Bernie Supporters and Bad Memes

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-12-2015, 12:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Your logic fails because even if every poor person worked as hard as possible there would still be only a limited number of well paying jobs.  That is the way the system is set up.

The claim that if every person worked hard then every person would be rich defies reality.  It is impossible.  the system does not allow that to happen. 

Do you ever argue a post without inserting a strawman?  Seriously?

When did I ever state that every hard worker becomes rich?  I never did. 

We can't all be rich, OBVIOUSLY.  Nor should we be. 

You can carve out a pretty good life in America if you do 3 things:

1) Be honest
2) Work hard
3) Have a good attitude

Care to tell me what government programs are out there to force people to do those 3 things?

[fredtoast]

(08-12-2015, 12:55 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Do you ever argue a post without inserting a strawman?  Seriously?

When did I ever state that every hard worker becomes rich?  I never did. 

We can't all be rich, OBVIOUSLY.  Nor should we be. 

You can carve out a pretty good life in America if you do 3 things:

1) Be honest
2) Work hard
3) Have a good attitude

Care to tell me what government programs are out there to force people to do those 3 things?

So you believe that if every person was honest, worked hard, and had a good attitude then all the low paying jobs in our economy would just disappear?  Everyone would have a job that put them above the poverty level without any government benefits?  Really?

I can't believe how deep the indoctrination goes with some of you.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-12-2015, 12:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So you believe that if every person was honest, worked hard, and had a good attitude then all the low paying jobs in our economy would just disappear?  Everyone would have a job that put them above the poverty level without any government benefits?  Really?

I can't believe how deep the indoctrination goes with some of you.

I'm a walking example of it. 

I was a high school dropout that lived in my car at one point. 

I worked two jobs, put myself through school, have an MBA and am now an HR director for a company that employees 15,000 people. 

I grew up poor, but my parents didn't fail to teach me right from wrong.  They didn't coddle me, or tell me that I was a victim that deserved the fruits of someone else's labor.  

[fredtoast]

(08-12-2015, 01:19 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I'm a walking example of it. 

I was a high school dropout that lived in my car at one point. 

I worked two jobs, put myself through school, have an MBA and am now an HR director for a company that employees 15,000 people. 

I grew up poor, but my parents didn't fail to teach me right from wrong.  They didn't coddle me, or tell me that I was a victim that deserved the fruits of someone else's labor.  

You did not even address the question I asked.

Are you seriously claiming that right now there are millions of high paying jobs sitting empty just because no one wants them or is working to get them?

I lived in a cardboard box and ate nothing but dirt when I was in school, but now I am a lawyer.  However that does nothing to disprove the fact that there are only a limited number of well paying jobs no matter how hard everyone works.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-12-2015, 09:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You did not even address the question I asked.

Are you seriously claiming that right now there are millions of high paying jobs sitting empty just because no one wants them or is working to get them?

I lived in a cardboard box and ate nothing but dirt when I was in school, but now I am a lawyer.  However that does nothing to disprove the fact that there are only a limited number of well paying jobs no matter how hard everyone works.

I never claimed that there is no magical high-paying job sitting around waiting for everyone.

Nor should there be. 

Any more strawmen arguments that you want me to answer, or have we pretty much covered all of them?

[fredtoast]

(08-13-2015, 03:33 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I never claimed that there is no magical high-paying job sitting around waiting for everyone.

Nor should there be. 

Any more strawmen arguments that you want me to answer, or have we pretty much covered all of them?

Actually when you claim that the onnly reason everyone doesn't have a well paying job is because they are lazy then you are claiming that there are enough well paying jobs for everyone to have one if they just work harder.

So all I want you to do is give a straight answer.

I just want you to admit that the claim that everyone can succeed if they work hard is a lie because there are not enough well paying jobs for everyone to have one no matter how hard they work.

The reality is that there are lots of people working very hard and still struggling to makes ends meet. And they can't all advance to better paying jobs because there are not enough well paying jobs for every hard working American to have one. 

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-13-2015, 10:09 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I just want you to admit that the claim that everyone can succeed if they work hard is a lie because there are not enough well paying jobs for everyone to have one no matter how hard they work.

The reality is that there are lots of people working very hard and still struggling to makes ends meet. And they can't all advance to better paying jobs because there are not enough well paying jobs for every hard working American to have one. 

So you don't think that at companies like Walmart, McDonald's, Target, Costco, Meijer, Kroger, Wendy's, etc...that there are not members of management that came up from within the company? 

Those companies would love nothing more than to hire people for entry-level positions and promote them.  TRUST ME...I work for one of those sorts of companies.  Do you know the resources that get spent by these companies to hire management members from the outside?  The costs of this are astronomical, and we do so because we have such little luck finding good people from the entry-level positions.

Show up on time.

Work hard.

Have a good attitude. 

Doing those 3 things will find you advancing through the ranks rather quickly.

The issue is that very few adults working entry-level jobs do those 3 things.  If you're 40 years old and working a minimum wage job, 99.99% of the time it's a reflection on you rather than on the system or whatever other nonsense you want to blame it on.  

[BmorePat87]

(08-13-2015, 02:32 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: So you don't think that at companies like Walmart, McDonald's, Target, Costco, Meijer, Kroger, Wendy's, etc...that there are not members of management that came up from within the company? 

Those companies would love nothing more than to hire people for entry-level positions and promote them.  TRUST ME...I work for one of those sorts of companies.  Do you know the resources that get spent by these companies to hire management members from the outside?  The costs of this are astronomical, and we do so because we have such little luck finding good people from the entry-level positions.

Show up on time.

Work hard.

Have a good attitude. 

Doing those 3 things will find you advancing through the ranks rather quickly.

The issue is that very few adults working entry-level jobs do those 3 things.  If you're 40 years old and working a minimum wage job, 99.99% of the time it's a reflection on you rather than on the system or whatever other nonsense you want to blame it on.  

and there's 1 management personnel for every, what, 20 or so employees?

I think that's his point when he says there isn't enough high paying jobs for everyone to have one. We can't all be the manager.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-13-2015, 02:51 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: and there's 1 management personnel for every, what, 20 or so employees?

I think that's his point when he says there isn't enough high paying jobs for everyone to have one. We can't all be the manager.

In my company, the ratio is much lower.  Every store operates with roughly 25 employees and 5 managers. 

There are also opportunities above management in things like HR, marketing, IT, area supervisors, region managers, training, security, etc...

The company that I work for does as little hiring from the outside as possible.  They have college tuition reimbursement that encourages employees to get a college degree that would enable them to move up within the company.

All those things that the company offers to employees to encourage hard work and yet they're still forced to hire talent from the outside. 

Apparently there's not enough people out there really wanting to work hard. 

Perhaps an endless number of government handouts and program have something to do with that.  

[GMDino]

(08-13-2015, 02:32 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: So you don't think that at companies like Walmart, McDonald's, Target, Costco, Meijer, Kroger, Wendy's, etc...that there are not members of management that came up from within the company? 

Usually relatives.

(08-13-2015, 02:32 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Those companies would love nothing more than to hire people for entry-level positions and promote them.  TRUST ME...I work for one of those sorts of companies.  Do you know the resources that get spent by these companies to hire management members from the outside?  The costs of this are astronomical, and we do so because we have such little luck finding good people from the entry-level positions.

Actually a lot just want to hire part-timers that work on the cheap to make the bottom line look good. Trust me...I've worked for more than one of those sorts of companies.

(08-13-2015, 02:32 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Show up on time.

Work hard.

Have a good attitude. 

Doing those 3 things will find you advancing through the ranks rather quickly.

Worked for me. But it certainly doesn't guarantee anything. I worked very hard and places only to be treated poorly because the boss didn't care about me...only that I worked.

(08-13-2015, 02:32 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: The issue is that very few adults working entry-level jobs do those 3 things.  If you're 40 years old and working a minimum wage job, 99.99% of the time it's a reflection on you rather than on the system or whatever other nonsense you want to blame it on.  

I think you know you are exaggerating with those statistics so I'll let that part slide.

However it an increasingly part-time economy where profit over people is the mantra you should consider yourself very lucky. And yes LUCK has a large part in what you do. Me too. I got this job because a friend of my wife's family worked here. He got fired two or three years later. I sit in his office now.

But I digress, many, MANY people work hard and have a good attitude and can't get anywhere because there is no where to go.

And many, MANY people fill service needs that you ro I would no longer WANT to do. Should we begrudge them making a living wage because of that?

[jakefromstatefarm]

I personally believe that wage should be up to employer and employee, 100% of the time, but for the sake of discussion, let's say that a living wage is imposed. I have three questions:

1) Is the living wage going to fluctuate based on location? $15 is a lot of money in some hick town in W. Virginia. $15 isn't anything in NYC.

2) When the market reacts to this living wage and the costs of every good and service goes up to compensate for it, what have they accomplished? Do you really believe that if a business owner's labor costs go up by whatever percent, that they will just eat that additional expense out of their profits and not pass that on to the consumer??

3) If a "living wage" is deemed a solution to making sure that everyone that works is making enough money to live comfortably (that's what the term "living wage" means, right?), does that mean that if it is enacted that we will see a major decrease in social program spending?

[fredtoast]

(08-13-2015, 03:02 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Apparently there's not enough people out there really wanting to work hard. 

This is just a complete lie.

There are people drawing unemployment that are desperately lookinmg for jobs.

There are temp agencies in every major city full of people looking for full time jobs.

And there simply are not enough well paying jobs for everyone to have one.  Even if every single peroson works as hard as he can that does not mean that there still will not be a major portion of the workforce employed in low paying jobs.

[fredtoast]

(08-13-2015, 03:59 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I personally believe that wage should be up to employer and employee, 100% of the time, but for the sake of discussion, let's say that a living wage is imposed.  I have three questions:

1)  Is the living wage going to fluctuate based on location?  $15 is a lot of money in some hick town in W. Virginia.  $15 isn't anything in NYC.  

2)  When the market reacts to this living wage and the costs of every good and service goes up to compensate for it, what have they accomplished?  Do you really believe that if a business owner's labor costs go up by whatever percent, that they will just eat that additional expense out of their profits and not pass that on to the consumer??

3)  If a "living wage" is deemed a solution to making sure that everyone that works is making enough money to live comfortably (that's what the term "living wage" means, right?), does that mean that if it is enacted that we will see a major decrease in social program spending?

1.  Living wage would be adjusted by location.

2.  Costs of goods and services would not have to increase that much because...(1) Labor is only a fraction of the cost. (2) Only a fraction of the workers would get substantial raises.  (3) Businesses have been able to give their highest management HUGE raises without driving up prices.  Our economy worked just fine in 1965 when the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was 20 to 1.  So why does it have to be close to 300 to 1 today?  Instead of raising prices they could just spread around the money they have been pumping into the pockets of their highest paid employees.

3.  Yes.  the number one goal of mandating a living wage would be to reduce the burden of taxpayers.  It isnb't fair for large corporations to make huge profits and not pay their employees enough to live on then expect the taxpayers to make up the difference.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-13-2015, 07:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 2.  Costs of goods and services would not have to increase that much because...(1) Labor is only a fraction of the cost. (2) Only a fraction of the workers would get substantial raises.  (3) Businesses have been able to give their highest management HUGE raises without driving up prices.  Our economy worked just fine in 1965 when the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was 20 to 1.  So why does it have to be close to 300 to 1 today?  Instead of raising prices they could just spread around the money they have been pumping into the pockets of their highest paid employees.

Where do you come up with the idea that labor is only a fraction of the cost?  Labor in MOST cases is the largest expense an employer has. 

Before I move on, I'll give you some specifics.  When I was running a store, our annual sales averaged roughly 2.8 Million Dollars per year.  Our average pre-tax profit was roughly 9%.  That's about $250,000 of profit before taxes, on 2.8 Million Dollars in sales. 

Now say they were to increase their labor costs by 50% (minimum wage from $8.00 to $12.00) per hour.  Our average labor costs (including taxes, overtime, FICA tax-matching, etc...) were roughly 30%.  Increasing it by $4.00 assuming the same sales and no cuts in labor hours would take the labor costs from $840,000 per year to $1.26 MM per year. 

This kind of stuff is exactly why the McDonald's in France have touch screen kiosks that you order from.  

[fredtoast]

(08-13-2015, 07:25 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Where do you come up with the idea that labor is only a fraction of the cost?  Labor in MOST cases is the largest expense an employer has. 

Before I move on, I'll give you some specifics.  When I was running a store, our annual sales averaged roughly 2.8 Million Dollars per year.  Our average pre-tax profit was roughly 9%.  That's about $250,000 of profit before taxes, on 2.8 Million Dollars in sales. 

Now say they were to increase their labor costs by 50% (minimum wage from $8.00 to $12.00) per hour.  Our average labor costs (including taxes, overtime, FICA tax-matching, etc...) were roughly 30%.  Increasing it by $4.00 assuming the same sales and no cuts in labor hours would take the labor costs from $840,000 per year to $1.26 MM per year. 

This kind of stuff is exactly why the McDonald's in France have touch screen kiosks that you order from.  

If you ever really ran a store you would realize that 100% of your employees were not making minimum wage.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-13-2015, 07:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If you ever really ran a store you would realize that 100% of your employees were not making minimum wage.

Correct.  But should I expect the entry-level manager that's making $10 per hour to continue working for $10 when the minimum wage goes to $15?

Should I expect the Store Manager with 10 years of experience and a $40k salary to not ask for a raise when someone could walk in the door and earn $31k per year as a regular employee?

If you're a plumber that makes $16 per hour, would you not ask for a raise if minimum wage was raised to $15? 

Do you understand that many unions have contracts in which their wages are tied into minimum wage?

Again, you keep assuming that a minimum wage increase that significant will have little to no impact on the entire economy.  It shows how ignorant you are in such matters. 

Quit while you're behind.

[fredtoast]

(08-13-2015, 07:49 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Should I expect the Store Manager with 10 years of experience and a $40k salary to not ask for a raise when someone could walk in the door and earn $31k per year as a regular employee?

After you set a minimum wage then let the market decide what an employee is worth. Personally I don't see why CEOs now get paid 300 times what the average worker makes when things worked just fine back in 1965 when the CEOs only made 20 times more.

If minimum wage is $12 an hour that is only $24K a year. If a manger is twice as valuable as an entry level worker then pay him $48K a year, but if he really is not producing twice the profits of an entry level employee than don't pay him twice as much. If you are managing your store properly then he should not be able to leave and get paid a lot more for the same work some place else. Let the market set the wages above minimun wage instead of just letting people say "I am worth this much". Pay an employee what he is worth instead of what he thinks he is worth.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-13-2015, 08:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You paid a store manager with 10 years experience just $40K a year?

What the hell ind of business were you running?

Restaurants. 

And 40k for 10 years of experience isn't bad as a base salary in the field.  They also get bonuses and benefits on top of it.  Overall compensation if probably closer to 65k on average. 

Either way, the point remains.  If you're making a certain salary or hourly rate, I can't imagine that very many people anywhere in the vicinity of $15 currently would be happy to remain the same if that were to take place.  The costs of everything will ultimately be passed onto the consumers, so once again it would be another failed liberal plan that will ultimately hurt the middle and lower classes, but I'm sure supporting such a measure will get more useful idiots to the polls to vote for that (D), which is of course the primary motivator behind this movement to begin with.

[fredtoast]

(08-13-2015, 08:19 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Either way, the point remains.  If you're making a certain salary or hourly rate, I can't imagine that very many people anywhere in the vicinity of $15 currently would be happy to remain the same if that were to take place. 

If every business pays a person what he is worth instead of what he thinks he is worth the market will balance out. Set a baseline and go from there.

(08-13-2015, 08:19 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote:  so once again it would be another failed liberal plan that will ultimately hurt the middle and lower classes,

Actually the liberal ideas are what have saved the middle classes.  Before we had government regulation we had the wealthy barons of the industrial revolution amassing huge fortunes while the lower and middle classes struggled.  We had children working in factories for pennies a day.  We had coal minors working in poison air, and factory workers getting torn up in dangerous machinery.  

And we are headed in that direction again.  Over the last three decades the rich have gotten much richer while the middle and lower class wages have stagnated.  And while our government gives millions of dollars of subsidies to corporate farmers, and spends millions to bail out financial institutions, and give millions of dollars of military aid to foreign countries just to protect corporate overseas interests there are still people who think it is insane to give money to poor children who don't have anything to eat.

[jakefromstatefarm]

How do you take wealth away from someone? There are a lot of wealthy people who have ZERO income, so income taxes could be 99% and it wouldn't have any effect on the uber-wealthy.

When government starts going after wealth instead of income, wake me up.

Until then, all of this share the wealth nonsense is just that. Give the poor just enough so that they won't revolt and will continue to vote for us.

Sorry, but your party of choice is every bit as much of a joke as the other one.