whembly wrote:

Fair enough... I'd be willing to have another national discussion on raising the minimum wage... but I'm very skeptical that it needs to be $15/ hr. (fwiw, I think we'd can easily shoulder it to be $9/hr with major negatve economic impact).

However... pre-Reagan economic model would be a disaster now. Also, going full-bore "supply-side" economic right now wouldn't work because the incentives to expand/research/invest isn't quite there yet, as folks are sitting on their money right now... waiting... for something.

I think we need to re-emphasize on training/educating the workforce to be more nimble than to force business to "support us". That's why UNION shops are such a dying species... and for the life of me, I don't understand why UNIONs don't embrace this concept (being more nimble). That's why you're seeing folks getting higher jobs that they really didn't go to school for... (see Alf's case).

*shrugs* I'm just leery of the government intervening to mandate "living wage" laws... time, time again we've seen unintended consquences... such as the ACA law. I.E. for smaller companies, it's in THEIR best interest to minimize their full-time employees below 50.

 whembly wrote:
That's why you're seeing folks getting higher jobs that they really didn't go to school for... (see Alf's case).

 Redbeard wrote:

 whembly wrote:
@Redbeard et, el...

What are you arguing for... specifically?

I'm in favour of a raise to minimum wage and getting rid of loopholes that allow employers to work someone 39.5 hours. I think anyone who works full time, regardless of how "lowly" their job may seem, deserves to earn a living wage. While I doubt this will happen, I favour a return to a 1960's level (inflation adjusted) minimum wage and tax rates, even though in the short-term, this would probably affect me negatively (I'd have to pay more taxes, and it would take a few years before the real economic engine gains would be realized).

I believe we've been sold a false hope ("trickle-down economics") that has proven to do nothing but line the pockets of the already wealthy, and believe we'd all be better off returning to a pre-Reagan economic model. I believe this would also require an adjustment to the corporate culture that says the corporate responsibility is solely to the stockholder (another 80'sism that provides questionable moral justification for poor corporate citizenship). Prior to this, corporations typically took responsibility for their employees and their communities, as well as their shareholders. (I read a good article on this recently, but can't remember where).

 easysauce wrote:

 pities2004 wrote:
I was raised in poverty, often times I had to eat at a soup kitchen and got my school supplies and clothes from donations. This was in South Dakota where the work opportunities are not that great. Looks like I broke the statistics.

Sad times when the backlash is if you want to get paid more you can just refuse to work.


I think I'm done here.

yeah, i agree with you, as someone who, did not have a vehicle, had to live on 1$ of food a day, live in a 300$ a month rented room instead of a real apartment, with no tv, internet, utilize labour ready type jobs (where you make less then minumum wage, because the labour office takes a cut of your minimum hourly wage)

it was hard
but that is the point... you only get ahead if you are willing to endure all that hardship, and do without all the useless wants that people seem to think they "need"

not statistic breaking IMO, everyone I know who has a "pull up by the boot straps story" tells me the same thing, "worked hard, got ahead eventually",

everyone who keeps complaining about how impossible it is for them to get ahead, just keeps complaining about it, or refuseing to take actions outside their comfort zone, their story is an endless complaint


it really is a world where those who work harder/smarter get ahead, and those that dont, or do nothing but complain stay behind.

xruslanx wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 pities2004 wrote:
I was raised in poverty, often times I had to eat at a soup kitchen and got my school supplies and clothes from donations. This was in South Dakota where the work opportunities are not that great. Looks like I broke the statistics.

Sad times when the backlash is if you want to get paid more you can just refuse to work.


I think I'm done here.

yeah, i agree with you, as someone who, did not have a vehicle, had to live on 1$ of food a day, live in a 300$ a month rented room instead of a real apartment, with no tv, internet, utilize labour ready type jobs (where you make less then minumum wage, because the labour office takes a cut of your minimum hourly wage)

it was hard
but that is the point... you only get ahead if you are willing to endure all that hardship, and do without all the useless wants that people seem to think they "need"

not statistic breaking IMO, everyone I know who has a "pull up by the boot straps story" tells me the same thing, "worked hard, got ahead eventually",

everyone who keeps complaining about how impossible it is for them to get ahead, just keeps complaining about it, or refuseing to take actions outside their comfort zone, their story is an endless complaint


it really is a world where those who work harder/smarter get ahead, and those that dont, or do nothing but complain stay behind.

It's weird that the people who worked hard to get ahead came from affluent households, isn't it? Almost as if we had a class system in place...

Since we're throwing around anecdotes, I have a friend who's a nuclear physisist. She went to a very nice school in the south of England, and went to a very nice university (Manchester), and has ended up getting a very nice job. Now, though she's not a stupid person, her innate intelligence is no less than a dozen people I could name at the factory I work at. But she had rich parents, those guys didn't. Those fethers didn't stand a chance.

And I voted in favour of the 1% pay rise and against the strike, before anyone starts calling class warrior on me.

 Jihadin wrote:
...

Back to the jobs though. People, I'm going to say, some people want it all and expect some things are a "give me". That the "jobs" needed to be provided to them where they live. Work that involves little effort but pays a lot. Fast Food jobs seems to have lost the "mission" over time. If I remember correctly that Fast Food jobs was entry level work to prepare you for the job force.

 loki old fart wrote:
Whats so wrong with people wanting a living wage ?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
Whats so wrong with people wanting a living wage ?

Check out a couple of posts above yours

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
No offense, but the word "deserve" has no place in this discussion. People make what people are worth. If an employee doesn't have a unique and competitive skill then he is not worth paying a unique and competitive salary.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
My point is that responsible people who think to themselves, "I'm not making enough money" will go out and find new jobs or get second jobs, NOT stamp their feet and demand better pay. This is an exceptionally poor idea when an employee is as replaceable as a Wendy's burger flipper.

PhantomViper wrote:
Its not "so little", it is what the market as a whole as deemed his salary should be.

District Mayor Vincent C. Gray vetoed legislation Thursday that would force the city’s largest retailers to pay a super-minimum wage to their workers, ending two months of uncertainty over the controversial bill’s fate and setting up a decisive override vote at the D.C. Council as early as Tuesday.

The debate over the bill, the Large Retailer Accountability Act, has polarized local leaders while garnering national attention and putting focus on the low wages many retail chains pay their workers.

Gray (D) announced his veto in a letter to Council Chairman Phil Mendelson delivered Thursday morning that explained his opposition to the bill and disclosed his intention to seek a minimum-wage hike for all employers, not just large retailers.

(Make your case: Do you support the mayor’s decision?)

Mendelson said he was “disappointed” by the mayor’s decision, which he said is “not good for workers.”

In the letter, Gray said the bill was “not a true living-wage bill, because it would raise the minimum wage only for a small fraction of the District’s workforce.” He added the bill is a “job-killer,” citing threats from Wal-Mart and other retailers that they will not locate to the city if the bill becomes law.

“If I were to sign this bill into law, it would do nothing but hinder our ability to create jobs, drive away retailers, and set us back on the path to prosperity for all,” he said.

Gray did not say what minimum wage he would seek except that there should be a “reasonable increase.”

The bill would require retailers with corporate sales of $1 billion or more and operating District stores of at least 75,000 square feet to pay their employees a “living wage” — no less than $12.50 an hour in combined wages and benefits. The proposal includes an exception for employers who collectively bargain with their employees, and existing employers have four years to come into compliance under the law.

The city’s existing minimum wage is $8.25 an hour. The bill would raise the annual earnings of a full-time employee making the lowest legally permissible wage from about $17,000 to $26,000.

While the bill’s supporters repeatedly insisted it was not targeted at Wal-Mart, the debate was inextricably tied to the retail giant’s plans, announced in late 2010, to open as many as six stores in the city in the coming months and years.

The union exemption and square-footage requirement rankled Wal-Mart officials, who said those provisions created an uneven playing field — particularly with respect to the unionized grocery chains they plan to compete with in the city.

A day ahead of the bill’s final passage last month, Wal-Mart told council members and the public that it would abandon plans for three of the six stores and explore options for withdrawing from the others should legislators proceed. The ultimatum changed no votes on the council.

Wal-Mart spokesman Steven Restivo called the veto “good news for D.C. residents,” saying Gray chose “jobs, economic development and common sense over special interests.”

Restivo said the company will move forward with its first stores in the District: “We look forward to finishing the work we started in the city almost three years ago.”

Wal-Mart’s entry into the city has prompted a political identity crisis for many elected officials, forced to reconcile their liberal, pro-union sentiments with the desire to create jobs and better retail options for their constituents.

Key council members, including Mendelson (D) and Business Affairs Committee chair Vincent B. Orange (D-At Large), were unabashed in support of the bill, giving it momentum that similar measures had lacked in prior council terms.

But Gray made no secret in recent months that, for him, jobs and retail took priority.

Wal-Mart's entry into the city was an early political coup for Gray, and he personally lobbied — some say threatened — top company executives to commit to a store at the Skyland Town Center development not far from Gray’s home in Ward 7.

The Skyland store is among those Wal-Mart has threatened to abandon should the living-wage bill become law. The developer of the project, Gary D. Rappaport, has said the project cannot move forward at this time without Wal-Mart’s commitment.

If the council fails to override the veto, Restivo said, “all stores are back on.”

Gray gave little indication in recent weeks that he was seriously entertaining signing the bill. His deputy mayor for planning and economic development, Victor L. Hoskins, warned after the council vote that the bill would devastate the city’s retail development efforts, and his communications staff shared letters urging a veto — and none encouraging him to sign it. In interviews, Gray was quick to cite arguments against the bill but rarely acknowledged supporters’ point of view.

The coalition of labor unions, city clergy and progressive political activists backing the bill have over the past six weeks canvassed neighborhoods and held media events in hopes of pressuring Gray into signing the bill. Wal-Mart and other large retailers, they argued, could pay their workers better wages without significantly harming their bottom lines.

Some said they considered Wal-Mart’s ultimatum a bluff; others said they would rather see the retailer walk away than accept its “poverty wages.” Wal-Mart has pushed back on the notion that its wages are considerably less than other retailers, saying its pay would be “competitive” and accusing the grocery workers’ union of signing a contract that pays some of its members wages that would not comply with the living-wage law.

Business groups, other retailers and even former mayor Anthony A. Williams urged Gray to veto the bill, citing the potential job losses, the effect on grocery access, “retail leakage” to the suburbs and potential harm to the city’s business reputation.

Gray’s decision sets up a final political showdown with the council, which can override the veto with a two-thirds vote within 30 days. Mendelson told his colleagues Thursday that the override vote will take place Tuesday, at the council’s first legislative meeting since giving the bill final passage in July.

An override would require the approval of nine of the council’s 13 members. The bill passed last month by an 8-5 margin, and no member has acknowledged since that their vote could change.

The District's living wage measure has followed a nearly identical trajectory to a similar bill taken up by the Chicago city council in 2006. With Wal-Mart planning its first stores there, lawmakers passed the bill, sending it to Mayor Richard M. Daley, who vetoed it. An override vote narrowly failed.

Wal-Mart now operates 10 Chicago stores.

Wal-Mart spokesman Steven Restivo called the veto “good news for D.C. residents,” saying Gray chose “jobs, economic development and common sense over special interests.”

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

Wal-Mart spokesman Steven Restivo called the veto “good news for D.C. residents,” saying Gray chose “jobs, economic development and common sense over special interests.”

 sebster wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

Wal-Mart spokesman Steven Restivo called the veto “good news for D.C. residents,” saying Gray chose “jobs, economic development and common sense over special interests.”

So it appears we're now in a world where "special interests" means minimum wage workers. Weird times.

California’s minimum wage could rise to $10 an hour under a bill approved Thursday by the state Senate and likely to be signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown. It would give the state one of country’s highest minimum pay rates.

The state Senate approved bill AB10 and sent it back to the Assembly -- the legislature's lower house -- for a final vote later in the day that will be a mere formality before it goes to Brown, who has said he supports it.

Washington state currently has the country’s top minimum wage, at $9.19 an hour, an amount that is pegged to inflation. Some cities, including San Francisco, have set higher minimum wages.

If Brown signs the state bill into law, it would gradually raise California's minimum wage from the current $8 an hour to $10 by 2016.

In recent months fast-food workers have staged nationwide protests to demand higher wages and the right to form unions without retaliation, following earlier protests by Walmart employees who lambasted labor conditions at the large retailer.

Noir wrote:
No "special interests" here mean 1 company employees, instead off every company employee. Law shouldn't be based on one company, but for everybody. Why should Wal-mart employee get better rights then a K-mart employee.

 cincydooley wrote:
So what makes $1B the magical line where you get more rights as a worker ?

 Jihadin wrote:
California has a bill in the works to be passed raising min. wage to $10.00. a working livable wage....

nkelsch wrote:
Thousands of jobs at 8.75$ is better than zero jobs at 15$.

I know the areas where Walmart is coming as we'll as the areas where the multiple retailers have said they will bail on the district if this passes. Turning DC into a scooby doo ghost town with abandon commercial centers where the primary store supporting the center is suicide for the district. Especially when they can (and do) drive a minimal distance to shop in MD/VA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
California has a bill in the works to be passed raising min. wage to $10.00. a working livable wage....

california also has really high cost of living and taxes. I would bet that in comparison, that 10$ in California is less than 7.25$ in other parts of the country.

 cincydooley wrote:
So what makes $1B the magical line where you get more rights as a worker ?

nkelsch wrote:
Thousands of jobs at 8.75$ is better than zero jobs at 15$.

 sebster wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
So what makes $1B the magical line where you get more rights as a worker ?

Nothing, it's just a number that got picked, because for some reason it was decided that a number needed to be picked, instead of extending that same minimum wage to all workers.

 sebster wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:
Thousands of jobs at 8.75$ is better than zero jobs at 15$.

And made up numbers based on wild speculation are better than anything!

I mean, seriously, if anyone out there honestly wants to claim that a $10 minimum wage will make companies like Walmart non-profitable, well just, god damn.