Because I need the amusement.. - Page 2

Lexington_Steele · 2003-01-17, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
I'm also against minimum wage. It's socialism, you're right on with that. If it weren't around, I'd be making even more money.

God forbid that someone working 40-70 hours a week can earn a living wage.

Airlift · 2003-01-17, 03:40 PM

I agree with Hamma

Navaron · 2003-01-17, 03:45 PM

"God forbid that someone working 40-70 hours a week can earn a living wage."

HUH???

IF you can't make a living with those hours (70 isn't as excessive as you think) - ***NEWSFLASH*** Get a different job. It's not tough. People will always pay a hardworker more than a lazy one. I'd say if you worked about 70 hours a week that you're committed at least. It all solves it's self.

I'm sure you're going to say that if there was no MW that employers would pay 2 dollars an hour because they could get away with it. That's not true entirely. In some cases businesses would try that, but those businesses wouldn't last long, because all I would have to do as a competitor is pay a few bucks more and I would take your entire work staff. The best quality products and services come from those with the best initiative to work, money is that initiative.

Lexington_Steele · 2003-01-17, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
[BIF you can't make a living with those hours (70 isn't as excessive as you think) - ***NEWSFLASH*** Get a different job. It's not tough. [/B]

Easy for you to say.

While I was working in a kitchens, I knew a ton hispanic guys that work harder than anyone I have ever seen. These guys were making minimum wage. Most of them worked 70+ hours a week. They had to keep two full time jobs because neither of their jobs would allow them to go into overtime. These guys busted their asses, but were never getting more than minnimum wage. I can guarentee if there was no minimum wage they would have been making even less.

And I do think that 10 hours a day, 7 days a week is excessive.

70 hours a week at $5.25 for 52 weeks (pretty much 10hours/day, 365days/year) is only a hair over $19,000.

Now I just feel that someone who has to work that hard, that many hours of the week, that many days a year, deserves atleast $19K.

Are you against unionization too? If the minimum wage loses you money than I am sure that unions are raping your pocketbook.

Navaron · 2003-01-17, 04:24 PM

Hey, Unions don't touch my money. They were good back in the day, but they've outlived their usefulness. I'm a pilot so when I hit it big, I've got no choice to join a union if I get hired at a unionized airline....but look how well that's working out for them.

And about your friends from the kitchen, if they want to stay in those jobs and work there they can. I'm willing to bet however, that in a true free market society, if they are as hard working as you say, they'd get grabbed up for a pretty penny very quick.

I've hired a lot of people in my times, and I know that some people are not worth 5.15. I also know that those same people would work their asses off to get paid more if they weren't gaurenteed 5.15.

Look at wait staff. If you go to any decent restraunt where the waitstaff receives a tip, they work as hard as they can to do everything right for your dollar. Now look at BK or MCDonalds, how many times have you gotten the/a wrong/cold/gross/unsanitary order with a/n attitude/disrespectful/repulsive attitude by a disheveled/unkept/lazy sob? A whole lot more than at the restraunt where you *earn* your money.

Lexington_Steele · 2003-01-17, 04:43 PM

I am not arguing that profit doesn't provide motivation. I am not entirely against capitalism. I just believe that there should be a minimum that people can be paid. Like I said before, a balance of freedom and regulation.

I fail to see how eliminating the minimum wage would get people who are working for minimum wage more money.

HotDogTommy · 2003-01-17, 05:01 PM

Especially now. The job market, here anyways, is completely saturated. I know places (I've worked at em) that would be more than happy to hire people for less than 5.15 an hour. And right now, the market is completely capable of letting that happen. If your choice is between 3.00/hour and nothing/hour, what are you going to do? You take the 3$ an hour and then sell blood to help make rent.

Unregistered · 2003-01-17, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
Easy for you to say.

While I was working in a kitchens, I knew a ton hispanic guys that work harder than anyone I have ever seen. These guys were making minimum wage. Most of them worked 70+ hours a week. They had to keep two full time jobs because neither of their jobs would allow them to go into overtime. These guys busted their asses, but were never getting more than minnimum wage. I can guarentee if there was no minimum wage they would have been making even less.

And I do think that 10 hours a day, 7 days a week is excessive.

70 hours a week at $5.25 for 52 weeks (pretty much 10hours/day, 365days/year) is only a hair over $19,000.

Now I just feel that someone who has to work that hard, that many hours of the week, that many days a year, deserves atleast $19K.

Are you against unionization too? If the minimum wage loses you money than I am sure that unions are raping your pocketbook.

This is a perfect example of how democrats help to keep the poor people from getting any richer.

Take for example your story vs my own experience in the same situation. I once worked at a shitty job with a few Mexicans. They were without a doubt the hardest workers that I have ever seen in my life. They would work from dusk until dawn. The only problem is that they were all illiterate to the english languge.

For them to be able to move ahead in their line of work and become anything more then a laborer that was treated like shit, and paid next to nothing they had to be able to speak, read, and write English. Infact the ones that made the most, and even advanced further then I did did so because they spoke fluent English, and Spanish.

It was not "The Man" keeping them down. They kept themselves down by not working harder to get the set of skills they needed to advance in their carrers. There will always be plenty of people with strong backs that will do labor intensive jobs. You have to work with your mind as much as your body to get any where.

One of my friends took my advice and started going to night school. He worked very hard all day long, and then worked harder at night to get an education. He is now making 80K a year running the maintenece crew at a 400 unit apartment complex.

Had he not worked hard to enable himself to get into a better position he would not be where he is today.

Now you ask "How does this have anything to do with Democrats?" Well the reason he had to go to night school and learn english is because of a Democrat sponserd education system in California that teach "Bi-Lingual" education. That means it is "Culturally Wrong" to teach mexican kids in English, so all there schooling is done in spanish.

So even though he had been given the same education oppertunities as a child that I had been given, he was left at a serious dissadvantage by the fact that he was never tuaght to speak english.

When the voters of California voted to get rid of bi-lingual education the Mexicans and the Democrats shoot it down. The poor indeed keep themselves poor. It's not the system, it's their own doing.

Bighoss · 2003-01-17, 06:22 PM

Captialism is great not everyone gets to enjoy it though. Not everyone can be rich and thank god everyones not poor and it would suck if everyone made the same amount because then theres no reason to work harder than the guy next to you. Oppertunity FOR ALL except for the lazy.

Lexington_Steele · 2003-01-17, 07:34 PM

ROFL, you blame "Democrats" for poor people existing.

Your friend that was making $80K dollars was the exception not the rule.

Some people just don't have the time to work a 70 hour week, take care of their kids, and go to night school.

Unregistered · 2003-01-17, 08:03 PM

No I blame Democrats for preventing poor people from having the necassery tools to work there way out of poverty.

My friend was not an exception to the rule. He's the proof that Hard Work pays off, and that poverty is not a social problem but a personal one.

Poor people are poor because they are stupid. Stupid people are stupid because they will not get educated.

Make any excuse you want for why they can't work hard enough to get an education, and work themselves out of poverty but it won't change the fact that if they truely wanted to they could get better jobs, and not be poor.

MrVicchio · 2003-01-17, 08:08 PM

Here is my take on Minimum Wage, stand back now!

Minimum wage is I have no problem with AS IS. What bothers the @#$#@ out of me is, that Democrats keep wanting to raise it...

Minimum wage is not MEANT TO LIVE OFF OF!! I would support a twax hike if that money went to educating people that are only qualified to earn min-wage. A proposal like that was started I want to say in Chicago.. Instead of raising the local min-wage, a group of business people(see rich) wanted a city funded education program.. Guess What? The Democrats and locla Commie-Socialst libs shot it down as "insesnitive" to minorites...

That right there was enough to make me see the truth, that Socialst/Democrat/Liberals are the true bigots in America. They would rather keep the minorites "in thier place" then help them make it on thier own..

Stupid people support the Liberal movement, period. Its biased, bigoted, anti-education, anti-American and 9 times out of 10, sedition ofthe worst kind.

SandTrout · 2003-01-17, 08:15 PM

First off, I didnt read the entire thread, just the first page, I'm tired and don't want to read circular logic.

As long as there is a system, it will be exploited. Capitalism has fewer/less systems, and is therefore abused less(just look at commies and facists). While I would prefer some anarchy in the world, capitalism is the next best thing, and is strong enough to defend itself from other systems.

The key to society is balanceing freedom with security. Capitalism is free, but allows for enough security to maintain that freedom.

You don't need a system if you're dealing with a small enough population, especialy if that population is threatened with death/extinction. They will usaly realize the threat/goal that will alow them to survive, and go with that, doing what is neccisary to get it done.

Systems were created to deal with large populations fairly, but nearly every system has loop-holes that can, and will, be abused to someones benifit and another's bane. By limiting the systems, capitalism alows a society to be fair, if not equil. People judge their needs/wants, and will pay for according to how much/when the need/want it. Hence supply vs. demand. the greater the supply, the lower the costs. The higher the demand, the greater the costs.

Many people demand entertainment, and others are willing to give it to them for as much as they'll pay.

Hamma · 2003-01-17, 08:23 PM

Lexington_Steele · 2003-01-17, 08:27 PM

Are you seriously sugesting that cutting the minimum wage would make it easier for these people to get themselves out of poverty?

Do you really think that social policies such as welfare, the minimum wage, workmans comp, homless shelters, soup kitchens, public housing assistance, and job core are all very detrimental to the poor? Wouldn't these social programs constitute as tools to help the poor?

Do you really believe the poor are poor cause they are all stupid and lazy.

Is the republican party really known for increasing education spending? (wouldn't that constitute a major tool for getting out of poverty?)