ask a liberal

[DonF]

Ask , as an socially liberal person I will attempt to provide a simple and direct answer , sometimes with a bit of tongue in cheek

[CreekRat]

Question:  Why do liberals hate teachers and the police?

 

$15/hr for a McDonald's sack stuffer is more than the starting wage for new teacher, cop or soldier.   Why do liberals feel it's necessary to pander to the lowest motivated, least educated members of society?  

 

[Brandon]

Hi, Liberal here. 

While I think people are underpaid.  For the most part I believe they should be paid based on the job, how they do the job, and their experience.   Things can be done to improve pay without being the Oprah of pay raises.   I personally believe across the board immediate minimum wage increases to $15/hr would only be a temporary solution, as the cost of living would increase.   

If your going to raise minimum wage to $15, they need to gradually increase it over X years then an annual cost of living increase.    At least then industries have a chance to increase the wages of their skilled labor force.  During that increase time to pump more money into the economy maybe a temporary hold on SS/MC contributions for people in certain tax brackets.   If you give poor people more money, they tend to spend it.  If you give rich people more money, they tend to horde it.   So if done in a reasonable fashion, an increase in min wage could stimulate production.  Creating more demand, and in turn more jobs.  Overall good for the economy.  

Police, Fire, Teachers, Soldiers,  should all get pay increases.   But as long as we treat taxes as the boogy man, that will never happen.    Soldiers get paid decent, not enough, but decent.  When you factor in free healthcare, food, housing, etc plus they receive extra money when deployed, if they are married, etc.   It's still not enough for what they do, but if you look at base pay it's misleading.   

[DonF]

1 hour ago, CreekRat said:

Question:  Why do liberals hate teachers and the police?

 

$15/hr for a McDonald's sack stuffer is more than the starting wage for new teacher, cop or soldier.   Why do liberals feel it's necessary to pander to the lowest motivated, least educated members of society?  

 

teachers and police as well as fire and emts are all drastically under paid

by raising the min wage those professions would also receive raises

I suppose as a liberal my question would be why do conservative hate working people , it seems they dont value those who work and supply services , why else would they think it was fine to pay wages so low a person cant feed or house themselves without government assistance.

If one believes in capitalism they would support a law requiring all companies to pay their employees enough to feed and house themselves rather than wages so low that the government basically subsidizes the company by caring for their work force . an example is of course walmart in the private sector whos work force receives billions in government assistance, while the company its self rakes in more profits because the government is subsidizing their workers wages.  Of course the same could be said of the Military they too barely make above min wage , I suppose its because they were foolish enough to join in a conservatives mind so they dont deserve a wage which will support them or their family

[Don]

The money to pay public servants like teachers, police and firemen, etc. come from somewhere so if and when the federal government makes their mandate that everyone is getting a pay increase.

(everyone realizes even if the feds say only "minimum wage" employees get raises, other people are going to have a raise too or the min. wage people will be making the same or more than those who are being paid scale for professional jobs or degree jobs - right?)

So the federal government makes it's mandate that minimum wage workers get more money, businesses will either lay off some employees or raise their prices to customers to cover their losses.

Those people who were getting paid slightly above minimum wage are now going to be earning the same or less than those formerly minimum wage employees so they will have to have a raise as well and the effect just keep snowballing...

In the mean time property taxes will be going up to pay the teachers a higher wage, since teachers are going to be getting a raise the the janitors, cafeteria ladies, secretaries, school nurse, principle, coaches and bus drivers are going to want a raise as well aren't they?

If the cops and firemen get raises, likewise secretaries, investigators, dispatchers, ambulance drivers, etc. are going to want raises too. Then you are going to have the other city, county and state employees who say since the cops and their associates got a raise - they should get a raise also... 

So utility rates and sales going up other sales  taxes going up, possibly an increase in civil and traffic offense fines being increased.

Since people are going to be paying higher property taxes, sales taxes, utilities and other accumulated taxes and costs - everyone is going to say they have to have a raise (or another raise) aren't they?

And that doesn't even take into account that because individual occupations are getting paid more, the federal government is probably going to increase the federal income and other tax rates.

Where does it end?

I have always said that the easiest, least intrusive and cheapest way to help people earn more money is to try to keep their costs and financial burden down - not try to think of ways to increase individual financial burdens.

Oh and on a related note:

 

Restaurant chain mostly shelves no-tipping experiment

 

Joe's Crab Shack, the first national chain to test a no-tipping policy, is sharply curtailing the experiment, saying it cost them customers at a majority of the locations where it was tried.

 

"We are reducing the no tipping units to four restaurants from the 18 we had previously had done," Robert Merritt, chief executive officer and director of Ignite Restaurants (IRG) told analysts in a call last week. "Our customers and staff spoke very loudly and a lot of them voted with their feet."

 

On average, foot traffic at the no-tipping restaurants fell 8 to 10 percent, he said.

...

CEO Ray Blanchette calling tipping "an antiquated model" that most American businesses had migrated away from over the past 50 to 100 years.

 

But Blanchette didn't remain at the helm long enough to see his pilot program through. Six days after unveiling its "forward thinking policy," the company, which also owns and operates Brick House Tavern & Tap, announced that he was departing to "pursue other interests."

 

In testing its no-tipping policy, the seafood chain hiked menu prices and said it would increased hourly wages for servers, hosts and bartenders at the pilot sites.

 

But company research found that 60 percent of the restaurants' customers did not like the no-tipping policy because they didn't want to lose control of the experience by removing the service incentive. Patrons also didn't trust management to pass along a share of the higher menu prices to employees, which is supposed to offset the elimination of tips.

 

The casual-dining chain is not alone in reviving tips. Fedora, a New York City eatery, said this week it was tossing its no-tipping policy four months after adopting it.

...

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/joes-crab-shack-mostly-shelves-no-tipping-experiment/

 

Edited May 16, 2016 by Don

[DonF]

yes the money to pay teacher  police and fire fighters comes from taxes

so if more people are making above poverty wages there are more people paying taxes

now history its self debunks the claims that raising wages raises the cost of living , the 1940s-70s proves other wise.

its not until the 80s and up that we see wages rising much slower than the cost of living

from 2000 to current many wages have actually gone down while productions gone up , as has the cost of the products  but those rises in costs cant be blamed on labor , they are a direct result of management wages

[Don]

How many raises has there been in the minimum wage since a minimum wage was established?

If raising the minimum wage is "the solution" why does it have to be done over and over and over...?

[DonF]

we can use  kansas as an example of rising property taxes  but they are not being raised to pay for teachers or other professionals , they are being raised to cover the income tax short falls created when our governor cut taxes on the highest earners and corps

[Don]

Which doesn't answer any of the questions, most significantly;

1. If raising the minimum wage is supposed to be some kind of solution, why has it had to be done so many times?
2. And when will this end?

*I'll just pass on how many increases in the minimum wage has there been since the government established a minimum wage, I already know.

We raise the minimum wage this time and sooner or later prices will go up and there will need to be another minimum wage increase just so people can make a living wage.

Raising the minimum wage will work, but it will only work temporarily until there needs to be another minimum wage increase...

As you seem to be so fond of saying: "those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past, are doomed to repeat them".

 

[DonF]

the last raise in the min wage was july 2009, are you attempting to blame all the rises in cost of things since that date on the min wage?

fact is prices rise whether there is an increase in wages or not , thus debunking the myth of rising wages causing prices to rise .

https://www.dol.gov/featured/minimum-wage/mythbuster

 

[ce_titterington]

On 5/16/2016 at 9:23 PM, Don said:

Which doesn't answer any of the questions, most significantly;

1. If raising the minimum wage is supposed to be some kind of solution, why has it had to be done so many times?
2. And when will this end?

 

*I'll just pass on how many increases in the minimum wage has there been since the government established a minimum wage, I already know.

We raise the minimum wage this time and sooner or later prices will go up and there will need to be another minimum wage increase just so people can make a living wage.

Raising the minimum wage will work, but it will only work temporarily until there needs to be another minimum wage increase...

As you seem to be so fond of saying: "those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past, are doomed to repeat them".

 

You're already paying for the lack of higher pay.  Wal-Mart, McDonald's, Wendy's , etc... are basically using your tax dollars to subsidize their low pay scales.  

You pay for it with a lack of property tax paying citizens.  You pay for it because those damn slackers (sarcasm) don't pay income tax.  

When you say if we don't learn from history we are doomed to repeat it, you are absolutely correct.  Huge socioeconomic gaps drive revolution.  Specifically the French revolution, the Russian revolution, the rise of the Nazis, etc...  the list  goes on an on. Contemporarily, you see the ascension of a Donald Trump or a Bernie Sanders.  Low wages promote a hell of a lot more problems than higher wages do.  I'll pay $2 more for my big Mac.  

 

"If raising the minimum wage is supposed to be some kind of solution, why has it had to be done so many times?"

   Because it has to be done.  It's not that complicated .  My grandparents bought their first house for $12,000.  Prices go up.  It is known.  

 

"And when will this end?"

It won't end.  More to the point, it shouldn't.  

 

Just my two cents ...

[Don]

Thank you for your perspective ce.

Speaking of prices now -vs- prices back in the grandparent's days it takes just as much effort (less actually due to technology) to cut down a tree and mill it as it took in the grandparent's days. It also takes fewer employees to do that same work for the same reason.

It takes just as much effort to build a house of a comparable size now days as it did back in the grandparent's day, but again actually less since so much of what is used is prefab, ready-mixed, and enhanced by technology so that fewer employees are needed.

Now of course the technology is expensive, but I figure it nearly evens out because of the reduction in employee wages, so you have fewer people actually working the jobs being done faster, easier and more efficiently because of technology and still the prices are being increased.

Do you think raising the minimum wage has any effect on the increased prices of goods or services - could this be a major contributing factor in the wages of workers - fewer people working, earning and spending but those workers also getting paid more so as a result businesses have to raise the prices of their goods to maintain profitability - fewer people buying means fewer people manufacturing those goods to buy (a point often mentioned in support of raising a minimum wage) again driving up the prices of goods for the consumer?

Not to mention the interdiction of governments with new regulations and requirements that also drive up prices.

For example the federal government has recently passed new regulations on overtime pay for businesses. 

I know one local company that is deciding whether it would be to their advantage to reduce the number of staff, reducing the hours for current employees by hiring more staff, or raise the price of their services. IMO none of the options mentioned sound particularly palatable.

I also know another company that is still mulling over their options and when corporate decides on a course of action there will be some changes. Whether the majority of people effected believe the changes to be positive or negative remains to be determined.

So in this particular instance an increase in the salaries of employees will most likely have a direct coloration to the price of goods or services offered and possibly the number of people who have jobs.

I still think the best way for people to be afforded a better financial standard of living is to try to do things to keep prices of goods and services down - not try to do things that would raise the prices of goods and services.

Why are so many of the things we buy today manufactured in foreign countries rather than right here in America?

In my opinion it boils down to two very specific areas - less government intervention and regulation and lower employer salaries.

I'm not suggesting we go the unreasonably low wages for labor of places like China but I still maintain that eventually we will be raising employee wages to a point where there is even less employment available domestically and we are liable to become much more dependent on foreign goods and services.

And that's my perspective.

[Don]

Washington Times

Hillary Clinton: EU flux shows need for ‘experienced leadership’ in U.S.

“This time of uncertainty only underscores the need for calm, steady, experienced leadership in the White House to protect Americans’ pocketbooks and livelihoods, to support our friends and allies, to stand up to our adversaries, and to defend our interests,” she said. “It also underscores the need for us to pull together to solve our challenges as a country, not tear each other down.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/24/clinton-eu-flux-shows-need-experienced-leadership/

But wasn't much of the cause of some in the UK wanting to leave the EU because of liberal immigration policies perceived as harming local economies, cultures and the sense of safety people felt in their own neighborhoods...

And isn't some of president Obama's own immigration proposals very similar to the policies the EU imposed on member nations regarding immigration...

And hasn't Hillary Clinton been and remains a proponent of president Obama's immigration reforms, directives and Executive Actions?

So by "strong leadership" isn't she saying the same kind of leadership president Obama has been practicing all of his years in office?

Just asking...

[Ace Kadet]

Did the Washington Times say all of that? It doesn't sound like a journalistic piece, but it is presented entirely as a quote. 

Just askin...

Edited June 25, 2016 by Ace Kadet

[Don]

16 minutes ago, Ace Kadet said:

Did the Washington Times say all of that? It doesn't sound like a journalistic piece, but it is presented entirely as a quote. 

Just askin...

I put the quote breakers before the title and after the story (before the link) but this new system doesn't work the way the old one did.

Anything posted after the first quote mark is included in the quotation regardless of where one puts the 'close quote', I just figured most people would figure it out for themselves, so didn't bother to edit it.

Let that serve as a heads up for anyone who attempts to post a partial quote from a web article, then a comment following the quoted article... It will look just like my post did and DonF's post did in a different thread.

[Ace Kadet]

So you're saying "Pyro did it first"? Tisk, tisk. 

[Don]

No, I'm saying it has been done by other poster's previously and I don't think it is some kind of 'plot' to to make comments about a quoted article appear to be part of the article.

DonF has done the same thing as have other posters. I never considered it anything other than what it was - just the way things work with this new software.

You were "just askin" and I was 'answerin' but if the answer isn't good enough or you think there is more to it than what was said...

I'm only responsible for what I say, not what you understand or think I meant.

[Ace Kadet]

If you recall, you once had the bad habit of quoting something and then posting your opinion with very little - if anything - to differentiate the two. I was just rolling up the newspaper and whacking you on the nose to remind you.  

Bad Don! Bad. In the crate.

[Don]

Ah yes, we should all be reminded of improper things we used to do - but no longer do and smacked for it every once in a while... I'm sure anyone would appreciate it as much as you and I probably do.

Edited June 26, 2016 by Don

[Ace Kadet]

Mmmmm, spankies. 

[rcbuff]

On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2016 at 11:39 AM, ce_titterington said:

You're already paying for the lack of higher pay.  Wal-Mart, McDonald's, Wendy's , etc... are basically using your tax dollars to subsidize their low pay scales.  

You pay for it with a lack of property tax paying citizens.  You pay for it because those damn slackers (sarcasm) don't pay income tax.  

When you say if we don't learn from history we are doomed to repeat it, you are absolutely correct.  Huge socioeconomic gaps drive revolution.  Specifically the French revolution, the Russian revolution, the rise of the Nazis, etc...  the list  goes on an on. Contemporarily, you see the ascension of a Donald Trump or a Bernie Sanders.  Low wages promote a hell of a lot more problems than higher wages do.  I'll pay $2 more for my big Mac.  

 

"If raising the minimum wage is supposed to be some kind of solution, why has it had to be done so many times?"

   Because it has to be done.  It's not that complicated .  My grandparents bought their first house for $12,000.  Prices go up.  It is known.  

 

"And when will this end?"

It won't end.  More to the point, it shouldn't.  

 

Just my two cents ...

 I agree with some of your statements but some with caveats and reasoning:

Quote

You're already paying for the lack of higher pay.  Wal-Mart, McDonald's, Wendy's , etc... are basically using your tax dollars to subsidize their low pay scales

  Agreed!

Quote

You pay for it with a lack of property tax paying citizens.  You pay for it because those damn slackers (sarcasm) don't pay income tax

 Property tax on the housing that those "slackers" live in are paid by the property owner, calculated as an expense. Individual housing subsidizes would fall under your first statement.  

Quote

Because it has to be done.  It's not that complicated .  My grandparents bought their first house for $12,000.  Prices go up.  It is known.  

 IMO:

I think you may have missed the point to this question.  If a proper  correction is made in the minimum wage and that wage is allowed to naturally ascend unencumbered from that point, should It be necessary to correct it time and time again? (in a perfect world so to speak) 

 I think the "imperfect world" that necessitates minimum wage maintenance is one generated by governmental policy, lobbied for by pro- big business  groups, unencumbered and utilized by smaller businesses and praised by liberal ideology.   

 People that are involved in business know that employee wages ( benefits and perks) are a major cost, probably near the top of expenses, likely 30% to just below 40% of gross, anything greater is likely to be in the danger zone. For savvy business folks, those  that have negotiated materials and other costs to the minimum, they will look at trimming cost in labor.

 Inserting imported labor (legal or illegal) at this point will have a positive impact on the company's  bottom line.  By its very design, this undermines the American worker, hinders a natural  wage ascension and devalues levels of labor, skilled and unskilled.( Think about it, why would businesses increase wages for a position they sought to decrease or maintain)  Other consequences include the related expenditures federal and state government agencies incur, expenditures passed on to middle class taxpayers (including those teachers Creek Rat spoke of). Last but not least is that only the minimum amount of those dollars are cycled through this economy, while the rest cycles in the worker's homeland.

More to Creek Rat's question, maybe, undermining some segments of labor by replacing it with less expensive labor, transcends to those not being undermined.

   I believe their is an upward "creep", moving upward from those positions traditionally thought of as utilizing imported labor,upward to more moderately or high skilled positions. By and large, I don't believe for a minute that this being done in the course of humanitarianism.  

   IMO:

There is a second edge to the sword. Displaced American workers are forced to indulge in social assistance programs, once  again at the expense of middle class taxpayers. Some of those displaced workers become complacent, discovering that those low paying jobs provide little incentive to compete with those that consider those same wages a huge improvement in standard of living.

 My two cents worth.