Illinois 15 dollar/hr incremental raise

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote
The Bottom Line:
Taken together, these figures indicate that, while the average person is still making the same amount of money when accounting for inflation, prices for many of the daily necessities have gone up considerably, which means that each dollar earned does, in fact, buy less than it did 20 years ago.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/an...ent-cost-living-compare-20-years-ago.asp


Hilarious, isn't it? 'Inflation is low' (or, at least, wages have kept up with inflation), yet 'prices have gone up considerably'.

Do these journos even think about what they're writing as they write it?
 
Inflation index is a scam always has been an extortion mechanism. Look see the costs are the same.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by billt460

And tell us please, when exactly was this utopia of, "decades gone by"?


After WWII up until about 1980. The middle class was born and grew.
 
Originally Posted by billt460

What you want is Socialism, pure and simple. Along with the ability it brings for the government to seize personal property and assets for redistribution. Here is your guy. He's as convinced of your method as you are.




No, what I want is social democracy. A capitalist system that works for all including workers and a good safety net for those that need it.

So do you think sending more and more wealth to the top 5-10% is better for America or would America be better if it spread out more over the other 90-95%?
 
All this being said I think 15.00 an hour would be more appropriate for high cost areas like big cities. A more reasonable amount would be 12.00 an hour with inflation increases.
 
Originally Posted by ZZman
So do you think sending more and more wealth to the top 5-10% is better for America or would America be better if it spread out more over the other 90-95%?


Another thing inflation does for you is take wealth from the poor--who mostly rely on their wages, which don't keep up with inflation--and give it to the rich, who own real estate, stocks and the like, which usually do.

Even better if they've borrowed a billion dollars at 2% interest to buy stuff that goes up in value by 5% a year.
 
Originally Posted by emg
Originally Posted by ZZman
So do you think sending more and more wealth to the top 5-10% is better for America or would America be better if it spread out more over the other 90-95%?


Another thing inflation does for you is take wealth from the poor--who mostly rely on their wages, which don't keep up with inflation--and give it to the rich, who own real estate, stocks and the like, which usually do.

Even better if they've borrowed a billion dollars at 2% interest to buy stuff that goes up in value by 5% a year.


Or if you just invest it in the S&P 500, it's up almost 15% over the last 10 years. Last year was down about 2.5%, but this year it's up about 11% which wipes out last years losses.
 
Originally Posted by emg

The problem is not really that wages are too low per se, but that the cost of living is too high.

Since the 90s--and particularly the mid-00s--the world has been flooded with massive amounts of cheap credit, which has pushed up the cost of living while governments pretend inflation is low, to reduce wage rises. At the same time, more and more jobs have been shipped to China, India and other relatively poor countries, thereby reducing the ability of Westerners to demand wage rises.

Some people here said investors don't actually earn their money. Those people should love cheap credit then because then poorer people don't have to pay high interest rates and aren't beholden to people who are savers/investors.

Anyway, I was with you on a lot of that, but you left out an even bigger one. You mentioned jobs being shipped to China and India, but you didn't mention Chinese and Indian labor being shipped here. Corporations (including tech ones such as Google) love importing cheap foreign labor. Citizenship is even used against citizens since imported people will work cheaper than a citizen in order to get green card and citizenship status. Corporations sometimes even get tax breaks for hiring non-citizens.

Mass immigration, both legal and illegal, drives down wages of the working class. It also increases demand on resources such as housing, healthcare, education, and welfare. Mass immigration also changes voting demographics and culture. If the elitists in power can't get current citizens to vote how they want, then they simply import more people who will.

Immigration was much more controlled until recent decades. The 1965 and 1991 Immigration Acts brought in more immigrants from more countries and from more different cultures than at any time in American history. And it's easier now for them to get citizenship and vote. If you wonder why America has changed so much in particularly the last 20 years compared to its first 200 years, that's why.

Those are just a couple examples for why mass immigration is one thing so many people in both parties have agreed on for so long. They either want mass immigration for the cheap labor, or they want mass immigration to bring in people who demographically inherently vote for bigger and more powerful government. I don't take people seriously if they talk about how the rich and powerful are hurting regular citizens on things like wages but then say they want mass immigration to continue.
 
Good point. Yes, the H1B has been a disaster for tech employment in the US, so Americans are pushed out of many middle-class jobs, as well as working-class.
 
Originally Posted by ZZman
So do you think sending more and more wealth to the top 5-10% is better for America or would America be better if it spread out more over the other 90-95%?

You're not "sending" anything to the wealthy. Their money is being earned through the success of their companies and investments. You want the government to steal it, and redistribute it to the have not's. That is socialism.
 
Originally Posted by ZZman
All this being said I think 15.00 an hour would be more appropriate for high cost areas like big cities. A more reasonable amount would be 12.00 an hour with inflation increases.

And for all of you people screaming how we are losing jobs to foreign countries because of their cheap labor costs, how do you propose to stop it by raising the minimum wage? Which in turn will raise wages, prices, and inflation across the board. Which will then cost even more jobs to foreign countries and automation. They're not building Ford trucks in Mexico because they pay the Mexicans more. Your antidote for the poison, is to take more poison.
 
Originally Posted by DejaVue

Some people here said investors don't actually earn their money. Those people should love cheap credit then because then poorer people don't have to pay high interest rates and aren't beholden to people who are savers/investors.

Anyway, I was with you on a lot of that, but you left out an even bigger one. You mentioned jobs being shipped to China and India, but you didn't mention Chinese and Indian labor being shipped here. Corporations (including tech ones such as Google) love importing cheap foreign labor. Citizenship is even used against citizens since imported people will work cheaper than a citizen in order to get green card and citizenship status. Corporations sometimes even get tax breaks for hiring non-citizens.

Mass immigration, both legal and illegal, drives down wages of the working class. It also increases demand on resources such as housing, healthcare, education, and welfare. Mass immigration also changes voting demographics and culture. If the elitists in power can't get current citizens to vote how they want, then they simply import more people who will.

Immigration was much more controlled until recent decades. The 1965 and 1991 Immigration Acts brought in more immigrants from more countries and from more different cultures than at any time in American history. And it's easier now for them to get citizenship and vote. If you wonder why America has changed so much in particularly the last 20 years compared to its first 200 years, that's why.

Those are just a couple examples for why mass immigration is one thing so many people in both parties have agreed on for so long. They either want mass immigration for the cheap labor, or they want mass immigration to bring in people who demographically inherently vote for bigger and more powerful government. I don't take people seriously if they talk about how the rich and powerful are hurting regular citizens on things like wages but then say they want mass immigration to continue.


Yep, that's HUGE factor that is more often than not ignored.
 
Originally Posted by billt460
Originally Posted by ZZman
So do you think sending more and more wealth to the top 5-10% is better for America or would America be better if it spread out more over the other 90-95%?

You're not "sending" anything to the wealthy. Their money is being earned through the success of their companies and investments. You want the government to steal it, and redistribute it to the have not's. That is socialism.



"Earned"
crackmeup2.gif
More like forcibly taken away from being shared in part with the the workers that put forth the efforts and labour to drive the profits for the company.

There would be more "Profits" if those buying the crap these corporations are peddling paid out more to their workers with the benefit of a healthy stable economy and lower debt. The one feeds the other. The way it is now it's all strangled at the top and just creates uncertainty, market instability and debt. Once this gets worse it's going to collapse the system and then pitchforks WILL come for the rich. There is a reason the most wealthy of families have bomb shelters and reserves. They know it's coming.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by billt460
Originally Posted by ZZman
So do you think sending more and more wealth to the top 5-10% is better for America or would America be better if it spread out more over the other 90-95%?

You're not "sending" anything to the wealthy. Their money is being earned through the success of their companies and investments. You want the government to steal it, and redistribute it to the have not's. That is socialism.



"Earned"
crackmeup2.gif
More like forcibly taken away from being shared in part with the the workers that put forth the efforts and labour to drive the profits for the company.

There would be more "Profits" if those buying the crap these corporations are peddling paid out more to their workers. The one feeds the other.


Start your own business, and then tell me whether you earn your money or not.
 
Originally Posted by ZZman


The reality is the vast majority of stockholders and investors are the wealthy not employees or retirement funds. This is especially true of the top 1% Their money worked for them. They didn't work (wages) to attain it.

I don't know. Do CEO's and such work 100-400 times harder than their average worker or have skill sets 100-400 times better which warrants such compensation? Interesting thought.


Actually, the largest group of stockowners IS retirement accounts. Pension funds and 401(k) IRA and similar is the biggest group of stock owners as I mentioned on the buyback thread.

Regarding CEO pay, if shareholders don't think they are getting their money's worth for the management, they need to vote their shares and oust the deadwood.

If they don't vote their shares, they really cannot complain.

If you don't own shares, how much the executives get paid really doesn't impact you.
 
Having been a business owner yes, but there is a difference between giant conglomerates and the small business person. And when I was in business I always paid more.
Further the big giant corporations today have people running it that didn't start them from the ground up. (Very few exceptions to this)
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by StevieC
"Earned"
crackmeup2.gif
More like forcibly taken away from being shared in part with the the workers that put forth the efforts and labour to drive the profits for the company.

There would be more "Profits" if those buying the crap these corporations are peddling paid out more to their workers with the benefit of a healthy stable economy and lower debt. The one feeds the other. The way it is now it's all strangled at the top and just creates uncertainty, market instability and debt. Once this gets worse it's going to collapse the system and then pitchforks WILL come for the rich. There is a reason the most wealthy of families have bomb shelters and reserves. They know it's coming.

How is it forcibly taken? No one is forcing these people to work for them. They can quit whenever they want if they're unhappy. I've had many jobs in my life that I didn't care for. I went out and got a better one. If they can't because they are unskilled or unqualified, and no one wants them, that's not the companies fault. It's theirs because of their limited worth. It's not the military. They can't charge you with going AWOL. You're free to leave at any time.

Their will always be cheap labor. And you know who is going to provide it? The same socialist government you want to forcibly take wealth from the wealthy. They are also the same one's who want open borders. You act as if wage and price controls, along with socialism has never been tried before. Everywhere it has it's failed. You keep carrying on about "pitchforks" because you hate the wealthy, and think they have "too much". So you want it taken from them, or else you want their head on a stick. Too bad. Life isn't fair.

Life is like war, in the sense only the strongest, best trained and equipped soldiers will survive. Weak uneducated people are owed nothing just because they are weak and uneducated. They will be slaughtered in the workplace by better trained workers who possess greater value to the people who are hiring them.

As I said above, there are trade schools everywhere that are all but begging for students. And they are nowhere near as expensive as colleges and universities. I spent 5 years in one. I was even paid a small amount to attend. My company looked at it as an investment in me for my future value to them. I was self supporting all the way through it. But I lived in a 950 sq. ft. house, not a 2,500 sq. ft. one. And I drove an older car. ONE older car. As my pay increased I saved more. Things were expensive then, just like now. But if I couldn't afford them, I simply went without them. I didn't buy them on credit. It's no different today.

None of it was easy. Not the 5 years of night school. Not the endless 65 hour work weeks. Not paying off my mortgage before I moved into another house. Not any of it. But I kept at it. I didn't complain because no one wanted to listen to it if I did. In the end it all worked out well. But it took all of my working life. No one becomes a success in 15 minutes. Or gets wealth handed to them just because they think they, "deserve it".
 
Originally Posted by emg
Good point. Yes, the H1B has been a disaster for tech employment in the US, so Americans are pushed out of many middle-class jobs, as well as working-class.



I'm curious as to the numbers behind this. Some H1 information is public and I will have to take a look at it again, but this program did become some sort of a bogeyman....not sure if the blame is entirely deserved.

I have ~20 years in tech manufacturing in Mass and Silicon Valley, w/ the last 12 in executive. I can tell you that the firms I was involved with used the H1 visa programs because we could NOT fill key technical positions without it...there were just not enough candidates regardless of nationality. As far as comp, the H1 package was at or very close to market (starting software engineer=$75-80K plus some stock). Heck, one of my team's used to do the car leases for when we threw cars at some of these folks. If I remember, we required a certain service commitment from the employee if we did the immigration legwork, but overall comp was market. Now some firms may abuse the program and I am sure different regions have different circumstances.

Now there are a lot reasons why we are not graduating as many engineers as we could use, from women not entering STEM to the bright kids wanting to be Gordon Gekko and going to B'school to who knows what, but at the end of the day, there are more high end tech jobs than qualified candidates....
 
Originally Posted by billt460
Originally Posted by StevieC
"Earned"
crackmeup2.gif
More like forcibly taken away from being shared in part with the the workers that put forth the efforts and labour to drive the profits for the company.

There would be more "Profits" if those buying the crap these corporations are peddling paid out more to their workers with the benefit of a healthy stable economy and lower debt. The one feeds the other. The way it is now it's all strangled at the top and just creates uncertainty, market instability and debt. Once this gets worse it's going to collapse the system and then pitchforks WILL come for the rich. There is a reason the most wealthy of families have bomb shelters and reserves. They know it's coming.

How is it forcibly taken? No one is forcing these people to work for them. They can quit whenever they want if they're unhappy. I've had many jobs in my life that I didn't care for. I went out and got a better one. If they can't because they are unskilled or unqualified, and no one wants them, that's not the companies fault. It's theirs because of their limited worth. It's not the military. They can't charge you with going AWOL. You're free to leave at any time.

Their will always be cheap labor. And you know who is going to provide it? The same socialist government you want to forcibly take wealth from the wealthy. They are also the same one's who want open borders. You act as if wage and price controls, along with socialism has never been tried before. Everywhere it has it's failed. You keep carrying on about "pitchforks" because you hate the wealthy, and think they have "too much". So you want it taken from them, or else you want their head on a stick. Too bad. Life isn't fair.

Life is like war, in the sense only the strongest, best trained and equipped soldiers will survive. Weak uneducated people are owed nothing just because they are weak and uneducated. They will be slaughtered in the workplace by better trained workers who possess greater value to the people who are hiring them.

As I said above, there are trade schools everywhere that are all but begging for students. And they are nowhere near as expensive as colleges and universities. I spent 5 years in one. I was even paid a small amount to attend. My company looked at it as an investment in me for my future value to them. I was self supporting all the way through it. But I lived in a 950 sq. ft. house, not a 2,500 sq. ft. one. And I drove an older car. ONE older car. As my pay increased I saved more. Things were expensive then, just like now. But if I couldn't afford them, I simply went without them. I didn't buy them on credit. It's no different today.

None of it was easy. Not the 5 years of night school. Not the endless 65 hour work weeks. Not paying off my mortgage before I moved into another house. Not any of it. But I kept at it. I didn't complain because no one wanted to listen to it if I did. In the end it all worked out well. But it took all of my working life. No one becomes a success in 15 minutes. Or gets wealth handed to them just because they think they, "deserve it".


It's an interesting tirade, but how about workers banding together to force higher wages? Or them voting in people who will give it to them. Power is a two way street. I recall reading a while ago that even the guys that hang out at the Home Depot parking lots have an informal minimum wage, they try and convince other workers not to take jobs below a certain amount. That's also a control over supply and demand. It's easy to force wages lower, there's always someone out there desperate enough to take it. When there aren't as many workers, then that forces wages up.
 
Originally Posted by billt460
Their will always be cheap labor. And you know who is going to provide it? The same socialist government you want to forcibly take wealth from the wealthy. They are also the same one's who want open borders. You act as if wage and price controls, along with socialism has never been tried before. Everywhere it has it's failed. You keep carrying on about "pitchforks" because you hate the wealthy, and think they have "too much". So you want it taken from them, or else you want their head on a stick. Too bad. Life isn't fair.


And you wonder why people say "eff" it and go on social assistance. I don't "hate" the wealthy. I don't "hate" that they have more. I "hate" the proportion. I'm okay with them having 10x more than the lower classes but when it's 100x or 1000x or even more in some cases that's where I have a problem especially considering it's the "working class" that put forth the real effort to make them those profits not the fat cat steering the ship in his/her ivory tower.

Originally Posted by billt460
Life is like war, in the sense only the strongest, best trained and equipped soldiers will survive. Weak uneducated people are owed nothing just because they are weak and uneducated. They will be slaughtered in the workplace by better trained workers who possess greater value to the people who are hiring them.

Why does it need to be that way. Why can we all go to work, be happy and the world go round. The rich can enjoy more than the rest but everyone feels productive and has enough for today and a little for tomorrow? We are the only species that pays to live on the planet by the way.

Originally Posted by billt460
As I said above, there are trade schools everywhere that are all but begging for students. And they are nowhere near as expensive as colleges and universities. I spent 5 years in one. I was even paid a small amount to attend. My company looked at it as an investment in me for my future value to them. I was self supporting all the way through it. But I lived in a 950 sq. ft. house, not a 2,500 sq. ft. one. And I drove an older car. ONE older car. As my pay increased I saved more. Things were expensive then, just like now. But if I couldn't afford them, I simply went without them. I didn't buy them on credit. It's no different today.

I said right out of High School for a reason, and further not everyone can work in the trades the world needs other jobs to go round you know...

Originally Posted by billt460
None of it was easy. Not the 5 years of night school. Not the endless 65 hour work weeks. Not paying off my mortgage before I moved into another house. Not any of it. But I kept at it. I didn't complain because no one wanted to listen to it if I did. In the end it all worked out well. But it took all of my working life. No one becomes a success in 15 minutes. Or gets wealth handed to them just because they think they, "deserve it".
No one is saying there shouldn't be effort involved but it doesn't have to be a war being fought up-hill for no reason.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top