The rhetoric of the minimum wage

[Cade Is Here]

The service station attendent lost out to the convience store clerk when it was realised a mini-mart made much more money per square foot than a service station with service bays ever could.

Full service stations tried to sell gas at a couple cents extra per gallon, but it didn't pay. Market forces at work.

I used to supervise a crew that included about 5 low wage positions. The miniumum wage didn't matter much, because I couldn't get anyone who was worth the 3 days it took to show them the job, for less than 25 cents over minimum. I was drawing mostly from inner city youth, with lower skills. Market forces at work again.

I believe it!

 

[MechaBlade]

Anyone want to make some wagers on the unemployment rate starting to creep up and how long it will take?

It's sad but true: raise wages and unemployment may rise to keep costs down. Creating jobs is probably best done through lowering wages. But if you create jobs, that means more purchasing power collectively, and prices go up.

But when wages are low, you have many people working second and third jobs. So it could even mean fewer jobs. It definitely means more money in the hands of the wealthy and less in the poor. Thus the poor have less of a chance to buy still-expensive luxury items like cars, houses and college educations.

Economics is confusing.

 

[Mamid]

Parenting is a job.

Just ask foster parents who never get paid enough.

Or what it would cost a father to replace the mother of his children if she were to die suddenly. Sure, he could remarry, but that isn't the point.

He'd have to hire a nanny/housekeep at the least. And even then, the person hired would not want to work for minimum wage. They'd want to work "normal" hours of maybe 40 a week.

A stay at home mother is on call 24/7/365, 366 on leap years. That's 8760 hours a year. She doesn't get overtime, vacation pay, sick pay or anything. Because she's a "mother" her work is not valued.

At all.

Yet she is the one who cooks, cleans, takes care of sick children, elderly parents, and more. But her work isn't valued because she isn't "making an income" like those who work outside of the home. Even if she is, she has to choose between being there for sick kids, school activities etc or bringing in income.

So, I do work. Every day. I nursed my children. It can cost upwards of 100$/month if not more just to provide an infant with formula. I just saved us that money. But it isn't valued because it is free. Yet I have to keep myself healthy to do so. I change diapers. Ever seen the toxic waste babies and toddlers generate? I teach. Yet I don't get a teacher's income because its only my children I am teaching. I provide nursing to injured children. Yet I don't get paid because I'm not a "professional" and have a degree.

And I do that and more, yet my work isn't valued because I'm not bringing in an income? That's just bullshit. If your mother didn't sacrifice for you in ways you will never know or appreciate, you wouldn't be able to sit there at your keyboard and tell me I have no value as a mother.

Parenting is the hardest job anyone could ever have. And instead of an income for today, we invest in the future in ways money never could.

So I do secret shopping as a way to bring in a bit more income and I get to voice my concerns about how shoppers were treated to corporate and get paid for it. I do find it enjoyable, but not as enjoyable as that milky smile D2 just gave me. I wouldn't trade that for all the money in the world.

So, because mothering, and fathering, is devalued, the work we do is not worth an income. And what little income any parent might get through social safety nets is decried as costing taxpayers money.

Have any of you looked at coorporate welfare? If any welfare should be stopped, that is it.

Okay, before I really start Ranting, I need to go now.

 

[MechaBlade]

Parenting is a job.

Well, no. Not any more than exercising is.

 

[bronzeage]

I didn't say that Bronzeage was wrong. I only used the gas station job as an example of the type of work that isn't available because of the minimum wage.

The minimum wage law didn't erase the service station attendent. It was consumers who wanted cheaper fuel and discovered that putting gas in your own car is not that difficult.
That's one of the problems with low skill jobs. Almost anyone can do them.

 

[bronzeage]

Parenting is a job.
<snip>
Okay, before I really start Ranting, I need to go now.

Everything you say is true, but misapplied. It really doesn't matter what the value of the labor expended to raise a child adds up to, if you are not going to pay someone to do it for you.

Wages are only a measure of what the employee and the laboror agree the job is worth on that day.

Parenting is a form of extreme self employment. You made that deal with yourself. It has whatever value you assign to it and no one else can argue with you about it, so there is no point in you, arguing with them.

 

[wogult]

Penalt can go into that far better than I. I just want to take the middle and upper management and slap some sense into them. If they want their skilled workers to stay at such low wages, they need to have better incentives and no, medical etc isn't a bonus since that comes out of their own wages, not the employer's here in BC. The employer has to meet some, but not all.

Middle management either does what corporate wants or gets fired when is everyone going to realize they are on the shit stick as well???

 

[Mamid]

Middle management was stupid and asked workers back during the late summer just before Penalt went on parental leave a stupid stupid question.

"we're loosing too many people. How can we keep them?"

the unanimous answer?

"Higher wages."

the immediate reply?

"No."

So the employees gave other ideas. Better incentives, bonuses, higher wage increases, and others. From what we've heard from those "still inside" is that none of the ideas were implement. Nada. And they are still wondering why the attrition rate is so high.

 

[wogult]

In a recent On-line poll 38,562 men across the UK were asked to identify a woman's ultimate fantasy. 98.8% of the respondents said that a woman's ultimate fantasy is to have two men at once.

While this has been verified by a recent sociological study, it appears that most men do not realize that in this fantasy, one man is cooking and the other is cleaning.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Well, no. Not any more than exercising is.

Try it some time.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

^^^^^^^^



The rhetoric of the maximum rage!

 

[Le Jacquelope]

^^^^^^^^



The rhetoric of the maximum rage!

Your 12 year reign of error is over, Keanu.

This is called maximum celebration.... or...

We're a'rubbin your god damned face in it, muhahahahah!

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Well, no. Not any more than exercising is.

Someone's never been a parent. When you're done exercising, it's a good tired, a feel good tired. When you put in a full day with an eight year-old, it's exhaustion.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

bronzeage

There are still some full-serve places that I know of in neighborhoods where people will pay extra...

Not everyone wants fast food, but you won't find service next to the Interstate.

 

[RightField]

Have any of you looked at coorporate welfare? If any welfare should be stopped, that is it.

!) Parenting is something most of us chooose to do at one time or another so we all have to figure it out

2) What is corporate welfare? Its usually some bend of the tax code put in by Congress to incentivize business and industry to do something they might not be able to do or would not want to do. Dems make a great show of talking about it like the business people are "taking advantage" of the American people, but it was Congress (mostly dems that like to screw around with tax incentives) who implemented it. Just another example of dem rhetoric

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Yeah, I don't see the Dems cutting out the wasteful spending on the myth of ethanol and other forms of Big Farm Welfare, they need to pick off a Red State...

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

The myth of ethanol.. Fucking hilarious. That ranks right up there with your myth of aids.

If you want to lie the failure of ethanol on anyone's doorstep talk to the Iowa corn caucus. Brazil seems to be getting along just fine using ethanol made from sugar cane rather than the complex sugars found in corn ( the processing costs for corn is many times higher). In fact, Brazil expects to be fully independent of foreign oil imports this year.

We could be right there with them if it weren't for the $.54 per gallon tariff imposed on Brazillian ethanol to protect the corn farmers.

Hell, Henry Ford's first car was made to run on ethanol. So was the first spark-ignition car engine, developed by German Nicolas Otto in the second half of the 19th century.
So much for your myth.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2006-03-28-brazil-ethanol-cover_x.htm

 

[RightField]

We have lots of oil that we could be extracting. Off Florida, Cuba is pulling oil out from under us. There's still the oil in Alaska. We could ween ourselves off of foreign oil very quickly if the dems weren't blocking it. Oil is cheaper to produce and provides more power output per unit than the alternatives and it doesn't require an "new" infrastructure". (Ethanol causes rust which means that we can't use the current facilities to convey it...pipelines, etc).

I like the idea of growing more sugar cane for fuel. Replanting sugar cane could bring lots more jobs and wealth to our Carribbean Islands and southeastern states. That could contribute

 

[Cheyenne]

I'd still go with the person who actually earned the money they are in control of as being "smarter". Being given access to large sums of money is not the same as earning it.

Me, too.

Escecially when idiots are allowed to vote.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

!) Parenting is something most of us chooose to do at one time or another so we all have to figure it out

2) What is corporate welfare? Its usually some bend of the tax code put in by Congress to incentivize business and industry to do something they might not be able to do or would not want to do. Dems make a great show of talking about it like the business people are "taking advantage" of the American people, but it was Congress (mostly dems that like to screw around with tax incentives) who implemented it. Just another example of dem rhetoric

Your definition of corporate welfare leaves much to be desired as does your viewpoint that Democrats are more to blame. Corporate welfare knows no party ideology. Just as Republicans/conservatives are likely to call for energy depletion allowances to encourage job growth in the oil industry, Democrats/liberals are likely to call for grants to corporations to encourage use of or develop alternative fuels, such as biofuel.

Examples of Corporate welfare would include federal tax dollars paid out to Oil companies who are recording record profits, bailouts of faltering corporations (read: Airline industries) rather than let an insolvent business go under, something that would not happen with a small business, just to name a couple.

 

[Cheyenne]

It's been a while since I worked there, but I think they're still on the thearty-five hour work-week.

Exactly. Trying to help unemployment by restricting how many hours employed people can work legally. Sounds like a "wonderful" idea, doesn't it?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

We have lots of oil that we could be extracting. Off Florida, Cuba is pulling oil out from under us. There's still the oil in Alaska. We could ween ourselves off of foreign oil very quickly if the dems weren't blocking it. Oil is cheaper to produce and provides more power output per unit than the alternatives and it doesn't require an "new" infrastructure". (Ethanol causes rust which means that we can't use the current facilities to convey it...pipelines, etc).

I like the idea of growing more sugar cane for fuel. Replanting sugar cane could bring lots more jobs and wealth to our Carribbean Islands and southeastern states. That could contribute

Yes, we could have an oil well on every corner. But that doesn't make oil any more renewable, it just delays the inevitable.

The only real issue with ethanol isn't 'rust' as alcohol doesn't promote oxidation, it's the tendency of ethanol to absorb water, you need to keep it dry or it won't burn as well, or at all. As far as needing 'new infrastructure' is concerned I just had a brand new gas station go up nearby, with state of the art polymer lined tanks, in 2 weeks time it went from a weed covered field to open for business.

Pipelines of ethanol? The ethanol would be added to gasoline and shipped out to stations on tanker trucks just as it is now. Do you think there are gasoline pielines? Even the pure ethanol, if not produced near the refinery, would be trucked to there for mixing.

 

[Cheyenne]

So, because mothering, and fathering, is devalued, the work we do is not worth an income. And what little income any parent might get through social safety nets is decried as costing taxpayers money.

Have any of you looked at coorporate welfare? If any welfare should be stopped, that is it.

Okay, before I really start Ranting, I need to go now.

Just who would you expect to pay you to take care of the kids you created for yourself? You complain about not being paid, but WHO should pay you?

Not me. I don't give a crap if you have kids. If you want them, take care of them.

 

[Cheyenne]

Someone's never been a parent. When you're done exercising, it's a good tired, a feel good tired. When you put in a full day with an eight year-old, it's exhaustion.

True. But you choose to do it. No one says you have to have exercise, and no one says you have to have kids.

 

[Linyari]

Just who would you expect to pay you to take care of the kids you created for yourself? You complain about not being paid, but WHO should pay you?

Not me. I don't give a crap if you have kids. If you want them, take care of them.

I feel the same way. Having kids is a choice you make for yourself. It's a standard of living you sometimes impose on yourself.

I've got three kids. We can't afford daycare and we wouldn't put them in daycare if we could afford it anyway.

This means that when it's necessary for us to have two incomes, my husband and I work opposite shifts. Yes, it sucks. But thems the breaks. I don't expect people to pay me to raise kids that I didn't have to have in the first place.