Illinois 15 dollar/hr incremental raise

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by ZZman
Originally Posted by grampi


There are many ways to get an education, grants, loans, heck you can even join the military and get an education for free while getting an income. It doesn't matter if people like us think the Walton family doesn't need any more money. They've obviously done something to earn it or they wouldn't have it. That's called capitalism. What you're describing is socialism, that doesn't work in this country...


For some yes. For others no. Bad grades, no co signers, no one to watch the kids, can't pass the military testing, health or emotional issues. ..etc

No , I am describing a capitalism that works for everyone not greed that works for the few. Do you think the top billionaires having as much wealth as the bottom 90% is acceptable capitalism?

But you do realize we have socialism type things here in this country people like right?


Sounds like you're saying you can't fix stupid.
 
Our society is neither capitalism or socialism. It's a mix between the two that is constantly changing. Our nation has manipulated finance and the economy many many times in order to keep the whole thing from falling off of the rails. Some of it has met or exceeded the definition of crony capitalism, and some has been borderline Marxism.

But history has proven that our nation has no better chance of surviving as a pure capitalist society than it does as a pure socialist one.
 
Originally Posted by ZZman
... The rich as most successful people got there with help. Parents, mentors, teachers, connections etc. ...


So stop complaining and give them some help.

Give them your money.

If you have no money, volunteer your time in some manner as to hopefully make an improvement in their lives.

The only thing stopping you from doing this, is you. Better to do it yourself then to demand that others do it for you, no?

As an aside, I could not care less how much $$ the Walton's have. Not my business. They did establish a pretty nice art museum here in the outback of flyover country. Some people say it's one of the better ones in the country. Come down and see it, and some of the other charitable works.
 
Originally Posted by Win
Originally Posted by ZZman
... The rich as most successful people got there with help. Parents, mentors, teachers, connections etc. ...


So stop complaining and give them some help.

Give them your money.

If you have no money, volunteer your time in some manner as to hopefully make an improvement in their lives.

The only thing stopping you from doing this, is you. Better to do it yourself then to demand that others do it for you, no?

As an aside, I could not care less how much $$ the Walton's have. Not my business. They did establish a pretty nice art museum here in the outback of flyover country. Some people say it's one of the better ones in the country. Come down and see it, and some of the other charitable works.




Nah, It's much easier to tell others what they need to do, than to actually put forth the effort themselves.
 
You'll never increase real wages until you stop importing a million+ new people every year who compete against Americans for jobs, increasing the labor supply, and driving down wages. Ask the fired Disney workers about it.
 
Originally Posted by 02SE
Originally Posted by wings&wheels
Quote

How exactly are these poor people supposed to be able to afford an education or have the experience or connections to get that better job? How can they afford to move to where jobs are?
The rich as most successful people got there with help. Parents, mentors, teachers, connections etc. The difference is some have more drive, are bigger risk takers, are type A personalities etc. Humans are all different. Some will be extremely successful , most successful, some not successful. As I said earlier, how much do we want those at the bottom to suffer?
Does the Walton family really need more billions each or could that be put to better use by their employees that need it just to live?

Through hard work, good decisions, ambition and some luck.... Done it.

Same here.
It would certainly have been much easier to sit around and do nothing but bemoan the fact that life has never been easy, and blame others for my own inaction.

Me three!
Also wanting to get out of there.
 
Originally Posted by DejaVue
You'll never increase real wages until you stop importing a million+ new people every year who compete against Americans for jobs, increasing the labor supply, and driving down wages. Ask the fired Disney workers about it.

Really not that simple.
You can thank a very few select already retired baby-boomers and Great generation who decided it is cost effective to export/outsource the jobs.
Hint, It started happening after Nixon visited China...(where you and me even born at that time?)
 
Have not read this whole thread-but the "defacto minimum wage in Utah is $13.00 an hour-even tho the law states $7.50. IT's a REAL SHORTAGE OF WORKERS that have led to this. So sometimes it's the "supply and demand" that drives up wages.
 
Are you hiring people at $100/hr or $1000/hr?

I don't begrudge athletes for making millions a year. If they can negotiate such a contract, let the team owners pay it.

My daughter just got her ballot to vote her Starbucks shares. I said if she doesn't think board members deserve their compensation, she needs to vote against them.

Corporate boards are paid by the stock owners (essentially.) If you don't think you are getting your money's worth out of the board, fire them.

But if you don't own stock or don't vote the shares you own, how much can you really complain about how the board is paid?

Originally Posted by ZZman
Originally Posted by javacontour
Exactly!

It is always easier to spend other people's money. When that payroll is coming out of your pocket, it is not as simple.

My daughter works at Starbucks and will tell you that not everyone in her store is worth $15/hour at their current skill and work ethic practice.



I guess we could use that argument on any profession or job. Are people worth 100.00 an hour or even 1,000's of dollars an hour when the average American makes maybe 20-25.00 an hour.
I would much rather see people at the bottom make livable wages than give even more wealth to those who really don't need it.
 
Originally Posted by ZZman
Originally Posted by Skippy722


You cannot tax people into prosperity. Illinois is hemorrhaging people to Indiana because of property taxes alone. Can't "spread the wealth" when all the wealth leaves.


Who said prosperity? Would 15.00 an hour or food stamps or Medicaid help be prosperity? No, it would be a fairly decent existence. Every American deserves a decent existence becsuse they are humans.


Heck, by the time my wife retires from her school district, a mindless $15/hr job here would be a perfect addition to her educators pension, (Missouri, so it's not in danger of running out of money like IL. The teachers run it, not state government.)

With a BA in Business and a MA in Social Work, not to mention a School Counselor credential, I'm sure she's qualified to work at a local boutique and sell scarves or whatever.

Of course, someone who really needs that job, but cannot make change and do math in their head is probably on the outside looking in since an employer paying $15/hour will want more than $15/hour in skills.

If you only have $8/hour skills, it's going to be hard to find a job as the minimum wage goes up.
 
So Wal*Mart should pay $4.8 Billion in additional wages to save the taxpayer $300 Million?

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/WMT/walmart/financial-statements

In 2018, Wal*Mart had a pre-tax income of about $15Billion. They paid $4.6 Billion in income taxes. You are saying they should pay another $4.8 Billion to save the governent, who is already getting $4.6 Billion from them even more?

Wal*Mart runs on margins that are 1-3% which is pretty thin by anyone who knows business. They just do a lot of business, about a half-trillion in sales.

I realize it's popular to pick on Wal*Mart because they are so big. The video stated that 15% of the workforce got food stamps. That means 85% doesn't get food stamps.

Is it really low pay, or are there other factors? Part time work? Single parent households? Dual earner households, but a quiver full of kids?

The video seems to be more sensationalism than it is substance. A cherry picked example.

Don't get me wrong, I don't consider Wal*Mart to be some sort of savior or sacred cow. It's a big business. Being big doesn't make it good or evil.

Last point, if Wal*Mart could sell the Mac-n-Cheese for a penny more a box, wouldn't they be doing that already?

Originally Posted by StevieC
 
Quote
So Wal*Mart should pay $4.8 Billion in additional wages to save the taxpayer $300 Million?


I have no opinion on minimum wage one way or another (both sides have valid points). However your statement above can also be flipped around and be said in the following way:

"So the taxpayer should pay $300 Million in additional taxes to save Walmart $4.8 Billion in wages?"

See what you did there? When others turn your word around?
 
But who is forcing the government to pay the $300 million?

I suspect half or more of the participants here are not in favor of such government transfer payments.

Economically, it makes no sense to pay them. It sends the wrong signal in the labor market. If people are able to settle for lower wages because they get subsidies from the government, the employer doesn't see the true costs of that worker.

If tne worker had to get that money from their employer and couldn't work for the lower wage, if there are no other options in the laborforce, the employer would have to offer more.

The government benefits distort the labor market.

Politicians are not spending their money, so they can buy votes. Business is happy because the markets are distorted in their favor. Most of us don't care, or we don't realize we are the source of cash for vote buying.

Maybe the answer is to end, or at least more severely restrict such distortions in the market.


Originally Posted by PandaBear
Quote
So Wal*Mart should pay $4.8 Billion in additional wages to save the taxpayer $300 Million?


I have no opinion on minimum wage one way or another (both sides have valid points). However your statement above can also be flipped around and be said in the following way:

"So the taxpayer should pay $300 Million in additional taxes to save Walmart $4.8 Billion in wages?"

See what you did there? When others turn your word around?
 
Originally Posted by ZZman
Originally Posted by grampi


There are many ways to get an education, grants, loans, heck you can even join the military and get an education for free while getting an income. It doesn't matter if people like us think the Walton family doesn't need any more money. They've obviously done something to earn it or they wouldn't have it. That's called capitalism. What you're describing is socialism, that doesn't work in this country...


For some yes. For others no. Bad grades, no co signers, no one to watch the kids, can't pass the military testing, health or emotional issues. ..etc

No , I am describing a capitalism that works for everyone not greed that works for the few. Do you think the top billionaires having as much wealth as the bottom 90% is acceptable capitalism?

But you do realize we have socialism type things here in this country people like right?


I guess I don't get what you're saying should be done. Taking money away from the rich and giving it to the poor is the very definition or socialism...
 
Originally Posted by grampi
Originally Posted by ZZman
Originally Posted by grampi


There are many ways to get an education, grants, loans, heck you can even join the military and get an education for free while getting an income. It doesn't matter if people like us think the Walton family doesn't need any more money. They've obviously done something to earn it or they wouldn't have it. That's called capitalism. What you're describing is socialism, that doesn't work in this country...


For some yes. For others no. Bad grades, no co signers, no one to watch the kids, can't pass the military testing, health or emotional issues. ..etc

No , I am describing a capitalism that works for everyone not greed that works for the few. Do you think the top billionaires having as much wealth as the bottom 90% is acceptable capitalism?

But you do realize we have socialism type things here in this country people like right?


I guess I don't get what you're saying should be done. Taking money away from the rich and giving it to the poor is the very definition or socialism...


Would you prefer what was done in the next step of National socialism in Germany in the 30's and 40's where they got rid of the mentally disabled and the handicapped in medical institutions? After all, they were supported by the money from the rich.
 
Originally Posted by javacontour
I suspect half or more of the participants here are not in favor of such government transfer payments.


The politicians have done their math to know what will get the votes. At least they would have done enough to know better than you, especially when it passed as law.

The thing is, we are all looking out for our own interests, that's politics. We can theorize what is the most optimal or not but in a democratic government people vote what is best for them instead. That's exactly what is happening.

Nobody is holier or more right than the others. Neither me or you, nor other voters.
 
Last edited:
Some degree of "Socialism" will always be needed to keep society functional without huge problems but it doesn't need to be a big number. However you can make the benefits offered not worth it for the average person if their will to work is motivated through decent pay. No one is saying that the rich can't enjoy a better life than the rest but those that helped the company function should be able to eat and go about life as well.

How fair is it that you have those at the top eating the whole pie and the working poor fighting for the crumbs that fell from the plate? Shouldn't they at least get a small piece of the pie? There will be plenty for the hogs at the top. But that's not good enough for them. They keep wanting more and more and well some folks said "eff" it and decided not to participate any longer. See the problem?

How many jobs were eliminated and the CEO rode golden parachutes into the sunset along with Corporate profits for their shareholders while workers got the shaft and had to take a job for less pay to keep the heat on at their house only to have it happened again and then they go to another industry only to find that the same corporate greed mantra is practiced there too. And now you got robots added to that equation.

After having worked for this Japanese company a short while I can tell you I will take it hand over fist over an typical North American company. The pay, benefits and overall treatment of their employees is the best ever and I have had 6 jobs since I started working at the age of 16 some 20+ years ago. Oh and I got 3 weeks vacation without asking plus 1 week of "family emergency" time should I need it and 100% health/dental/eye benefits not the standard 80/20 plan and retirement savings dollar for dollar match up to 5% of my income.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by PandaBear


The thing is, we are all looking out for our own interests, that's politics. We can theorize what is the most optimal or not but in a democratic government people vote what is best for them instead. That's exactly what is happening.



Since the wealthy have the money they have the power and the voice. Since ya need money to run and win , guess who gets their wishes met the most?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

dave1251
  • Locked
Exxon Mobil
Replies
19
Views
14K
MolaKule
sw99
  • Locked
ZDDP Questions?
Replies
10
Views
4K
sw99
Back
Top