Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

in a Clinton Concession to Sanders platform the Democrats are embracing $15 Federal wage, problem with this I see I do not see Democrats doing anything with this since it would cut into many of their programs including the ACA, there is a big differance from forcing companies to pay minimum wage to the government paying minimum wage or more since the Government is funded by taxes and such.

but as noted in the article they are talking over time, can see the Republican's going along with this but telling the Democrats which of their programs they want to cut first?

http://fox40.com/2016/07/08/democrats-embrace-15-an-hour-minimum-wage/

meh...

Party planks ain't all that.

Asterios wrote:
can see the Republican's going along with this but telling the Democrats which of their programs they want to cut first?

Sounds like a good idea! We can start with some major cuts to the military, shut down all military operations in other countries, etc. That should free up quite a bit of money.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
can see the Republican's going along with this but telling the Democrats which of their programs they want to cut first?

Sounds like a good idea! We can start with some major cuts to the military, shut down all military operations in other countries, etc. That should free up quite a bit of money.

not as much as you would think, our over seas operations are not as big as you would think.

and you have to remember with a federal minimum wage increase that is an increase of millions of workers (including military) pay including the increased costs of contracts from the private sector and federal union wages too, in fact the unions see how it will only lead to lay offs and such which is why they added the over time portion.

Asterios wrote:
not as much as you would think, our over seas operations are not as big as you would think.

Oh really? Because a quick search turns up a cost of about $14.6 billion just to keep troops in Afghanistan. And of course if shutting down all of our foreign operations doesn't save enough money then there's always other stuff to get rid of. Kill the F-35, stop building aircraft carriers, etc.

Then of course there's the question of just how much the government needs to cut to balance out an increase in the minimum wage. How many federal jobs are only paying minimum wage right now, and what percentage of total employee spending do those jobs add up to?

and you have to remember with a federal minimum wage increase that is an increase of millions of workers (including military) pay including the increased costs of contracts from the private sector and federal union wages too, in fact the unions see how it will only lead to lay offs and such which is why they added the over time portion.

Good point. If you don't support a minimum wage increase then you don't Support Our Troops.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
not as much as you would think, our over seas operations are not as big as you would think.

Oh really? Because a quick search turns up a cost of about $14.6 billion just to keep troops in Afghanistan. And of course if shutting down all of our foreign operations doesn't save enough money then there's always other stuff to get rid of. Kill the F-35, stop building aircraft carriers, etc.

Then of course there's the question of just how much the government needs to cut to balance out an increase in the minimum wage. How many federal jobs are only paying minimum wage right now, and what percentage of total employee spending do those jobs add up to?

and you have to remember with a federal minimum wage increase that is an increase of millions of workers (including military) pay including the increased costs of contracts from the private sector and federal union wages too, in fact the unions see how it will only lead to lay offs and such which is why they added the over time portion.

Good point. If you don't support a minimum wage increase then you don't Support Our Troops.

problem is a bulk of that money spent overseas is on pay, so unless you plan on laying off all those military and civilian personal, its not viable

as to the F35 thought that was already dumped? and didn't know we were making any more carriers at this time, and believe it or not when it comes to pay the federal government is very stingy with minimum wage being very rampant which is why the government is very slow about raising the federal minimum wage since it would hurt their bottom dollar and then some, why do you think even the democrats are hesitant about raising the federal minimum wage, Clinton only wanted to raise it to $12 an hour over time. the Democrats have no problem about raising minimum wages on companies since it doesn't hurt them, but raising the federal minimum wage effects them greatly.

also the link you linked to was from last year our overseas forces have been reduced since then and are expected to be reduced even more this year.

As a rough estimate: when the government recently increased the mandatory minimum wage for federal contractors to $10.10/hour about 200,000 jobs were affected. So, let's say 500,000 jobs are affected by an increase to $15.00/hour. Entirely removing our presence in Afghanistan and saving that ~$14.6 billion would be enough to give an extra $29,000 to each of those 500,000 people. I think it's pretty clear that cutting military funding to pay for the wage increase would be at least plausible.

 Peregrine wrote:
As a rough estimate: when the government recently increased the mandatory minimum wage for federal contractors to $10.10/hour about 200,000 jobs were affected. So, let's say 500,000 jobs are affected by an increase to $15.00/hour. Entirely removing our presence in Afghanistan and saving that ~$14.6 billion would be enough to give an extra $29,000 to each of those 500,000 people. I think it's pretty clear that cutting military funding to pay for the wage increase would be at least plausible.

problem is 500K doesn't even come close to all the jobs affected, many Federal Civilian workers are Union workers which have in their contract that their wages go up with minimum wage same amount, and we are not and there are almost 22 Million Federal employees not 500K like you think.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/21955000-12329000-government-employees-outnumber-manufacturing

Asterios wrote:
problem is a bulk of that money spent overseas is on pay, so unless you plan on laying off all those military and civilian personal, its not viable

Uh, sure. $14.6 billion for 5,500 troops. Let's be really generous to you and assume that "a bulk of that money" is 51%. Are you really going to seriously claim that each of those 5,500 soldiers is getting paid ~1.35 million per year?

as to the F35 thought that was already dumped?

Nope. Still around, still a giant money pit that will probably be obsolete long before it has a chance to accomplish anything.

and believe it or not when it comes to pay the federal government is very stingy with minimum wage being very rampant which is why the government is very slow about raising the federal minimum wage since it would hurt their bottom dollar and then some, why do you think even the democrats are hesitant about raising the federal minimum wage, Clinton only wanted to raise it to $12 an hour over time. the Democrats have no problem about raising minimum wages on companies since it doesn't hurt them, but raising the federal minimum wage effects them greatly.

You do realize that the minimum wage for government contractors was recently raised to $10.10/hour, right? The government isn't reluctant to raise the minimum wage because it will hurt the government (they can, after all, just print more money to pay their bills), they're reluctant to do it because of concerns about a backlash from the businesses handing them bribes campaign contributions.

Hell if soldiers were getting paid 1.35 million a year I think we would have a lot more people willing to be soldiers

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
problem is a bulk of that money spent overseas is on pay, so unless you plan on laying off all those military and civilian personal, its not viable

Uh, sure. $14.6 billion for 5,500 troops. Let's be really generous to you and assume that "a bulk of that money" is 51%. Are you really going to seriously claim that each of those 5,500 soldiers is getting paid ~1.35 million per year?

as to the F35 thought that was already dumped?

Nope. Still around, still a giant money pit that will probably be obsolete long before it has a chance to accomplish anything.

and believe it or not when it comes to pay the federal government is very stingy with minimum wage being very rampant which is why the government is very slow about raising the federal minimum wage since it would hurt their bottom dollar and then some, why do you think even the democrats are hesitant about raising the federal minimum wage, Clinton only wanted to raise it to $12 an hour over time. the Democrats have no problem about raising minimum wages on companies since it doesn't hurt them, but raising the federal minimum wage effects them greatly.

You do realize that the minimum wage for government contractors was recently raised to $10.10/hour, right? The government isn't reluctant to raise the minimum wage because it will hurt the government (they can, after all, just print more money to pay their bills), they're reluctant to do it because of concerns about a backlash from the businesses handing them bribes campaign contributions.

you do realize that there are more then just Military personal ? there are Civilian personal helping the military personal, as to Contract employees of course that number is low since most Contract employees are already making more then that to begin with, very few contractors were making minimum wage.

Asterios wrote:
problem is 500K doesn't even come close to all the jobs affected, many Federal Civilian workers are Union workers which have in their contract that their wages go up with minimum wage same amount, and we are not and there are almost 22 Million Federal employees not 500K like you think.

Clearly you didn't read the article. The total number of government employees is completely irrelevant here, what matters is the number that are making minimum wage. The 200,000 number was the number of people who were making less than $10.10/hour and got a pay increase. If you're making $20/hour it doesn't matter if the minimum wages goes up to $15/hour or down to $1/hour (unless you have a salary increase tied to minimum wage in your contract), you're still going to keep making your $20/hour and your cost to the government doesn't change. So if you want to talk about the impact of changing the minimum wage you have to look at the subset of the 22 million federal employees who will actually see a pay increase.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
problem is 500K doesn't even come close to all the jobs affected, many Federal Civilian workers are Union workers which have in their contract that their wages go up with minimum wage same amount, and we are not and there are almost 22 Million Federal employees not 500K like you think.

Clearly you didn't read the article. The total number of government employees is completely irrelevant here, what matters is the number that are making minimum wage. The 200,000 number was the number of people who were making less than $10.10/hour and got a pay increase. If you're making $20/hour it doesn't matter if the minimum wages goes up to $15/hour or down to $1/hour (unless you have a salary increase tied to minimum wage in your contract), you're still going to keep making your $20/hour and your cost to the government doesn't change. So if you want to talk about the impact of changing the minimum wage you have to look at the subset of the 22 million federal employees who will actually see a pay increase.

which I repeat all Federal Union Employees which are the bulk of employees outside of the Military are Union employees have the mimimum wage increase in their contract.

Well, the 350,000 federal union employees employed with me in my federal department don't have it in our union contract.

Asterios wrote:
which I repeat all Federal Union Employees which are the bulk of employees outside of the Military are Union employees have the mimimum wage increase in their contract

{citation needed}

 d-usa wrote:
Well, the 350,000 federal union employees employed with me in my federal department don't have it in our union contract.

so when minimum wage goes up to $15 an hour if you are making less then that now, that is all you will make even though you were making more then the new kid there?


as to my work thru the GSA we had it in our contract and we had a whole lot more workers, could be not enough workers in your division to warrant such a clause to peg their wages to the minimum wage or you had lousy negotiators, most unions if not all have some allowance of pegging their wages to the Federal Minimum wage.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
which I repeat all Federal Union Employees which are the bulk of employees outside of the Military are Union employees have the mimimum wage increase in their contract

{citation needed}

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324048904578318541000422454

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/front-group-ups-battle-against-minimum-wage-hike/

They should start cutting costs by getting rid of the lifetime pensions for Senators and Congressmen. Nothing is more disgusting than former government representative continuing to receive a lifetime pension after getting removed from his position for criminal activities.

Asterios wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Well, the 350,000 federal union employees employed with me in my federal department don't have it in our union contract.

so when minimum wage goes up to $15 an hour if you are making less then that now, that is all you will make even though you were making more then the new kid there?

There is no part of our contract that is tied to minimum wage.

as to my work thru the GSA we had it in our contract and we had a whole lot more workers, could be not enough workers in your division to warrant such a clause to peg their wages to the minimum wage

Yes, the entire federal department including the Secretary in the Cabinet is a pretty small division.

or you had lousy negotiators, most unions if not all have some allowance of pegging their wages to the Federal Minimum wage.

So it should be pretty easy for you to go to all the public union websites for the federal government and look through their contracts to back up your claim then.

 stanman wrote:
They should start cutting costs by getting rid of the lifetime pensions for Senators and Congressmen. Nothing is more disgusting than former government representative continuing to receive a lifetime pension after getting removed from his position for criminal activities.

Now that I can get behind. it just irks me about the crooks on all sides who still get paid and such, but then again I think they are over paid to began with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

Yes, the entire federal department including the Secretary in the Cabinet is a pretty small division.

and what department would that be?

 stanman wrote:
They should start cutting costs by getting rid of the lifetime pensions for Senators and Congressmen. Nothing is more disgusting than former government representative continuing to receive a lifetime pension after getting removed from his position for criminal activities.

While a nice sentiment, its literally nothing when it comes to the federal budget.

I think blocking public employees from jumping ship to the private sector quickly would save far more money. Americans shouldn't be able to live on the government dole for years and then take those skills to make more money. I'm not talking just military and related industries, this happens in a lot of sectors,

After all, we're supposed to separate state-run enterprises and private capitalism right?

Asterios wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Yes, the entire federal department including the Secretary in the Cabinet is a pretty small division.

and what department would that be?

The Department of Not Making Stuff Up.

We can continue this when you find some proof for your points, until then I have zero interest in pursuing the usual course of discussion where you will just continue to know my situation and everything I do better than me while refusing to bring any proof of your own position.

 d-usa wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Yes, the entire federal department including the Secretary in the Cabinet is a pretty small division.

and what department would that be?

The Department of Not Making Stuff Up.

We can continue this when you find some proof for your points, until then I have zero interest in pursuing the usual course of discussion where you will just continue to know my situation and everything I do better than me while refusing to bring any proof of your own position.

well that is why I wanted to know which department so I could pull up the PDF file on your unions contract (yes I do have access to the Government Union contract PDF's), unless you are lying just because you hate me cause i'm for Trump, so ball is in your court.

Let's try and keep it civil Asterios. Thanks.

For the general thread, remember to discuss things politely and calmly.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
can see the Republican's going along with this but telling the Democrats which of their programs they want to cut first?

Sounds like a good idea! We can start with some major cuts to the military, shut down all military operations in other countries, etc. That should free up quite a bit of money.

Thanks for advocating my unemployment!

Asterios wrote:


well that is why I wanted to know which department so I could pull up the PDF file on your unions contract (yes I do have access to the Government Union contract PDF's), unless you are lying just because you hate me cause i'm for Trump, so ball is in your court.

Every federal agency that I can think off in my city has their own union. Every union has their own website. Every website has a copy of their contract.

So you should be able to do a quick Google for your location, even more so with your Government Union Contract PDF access, and find some contract that back up your claim. Especially since you claim that most union jobs will have that clause.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
can see the Republican's going along with this but telling the Democrats which of their programs they want to cut first?

Sounds like a good idea! We can start with some major cuts to the military, shut down all military operations in other countries, etc. That should free up quite a bit of money.

Thanks for advocating my unemployment!

Everybody is just waiting for their contract buyout offer

 d-usa wrote:

Asterios wrote:


well that is why I wanted to know which department so I could pull up the PDF file on your unions contract (yes I do have access to the Government Union contract PDF's), unless you are lying just because you hate me cause i'm for Trump, so ball is in your court.

Every federal agency that I can think off in my city has their own union. Every union has their own website. Every website has a copy of their contract.

So you should be able to do a quick Google for your location, even more so with your Government Union Contract PDF access, and find some contract that back up your claim. Especially since you claim that most union jobs will have that clause.

and I already posted links where the Unions even said their wages were pegged to the federal minimum wage and that it was common practice amongst unions, or did you not see those links?

Asterios wrote:
and I already posted links where the Unions even said their wages were pegged to the federal minimum wage and that it was common practice amongst unions, or did you not see those links?

You mean the link that said that ~1/3 of the contracts they looked at had any tie at all, and that it's difficult to say how many would actually have a significant result?

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
and I already posted links where the Unions even said their wages were pegged to the federal minimum wage and that it was common practice amongst unions, or did you not see those links?

You mean the link that said that ~1/3 of the contracts they looked at had any tie at all, and that it's difficult to say how many would actually have a significant result?

the one where they didn't have access to all contracts, and even the Unions had said the practice is common to peg their wages to the federal minimum wage.

Asterios wrote:
the one where they didn't have access to all contracts, and even the Unions had said the practice is common to peg their wages to the federal minimum wage.

Do you understand the idea of a representative sample?

Is it taking this long to google some contracts that back up your claim, or should we just go ahead and ignore it?