion and create 85K jobs. This is for starters. And the increase will lift 5 million Americans past the poverty level.

I don't think a tweak in EITC addresses the wage inequality directly, but would be a help. So why not both?

You know why conservatives hate minimum wage and any/all increases to same? It's not just economics. It would be incredibly popular with a majority of Americans and that means even more votes for Democrats.

Anonymous said...

"Conservatives... don't like it because it address a minuscule piece of of the problem,"
You think available liquidity is a "minuscule" piece of the problem! You know we're a consumer economy, right? What people have to spend is the primary motivator of the entire capitalist system.

"doesn't have a noticeable effect on the items you cite,"
The items I cited were unemployment, government spending and revenue. A minimum wage increase has a noticeable and documented effect on all of those every time it has been implemented at the state wide and national level. There is also international data supporting it.

"and in the end is an emotion-filled topic that takes time away from the bigger problems."
You think a recessed economy isn't a big problem? Which country have you been living in?

"How about instead of an increase in min wage, which you nor anyone else can tell us what the right wage should be and how much that fixes something for how many people, would you think a tweak in the earned income tax credit would address the need?"
It should be $12/hour and chained to CPI. If that has no movement on inflation or lending rates after 2 years, bump it to $15.

But if you want to throw in an increase to the EIC, go right ahead. Tax decreases also help the struggling economy, but the return on investment is less than a direct increase in consumer wages. But it couldn't hurt. It increase debt, though, so good luck getting Paul Ryan to agree to it.

ferschitz said...

Well well, what have we here? A multi-millionaire conservative advocating for raising the minimum wage because it makes economic sense:


Ron Unz is actually sponsoring a ballot campaign in CA to raise the minimum wage to $12. Why? Because otherwise taxpayers are on the hook to PAY FOR govt programs, like food stamps, to keep low wage workers from starving to death... bc their insanely low minimum wage barely covers the needs of one person.

So our Tea Party libertarian wants low-wage workers to starve because they apparently have no work ethic, nor do they deserve to be paid more. And let us worship our economic betters, who "worked so hard" to earn more then 354 times more than their next highest wage earner (except most of them did no such thing; they were just lucky in the sperm & egg lottery, but I digress).

So these rich shit heads should play winner take all because it's all Cool 'n stuff, and anyway, some conservatives like to believe in fairy tales that they, too, one day will be richer than everyone else, and they cannot wait to be even more arrogant condescending SOBs pointing and laughing at all the starving workers who no work ethic so why should they get paid a decent day's wage. FUCK 'EM!

Great. Well, nice try anyway.

Frankly, why should *I* have to subsidize overly wealthy people who REFUSE to pay a fair wage to employees - who are contributing to making them OBSCENELY rich? WalMart heirs rake in big buck$, and you & I get to PAY Walmart workers, too, bc WE have to pay for WalMart & McDonalds, etc, workers to go on various govt programs to survive.

If conservatives so love the rich, then I guess they're not true libertarians bc they just want their insanely greedily rich overlords to be subsidized by the 99%.

What a load of hogwash. Nuts. No wonder this country is such a mess.

ferschitz said...

BTW, this stupid RWF wants to appear as if it's all "Support the Troops"-y, but what a load of bunkum that is.

1. Why would you compare food service workers to joining the Military in first place? I don't even get this point of supposed "comparison."

2. Conservatives wish to wank about Military Service, but then the Republicans - in collusion with Democrats - just passed budget that was gargantuan give-away to the Military Industrial Complex. Hooray for the troops, you say? Not so fast. This ginormous budget - most of which goes unaccounted for - was a giveaway, per usual, to the Fat Cats in various MIC industries. The troops got a measely 1% wage increase - but perhaps the troops don't have any "work ethic" either anymore and so don't deserve more?? Plus this gargantuan budget CUT pension benefits for Vets. So: Support the Troops, my ass.

Gimme a break.

What a load of hogwash. Nuts. No wonder this country is such a mess.

ferschitz said...

So Walmart workers have "no work ethic" and therefore don't deserve any more pay or benefits? By whose measure & standards?

I loathe the smell of regurgitated Rush-outrage at teh poorz for being so uppity 'n stuff.

This is all about Walmart & other service industry workers pushing for better pay & benefits, including striking and other forms of protest.

How. Dare. They???? Why it's so offensive to the Ayn Rand panty-sniffers that they can hardly stand it.

I don't like shopping in Walmart because I don't feel like give away my hard earned money to insanely greedy Walton heirs, who are, frankly, running Walmart into the ground with their insane greediness.

They've cut their staffing to the bone. They push their workers to work horrible schedules. They refuse to let their workers acheive full-time work status so that they can have some sort of life (but of course, I forgot: teh poorz should just be downtrodden & stomped on constantly bc it's all they deserve), etc.

But a friend of mine loves to shop at Walmart, so I've been to three different Walmarts several times this year. Speaking from direct personal experience, I've never ever noticed one worker with "bad work ethics." Frankly, I don't even know what that means, but whatever. The workers I've encountered have been friendly, helpful and good at their jobs. I'm not sure what else is expected.

There are problems reported in the financial media about Walmart having problems and losing shoppers bc the Walton heirs refuse to staff their stock rooms adequately and products are not being moved out onto the shelves quicly enough. That's hardly the fault of the workers, themselves.

Gimme a break.

What a load of hogwash. Nuts. No wonder this country is in such a mess.

Anonymous said...

Waaaaaaaaaa.....I need more money for doing dick...for doing nada...pay me mooooorrrrreee....

Wankers....sorry fucks. hahaha...

Creative Commons License
MyRightWingDad.net is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.