Minimum Wage Topic

"The standard response in the minimum-wage debate, made by Republicans and their business backers and plenty of Democrats as well, is that raising the minimum wage costs jobs. Businesses will have to lay off workers. This argument reflects the orthodox economics that most people had in college. If you took Econ 101, then you literally were taught that if wages go up, employment must go down. The law of supply and demand and all that. That’s why you’ve got John Boehner and other Republicans in Congress insisting that if you price employment higher, you get less of it. Really?"


7/1/2014 1:20 PM (edited)
"Because here’s an odd thing. During the past three decades, compensation for CEOs grew 127 times faster than it did for workers. Since 1950, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio has increased 1,000 percent, and that is not a typo. CEOs used to earn 30 times the median wage; now they rake in 500 times. Yet no company I know of has eliminated its senior managers, or outsourced them to China or automated their jobs. Instead, we now have more CEOs and senior executives than ever before. So, too, for financial services workers and technology workers. These folks earn multiples of the median wage, yet we somehow have more and more of them"


7/1/2014 1:20 PM (edited)
Posted by moy23 on 7/1/2014 12:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 7/1/2014 11:54:00 AM (view original):

Nope.

Do you supply discipline at home while working 70 hours per week?   I'll do the math for you.  8-8(for 60 hours).   I assume there's some transit time.  I'll give you an hour total.  8-9.   Time to get ready for work(which is certainly not spent with children.  I can get ready in half an hour.   7:30 AM - 9 PM.    I assume your small children have a reasonable bed time.   At best, you get to tuck them in.   So where is the discipline at home? 

M, Tu, F.... My wife leaves for work at 4:30 in the morning and picks them up from daycare at 5pm. I get up with the kids at 6:30a and drop them off by 8a at the latest. W my wife stays home with them all day. I stay home with them 2 Thursdays a month and my retired mother in law does the other 2 Thursdays. I don't golf or go to bars anymore so that I can spend time with my family on the weekends. So other than 27 hours a week (M, Tu, F from 8 to 5p) they are at home.

Another exanple... Both my parents worked as well. My mother worked night shifts from 7p-7a as a nurse.... My dad at a company doing the 9-5 thing. A parent was always home with the kids... although it was tough on their relationship.

If you want to make it work you can.... But its not easy.
So 43% of the time, in their "active" hours, some stranger is raising your kids.     I guess it could be worse. 


Honestly, I'm just giving you **** over your "POOR PEOPLE SMOKE!!!  THEY'LL ALWAYS BE POOR IF THEY CAN'T MAKE BETTER DECISIONS!!!" stance.   I'm no expert on child rearing.  I don't have kids and always had a reason to not have them.
Too poor(barely making ends meet)
Not right woman(my parents divorced so I wanted to 100% sure)
"Me" period(selfish)
Too old(nobody wants their dad mistaken for good ol' grandpa)

That said, I think one of the problems we have with children is the lack of the "traditional" family.    Ward goes to work, June stays home and raises the kids.   Some of it's necessity(both parents have to work), some of it is greed(both parents chose to work).   Nonetheless, the formative years are largely in the hands of a hired hand, a sibling or a grandparent.  NONE of those are ideal, IMO.   If a parent wants to teach his/her child his/her values, he/she has to be available to do it.  

Anyway, if your daughter grows up to be a stripper with daddy issues, you'll wish you spent less time "making money" and more time with the daughter.
7/1/2014 2:28 PM
My heart goes out to any mom who has to work to put food on the table and clothes on the backs of her children. 

But any mom who works so the family can have more "stuff" is a mom who has made a sad sad decision.
7/1/2014 3:01 PM
You'd prefer that mom be barefoot and stay in the kitchen?
7/1/2014 3:08 PM
She can wear shoes and head straight to the bedroom when I get home.
7/1/2014 3:09 PM

Something like this:

7/1/2014 3:11 PM
Posted by mchalesarmy on 7/1/2014 3:01:00 PM (view original):
My heart goes out to any mom who has to work to put food on the table and clothes on the backs of her children. 

But any mom who works so the family can have more "stuff" is a mom who has made a sad sad decision.
Agree with your first point wholeheartedly.

As to the second... I'm not going to get into the merits of planning for the future - family vacations, college tuitions, weddings, long-term care, retirement, etc. but I will say the future is usually not rosy for those that don't. There are also a lot of mother's that work because they love what they do (nursing, teaching, etc)... rather than just to have more 'stuff'... and I admire them for that.

Back to Mike - I don't think the solution re: eduction is simply that 2 parents should not be working. I'd have to suggest Its more about what parents do when they have the opportunity to parent that's typically the problem. Are the parents so tired after work they plop the kid in front of the Xbox when they get home from school? Are they dropping them off at school then blaming the teachers for bad grades or are they working with the teachers and doing homework with their children nightly? Do they take a vested interest in their kids friends, after school activities, and those influences? Its much more complex than simply kids that go to daycare because both parents work are the bane on society ;)
7/1/2014 3:25 PM
Sure, there are a ton of factors.    A stay at home mom smoking crack all day isn't better than a working mom who gets 30 minutes of "parenting" each day.  But, by and large, mothers that sacrifice careers during the formative years are going to be better parents.   Simply because they have the time.   You may disagree but I imagine I could find some studies to agree with me.
7/1/2014 3:36 PM

Again, I'm just giving you grief because you're so dismissive of the decisions people make if you disagree with them.

But, if you're really planning for the future, you might want to invest in a stripper pole and some costumes for your neglected daughter's future.

7/1/2014 3:47 PM
7/1/2014 3:53 PM
Question:

Person applies for a job but says they aren't willing to do all that is required by the job due to their religion.

Doesn't get hired.

Sues.

Crazy Person or Reasonable religious person that needs protection?
7/21/2014 7:22 PM
Please point to the case in question.
7/21/2014 7:27 PM
Posted by DougOut on 7/21/2014 7:27:00 PM (view original):
Please point to the case in question.
Does it matter? Freedom of religion applies to all religions, correct?
7/21/2014 7:44 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 7/21/2014 7:22:00 PM (view original):
Question:

Person applies for a job but says they aren't willing to do all that is required by the job due to their religion.

Doesn't get hired.

Sues.

Crazy Person or Reasonable religious person that needs protection?
If they are unable or unwilling to do the posted requirements of the job, no matter what the reason (religion or otherwise), then they should have no expectation of being hired for the job.

Maybe not a crazy person, but certainly not a reasonable person.
7/21/2014 7:53 PM
◂ Prev 1...118|119|120|121|122...127 Next ▸
Minimum Wage Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.