Obama's speech on race

[Slowlane]

The market always corrects itself, if they would just leave it alone instead of doing things like raising minimum wage, we would be fine.

The raise in minimum wage is probably the single most inflationary pieces of legislation to come down on us in a long time.

Raise the min wage and everybody up the line wants a raise. Business raiseses their prices to accommodate and the prices go up. At best, the result is status quo.

As a business owner I often didn't hire because I would hadhad to pay min wage when I might have been able to help someone out by paying them to do a job that didn't need done.

I also believe that the min wage law sometimes sets an artificial baseline for a starting wage. I know people who would start new hires at better than min but don't because the government says the min wage is to be $7.02

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

The raise in minimum wage is probably the single most inflationary pieces of legislation to come down on us in a long time.

Raise the min wage and everybody up the line wants a raise. Business raiseses their prices to accommodate and the prices go up. At best, the result is status quo.

As a business owner I often didn't hire because I would hadhad to pay min wage when I might have been able to help someone out by paying them to do a job that didn't need done.

I also believe that the min wage law sometimes sets an artificial baseline for a starting wage. I know people who would start new hires at better than min but don't because the government says the min wage is to be $7.02

I'll deal with that last statement and the very obvious disparity.

You know a business owner that wanted to hire people at higher than minimum wage but didn't because the government mandated the minimum wage to be $7.02..

What stopped him from hiring people above the minimum wage? Obviously the government wouldn't stop him from hiring people at above, only below minimum wage. If he was going to hire someone in at say $8.00 an hour how does the government saying that you must pay at least $7.02 an hour affect that? He or she is already paying well above the minimum.

When the minimum wage increase went into effect it didn't change anything at my place of employment, nothing. Everyone was already making more per hour than the increased minimum wage amount. Raises were not given nor expected across the board. The starting rate in my department is around $8.50 per hour for entry level positions (basic maintenance, light bulb changer, toilet plunger, etc.) Exactly the same rate it was before the minimum wage increase. In fact, our starting rate increased long before the minimum wage increase was even discussed, our starting rate for entry level positions has been above the current minimum for 10 years easily.

The minimum wage is in place to keep employers from exploiting the labor force, especially when jobs are scarce and unskilled labor, by paying less than a fair amount in compensation.

 

[richard_daily]

I'll deal with that last statement and the very obvious disparity.

You know a business owner that wanted to hire people at higher than minimum wage but didn't because the government mandated the minimum wage to be $7.02..

What stopped him from hiring people above the minimum wage? Obviously the government wouldn't stop him from hiring people at above, only below minimum wage. If he was going to hire someone in at say $8.00 an hour how does the government saying that you must pay at least $7.02 an hour affect that? He or she is already paying well above the minimum.

When the minimum wage increase went into effect it didn't change anything at my place of employment, nothing. Everyone was already making more per hour than the increased minimum wage amount. Raises were not given nor expected across the board. The starting rate in my department is around $8.50 per hour for entry level positions (basic maintenance, light bulb changer, toilet plunger, etc.) Exactly the same rate it was before the minimum wage increase. In fact, our starting rate increased long before the minimum wage increase was even discussed, our starting rate for entry level positions has been above the current minimum for 10 years easily.

The minimum wage is in place to keep employers from exploiting the labor force, especially when jobs are scarce and unskilled labor, by paying less than a fair amount in compensation.

And anyone who's against it hasn't ever tried to raise a family on it... That much I can guarantee.

"I'd like to pay you more, but legally, this is the least I can give you".

 

[busybody..]

if you have to SURVIVE on min wage

you have NO RIGHT to have a family!

STUPID "people" shouldnt make more STUPID PEOPLE

 

[unregistered]

 

[busybody..]

sorta FUNNY how the LIBZ scream about JOBS

yet bash Wal Mart the number 1 provider of jobs and the number 1 provider of jobs to those that cant get em any where else



what the LIBZ really mean is WEALTH TRANSFER from the ones that can to the ones that wont

 

[busybody..]

BAM is on record of talking about a LIVIG WAGE

which is in effect

taking from those that can and do and giving to those that cant and wont

 

[richard_daily]

It's an entry level wage, not a living wage. It's all about government forcing the market to pay you more than you are worth, something for nothing.

What the Minimum Wage Law really says is this:

If you are unable to produce $7.02 per hour in goods or services for a prospective employer it is illegal for you to work in the United States Of America.

Except that in many communities, it's the ONLY wage... You can pretend that it isn't, but that just shows your lack of understanding of the big picture.

There is no living wage standard in this country, and there should be.

something for nothing my ass... Try working a minimum wage job and tell me it's "something for nothing".

Are the chicks for free?

 

[Slowlane]

I'll deal with that last statement and the very obvious disparity.

You know a business owner that wanted to hire people at higher than minimum wage but didn't because the government mandated the minimum wage to be $7.02..

What stopped him from hiring people above the minimum wage? Obviously the government wouldn't stop him from hiring people at above, only below minimum wage. If he was going to hire someone in at say $8.00 an hour how does the government saying that you must pay at least $7.02 an hour affect that? He or she is already paying well above the minimum.

When the minimum wage increase went into effect it didn't change anything at my place of employment, nothing. Everyone was already making more per hour than the increased minimum wage amount. Raises were not given nor expected across the board. The starting rate in my department is around $8.50 per hour for entry level positions (basic maintenance, light bulb changer, toilet plunger, etc.) Exactly the same rate it was before the minimum wage increase. In fact, our starting rate increased long before the minimum wage increase was even discussed, our starting rate for entry level positions has been above the current minimum for 10 years easily.

The minimum wage is in place to keep employers from exploiting the labor force, especially when jobs are scarce and unskilled labor, by paying less than a fair amount in compensation.

Some people just have a mind set that the min the government allows is what they should pay starting help - no exceptions.

The people in your department making $8.50 are now making close to min wage than they were, sooner or later they will realize that and look for other jobs. Either that or the inflation caused by the min wag increase will drive them to more money.

Min wage does nothing to keep an employer from exploiting the work force. Many companies when hit with higher wages delete another benefit to compensate.

Many small companies hire high school and college kids for summer work for no other reason than to give them some job experience. Thousands of those jobs are no longer available. I know one wood working company that eliminated five such jobs for the coming summer. ow many thousands of people will be out of work if WalMart decides to gut it's force of greeters? How many people will start loosing an hour or two a week because the boss will no linger let then be idle or even sweep the floors?

When government sticks it's nose into the natural order of things it rarely works.

 

[Slowlane]

And anyone who's against it hasn't ever tried to raise a family on it... That much I can guarantee.

"I'd like to pay you more, but legally, this is the least I can give you".

Anybody two years out of school should have gone well past min wage. Until then they shouldn't be raising a family.

Min wage is for starting and, in some cases, ending your careerer.

 

[Slowlane]

Except that in many communities, it's the ONLY wage... You can pretend that it isn't, but that just shows your lack of understanding of the big picture.

There is no living wage standard in this country, and there should be.

something for nothing my ass... Try working a minimum wage job and tell me it's "something for nothing".

Are the chicks for free?

Show me someone with their feet nailed to the floor so they can't leave those communities. Them maybe I'll be more sympathetic.

 

[Sean]

The raise in minimum wage is probably the single most inflationary pieces of legislation to come down on us in a long time.

The minimum wage is a fairly new thing in the UK. Inflation has not risen since its adoption. Nor has inflation risen when the minimum wage has increased.

 

[Slowlane]

The minimum wage is a fairly new thing in the UK. Inflation has not risen since its adoption. Nor has inflation risen when the minimum wage has increased.

If that's true one can only conclude that UK business men are stupid enough to absorb the costs without passing them on to the consumer - a scenario I seriously doubt.

 

[busybody..]

Pure Antisemitism at Official Obama Site
Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 9:00:45 am PDT

Hosted at the official Barack Obama campaign web site, this blog post has been public since March 1, 2008: IKEY G-KHAN GALACTICCA’s Support Senator Barack Obama For US President Blog: Jews Cannot Afford Not To Support Obama.



Obamanism is the cure for Clintonitis that has devastated America and I hope Jews all over US rally around Obama and support him to win both the nomination and the Presidency because after he wins, he would help the Jews and Israel as well as settle the Middle East problems.

However, if Jews betray Obama and he loses, Africans worldwide would consider it a betrayal to the whole African people and will never forgive world Jewry.

In retaliation, (eye for eye, remember!) Africa would consider expelling all Jews from Africa who have been mining African Gold and Diamond and enriching themselves for many centuries.

It was African gold and diamond that built international finance, trade and banking that the Jews (Rothschild, Warbug, Rockefeller and others) dominate.

It was African gold and diamond that built Jewish banks and wealth worldwide.

It goes on in this vein for a long time, concluding with:

Americans seem to be in slumber and in complete denial of the present dangerous and volatile world situation.

This is where Jews can help.

By supporting Obama to win, they would cure America of Clintonitis and thereby be able to find a permanent solution to the Arab-Jewish problem in the Middle East.

Jews must support Obama or face grave consequences. You cannot afford not to.

 

[Sean]

If that's true one can only conclude that UK business men are stupid enough to absorb the costs without passing them on to the consumer - a scenario I seriously doubt.

When it was first proposed, the CBI and their tame dogs in the Conservative party were prophesying job cuts, inflation, bankruptcies. It all turned out to be bullshit and even the Tories are for it now.

 

[busybody..]

That Awful Economy

A Hill staffer sends this along:

It’s the Politics, Stupid:

Comparing Labor Market Data in 1996 and 2008


Democrats on the Economy in 1996:

“Our economy is the healthiest it has been in three decades.” (President Bill Clinton, State of the Union Address, January 23, 1996)


Democrats on the Economy in 2008:

“The bottom line is that this administration is the owner of the worst jobs record since Herbert Hoover." (Senator Charles Schumer, Press Release, March 7, 2008)


Key Labor Market Statistics in 1996 and 2008
March 1996 March 2008
1. U.S. Unemployment Rate 5.5% 5.1%
2. Number of Long-Term Unemployed 1.33 million 1.28 million
3. Average Weeks Unemployed 17.3 weeks 16.2 weeks
4. Median Weeks Unemployed 8.3 weeks 8.1 weeks
5. Not in Labor Force because discouraged over job prospects 451,000 401,000
6. Democrats calling for Extended Unemployment Benefits? No Yes
7. President’s Party Affiliation Democrat Republican

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

That Awful Economy

A Hill staffer sends this along:

It’s the Politics, Stupid:

Comparing Labor Market Data in 1996 and 2008


Democrats on the Economy in 1996:

“Our economy is the healthiest it has been in three decades.” (President Bill Clinton, State of the Union Address, January 23, 1996)


Democrats on the Economy in 2008:

“The bottom line is that this administration is the owner of the worst jobs record since Herbert Hoover." (Senator Charles Schumer, Press Release, March 7, 2008)


Key Labor Market Statistics in 1996 and 2008
March 1996 March 2008
1. U.S. Unemployment Rate 5.5% 5.1%
2. Number of Long-Term Unemployed 1.33 million 1.28 million
3. Average Weeks Unemployed 17.3 weeks 16.2 weeks
4. Median Weeks Unemployed 8.3 weeks 8.1 weeks
5. Not in Labor Force because discouraged over job prospects 451,000 401,000
6. Democrats calling for Extended Unemployment Benefits? No Yes
7. President’s Party Affiliation Democrat Republican

There are occassions when viewing your posts is gratifying. Like when you're being very transparent in your twisting of facts to suit your purpose.

Caught again being disingenuous about unemployment figures where the Clinton administration is concerned, I already debunked your little meme in another thread.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=26765125&postcount=932

Ah, the view post option.. Why I bother I don't know.

You're right, when Clinton was re-elected in 1996 unemployment was at 5.4%, DOWN from the 7.3% that he inherited from Bush Sr in January of 1993.

Now when Bush Jr. was elected unemployment sat at 4.2% in January of 2001 when he was re-elected in 2004 it was 5.7% and now stands at 5.1% as of March 2008.

Nothing like a little disingenousness [edit: outright distorting the truth] in the morning from Dizzybooby.

Figures from http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

Jesus man, I can spot your bull-shit through ignore..
Back to ignoreland for you, I can almost see the ranting now.

 

[Faneros]

You do know that these and other numbers like these get adjusted constantly decade after decade, they're basically worthless...

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

You do know that these and other numbers like these get adjusted constantly decade after decade, they're basically worthless...

I see.. when the numbers fall in your favor they're gospel, when they don't they're worthless.

Very telling.

 

[busybody..]

There are occassions when viewing your posts is gratifying. Like when you're being very transparent in your twisting of facts to suit your purpose.

Caught again being disingenuous about unemployment figures where the Clinton administration is concerned, I already debunked your little meme in another thread.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=26765125&postcount=932

DUMMY!

You took just ONE of the points and ignored the others

Oh well

Hope you GLEE in the BAD NEWS

Im sure Nov 9 if a DUM gets in

all will be great!

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

DUMMY!

You took just ONE of the points and ignored the others

Oh well

Hope you GLEE in the BAD NEWS

Im sure Nov 9 if a DUM gets in

all will be great!

You're using, again, numbers from the middle of the Clinton administration when we were still recovering from the economic problems left over from Bush Sr.'s Presidency.

From the time Clinton took office until Bush Jr. took office there were huge gains.. Unemployment went from the 7.2% to 4.2%.. Bush's reign has taken us from 4.2% to 5.1% now, he hasn't completely reversed the gains during the Clinton administration, but a continuation of his policies will most certainly do a damned good job of it.

You have selected the numbers in the middle of Clinton's term for a reason, go too far back and people start to realize that the problem was inherited from Bush Sr., and corrected for the most part by the end of Clinton's term.

If you're going to compare apples to apples compare the end of Clinton's 2nd term figures with those coming now at the end of Bush Jr.'s 2nd term. You won't do that though, will you?

Nope, everything won't be great on November 9th, it's going to take a very long time to undo the damage that the Bush administration has wrought both domestic and international.

 

[Faneros]

I see.. when the numbers fall in your favor they're gospel, when they don't they're worthless.

Very telling.

thats not what Im saying at all, its just I dont go by numbers, especially numbers the government gives us

 

[Slowlane]

When it was first proposed, the CBI and their tame dogs in the Conservative party were prophesying job cuts, inflation, bankruptcies. It all turned out to be bullshit and even the Tories are for it now.

Good for them - I'm against it.

 

[landslider2000]

Wright was not Obama's "uncle."

Obama chose to attend that church, and recently donated $27,000 to it.

Obama was married by Wright, and Wright baptized Obama's kids.

Obama sat for 20 years -- silent -- and listened to divisive, hate-drenched, racist rants.

Perhaps Obama joined the church, after prep school and Harvard, to get "street cred."

Whatever his motives, Obama has a lot to answer for given his long association with a racist.

Obama's speech was indeed eloquent, but it was merely an attempt to divert attention from himself and toward the larger issue of race in America.

 

[phrodeau]

(edited)

Obama sat for 20 years -- silent -- and listened to divisive, hate-drenched, racist rants.

Proof?