Minimum Wage Stuck in the 1950s

[turtlespeed 220]

Quote

Carlos Mencia would tell you: Have the mexicans start it, then put them all on the other side of it to finish it off! Hooray!

Hooray, ONLY if they atre here illegally anyway. Why do you have such an issue with following the law?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[turtlespeed 220]

Quote

>twist away

As if quoting '>try to make my words say whatever you want' didn't make that clear enough.

Remember, you still took MY statement out of context - oh well.

Grasping?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[quade 4]

Quote

Carlos Mencia would tell you: Have the mexicans start it, then put them all on the other side of it to finish it off! Hooray!

Then again, I try not to listen to the advice of hack comics that rip off other people's jokes.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Ion01 2]

Quote

Quote

Except you're leaving out that fact fantasy that if they could pay them less, the employee would always be free to find work from someone willing to pay more for it.

It would be nice if it were fact, but in the real world, no such luck.

In the real world that is what I have done several time! If you are a hard working valuable working you can put serious pressure on your employer. If you aren't hard working and valualbe then you can't. Just doing enough to get by won't help you make more money.

[chasteh 0]

>Why do you have such an issue with following the law?

I do?

Well if I did I would just provide rationalizations as opposed to reasons, and say that I don't support specific laws, and so I decide not to follow them.

You know, sort of like middle class conservatives do when they occasionally decide to not pay their income taxes or find loopholes with which to avoid paying.

[chasteh 0]

Yea yea quade. We know. You've said that before.

[turtlespeed 220]

Quote

>Why do you have such an issue with following the law?

I do?

Well if I did I would just provide rationalizations as opposed to reasons, and say that I don't support specific laws, and so I decide not to follow them.

You know, sort of like middle class conservatives do when they occasionally decide to not pay their income taxes or find loopholes with which to avoid paying.

Using a tax law to lawfully deduct from your taxes is now equated to being in this country illegally.

Uh huh.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[chasteh 0]

Nope. They will just find someone to replace you who can get the job done just as well. Also, busting your ass doesn't always give you more money either. Maybe it does in sales roles or as an entrepreneur, but it doesn't in hourly jobs. The only reason firms hire hourly hands is because they haven't quite found machines to do the same job. One is as replacable as the other will be.

[chasteh 0]

Well your defense, were you to be one of those conservatives, would be that you end up paying more for or contributing more towards the implementation of that infrastructure and the methods by which you maintain it. So in that sense, if you were avoiding paying taxes, then yes, it would be just as problematic.

It would be pennies to the dollar compared to tax evasion by a middle class member.

[turtlespeed 220]

Quote

Well your defense, were you to be one of those conservatives, would be that you end up paying more for or contributing more towards the implementation of that infrastructure and the methods by which you maintain it. So in that sense, if you were avoiding paying taxes, then yes, it would be just as problematic.

It would be pennies to the dollar compared to tax evasion by a middle class member.

Maybe you miss the whole legal / illegal thing here - or are you just conveniently avoiding it?

Simply put - Tax deductions = Legal . . . Illegal Immigrationj = ILLEGAL.

It's really not that hard to understand.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[dreamdancer 0]

i think you'll find tax evasion illegal in most countries

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[pirana 0]

Quote

I'd hazzard that half of the sales in these stores to illegal immigrants don't have sales tax applied to the total properly.

So now you're making fun of their arithmetic skills?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[chasteh 0]

>Simply put - Tax deductions = Legal

But tax evasion is not.

>Illegal Immigrationj = ILLEGAL.

How scary! Let's find a way to equate it to something far more serious than it really is! FEAR! MURDER! RUN!

>It's really not that hard to understand.

Correct. You seem to be eager to accuse me of supporting law-breaking. But wait, if he supports breaking laws, then he supports murder! And if he supports murder, he is a horrible person. No one wants to support horrible murderers! Oh, the horror!

[Rick 67]

Quote

Nope. They will just find someone to replace you who can get the job done just as well. Also, busting your ass doesn't always give you more money either. Maybe it does in sales roles or as an entrepreneur, but it doesn't in hourly jobs. The only reason firms hire hourly hands is because they haven't quite found machines to do the same job. One is as replacable as the other will be.

Wow what a crock . How many business's have you run? It is my interest to keep my good hard working employees happy and comfortable. Maybe I am just a bad entrepreneur but i believe in rewarding hard work and I think you might find many business owners feel the sqame way.

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[chasteh 0]

>Wow what a crock

Maybe in Rick's "treat an employee as a human being" fantasy island it is. Unfortunately, most businessmen don't feel this way at all. Human labor is viewed merely as a means of production, just like capital is. If they can produce, they fit the job.

>It is my interest to keep my good hard working employees happy and comfortable

Actually it does typically fit in your self-interest to do this, as it often spikes productivity levels and the "sellability" of the business - your workers go greater lengths to promote you, as opposed to hating you.

Unfortunately, the larger the business is - the less likely it is to consider its employees humans.

>Maybe I am just a bad entrepreneur but i believe in rewarding hard work and I think you might find many business owners feel the sqame way

Sure sure. Tom Aiello apparently went to the same school of "rational business owners." You guys are nuts, treating employees like humans. Seriously, crack a whip every once in a while. What were you thinking? Happy workers. Shit.

>How many business's have you run?

As far as the tax man is concerned, I am running one right now. I have also worked for several firms, of varying size and in different industries. It seems like the larger it is, the further away its owner is, and the more managers it hires - the worse off its employees are. "Get another job if you don't like it there!" Hell, you almost might think it is important for the employer to treat its workers fairly.

[Ion01 2]

I really want to know where the federal government gets the power to tell private business what it can pay its employees. It wasn't stated in the constitution that the federal government has that power so it either falls to the states or the people. And if its not in the state constitution then it fall to the people and therefore the business.
And don't quote some stupid court ruling. They don't change the constitution and what it means.

[chasteh 0]

>I really want to know where the federal government gets the power to tell private business what it can pay its employees.

Does it? I thought the state gov. does....

>And don't quote some stupid court ruling. They don't change the constitution and what it means.

(laughing) Yea. Just like each interpretation of the 2nd amendment and 4th amendment don't either.

Stupid court rulings! Being at the head of interpreting legislation, and all!

[quade 4]

Quote

How many business's have you run?

How many Fortune 500 companies have you worked for?

They call it "human resources" for a reason. That's all employees are, a resource.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Rick 67]

Quote

>Wow what a crock

Maybe in Rick's "treat an employee as a human being" fantasy island it is. Unfortunately, most businessmen don't feel this way at all. Human labor is viewed merely as a means of production, just like capital is. If they can produce, they fit the job.

no fantasy that is my world

>It is my interest to keep my good hard working employees happy and comfortable

Actually it does typically fit in your self-interest to do this, as it often spikes productivity levels and the "sellability" of the business - your workers go greater lengths to promote you, as opposed to hating you.

ok so they are not disposable??

Unfortunately, the larger the business is - the less likely it is to consider its employees humans.

Maybe some day my company will be big enough and I won't have to give a shit about the workers

>Maybe I am just a bad entrepreneur but i believe in rewarding hard work and I think you might find many business owners feel the sqame way

Sure sure. Tom Aiello apparently went to the same school of "rational business owners." You guys are nuts, treating employees like humans. Seriously, crack a whip every once in a while. What were you thinking? Happy workers. Shit.

Paying them well and ghaving good working conditions does not mean I don't "crack the whip" once in a while

>How many business's have you run?

As far as the tax man is concerned, I am running one right now. I have also worked for several firms, of varying size and in different industries. It seems like the larger it is, the further away its owner is, and the more managers it hires - the worse off its employees are. "Get another job if you don't like it there!" Hell, you almost might think it is important for the employer to treat its workers fairly.

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Nope. They will just find someone to replace you who can get the job done just as well. Also, busting your ass doesn't always give you more money either. Maybe it does in sales roles or as an entrepreneur, but it doesn't in hourly jobs. The only reason firms hire hourly hands is because they haven't quite found machines to do the same job. One is as replacable as the other will be.

Wow what a crock . How many business's have you run? It is my interest to keep my good hard working employees happy and comfortable. Maybe I am just a bad entrepreneur but i believe in rewarding hard work and I think you might find many business owners feel the sqame way.

And I'm sure you have good happy employees.
It's a two way street. If one is fair, reasonable with their employees (not a pushover), and respects their contribution they will get better productivity.

The company that throws craploads of work on them, gives no overall priority stucture, direction, standards (unless done "wrong" but only after the fact) and uses the old Nike "Just do it" whenever questioned all while cutting costs in benefits, raises, and laying off people is not going to get near the same level of performance. They will try and do what needs to be done but at the same time also try and get what they feel they are owed.

But unfortunately it can't be proven to the beancounters as the first example you can't really apply "metrics" too.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Rick 67]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Nope. They will just find someone to replace you who can get the job done just as well. Also, busting your ass doesn't always give you more money either. Maybe it does in sales roles or as an entrepreneur, but it doesn't in hourly jobs. The only reason firms hire hourly hands is because they haven't quite found machines to do the same job. One is as replacable as the other will be.

Wow what a crock . How many business's have you run? It is my interest to keep my good hard working employees happy and comfortable. Maybe I am just a bad entrepreneur but i believe in rewarding hard work and I think you might find many business owners feel the sqame way.

And I'm sure you have good happy employees.
It's a two way street. If one is fair, reasonable with their employees (not a pushover), and respects their contribution they will get better productivity.

The company that throws craploads of work on them, gives no overall priority stucture, direction, standards (unless done "wrong" but only after the fact) and uses the old Nike "Just do it" whenever questioned all while cutting costs in benefits, raises, and laying off people is not going to get near the same level of performance. They will try and do what needs to be done but at the same time also try and get what they feel they are owed.

But unfortunately it can't be proven to the beancounters as the first example you can't really apply "metrics" too.

maybe it has to do with the size of the business.I need everyone of my employees giving 100% to stay in businesss. If I treat them like shit I do not think I would get the productivity I need.

Oh and by the way I am a long ways off from being a millionare so maybe I should not be posting here.

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[chasteh 0]

I will try the best I can to take your comments out of my post.

>no fantasy that is my world

It just isn't the case for most businesses. I applaud you for treating your workers well. I wish it was like this for larger businesses and all small businesses.

>ok so they are not disposable??

I don't think they are, but most businesses do.

>Maybe some day my company will be big enough and I won't have to give a shit about the workers

Maybe. Don't do it. Don't be the scum of firms out there. You're doing great, if what you said about your operation is true.

>Paying them well and ghaving good working conditions does not mean I don't "crack the whip" once in a while.

You should always be cracking the whip! Do you see a natural smile? Eliminate it! Do you have security guards in your firm? Use them as happiness screening agents. Make sure they are watching the cameras, and immediately reporting incidents of personal pleasure. This must be stopped for you to really be wealthy!

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Unfortunately, the larger the business is - the less likely it is to consider its employees humans.


As far as the tax man is concerned, I am running one right now. I have also worked for several firms, of varying size and in different industries. It seems like the larger it is, the further away its owner is, and the more managers it hires - the worse off its employees are.

As a generalization, you're right. There are definitely counter-examples of companies that realize good people are their most important resource, and cultivate them accordingly (Google springs to mind, for example).

The major problem is that the larger a company is, the more leverage it has to lobby the government for special benefits. Which means that in our current system, bigger businesses tend to be the beneficiaries of government action, while smaller businesses (the kind that tend to treat their employees better) mostly get screwed.

Just to sound a bit like a broken record: the problem here is the government power that's up for sale to the highest bidder--I mean campaign contributor. Get rid of that power for sale, and you see a different sort of system evolving, one that values people more, and tends to smaller businesses rather than larger ones.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Unfortunately, the larger the business is - the less likely it is to consider its employees humans.


As far as the tax man is concerned, I am running one right now. I have also worked for several firms, of varying size and in different industries. It seems like the larger it is, the further away its owner is, and the more managers it hires - the worse off its employees are.

As a generalization, you're right. There are definitely counter-examples of companies that realize good people are their most important resource, and cultivate them accordingly (Google springs to mind, for example).

The major problem is that the larger a company is, the more leverage it has to lobby the government for special benefits. Which means that in our current system, bigger businesses tend to be the beneficiaries of government action, while smaller businesses (the kind that tend to treat their employees better) mostly get screwed.

Just to sound a bit like a broken record: the problem here is the government power that's up for sale to the highest bidder--I mean campaign contributor. Get rid of that power for sale, and you see a different sort of system evolving, one that values people more, and tends to smaller businesses rather than larger ones.

Is that even really possible? The same people that get the money now are the same people that would have to change the laws to stop it.

Sure you could vote new people in under a "reform" mantra, but once there either they get corrupted or crushed or bulldozed by the corrupted. Somehow the old checks and balances system just isn't all that effective.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[chasteh 0]

>As a generalization, you're right. There are definitely counter-examples of companies that realize good people are their most important resource, and cultivate them accordingly (Google springs to mind, for example).

Yea yea and some base jumping firms out there treat people otherwise, or so I hear.

>The major problem is that the larger a company is, the more leverage it has to lobby the government for special benefits

Sure. Let's not, however, assume that the only way a large company can exist is through lobbying the government for more money. I think, although many businesses have done this, we still have a ways to go to say that even most mid-to large sized businesses have done this. ( I say mid to large because I can't get myself to say that there has been a major corporation that at some point hasn't lobbied the government for special benefits. While this is a factor, I don't think it is close to the cause of employee mistreatment.)

(edit)
Even you admitted that my (or who was it?) manager's practices were a complete disaster. The business I was working for at that time is not among those businesses receiving funds from the government. It was just another giant American business, with a giant beurocracy of managers and policies.