Tuesday, January 7, 2014

Return of the Minimum Wage Hand-Out

Let’s start off the new year with a little push for upward mobility. Yeah, minimum wage increase was a topic already discussed a month ago, but right-wing cognitive dissonance is just so much fun to exploit for blog material. Republicans believe what they’re told to believe and no amount of fucking facts, historically preceded or otherwise, will ever, ever sway the opinions that were given to them by Frank Luntz.

The discussion in Minumum Wage Hand-Out happened a few months before I posted it on this blog and took place when a big protest for a minimum wage increase was scheduled. The day I posted it, another protest (that I was unaware of) also took place. I’m sure those protests were what prompted these regurgitated complaints against minimum wage workers. Because as we all know, tax subsidies for billion-dollar profit corporations and CEO’s paying themselves 400X the average worker aren’t the problem. It’s paying those workers a living wage.

Goddamn moochers.


December 10, 2013

Don't like minimum wage? If you got minimum skills, minimum education and minimum motivation, why the hell should you be paid more?

Remind me to tell you the story of "the callout" when I see you next time. [I bet that’s a great story. Probably as interesting as Dick Cheney shooting someone in the face – and then that guy apologizing to Dick Cheney. Of course, it could also be about watching a family of ducks swimming in a pond. Who can tell what those kooky Conservatives find interesting?]


Bill Mancuso
Maybe because it has nothing to do with any of that. Maybe because 68% of m/w workers are adults over 20 - the average being 28 years old. Maybe because 284,000 m/w workers have college degrees. Maybe because 30,000 m/w workers have master's degrees. Maybe because paying people a 1968 economy's minimum wage isn't realistic. Maybe because 2/3 of minimum wage workers support families. Maybe because 3/5 of them are the sole earner in the family. Maybe because increasing a minimum wage to the 2013 inflation level would boost the economy. Maybe because 60 years of statistics on minimum wage increases prove that it helps the economy. Maybe because paying people 50% of the living wage forces them to go on welfare and food stamps, which drags the economy and increases government spending. Maybe because every Wal*Mart employee alone costs us $5,800 in tax subsidies. Maybe because if a corporation doesn't pay their employees a living wage, they know we taxpayers will cover it.

How do you equate being paid minimum wage with having no motivation?

People can't complain "Obama, where are the jobs?" and simultaneously complain "Why don't you just get a high-paying job?" Are you suggesting they move to China, where all the jobs are being shipped?

I can't figure out the mentality that we need to give rich people more money, and poor people need less money.

** **

** **

Bill, how is paying someone with a masters degree more than minimum wage to do a menial job helping the economy? Menial jobs deserve minimum wage. It's always been like that. We all started at a minimum wage job. We make our destiny from there.

And just for the record, Bill...it's not the people with Masters degrees that are begging for more (they're smart, they know how this works), it's the ones with minimum skills, minimum education and minimum motivation that are demanding more money. And why, you ask? Because they have an overwhelming sense of entitlement.

......give them a "Participation Trophy"....that'll make 'em just as happy.

[I forgot to address the absurd display of cognitive dissonance regarding Master’s Degree holders with minimum wage jobs: What is the difference between a Master’s Degree holder and a “minimum education” person working a minimum wage job? Neither of them are apparently able to obtain a better paying job. What makes you think the “minimum education” person has an “overwhelming sense of entitlement” other than that’s what you were told to think? Personally, I would think the Master’s Degree holder is more likely to have an “overwhelming sense of entitlement” since they put all that work into education, and are many thousands of dollars in debt but are still unable to get a better job. Of course, I also don’t immediately jump to that completely unsubstantiated claim that I just pulled out of my ass to justify my own belief that I based on nothing other than I was told to believe it. And of course a Master’s Degree holder is fighting to increase the minimum wage. They’re only able to get a minimum wage job after earning a Master’s Degree. Are you saying that the Master’s Degree holder is stupid? Are you saying they’re happy to have a job that pays about $15,000 dollars a year without health or any other benefits? Are you saying a Master’s Degree holder is happy to start life $100,000+ in debt after putting in all that work to educate theirself – but only able to get a $15,000/yr job? What the fuck-a-doodle-do are you talking about?]

[“Theirself” is apparently not a word. It makes sense to me. “Themself,” also not a word, doesn’t sound right. I understand that “their” is plural and “self” is singular, so the word is in conflict with itself, but I didn’t want to write “himself,” “herself,” or “him or herself” since I hadn’t previously specified a gender and didn’t want to start there. So, I combined the imagined singular entities, “him” and “her” as the non-gender definitive plural “their.” And added the non-gender definitive singular “self” for a new English language word that I’m sure Oxford will be happy to add to next year’s list of new words. I’m sure that since these fucktarded words were eligible – vacay, guac, srsly, deets, bezzie, whatevs, bajillion and glamping – then so, too, shall be “theirself.” Thank you for your consideration.]

[Fuck you, English language. You keep forcing me to invent new words, but don’t compensate me for my effort. SOCIALISM!]

[Ah, tangents. Who would I be without them?]

**  **

**  **

Bill Mancuso
Raising the minimum wage to current 2013 inflation levels is not 'paying someone more than minimum wage.' Paying someone a livable wage enables them to buy more things, which stimulates the economy. If more people are buying more things, corporations will need to hire more people to meet the demand. A healthy middle class with purchasing power are the true job creators. That's Economics 101. Entitlement has nothing to do with it. Master's degree people certainly are fighting for minimum wage increases since they are working minimum wage jobs. These "menial jobs" of which you speak are paid the minimum wage of a 1968 economy - not a 2013 economy. How is that so difficult to understand? A brand new Ford Mustang doesn't cost $4,000. A loaf of bread doesn't cost .22¢. Why should minimum wage be set for that economy? "Entitlement" and "begging" and "participation trophy" and "free hand-outs" are nice buzz words, but have nothing to do with the current situation. What you're describing is a 1950's economy. Today, jobs are lost to overseas markets and automation. Minimum wage jobs are increasingly the only jobs available. And when Wal*Mart pays its "associates" $11,000/yr full-time with no benefits, it needs to be subsidized by the government, but I repeat myself. I guess you like shelling out almost six grand in tax money per Wal*Mart employee.

** **

** **

[You don’t need to read this next bit. It’s a 'copy & paste' of completely debunked, corporate profit-protecting bullshit lies. Again with the ‘copy & paste post’ that supposedly backs up bullshit. I told you what I think of those in the last minimum wage post. But, if you’re really interested to dive head first into crap, by all means…]

Raising the minimum wage is the kind of cheap political policy proposal. In a wave of their legislative hand, they can boast they have given millions of Americans a pay raise. It's an emotional issue powerful enough to stand up to decades of economic research. [Aside from that sentence making absolutely no sense, Conservatives ALWAYS say Liberals legislate with their emotions. However, Republicans INVENT things, DEMAND they are true and proceed to legislate on those wishes. How is THAT not emotional? Case in point: Tax cuts for corporations creates jobs. It never has and there is NO statistical evidence to support that wish – only occasional temporary short-term growth that never sustains. Talk about not standing up to decades of economic research. (This supports what I just said: the Conservative just INVENTED that liberal emotions stand up to research, but that never happened. This guy’s entire article copied & pasted here, proven to be completely false, bears out that fact.) Democrats look at evidence (a strong middle class creates jobs: Henry Ford proved that over a century ago) and legislate on that EVIDENCE. If evidence-based legislating is considered bleeding heart liberalism, then evidence seems to be liberally biased. Or Liberals are evidence-biased. Either works. Now, seriously - all nonsensical bullshit ahead. Heaping, castor oil drenched tablespoonfuls of bullshit. Read at your own risk to sanity.] Most Americans are decades-away from the kinds of jobs that make up the minimum wage workforce, blunting the obvious implications of federally mandated wages. Still, like all other government mandates, a wage hike sets off unintended consequences that end up harming the very people politicians say they are trying to help.

Let's set aside the economic arguments against raising the minimum wage. The issue is the poster-child for both side's ability to torture statistics enough to confess anything. The simple truth is that minimum wage workers are such a small amount of the workforce today, that the macro-economic effects are relatively small either way. On the margins, and for certain populations, however, the impacts can be devastating.

The basic problem with the issue is that we literally don't know what we're talking about. Obama and other supporters of mandated wage hikes pose a picture of millions of workers struggling to raise families on a minimum wage job. This is so separated from reality that it necessitates a look at who these workers actually are.

Myth 1: Hiking wages for those at the lowest rung of the job market will boost the economy.

The truth is, there simply aren't that many people earning the minimum wage. In 1979, almost 14% of hourly-paid workers earned the federal minimum wage. Today, just around 4% of hourly-paid workers earn it. Among all wage and salary employees, only a little over 2% earn the minimum wage. Among the entire labor force, the number is even smaller. In 2012, just 1.6 million employees were paid the minimum wage.

Myth 2: Minimum Wage Workers Are Poor

Even if the number of minimum wage workers is small, at least a mandated wage hike would boost the fortunes of the lowest-income Americans, it is argued. The problem with this argument is that most minimum wage workers aren't poor.

They looked at those who would benefit from an increase in the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $9.50, comparable to the level proposed by President Obama. Just over 11% of workers who would gain from an increase live in poor households. Over 63% of the workers who would gain are second or third earners in families making well over the federal poverty line. 43% of workers who would benefit live in households with income over $50,000 a year.
The simple truth is that most minimum wage workers are teens, young adults just starting in the labor force and spouses providing a second income to a household. In fact, as federal minimum wages increase, these workers become a larger share of the minimum wage workforce as they crowd out those workers with fewer skills.

Myth 3: Minimum Wage Workers Are Supporting a Family

The most emotional appeal for increasing the minimum wage is the picture of a family struggling to get by on a minimum wage job. It seems inconceivable to many Americans that someone would be able to raise a family on just a minimum wage job. Fortunately, the vast majority of Americans earning the minimum wage aren't trying to raise a family.

About half of those earning the minimum wage are under 25. They found that among families where an adult was earning the minimum wage, 94% had a spouse who was also employed, often far above the minimum wage. In almost half of these families, the spouse was earning over $40,000 a year. That small subset of adults trying to raise a family on a minimum wage job have very low skill levels. Unfortunately, it is these workers most vulnerable to any contraction in employment caused by a minimum wage hike.

Myth 4: A federally mandated wage hike is the only way minimum wage workers get a raise

Minimum wage hike supporters often talk about workers "stuck" in minimum wage jobs. To many politicians, the only way a minimum wage worker gets a raise is through legislative action.
Research, fortunately, paints a different picture. Nearly two-thirds of all minimum wage earners receive a raise with the first 1-12 months on the job. This is consistent with what we anecdotally know about minimum wage jobs; they are "first jobs." They are entry-level job, providing many workers with their first job experience. As they gain experience and skills, employers will increase their pay to retain their better-skilled employees.

The effect of a mandated wage hike is that it increases the entry-level skill-set required to take these first jobs. It artificially lifts the first-rung of the job ladder, denying low-skilled workers the opportunity to gain skills and move up the job ladder.

Myth 5: A mandated wage hike is the best way to improve income for minimum wage workers who are poor.

The number of minimum wage workers who are poor and struggling to raise a family is thankfully very small. That said, some number of these workers do exist. Even if there are negative consequences elsewhere, at least these few would see a benefit, right? In short, no.
President Ford signed into law the Earned Income Tax Credit. The program is based on the negative income tax concept first developed by Milton Friedman. Low-income households receive a refundable tax credit, the amount of which is based on their other income. It acts as a guarantee of minimum income, rather than a minimum wage.

As a worker's wages rise, the amount of EITC they can claim goes down. Their wages may go up, but the overall amount of household income they have may stay the same. If, however, the mandated wage hike has a disemployment effect on these low-wage workers, they may be far worse off than before the wage hike.

The benefit of increasing the EITC, rather than a simple minimum wage hike, is that you can concentrate the benefits on those politicians claim they want to help; low-income, poor workers struggling to raise a family. If a minimum wage his causes people to lose their jobs, it is these workers, with lower skill-sets, most vulnerable to the job loss. The will reap the fall-out of those politicians trying to help.

We have to begin any discussion of raising the minimum wage with a basic question of what it is we are trying to do. If our goal is to help those few workers who are trying to raise a family on the minimum wage, a federally mandated increase may be the worst thing we can do.

**  **

**  **

::munching popcorn:: don't mind me.....

[Chief, here, seems to think I can’t flush down this bullshit.]

You should really disclose when you are just copy/pasting arguments. 

He already knew that. But thanks. [Ooh, caught! Squirm squirm. “Whatevs! He knew!”]

[Whatevs © 2012 Oxford English Dictionary. All rights reserved. Used with permission.]

I didn't, until I guessed there was no way you typed all that. [He did save me the time looking it up, though. Thanks, Robert .]

Anyone who knows me, knows that I didn't type all that. Anyone who actually KNOWS me, knows the only time I would even consider putting any time into an argument would be by typing the words "Fuck you".......... [It’s always obvious when someone puts no time into researching the truth and instead just copies talking points. I’ve got a couple hundred blog posts that revolve around that very basic fact regarding Republicans.]

Busted. [He wasn’t buying it, either.]

You need to find a better hobby.

Dude. You should really disclose where you're copying pictures from. That doesn't look like Artwork by Robert.

LOL! Indeed

[Fun break over.]

[You also don’t need to read my link. It has all the facts that debunk those right-wing corporate profit-protecting talking points. Unless you’re interested in facts. Then go ahead and read away.]

Bill Mancuso
I see your copied and pasted right-wing corporate profit protecting lies about the minimum wage from the Breitbart Laugh Factory and raise you one link to actual facts.

And this cartoon…
Bill Mancuso
Oh, and it's not mine. It's from Nick Anderson at the Houston Chronicle.

Bill Mancuso
One more thing: all the "studies" that your Breitbart article links to for reference are from this one conservative "think tank," the Employment Policies Institute.

I don't like popcorn. Sticks in my teeth.

*****     *****     *****

After three days, I wondered, “Where did everybody go?” What, Chief, no more poppycorns for you?


This fuckin’ guy:

McDonald's Wants Employees To Tip For What!? | The Rubin Report


Conservative debate tactics, in no particular order:

1. Ignore evidence/facts and keep repeating misinformation

UPI: Repeated misinformation easy to believe (i.e. Conservatives repeatedly claim their health care plan that Obama made into law is socialism, even though Conservatives designed it to protect and increase corporate profits in the true sense of capitalism)

2. Ignore evidence/facts and change the subject

3. Ignore evidence/facts and simply disappear (Like in this post.)

4. Call opponent names (called an “ad hominem attack” i.e. Libtard, Kool-Aid drinking Libtard) (Been used countless times before, but this one's coming up in a new post soon. The topic is Obamacare. Fun for the whole family.)

5. Insist opponent is doing what they are actually doing (it’s called “projecting” i.e. “Liberals legislate by their emotions, not by facts.” Or, as seen in this flip-flopped revisionerizing of civil rights history...) 

[revisionerizing © 2013 Oxford English Dictionary. All rights reserved. Used with permission.]

There are many variations and combinations, but these are the basic tactics I’ve noticed to be used most often.


Then, of course, there’s this handy list provided by The New Yorker of right-wing rhetoric broken down to its individual components. You will recognize all of them. Soak it in.

I often hold back information during my little sparring matches in anticipation of their next comeback. I do this in order to keep the conversation going. If you put too much info in one dump, they ignore all of it and the issue never gets a counterargument. Most of the facts I present get ignored anyway, but I at least want to increase their chance of getting tackled. I have about an 85% success rate these days. Back when I started my political circus act, I basically went floundering for information after some bullshit was thrown at me. After figuring out their basic list of strategies, I only have to guess which one they’ll be most likely to use. I guessed #1 since it was already being employed, but I guessed wrong. It was #3 this time. I misunderestimated the reaction to pointing out their information was not actually information, but a PR firm’s previously debunked bullshit.

[misunderestimated © 2000 Oxford English Dictionary. All rights reserved. Used with permission.]

Anyway, here’s the smart-ass reply I had on deck for the anticipated Debate Tactic #1 response:

What? Paying ABOVE the current minimum wage DOESN'T cut into profits OR decrease jobs? What? It actually INCREASES profits AND jobs? There couldn't possibly be any proof of this insanity. Could there be?

Not America, but a successful business model none the less:

Robert Reich on The Daily Show




These fucking cunts:

 Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner

Republican House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor

Did I mention they're Republicans?

Did I mention they're cunts?




Minimum Wage Workers are Worse off than Servants in 1910



Inequality is real, it's personal, it's expensive and it was created

One last thing...

Better make that two...

Ah, what the hell, three...

And if you can’t figure out how people could possibly think paying workers 50% less than the current inflation ratio, thank this millionaire fuckstick: The Brain Frees: Spin Cycle

One very lastly last thing:

I was going to post this on Facebook but fuck Facebook…

100 years ago on January 5, 1914:

Standard wage for factory workers was around $2.50 per day.

Henry Ford announced he would start wages for his workers at $5.00 per day - even for the boy who swept the floors.

This move decreased employee turnover, increased employee morale & productivity and profits went up.

Ford also changed factory hours from 18 hours per day with two 9-hour shifts to 24 hours per day with three 8-hour shifts. This move was to give more people employment and also boost profits.

Ford also decided not to fire anyone if they performed poorly in their department. Instead, he gave them the opportunity to work in another department. The only grounds for discharge from a Ford factory was if an employee was proved unfaithfulness or irremediable inefficiency.

Henry Ford knew how the economy works.

Wal*Mart does not.


No comments:

Post a Comment