frenchyd
frenchyd Dork
3/28/18 9:46 p.m.
Ian F said:

In reply to frenchyd :

So what will people do after humans build machines that don't need humans anymore?  

Hmm...  

The path of evolution has always been hard to predict and fascinating to follow.  Provided you have the time.

STM317 said:
 

Can you summarize your goal in all of this? We've been pretty wide ranging in this thread now, and I don't think it's possible to achieve all of these goals. Maybe you could focus on your highest priority.  Are you trying to help low wage earners? Revive the middle class? Stick it to big business? Eliminate government subsidies of private business? Make sure more people are happy so they don't go on killing sprees? Modify the tax code? What was the end goal when you started this thread?

I don't think anyone has a good answer.  Or at least not one that can account for the the unpredictable variable of the human condition. All actions will have reactions. Some good. Some less so. It's hard to say what will happen until you try. 

Back in 1917, the Russians tried Marxist communism.  In theory, a "perfect" system of government. After 80 years or so, they realized it didn't really work and even now are still working through the fall-out.  But they tried.  It's easy to look back say how it was doomed to failure, but the world was a lot different back in 1917 with absolute monarchies, world-wide empires and corporate monopolies.

Some 150 years prior to the Russian experiment, a group of white men in Philadelphia decided to try something.  Something they thought could work for them at that time in history.  As we close in on the 250th anniversary of the start of the American experiment, maybe we will look back on it with some retrospect. What worked?  What hasn't really worked?  Is there some way to correct the latter without destroying the former?  

What can we as simple individuals do?  Well, that will depend a lot on your individual situation and what is right or wrong for some won't necessarily be so for others and definitely not everyone.  You do what you can to prepare for your own future while trying not to step on the future of others. Try to understand others' situations that may be vastly different than your own.  

But be patient. 

Any change worth having will take time.

The one good thing  about this is I’m listening to a lot of different ideas. Hopefully others are considering what I’ve said.  

That’s what’s good about democracy. Free speech.  

We can freely share our ideas. 

Thank you America’s forefathers. 

Boost_Crazy
Boost_Crazy HalfDork
3/28/18 11:49 p.m.

In reply to frenchyd :

Inflation has the exact opposite impact on those that you want to help as you are touting. 

1) Most low wage workers don't own homes. Or businesses. Or pretty much anything valuable enough to have such a debt that inflation would do them any good at all. Any debt that a low wage worker accrues would be at an interest rate that is substantially higher than inflation (credit card) or on a rapidly depreciating asset (car.) 

2) Inflation effectively moves the finish line away from a low wage worker. Buy the time they rise through the ranks and get a better job, the cost of living has also risen. 

3) The whole reason we are having this discussion is because of inflation. Your argument behind the need for a higher minimum wage is to keep pace with inflation. But you also say we need to raise the minimum wage to drive inflation. Do you see where this is leading? Inflation is not a friend to low wage workers.

Ian F
Ian F MegaDork
3/29/18 3:54 a.m.

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

Definitely. This was rudely brought home to me a couple of weeks ago during the "What would 17 yo you think?" thread.  I feel like I make pretty decent money right now.  At least I did until I compared it to how much money that represents in 1987 dollars in an inflation calculator.

PA is one of those states that still holds to the Federal MW of $.7.25/hr.  That represents $3.31/hr in 1987, 4 cents lower than the MW at that time. Combine that with other factors such as housing and medical costs and you can see how low income workers are falling behind.

frenchyd
frenchyd Dork
3/29/18 6:12 a.m.
Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Inflation has the exact opposite impact on those that you want to help as you are touting. 

1) Most low wage workers don't own homes. Or businesses. Or pretty much anything valuable enough to have such a debt that inflation would do them any good at all. Any debt that a low wage worker accrues would be at an interest rate that is substantially higher than inflation (credit card) or on a rapidly depreciating asset (car.) 

2) Inflation effectively moves the finish line away from a low wage worker. Buy the time they rise through the ranks and get a better job, the cost of living has also risen. 

3) The whole reason we are having this discussion is because of inflation. Your argument behind the need for a higher minimum wage is to keep pace with inflation. But you also say we need to raise the minimum wage to drive inflation. Do you see where this is leading? Inflation is not a friend to low wage workers.

I don’t know how to tell you this without sounding like a know it all jerk.  

That is not my intention, I’ve enjoyed the debate and learned some interesting things here.  

But you are just wrong. 

Yesterday during my charter I noticed all the help wanted signs. And asked a question at work. 

The bus company I work for has a lot of the little buses and vans for special needs kids.  Starting wage for a para is $14.75 an hour. The requirement to be a para?  You have to have a pulse.  Training none, skills none.  You ride in a bus and make sure the special need kid keeps the seat belt on. If he takes it off you tell the driver who pulls over until the seat belt is back on.  

Yet every day we are short and buses that require a para go without,  One  bus with a para  will drive over to another to lend the para.  

 The White Castle in Hopkins offering a $14.00 an hour starting wage.  

Home Depot in Plymouth hiring 15-16 year olds

McDonalds in Wayzata hiring 14-15 year olds starting wage $13.75 hr. 

The oil change place on the end of Decatur offers $12.00 an hour and hasn’t had a single applicant in more than a year.  

These are just the tiny handful of signs with prices I noticed and made note of yesterday. I’m sure there are thousands of others. Some have been up long enough to be badly weathered.  

My point? Clearly the real minimum wage is massively over the  2009 number.  And if places want entry level help  they have to step up.  

So the mom and pop restaurants or whatever you’re trying to defend have already felt the pinch. 

frenchyd
frenchyd Dork
3/29/18 6:39 a.m.
Ian F said:

In reply to frenchyd :

So what will people do after humans build machines that don't need humans anymore?  

Hmm...  

The path of evolution has always been hard to predict and fascinating to follow.  Provided you have the time.

STM317 said:
 

Can you summarize your goal in all of this? We've been pretty wide ranging in this thread now, and I don't think it's possible to achieve all of these goals. Maybe you could focus on your highest priority.  Are you trying to help low wage earners? Revive the middle class? Stick it to big business? Eliminate government subsidies of private business? Make sure more people are happy so they don't go on killing sprees? Modify the tax code? What was the end goal when you started this thread?

I don't think anyone has a good answer.  Or at least not one that can account for the the unpredictable variable of the human condition. All actions will have reactions. Some good. Some less so. It's hard to say what will happen until you try. 

Back in 1917, the Russians tried Marxist communism.  In theory, a "perfect" system of government. After 80 years or so, they realized it didn't really work and even now are still working through the fall-out.  But they tried.  It's easy to look back say how it was doomed to failure, but the world was a lot different back in 1917 with absolute monarchies, world-wide empires and corporate monopolies.

Some 150 years prior to the Russian experiment, a group of white men in Philadelphia decided to try something.  Something they thought could work for them at that time in history.  As we close in on the 250th anniversary of the start of the American experiment, maybe we will look back on it with some retrospect. What worked?  What hasn't really worked?  Is there some way to correct the latter without destroying the former?  

What can we as simple individuals do?  Well, that will depend a lot on your individual situation and what is right or wrong for some won't necessarily be so for others and definitely not everyone.  You do what you can to prepare for your own future while trying not to step on the future of others. Try to understand others' situations that may be vastly different than your own.  

But be patient. 

Any change worth having will take time.

I’m glad you brought up communism.  In the 1920’s-30’- into the 1940’s Communism was the fastest growing political Party in America. By the mid 1930’s it was third behind the Republican Party.  

Only by adapting some of the issues of the Communist Party was the tide slowly stemmed. That’s why Social Security passed.  However it was so hated by the elite that it was capped so the whole population couldn’t use it. The elite expected without their contribution it would quickly fade away.  

What’s the upper level now$118,000?   But it remains viable and is still hated.  The idea of privatized social security has fallen by the wayside

True it will need adjusting again.  Last time by raising the retirement age which is causing its own issues.  Next time hopefully by raising the peak earnings to include the 1% .  

But I digress, funny how even some of the people who hate social security the most wind up living on it.  My late mother for example. She railed against it but when she gambled away her millions lived the rest of her life on it.  

STM317
STM317 SuperDork
3/29/18 6:41 a.m.
frenchyd said:

My point? Clearly the real minimum wage is massively over the  2009 number.  And if places want entry level help  they have to step up. 

Sounds like the free market is already determining the "real" minimum wage on it's own without legal mandates from the Feds.

frenchyd
frenchyd Dork
3/29/18 6:48 a.m.

In reply to STM317 :

The real reason for a minimum wage is so large and wealthy can’t take advantage of the small and weak. 

No doubt there are employers paying the federal minimum. 

Since the difference is  made up by programs for the poor the real minimum wage needs to stay in line with the cost of living. 

Streetwiseguy
Streetwiseguy UltimaDork
3/29/18 10:19 a.m.
frenchyd said:

In reply to STM317 :

The real reason for a minimum wage is so large and wealthy can’t take advantage of the small and weak. 

No doubt there are employers paying the federal minimum. 

Since the difference is  made up by programs for the poor the real minimum wage needs to stay in line with the cost of living. 

That argument might work with Walmart, but it doesn't fly with the privately owned corner store.  Many small businesses, the owner works alongside the staff, and will often earn less per hour than them.  Working 80 hours a week let's them make a decent living.  If the staff now has to earn $15 per hour, owner has to cut staff hours and work even more hours.

If you want Walmart and Costco to be your only option, bump that wage.

Your argument that unmotivated, lazy people should be the responsibility of one person doesn't hold water.  We have a responsibility as a society to look after those who cannot look after themselves.  Those who choose to not look after themselves, well, "Are there no orphanages? Are there no workhouses?

And I don't really agree with Scrooge, although he might be on the right track...

GameboyRMH
GameboyRMH MegaDork
3/29/18 10:42 a.m.

Here's an article relevant to the argument about inflating your way out of debt:

http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/29/retirement/no-retirement-savings-millennials/index.html

It may have worked in the past, but it won't work again.

Also the most important reason I think the minimum wage should be livable is that if it isn't, then society still bears that cost (through family, friends, government support programs, law enforcement, etc), and the worker becomes a conduit for a large unorganized corporate subsidy program - society pays to let that person work at a job that otherwise couldn't support them.

And it's not just teenagers minimum wage jobs nowadays, it's well-educated people in their 30s.

frenchyd
frenchyd Dork
3/29/18 10:50 a.m.

In reply to Streetwiseguy :

First entry level people come all across the spectrum  ambitious to lazy, smart to dumb. We all have to start someplace  and few of us are born with a silver spoon in our mouth. 

If you are getting the people you describe maybe it’s because you aren’t offering market wages? 

Incidentally often when the owner of a small business retires he sells it to an employee. If you’d like a decent retirement I’d be sure that the employee earns a decent wage do that he can pay you a decent price.  

frenchyd
frenchyd Dork
3/29/18 11:12 a.m.
GameboyRMH said:

Here's an article relevant to the argument about inflating your way out of debt:

http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/29/retirement/no-retirement-savings-millennials/index.html

It may have worked in the past, but it won't work again.

Also the most important reason I think the minimum wage should be livable is that if it isn't, then society still bears that cost (through family, friends, government support programs, law enforcement, etc), and the worker becomes a conduit for a large unorganized corporate subsidy program - society pays to let that person work at a job that otherwise couldn't support them.

And it's not just teenagers minimum wage jobs nowadays, it's well-educated people in their 30s.

“It May have worked in the past” ———  realize America already has the debt. Caused by three major tax cuts and two wars.  It’s coming and likely it will be much higher and faster than the post Vietnam inflation which got to 22% annually 

Why not? Millenials aren’t going to grow old?   Aging won’t impact them?  I read how little they have saved for retirement and a lot of them need to finish paying off their student loans before they can afford a house.  

Sure some of their parents turned their homes into cash machines and lost them.  A few just lost them because they lost jobs. The next move is how will they deal with that? 

Some will be life long renters paying ever higher rent even if they stay in the same place.  Others will get on the inflation elevator struggle for a while and if they stay disciplined get to a point where inflation makes the house payment easy.  

I bought this place using the $56,000 I’d built up in equity and inflation at my first house.  I paid $107,000 for it and financed the remaining $51,000.   I think my payments were $107.00 a month. Today homes in my neighborhood sell for millions. 

It doesn’t happen that fast unless serious inflation is in place.  But it happens with even modest inflation. Normal homes appreciate at the rate of inflation. Water front homes appreciate faster since demand for those is higher.  

As for social security. My mother hated it.  Right up to the day she lost her last millions gamboling.  Then she went into retirement with nothing more than her latest husbands Social security. She lived on that  for almost 30 years.  

STM317
STM317 SuperDork
3/29/18 11:18 a.m.
frenchyd said:

Incidentally often when the owner of a small business retires he sells it to an employee. If you’d like a decent retirement I’d be sure that the employee earns a decent wage do that he can pay you a decent price.  

Or... counterpoint: He could take the cost savings and invest it himself where he controls it, instead of hoping that an employee wants the business a decade from now, and hoping that the employee didn't fritter away the extra wages on other stuff during that decade in between. After a decade of investing, that money will be worth a nice amount, and he can still try to sell the business to whomever wants it on top of his investment savings.

It's always better to control what you can control rather than hoping that something good works out. I think that's really the core disagreement here. Some are content to try and blame others for their status or situation while others choose to take control and form their own destiny. Some are willing to rely on the government to supply a wage increase rather than excelling in their job, or obtaining new skills and earning a raise on their own. Some will thrive, while others will struggle. But the ones that wait, hoping that others will change their lives for them, rarely succeed.

frenchyd
frenchyd Dork
3/29/18 11:34 a.m.

In reply to STM317 : I don’t think it’s blame.  Maybe some owners invest and lose. It happens, more often then not. Even the best investor isn’t likely to do as well as a full time paid professional. And less than 5% of professional investors beat the DOW consistently over a 5 year period.  

I realize that the last 5-8 years even a blind monkey throwing darts could make a profit.  The real proof is during the serious down turns like post 2007

As far as myself goes? I was the best salesman selling telehandlers to the housing construction industry.  Making a very comfortable living. Enough to race and do very well against famous world class drivers in one of the faster classes.  I owned a nice cabin cruiser on a very expensive lake. Took vacations and saved for retirement.  

Then suddenly it all came to a screeching halt.   My late wife was diagnosed with a rare incurable cancer and I was too old to find a good job. 

I suspect it was out of my hands.  What’s your opinion?  

STM317
STM317 SuperDork
3/29/18 12:20 p.m.

In reply to frenchyd :

You don't have to beat the market to grow your money. Trying to beat the market can certainly lose your money though. Where/how/if you invest is a choice just like so many other things in this thread. More risk = more potential reward. Anybody investing should fully understand that before they invest.

In regards to your somewhat recent history:

First, I'm sorry about your late wife. I've lost people close to me to cancer as well, but not my spouse thankfully. It's a miserable thing to watch a loved one go through and I think it's completely understandable that you'd want to do anything in your power to help her in any way you could. It sounds like you've had a pretty kickass life. Racing cars, and traveling, and owning a boat on a fancy lake. Your mom was a millionaire at some point, and now you are as well. You chose to live the high life in your younger years and that gets expensive. Not only do those things cost money up front, but they all have opportunity costs that rear themselves later in life if you overdo it. Any dollar you make is a dollar that somebody else can't make. Any dollar you spend is a dollar that you can't save/invest. These are basic truths of life. Everybody has to make their own choices based on their situations and their goals and you live with the results. Hopefully you're content with the choices you've made and the life you've lived.

Hindsight is 20/20 and all, but if you could redo it knowing what you know now, would you change anything? Maybe buy a smaller boat on a less expensive lake? Maybe more staycations instead of long distance travel? Spend less/save more?

Ian F
Ian F MegaDork
3/29/18 12:23 p.m.

In reply to frenchyd :

I honestly think there's something inherently wrong with our society when a major illness often causes bankruptcy. It annoys me to the point where I firmly believe if I'm ever diagnosed I will refuse treatment.  

Streetwiseguy
Streetwiseguy UltimaDork
3/29/18 12:38 p.m.
frenchyd said:

In reply to Streetwiseguy :

First entry level people come all across the spectrum  ambitious to lazy, smart to dumb. We all have to start someplace  and few of us are born with a silver spoon in our mouth. 

If you are getting the people you describe maybe it’s because you aren’t offering market wages? 

Incidentally often when the owner of a small business retires he sells it to an employee. If you’d like a decent retirement I’d be sure that the employee earns a decent wage do that he can pay you a decent price.  

First, I'm not talking about me.  My lowest paid employee is at $24 per hour. All of them made more money than me for the last two years, one of them over twice as much.  If the economy around here doesn't pick up this year, I'm going to have to do some hard thinking.

Second, a small business that doesn't own the property it sits on is worth roughly the auction value of the equipment and inventory.  There might be a bit of value buying into a franchise or dealership, but your average corner store or shop has very little goodwill value.

Third, I wasn't talking about young people entering the work force.  I'm talking about people who have proven they are worthless. 

frenchyd
frenchyd Dork
3/29/18 12:58 p.m.

In reply to Streetwiseguy :s

1.

I’m not sure if anything can be done for the schedule phobic, former addicts and theft misesters , they’ve made their bed.  Once in a while they turn around  and get with the program. Plus everybody stumbles and needs a fresh start. Or maybe it’s someone who never started because of valid reasons. ( kids off in school, taking care of old feeble parents etc. ) 

but yeh!  Entry level can be a challenge. 

2.

My father sold corner business for a brief turn.   You have it right unless a former employee wants to buy the business and knows the potential. In that case he finances it by getting a bank loan for inventory and equipment. Then signs a loan agreement with the former owner for good will and established clientele.  No bank will loan anything for that.  

3. 

I normally made more in commission than my boss and sometimes the owner.  However once I was paid my commission the only way I earned another dime from him was to sell him more equipment.  While the owner enjoyed the profit from maintenance, parts, and service for the life of the equipment. ( 30-50 years) 

frenchyd
frenchyd Dork
3/29/18 1:10 p.m.
Ian F said:

In reply to frenchyd :

I honestly think there's something inherently wrong with our society when a major illness often causes bankruptcy. It annoys me to the point where I firmly believe if I'm ever diagnosed I will refuse treatment.  

Another supporter of single payer medical care!!!! 

frenchyd
frenchyd Dork
3/29/18 1:32 p.m.
STM317 said:

In reply to frenchyd :

You don't have to beat the market to grow your money. Trying to beat the market can certainly lose your money though. Where/how/if you invest is a choice just like so many other things in this thread. More risk = more potential reward. Anybody investing should fully understand that before they invest.

In regards to your somewhat recent history:

First, I'm sorry about your late wife. I've lost people close to me to cancer as well, but not my spouse thankfully. It's a miserable thing to watch a loved one go through and I think it's completely understandable that you'd want to do anything in your power to help her in any way you could. It sounds like you've had a pretty kickass life. Racing cars, and traveling, and owning a boat on a fancy lake. Your mom was a millionaire at some point, and now you are as well. You chose to live the high life in your younger years and that gets expensive. Not only do those things cost money up front, but they all have opportunity costs that rear themselves later in life if you overdo it. Any dollar you make is a dollar that somebody else can't make. Any dollar you spend is a dollar that you can't save/invest. These are basic truths of life. Everybody has to make their own choices based on their situations and their goals and you live with the results. Hopefully you're content with the choices you've made and the life you've lived.

Hindsight is 20/20 and all, but if you could redo it knowing what you know now, would you change anything? Maybe buy a smaller boat on a less expensive lake? Maybe more staycations instead of long distance travel? Spend less/save more?

No not a single thing!! I made my choices with my eyes wide open. None were impulsive or foolish. My late wife gave me two daughters I’m extremely proud of and love deeply. They’ve given me grandchildren who cause me to melt!

the Vacations I took with my family were for them. Putting up with me traveling all the time. Leaving at 4:00am getting home at 11:00 pm  

I’ve really worked hard and enjoyed the rewards of that hard work.  I’m one of only a relative handful of Navy pilots  who got to fly off WW2 Essex class carriers.  The Navy paid me to learn and paid for me to get over 1000 flight hours and 125 carrier take offs  and 119 landings.  

I raced Sir Stirling Moss and beat him ( once)  as well as slept in AJFoyts bed. Paul Neumann asked to borrow my MGTD once and Dale Earnhardt bought me lunch.  

I wouldn’t believe it’s all happened to me if I wasn't right there.  

Regrets?  Heck no!  I want to enjoy the rest of my life and slide sideways into the grave with a loud crash and a pheeewwww! That was close, I almost missed my funeral. 

RX Reven'
RX Reven' SuperDork
3/29/18 2:16 p.m.

frenchyd, it sounds like you ditched six planes…good grief man, that makes you an enemy ace. cheeky

RE: Healthcare

Regrettably, no improvement is likely in the foreseeable future.

I have 13 years of experience in the medical industry and in that time, I’ve implemented 12,500 improvements resulting in millions and millions of dollars of independently verified annual hard savings.

And yet, despite the big ideological pendulum swing between the previous and current administration, my phone hasn’t rung once asking for guidance on how to improve our healthcare system nor have any of the 850+ colleagues I’m connected to been contacted…they just-don’t-care.

Sorry but big pharma, big legal, and big hospital (notice I’m not including big insurance) are able to make politicians offers they can’t refuse - “meet the new boss, same as the old boss”.

frenchyd
frenchyd Dork
3/29/18 2:35 p.m.

In reply to RX Reven' :

No I said carrier landings. We’d take off from a carrier and land at an airport prior to coming into port. 

Sometimes I’d get to fly back out to the carrier but as the most junior in the squadron a few times I was bumped. 

RX Reven'
RX Reven' SuperDork
3/29/18 2:48 p.m.
frenchyd said:

In reply to RX Reven' :

No I said carrier landings. We’d take off from a carrier and land at an airport prior to coming into port.  

I understand, I was just joking around.

I solo’d three days after my seventeenth birthday (in a fire breathing brute of a C152), took the ASVAB, scored pilot (actually one grade above it), and was all set to enlist in the navy but my parents were adamantly against it and ultimately talked me down.

Carrier landings seem crazy difficult…I probably would have rolled ‘er up in a ball eventually so maybe it was for the best.

frenchyd
frenchyd Dork
3/29/18 4:22 p.m.

In reply to RX Reven' :

When I flew to bootcamp that was the first time in my life I’d been in a plane off the ground. Following bootcamp since I’d passed the test to be selected as a NESEP candidate they allowed me to  select what I wanted to do. 

Naturally I selected flying. 

Night landing on a carrier you have no idea how thrilling it is. Modern Nuclear carriers don’t have the challenge that the old oil burners like I flew off of did.    The stack gas puts a big hot air blanket  right over the stern. Diving for the rolling bouncing deck a couple of seconds before you touch down you fly through the heat blanket  which instantly lifts you a hundred feet or so  a second or so later you fly out of that and drop down that Hundred or so feet.  A second later your tail hook slams on the deck and you are safely back on board.  

I did sort of over simplify the landing, 900 feet of steel shaped like a runway at an angle isn’t exactly stable.  Because the hull of the carrier is slightly  at an angle to the landing deck the deck kinda slides as the carrier heads into the wind at full speed. Plus the up and down as it goes over waves. Oh and the rocking motion gotta adjust for that too. 

So it’s a moving target, up  and down, sliding, rocking and rolling. You bring in a 27,000 pound  twin engine plane at a little over 110 knots   While all that’s going on, it really has your attention. 

Oh and the Island kicks up a little turbulence going 30 knots.   To moving deck, turbulence, and an area about the size of a  of a public swimming pool to land  on  

There are 4 wires you have to choose from to catch. The number 1&4 are not considered optimum  The LSO will write  down where Your tail hook catches the wire and which wire.  Center line #2 will get you a nice nod of respect( assuming your approach satisfied him) anything else will be noted and  result in a little loss of your posterior. 

Boost_Crazy
Boost_Crazy HalfDork
3/29/18 5:44 p.m.

In reply to frenchyd :

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Inflation has the exact opposite impact on those that you want to help as you are touting. 

1) Most low wage workers don't own homes. Or businesses. Or pretty much anything valuable enough to have such a debt that inflation would do them any good at all. Any debt that a low wage worker accrues would be at an interest rate that is substantially higher than inflation (credit card) or on a rapidly depreciating asset (car.) 

2) Inflation effectively moves the finish line away from a low wage worker. Buy the time they rise through the ranks and get a better job, the cost of living has also risen. 

3) The whole reason we are having this discussion is because of inflation. Your argument behind the need for a higher minimum wage is to keep pace with inflation. But you also say we need to raise the minimum wage to drive inflation. Do you see where this is leading? Inflation is not a friend to low wage workers.

I don’t know how to tell you this without sounding like a know it all jerk.  

That is not my intention, I’ve enjoyed the debate and learned some interesting things here.  

But you are just wrong. 

Yesterday during my charter I noticed all the help wanted signs. And asked a question at work. 

The bus company I work for has a lot of the little buses and vans for special needs kids.  Starting wage for a para is $14.75 an hour. The requirement to be a para?  You have to have a pulse.  Training none, skills none.  You ride in a bus and make sure the special need kid keeps the seat belt on. If he takes it off you tell the driver who pulls over until the seat belt is back on.  

Yet every day we are short and buses that require a para go without,  One  bus with a para  will drive over to another to lend the para.  

 The White Castle in Hopkins offering a $14.00 an hour starting wage.  

Home Depot in Plymouth hiring 15-16 year olds

McDonalds in Wayzata hiring 14-15 year olds starting wage $13.75 hr. 

The oil change place on the end of Decatur offers $12.00 an hour and hasn’t had a single applicant in more than a year.  

These are just the tiny handful of signs with prices I noticed and made note of yesterday. I’m sure there are thousands of others. Some have been up long enough to be badly weathered.  

My point? Clearly the real minimum wage is massively over the  2009 number.  And if places want entry level help  they have to step up.  

So the mom and pop restaurants or whatever you’re trying to defend have already felt the pinch. 

You don't sound like a jerk, this is a good conversation. You do sound a bit confused. This is the latest example of where you presented an argument that completely counters your premise. 

It's terrific that low skilled workers are making much more than minimum wage. There are plenty of jobs that pay quite a bit higher available to people with little skill or experience, I pointed that out pages ago. As I said before, if you have no skill but need to support yourself, you don't need a raise to minimum wage- you need to get a different job. 

I do believe that you are incorrect in extrapolating that if some businesses can afford to pay more for low skilled workers, than all can. That is simply untrue. The market will set the wages, as your example show. Businesses don't want the best employees available. They want the best that they can afford that will still meet their standards. McDonalds could hire world class chefs to flip the burgers, but not many customers will pay $50 for a Big Mac. But maybe their labor market is thin, and they can't get good employees for minimum wage. They kick it up a couple bucks, and find that they are able to get better people. They do more business, and make more profits. That is how it is supposed to work. The business determines it's needs, and adjusts accordingly. The ones that do that the best grow, and hire more people.

frenchyd
frenchyd Dork
3/29/18 8:26 p.m.

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

The problem I have with the free market is it’s anything but free.  There are rules and regulations that keep it from free and fair. 

Regulations are a good thing. It keeps drug dealers from selling in schools ( well nothing’s perfect) but at least there are rules that put them in Jail. 

You cant sell cigarettes to minors or buy them a beer.  And worst of all the gold rule. He who has gold makes the rules. 

Anyway you are right some business can’t afford to pay market price for help.  Now should that business exploit the desperate workers who will take a less than market price for their labor?  

Or should the principles of the market force that company out of business?  

A fair solution is  pay what you can but give a portion of the business to the worker who invests his under paid  time  in your business. 

You'll need to log in to post.

Our Preferred Partners
Xo3vvrWyW9hWZew89HzbL7VG8TLxo0sB6uFA0Kv4GOWCvmhySd1jSK3GNRpEfs3M