Minimum Wage: Part 3, War Is Upon Us

If you consider yourself a decent human being, and someone worthy of calling themselves an American, please take note of the following article.  It is the transcript of a 36 Hour “debate” between me and a group of die hard Conservatives and Libertarians.
I think it will provide you with a genuine insight into the critical importance of voting and doing everything within your power to prevent this cancerous way of thinking from overtaking our country any more than it already has, whether it is from the wealthy left, the wealthy right, or the generally self absorbed and clueless members of our society.

While you may agree with me or not, the reason I am sharing this is that it provides a very long snapshot (in their very own words) of exactly how a large minority of people think in this country, where they are only concerned about their own self interests, and are blind to the fact that whether they like it or not, the quality of their own life, in one way or another is impacted by the rest of our society.  I know it is a long read, but I encourage you to try your best to follow along because it is a better illustration of why it is SO very important that those of us who actually do care about other people get out and vote in every single election we can, and make sure we vote for the candidates that stand AGAINST this way of thinking.  I don’t really care about whether this particular post is non-partisan or not…it’s NOT.  People that think like this simply have no place making decisions that effect the rest of us, because they will choose against us every single time, and twice on Sunday.  For some of them, Lord of the Flies is actually their preferred political ideology, and you do not need to be a raging Liberal to see it.  You can be as Conservative as you want, Liberal, Progressive, or whatever.  What this is represents a battle between those of us that try to live by the “Golden Rule” and those that sold it years ago for the smallest personal gain…stepping over the bodies on their way to the bank.

Before you think is is some Liberal rant, read it. If you are Conservative, you need to make a choice, you can be opposed to minimum wage increases, or you can be opposed to government entitlements and financial support of low income people, like Medicade, Section 8 Subsidized Housing, Food Stamps, etc, but it’s hard to be opposed to both. Just one example, is that a symbol of the problem, since the $7.25 minimum wage went into effect in 2009, the cost of a McDonald’s Big Mac has gone up over 30%. My take is that it is not the low income workers that are putting in 40+ hours at a low skill job that is the problem, it is the corporations that don’t pay them enough to live on, saving money for their bottom line and shifting the financial burden over to the government…and OUR tax dollars. Check it out…

So, I woke up this morning, and as I was starting to work, I took some time to check Facebook, and came across a debate about minimum wage in the United States.…
independentcy.com
LikeShow more reactions

Comment

Comments
Jeffrey D Davis
Remove
Jeffrey D Davis The problem as I see it that most of those people who who want to raise the minimum wage to $15/hr are the same people who support the parasites/illegal aliens who illegally infest American by the millions and work for nothing. Without 20+ million illegal aliens to compete with for these jobs, the market place would set a much higher and fairer minimum wage.
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen I guess I see illegal immigration and wages paid to American workers as two seperate things, and tying them together really doesn’t stop illegal immigration, but rather just perpetuates a domestic problem of people working plenty of hours and not being able to afford to live a decent life. To assume that wages would rise if illegal immigrants didn’t exist is putting a lot of faith in the marketplace (i.e. the private sector, that has no incentive to do the right thing, especially not at the expense of profit, and as long as the minimum wage is above what someone can collect on unemployment, an awful lot of people will just accept the low paying jobs because it’s better than nothing. As for myself, I have been a small business owner for a number of years, and I have seen first hand the existence of a system already in place to prevent illegal immigrants from obtaining American jobs, yet a total lack of enforcement by the powers that be. Whenever I have hired someone, one of the forms I am required to have them fill out is the I-9, which is provided by the US Customes and Immigration Service (Part of DHS), and when they fill that out, I am required to photocopy and maintain copies of their paperwork/ID’s that verify they are in fact legally eligible to work in the United States, whether it be because they are a US citizen or have a proper work visa or green card that makes them eligible. The thing is, NO ONE ever checks that I have complied with my obligations as an employer to conduct this basic verification. When it comes to my worker’s compensation insurance policy, I have all my payroll records thoroughly audited every year to make sure that I have paid every last penny of insurance premiums required (since it is a percentage of wages based on job class), and they even require all sorts of verification if I claim to hve subcontracted any work to a third party that I maintain proof they were covered by a work comp policy. The obvious reason for that is because work comp insurance providers are for profit, private sector companies that I am required by law to use, and they are certainly not going to take a chance of not collecting any extra premiums from me that they might be able to justify, even though, those back premiums if discovered are for insurance that was effective in the past and that I likelynever used, so it is 100% profit for the insurance company. But, when it comes to the I-9 and my compliance, no one bothers to audit those forms to make sure I wasn’t paying wages to illegal workers. So, long story, a bit shorter, companies should be forced to pay higher wages, and also be audited to make sure they are not paying illegal workers those higher wages, or any wage for that matter. The benefits to the system and American workers would have an immediate impact, both on their quality of life, plus it would take millions of people off of government assitance of one type or another, saving tax dollars, and at the same time, double the amount of taxes those same workers are paying into the system to allow for funding other budget items that are valuable. Then, as far as illegal immigration, if the government spent half the effort on enforcing the laws already on the books as they pertain to employers, they would prevent companies from taking advantage of illegal workers for the extra profit they might offer, as well as prevent illegal workers from taking American jobs that they do not have a legal right to do, which in the long run will take away much of the incentive for them to come here illegally in the first place, and work through the process to do it legally and become contributing members of our society. It seems to me that makes a lot more sense than continually increasing the budgets to “round them up for deportation” while doing nothing to take away the incentive for them to come in the first place….and the whole time, letting companies benefit by illegally hiring them.
Rick Steingress
Remove
Rick Steingress Increasing the cost of anything reduces demand. It is stupid to maintain that you can’t be against both things. But I don’t understand why you proponents of a government dictated wage are so cheap. Why not $35 or $50 so all Americans can live a middle class lifestyle?
Gary Belie
Remove
Gary Belie Wages cannot be set to accommodate the “needs” of workers. They are the payment the employer makes to workers based on their contribution to producing a product or service. Only the employer can determine wages based on the economic law of supply and demand, not on government whims/pandering to economic illiterates or the demands of low skilled leech protesters who don’t take the personal responsibility to improve their own minimum wage skills. A 15% minimum wage kills jobs, kills businesses, and drive up costs for all consumers.
Jeffrey D Davis
Remove
Jeffrey D Davis Arnie Olsen removing millions of illegal workers who will work for half price, place huge burdens on our medical, educational and legal systems and compromise the security of our nation can only be outrageously beneficial to the American worker.
Jeffrey D Davis
Remove
Jeffrey D Davis Gary Belie and the economy will decide the minimum wage when the American worker doesn’t have to compete with illegal aliens or foreign visa workers who will undercut their compensation.
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen Jeffrey D Davis I’m not arguing with you that illegal workers are a problem. It harms American workers to some degree, but they can only do that if employers allow it. We just need to enforce and audit the I9 process already in place, and that problem will be eliminated virtually overnight, and not a single person will need to be slapped in cuffs, ICE agents do not need to get involved with dangerous arrests, and if they cannot get work here, they will go where there is work…limely back home.
Jeffrey D Davis
Remove
Jeffrey D Davis Arnie Olsen The answers is to deport illegal aliens and jail those who hire the. Just enforce our own laws.
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen I especially like the idea of major fines and specific tax increases to businesses that are caught hiring illegals, assuming we actually spend any time enforcing that end of it (which we really don’t now to any great extent). That way, the businesses that are benfitting illegally from doing it repay the system for the cost to all the taxpayers of having the illegals here. Then if they don’t pay, they go to jail. I still think the amount of effort required for deportation will continually drop if you cut off the jobs. You can still deport, I am not suggesting ignore it. I’m just saying it would take less effort and cost less money if the job supply they mainly come here for were cut off because there simply would not be as many illegals in the first place. Then, if companies need employees for certain jobs, they can meet a threshhold of advertising the jobs to American workers at a fair wage first, and only after that, if those positions have not been filled, they can apply for work visas for whatever number they need and recruit abroad, but they need to bring the immigrants in legally, pay them the same thing they were offering the American workers first, so they do not get to try to bring in immigrants for lower wages to save money and hurt American workers, and then by doing it through a legal process, the immigrants are in “the system” paying taxes like the rest of us and everyone should be happy. If the American workers chose not to take the jobs when they were offered to them first, that’s their problem. Basically, that whole legal system exists, it’s just that this administration, nor really any of the others in recent memory chooses to enforce ALL the laws. Right now, they are only enforcing the deportation part, but I don’t see them doing anything to enforce the laws against companies hiring illegally. Just looking the other way because that doesn’t make as good of a story on the news.
Arnie Olsen
Write a reply…
 
Jon Houts
Remove
Jon Houts Yeah, pricing even more people out of the job market completely will make them less dependent on government handouts…
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen Think about what you are all saying…you rebel against a higher minimum wage by saying it kills jobs, but you make that assumption based on the idea that a business hires people to do a job, not based on their need for the work to be done, but rather because it fits their budget? Either a business needs work to be performed or they don’t. If they don’t need the work done, they won’t hire someone to do it (at any wage), and if they need the work done, they will pay as little as they can to get it done, but they WILL pay to have it done, and right there is the reason why it takes someone (i.e. the government) with the authority to require those wages be liveable. It’s the same reason we have laws pertaining to 40 hour work weeks, overtime pay, lunch breaks, worker safety, and everything else that was considered “progressive” throughout the 20th century, and while you personally may not benefit DIRECTLY from a higher minimum wage, you sure as hell benefit greatly from all those other “government regulations” that force businesses to do things they would NEVER do on their own. Why do you think businesses, entire industries and large corporations spend billions of dollars lobbying the government every year? Do you seriously believe it is because they want to pay MORE for labor or they want to create MORE jobs or give MORE benefits to employees or spend MORE money protecting workers? Watch the news, see how many companies are constantly in violation of the regulations that do exist…misclassifying workers as exempt to avoid overtime pay, violations of basic safety requirements designed specifically to protect you, the worker. I am not saying that all businesses are terrible, hell, I am a business owner, and I do legitimately try to do the right thing by my employees that I have had over the years, but at the same time, I never paid them anything more than I had to based on getting them to come to work, I don’t give them any more perks or benefits than I have to to remain competitive in the market, and all that. It goes against the very purpose of a private sector business in the first place, to maximize profit and sustain the business. They will ONLY sacrifice profit if they are forced to by someone or something in order to sustain the business. Then, the bigger the company, and the more detached decisionmakers are from the actual lower level workers, the more they will do things that actually harm you, you as an employee are nothing more than an expense, but a necessary expense because they need work to be performed. If you start looking at entire industries and how they can set the “industry standard” for these things, like wages, the less chance the worker has any protection because the whole thing becomes rigged against them.
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen And the other part of that argument is that we ALL complain about other countries and companies moving manufacturing jobs to Mexico or Korea or wherever due to the low wages. What you see in those countries is a workplace void of government regulation that protects workers, and you have 12 year olds making your $150 pair of Nike shoes for 25 cents a day, or appliances being made in Mexico for $1/hour, and the worker can’t live. Is that what you want the United States to be? Free of regulations that protect workers and give them a better, longer life, and just let “the market” dictate everything? Good luck with that one. Within a few years, you will not even recognize your life as it was if you let corporations make the rules because all the rules will benefit them, and not you.
Jon Houts
Remove
Jon Houts http://www.forbes.com/…/thanks-to-fight-for-15-minimum…/

BY ED RENSI — The real faces of the Fight for $15 are the young people and small business owners who have had their futures compromised.
forbes.com
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen I agree with what that article says. The part I don’t agree with is that it all happened because of the potential for a $15/hour minimum wage. Companies like McDonald’s, pretty much all manufacturers, and nearly every other type of industry have been pursuing technology for decades and companies that can afford it have been implementing it for years and years. Even in my small company, I have done that…because it makes business sense, for more reasons than just wages. There’s more consistent quality of work, equipment doesn’t take vacations or show up late, it doesn’t have family emergencies that require it to leave in the middle of the day, it produces the save volume of work all the time, making planning much easier, it doesn’t need to be trained, it doesn’t ask for raises or quit leaving you to hire and train a replacement, you can run it more than 8 hours a day without paying OT, and a hundred more. Convenience stores in Pennsylvania introduced self serve kiosks for their in-house fast food and deli sandwiches years ago (Wawa and Sheetz chains) and they are pretty cool from a customer perspective. My only point with regard to that is that a few companies may fast track adding technology to replace some workers because of a higher monimum wage, but one way or another, it’s happening. The other businesses mentioned in the article, the small mom and pop businesses that claim they cannot afford higher wages. That may be true, and it is unfortunate, but realistically, should employees be forced to work for wages that they can’t live on so that a particular business model can survive? That’s basically indentured servitude. Even as many of you say, employees should strive to learn new skills and advance, that does not change the fact that those businesses will still need someone, so that means that someone is still going to starve by working there. It’s simply not sustainable long term. Those businesses will need to figure out a different way, or they will likely die. I don’t understand why we would mourn the loss of a small business that obviously only offers crappy jobs, but not show any interest in individual workers that are working in jobs that don’t pay enough to pay the bills.
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen On another angle about the same subject, how many of you after a stressful day at work have thought or said out loud, “I’m just going to go work at McDonald’s…it’s totally stress free.” If that job paid more, two things would happen…first, maybe you could actually go do it, and second, if that became a real option, the stress filled jobs that pay $15/hr now would have to be paid more too otherwise employers wouldn’t be able to keep you in them, so it actually would help out all workers for the most part…not just the low skilled people most see as beneath them.
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen Last but not least, the laws of supply and demand are absolutely at play here…but not for the reasons mentioned by a few people. The negative way of looking at that, which is that the increased wages would lead to increased cost of products and services is true, to a degree…but only to a point. The reality is that a large corporation like McDonald’s will only be able to raise the price of a big mac so much before consumers will not eat there…BUT, McDonald’s will also need to figure out how to keep selling big macs or their gravy train goes away. The natural place for that savings to come from is going to be in the bottom line, and if that can’t sustain all of it, those poor executives might not be able to be paid north of a million dollars a year. Maybe multi-million dollar bonuses go away, and maybe so many companies decide they don’t need that corporate jet, and they can go back to flying commercial. Think about a Starbuck’s…how many $5 cups of coffee does a barista pour in an hour? A hundred maybe? $500 worth of coffee, and you don’t think that company can spring for an extra $7.75 an hour to the employee doing all the work? My guess would be they can easily afford it without changing one thing about their business model. Shareholders might get a little less dividend if anything, but in reality, what’s more important…the person doing the work’s ability to live or a shareholder getting 25 cents less per share in quarterly dividend. I know what I think…I am just surprised at how supportive everyone else here seems to be of “the corporation” and their needs, but not the worker…when I am guessing virtually everyone here is “just a worker”.
Jon Houts
Remove
Jon Houts Since you brought up McDonald’s, the CEO of McDonald’s makes $1.3 million. If you pay him NOTHING, you’d be able to give each other employee a raise of about three dollars per year. You’re not going to get all those employees up to $15 an hour by cutting executive pay. There’s not that much to squeeze out of profits, either. Even if you could, what do you think that would do to the stock values of those companies, and the values of all the mutual funds and 401Ks invested in those companies?

Image may contain: text
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen Jon Houts I understand where you are coming from and I don’t disagree completely. I am a little surprised by the numbers in the chart above, but I looked into the source, and it is a reliable one, so I have no reason to doubt them. The reason for my surprise in in the small manufacturing company that I operate, the numbers are quite different, as they are for my whole industry, so not just my company. Successful companies in my segment run between 10 and 15% pre-tax profit, so the average is probably similar to your chart. The number that I find surprising is the high cost of labor. For me, it is only around 30%, with about 40% going to raw materials for the products we produce, and then about 15-20% to overhead (facility, equipment, utilities, insurance, etc.). The bigger thing that came out of some of the quick research I did this morning though tells me that there is another angle on this fight I had not thought of previously, not with real numbers anyway. The issue is their business model in the fast food industry, and with what I am seeing, the most direct thing I can say about the stock values, the mutual funds and 401(k)’s etc…more than ever, I truly do not care, nor should you or anyone else. In fact, McDonald’s is actually a leading symbol as to what is wrong with our system, and not just because so many of their employees cannot survive on the wages they are paid while the stock value you mention is preserved and grows, benefitting the wealthy, as well as anyone that carries that stock in their portfolio. That alone is one major problem in our society. People actually think the S&P 500 is an indicator of the performance of our economy. That is such a twisted view because that number only reflects how much the more wealthy people in our nation are doing. With the exception of 401(k) funs that might include a little McDonald’s stock, and that are supporting some in the middle class, stock value, Wall Street, the S&P 500 is a totally misleading indicator of whether we are in good financial shape overall, but people do not get that at all. “Trump must be doing a great job because the stock market has climbed since he took office!” I hear people say that and believe it all the time, even though they have no 401(k) and have never owned a share of stock in their life. Seriously, WTF!? That is such a twisted way to look at it, and here is why, when it comes to a company like McDonald’s. They are almost a $25 billion per year company, with after tax profits of about $4.6 billion and they employ about 375,000 people worldwide in 37,000 locations. It looks like they paid about $3 billion in taxes (all very rough numbers, but accurate enough to illustrate the point). One thing they take great pride in is increasing the dividend to shareholders for 25 consecutive years. They also own all of their real estate,worth between $16 and $18 billion and make a lot of money leasing it back to the small business owners who operate individual restaurants (franchisees), a little over 31,000 of their total locations. It looks like they have about 819 million stock shares out there with a value of approximtely $130/each for a total market cap of over $106 billion is total stock value. Here’s the issue though. The business model is a sham. It is one of those dirty little secrets because all of that value, and all those dividends, that benefits a very smal number of people in this country is generated not just on the backs of employees who cannot afford to live on the wages they are paid, but also in an even more disgusting way…McDonald’s, as well as the rest of the fast food industry employees in this country collectively draw about $7 BILLION per year in public assistance to survive. So, what does that mean to all of us? Well it means that not only are companies like McDonald’s built on a platform of taking advantage of low skill workers and not paying them a living wage, but in order for that to work, all of US, the general public are propping them up with our tax dollars. I have not taken the time to determine how much of that $7 billion in government assistance goes to McDonald’s employees specifically, but it would be easy enough to approximate. The point is that we are in effect, as a country, through the tax dollars paid in by the common person, not only supporting the corporations flawed business model, by being forced to take care of their employees, but in reality, all of us are the ones subsidizing that dividend that they so proudly clain increases every year for 25 years. It is robbery. So, when you raise the question of what impact paying employees $15/hour would do to their stock price, all I can say is screw you (not personally…not attacking you). I really don’t care if they go out of business and shareholders lose everything they have invested. It’s not their money to begin with…it’s all of ours to a great extent, but WE don’t get the benefit of using it. Instead, let’s cut the government budget and meals on wheels. How can any of you defend a company like McDonald’s or Walmart? Do you seriously want to put it back on the employees that it’s their fault for not learning enough new skills to find a job that pays more? That is a truly screwed up view of the world, if that’s how you think…worrying about the corporation over the people that work there.
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen This simply needs to be fixed one way or the other. One option is to pay the employes the $15 minimum wage. The other, when you hear Trump talk tax reform, start thinking about that Corporate Tax Rate. Not only should it not be cut for companies that don’t voluntarily pay employees higher wages, it should be increased to cover the cost of the corporations burden on the tax payer. Personally, I want that $7 billion back. Corporations stole it indirectly, and put it right into the shareholder’s pockets.
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen Jon Houts Just out of curiosity, I just looked at the 2016 McDonald’s annual report. According to that, they had $24.62 Billion in top line revenue, and show a payroll and benefits expense total of only $4.13 Billion (16.77% of Total Revenue, not 63%). Because a significant number of their restaurants are franchises, the numbers are sort of misleading because their Income Statement only reflects revenue from franchisees, which is from franchise fees, revenue sharing, lease payments on properties, etc., but even if you take out that portion of their revenue, payroll and benefits expense is still only 25% roughly of revenue which is more in line with what I have experienced as a business owner. I’m not sure where that 63% number in your chart comes from.
Arnie Olsen
Write a reply…
 
Doug Newell
Remove
Doug Newell No its easy to be against both. Pick up an economics book.
Like · Reply · 3 · 10 hrs
Hide 20 Replies
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen So, your view is that employees should take $7.25 and say thank you sir may I have another, AND companies like McDonald’s should get a tax cut?
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen I suppose you believe in trickle down economics too, correct?
Doug Newell
Remove
Doug Newell Annie they should get paid what they are worth. No more no less. They are worth the value they add to the company.
Doug Newell
Remove
Doug Newell And if trickle down worked the Obama administration would not have been such a failure. The Fed pumped trillions into the most affluent. Not much trickled.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · 4 hrs
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen And don’t you think that if the company NEEDS them to show up and do their job for 40 or more hours per week in order to be in business, those people should be able to pay for food, shelter and a life? Isn’t that what they are worth? Yes, that is what they are worth, and the corporation just passes the bill for the rest of it off to the government and the tax payers to subsidize it.
Doug Newell
Remove
Doug Newell No one more time for those with reading problems. What they are worth is governed by what value they bring to the enterprise. Asking “would you like that supersized?” Requires little skill and can easily be replaced. If that’s the only skills they have amassed in 18+ years your anger should be directed at their culture and the school system’s failure.
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen Forget the “one individual” and whether it is a career or a stepping stone for a minute. McDonald’s, since that is the example I keep using, needs 375,000 employees to provide that benefit the shareholders. Even if every one of those people uses it as a stepping stone to something better, that just means two things…first that there are an additional 375,000 better jobs available for them to “rise up” into, and second that another wave of 375,000 people will be filling the same under paid jobs and needing the same government assistance, and through it all the shareholders benefit, and our tax dollars keep paying the subsidy for McDonald’s to have cheap labor because what do those people do to survive while they are working in that $7.25/hour job? Work until they are homeless, too hungry to work or just die from not having healthcare?
Hugh McMillan
Remove
Hugh McMillan People are paid what the job is worth. What they are worth; how much it cost of live; etc. had nothing to do with it. Arnie Olsen the concept of wage payment you advocate is called communism. If your concept of wage assignment had been in effect when the automobile was invented we would still be paying buggy whip makers and paying the same as auto workers. We make what is in demand at the price it takes to make it. We pay the people that make things the wage that a job demands to get someone who can and will do the job.
Like · Reply · 1 · 3 hrs
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen Hugh McMillan You are so clueless about anything other than your own checkbook it is laughable. Clearly, people are not being paid what it takes to make something if the government is stepping in to make up the difference. Where do you think all those ignorant little people come from or live? In a bubble in a neighborhood you warn our kids not to go to? Do you think human labor comes out of a box that doesn’t require air, food and water when they are not working for you? The government is put in a position to support these people because the company they work for needs their work, but will not pay them enough to be alive to perform it. Do you not see the problem with that premise? I know the answer, you do not, your ego and your arrogance does not allow you to see anything beyond your ASSets. I hope your good fortune continues.
Doug Newell
Remove
Doug Newell I dream of an American where economics is taught to anyone likely to vote.
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen Doug Newell Economics is more complex than simple capitalism and free markets. I have been taught, have you?
Hugh McMillan
Remove
Hugh McMillan Arnie Olsen I know economics, I know work, and just in case you missed my post here it is again:You do not know what the hell you are talking about. I worked my way though college with zero debt. I purchased a car one Sat., graduated the next, got married the next (she had a small college debt) and reported to Ft. Knox the next. So we started in the hole. We both worked like hell. My wife gave up full time work when we started a family. We raised two children and the fathers of my 5 grandchildren serve this country one is my son. We earned nothing off the backs of others. We saved and invested for over 45 years. My first job was $1 an hour. My first full time job was $40 a week for however long it took. While in college I would park the company truck and go into class nasty from working at a fertilizer plant and delivering to farmers. Additional part-time jobs during Christmas. Some summers I worked 11-7 at night, a day job and some classes. It took me 6 years to get a 4 year degree. Don’t lecture me about low paying jobs. I have been there. What I did not do is buy new or fast cars. We did not have children until we could do right by them. I’ll guarantee you I have worked harder longer on weekends than you will work your entire life.
Like · Reply · 1 · 3 hrs
Doug Newell
Remove
Doug Newell Annie yes those things that I didn’t learn studying free market economics were learned building 6 companies from scratch.
Doug Newell
Remove
Doug Newell Sorry Arnie…spell check strikes again.
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen Doug Newell No problem on the name…lol. Just for the record, I don’t have 6 companies under my belt, but I do have 4, all started from a blank sheet of paper, and each one worked at 80+ hours a week, most weeks. So I am actually not some far left person that is waving a philosophy text book about how it is supposed to be on paper. I get it, I have signed plenty of paychecks, and paid them with money out of my own pocket and then later with money they helped me earn, and I saw every day how hard most of them worked and what little they had, along with their struggles. Some of those were most definitely self induced, but in my mind that doesn’t exempt them from being taken care of. I am sure you also know that as a business owner, you got paid last, and only when there was enough left after making sure everyone else was taken care of. All I am suggesting with ALL of this is that the same mentality that applies to the small business owner should apply to the corporate world as well. It obviously does not, because no one forces the issue…McDonald’s…this is how they decided to take care of the employees that they needed to sling their crappy food…From 2007 to 2011, fast food workers in the US drew an average of $7 billion of public assistance annually resulting from receiving low wages. The McResource website advised employees to break their food into smaller pieces to feel fuller, seek refunds for unopened holiday purchases, sell possessions online for quick cash, and to “quit complaining” as “stress hormone levels rise by 15 percent after ten minutes of complaining.” And, unfortunately, pretty much everyone who has debated this with me feels the same way.
Doug Newell
Remove
Doug Newell The fact that the government chose to expand the welfare state into the middle class has nothing to do with the value generated by a McDonald’s worker. You spend too much time reading Occupy Democrats crap.
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen Trust me, I put as much faith in what Occupy Democrats has to say as I do in what the Freedom Caucus has to say. I take pretty much everything I see with a grain of salt and form my own opinions based on my own experience and what I have learned over the years.
Doug Newell
Remove
Doug Newell Freedom Caucus is dead on right. One of the joys in my life is I have Meadows as my congressman.
Hugh McMillan
Remove
Hugh McMillan I disagree with everyone. That does not stop me from siding with someone when there is a subject we agree on. Or, even if they are headed in the right direction. I believe the freedom caucus should have focused on changing the tax laws that are part of Obamacare. That failure is why it must be revidited before tax reform. So I agreed with what they were trying to do but not how then went about it.
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen Hugh McMillan Hugh, I did not miss your post about how you pulled yourself up by your boostraps, did what needed to be done and walked uphill to school both ways in waist deep snow back in the day. I chose not to respond you because I didn’t feel like playing the my dick is bigger than your dick game, and you already declared that you work harder on the weekends alone than I will work my whole life, which basically caused me to write off everything else you have to say as utterly worthless, because you are clearly bigger, better, smarter, more accomplished, harder working, and an all around better human being than the rest of us. What’s to discuss or acknowledge after that? You are who you are, and you’re basically not worth my time beyond the end of this last response to you. All I can say to you is I hope you did well by your children and they will continue to wipe your ass when you are too old to do so for yourself, or at least put you in a good home to do it for you, and not one of those places that only pays staff minimum wage, because, well, you know how those losers are…they probably won’t show up to work and then you’re screwed with suh a crappy work ethic and all. Enjoy your amazing success Mr. Hugh McMillan
Arnie Olsen
Write a reply…
 
Hugh McMillan
Remove
Hugh McMillan A minimum wage tells everyone who cannot be economically employed at the minimum wage they are worth less than nothing. The law tells handicap people they cannot be hired. Then the same government that tells them they cannot be employed that society will keep them up. Such a society is pompous and pieous in their cruelty toward those less fortunate.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · 6 hrs
Hide 11 Replies
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen Quality of Life cannot be understated, and quality of life is driven in a significant way by happiness and feeling of self-worth. The major component of happiness and and a feeling of self-worth is being able to take care of yourself, take care of your children, and feeling like you have some control over your own future. If we want to make the kinds of changes most here espouse, and get people off the programs that our government provides to thoe who can’t do for themselves is not to cut the programs, but rather to create an opportunity for the least skilled and least educated to do for themselves. That starts with them being afforded an opportunity to financially support themselves when they put in an honest day’s work, even if it is working as a cashier at McDonald’s.
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen In 2016, McDonald’s paid out $3.11 Billion in Dividends to Shareholders, had Net (After Tax) Income of another $4.69 Billion, and Paid $2.18 Billion in Income Tax. Meanwhile, they paid out $4.13 Billion in Wages and Benefits to Employees, and they were one of, if not THE, largest employer in the Fast Food Sector, whose employees collectively require $7 Billion annually in government assistance to survive. That’s not good for anyone except the shareholders. I’m not even sure they paid enough in income tax to cover the burden of their own employees on the government programs that tax dollars pay for.
Gary Belie
Remove
Gary Belie Arnie Olsen The problem is the government benefits have grown beyond helping the needy to supporting the lazy, the moochers, and the the irresponsible as well as massive fraud. It tells these people the government will take care of them so they need not take personal responsibility for their own welfare and future. Cut the massive welfare state and people will learn their “free lunch” depends on their own efforts, not on government “redistribution”.
Hugh McMillan
Remove
Hugh McMillan Stockholders invest money in businesses in an expectation of getting a return on their investment and continue to protect their investment. This is why most profits after taxes are reinvested and some is returned to investors in the form of dividends. McDonald’s jobs are and were never intended as career jobs or jobs that provide enough money to raise a family. Customers buy products if the product is worth the price assuming the want the product to begin with. McDonald’s products are fast food convenience products. Such products must be produced at a low cost. To top it all only 20% with a goal of 10% are owned by McDonalds Corp. The wages and benefits quoted above little to nothing to do with the employees working a local McDonald stores you visit. Bottom line a person is paid what the job is worth and you decide that based on what you are willing to pay for the product.
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen Gary Belie I would concede the government benefits offered have become too large, and would like to see them dramatically reduced. I am not bothered as much as some people are by the bottom portion of the economic class receiving the benefits though. Admittedly, I used to be, but as I really began to look at the situation in greater detail and not just go off of assumptions or impulse, and especially stopped listening to the rhetoric as told to us by political parties, elected officials, candidates and the media, I started to draw upon my own life experiences as a business owner, and my education (political science and economics). Combining that with some research and some common sense, I have come to believe that while we do need to work on getting low income people to not be so reliant on government aid, it is not as simple as cutting programs and taking a sink or swim approach, because truthfully, most will sink. It has been far too long since many people have felt any glimmer of hope or success that simple will power and “pulling yourself up by your boot straps” approaches will fail. What we need to do is address how we got to this point in the first place and solve that problem, and that poblem starts at the top, not the bottom. We have an upper 10%, 5% and especially 1% that has grown in wealth, power and influence over ALL public policy and the economy as a whole that they have by and large given into the greed and corruption (not necessarily illegal, but certainly, moral and ethical corruption) and spent their time and energy focusing entirely on turning the money, the power, and the influence they already had into even more of all three, and they have done it at the expense of the rest of us, by slowly taking control of the government and the people working in the government by holding their very careers hostage. They have worked their way through the court system, with decisions like Citizens United; they have had laws changed to suit their own personal best interests, and in the end, where it has left us is that these same 1%’ers are the greatest drain on the resources of our country and our government. This class within our society is an absolute drain on all of us, FAR FAR more than the lowest income classes, in spite of what it looks like. Corporate welfare costs this country billions of dollars every time you turn around, whether that be safety nets and bail outs, that they require after a series of bad business decisions or high risk, highly leveraged deals that are boom or bust. Boom, they come out even further ahead and the rest of us don’t realize it, bust and we all bail them out. We allow these people to receive ridiculous financial gains at the expense of our neediest citizens, or in some cases, like healthcare, at ALL of our expenses. The only solution is that we need a government, and we need people within that government that are willing to stand up to that power because unfortunately, it is only the government (in the hands of the right people) that have the strength and power to reign it all back in, because the government writes the laws. We all talk about “enforcing the laws” when it comes to illegal immigrants, and I don’t dispute that one bit, but why don’t we also try enforcing the laws against the top 1%, and more importantly do not allow them to continually influence changing the laws to suit their own purposes. You may or not be aware of this, but the lower FIFTY PERCENT of households (not individuals) in this country average $15,000/year in adjusted GROSS income. The lower 75% of households makes less than $75,000/year BEFORE TAXES. Those facts right there are why the government programs have grown to the level they have, not solely because people are too lazy to do for themselves as many believe. People SCREAM at the idea of wealth redistribution at the hands of the government, but it has been happening for decades, just in the direction of the top, not the bottom. If you think the government has not played the lead role in that, you have not been paying attention, and the “success” of those at the top is cheered. We all sit back in admiration and give them awards or appoint them as the ambassador to France, we change the rules to aid in their social and economic conquests, and do so in the hopes that they will reciprocate and create middle class jobs, or reinvest in this country. They won’t even consider that unless they can benefit even more from doing so, because if they can’t, their money will sit in the bank, it will not be invested in anything except to change more rules to serve their purposes. So, if you want to cut programs that support the lowest income classes, give them an alternative. Vote for politicians that will take our country back from the wealthy, vote for politicians that have the moral and ethical fortitude to stand in OUR defense, and if it costs them their job with another bought and paid for election, so be it, WE will just elect someone else that will continue the fight, and another one after that. Stop worrying about the fight between the right and left because that’s the fight they want us to have…it distracts us and we lose sight of what really matters. Give the neediest people in this country a path to rise above their current place in life. Right now though, it is only getting worse, and simply cutting the programs is exactly what the 1% wants.
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen Hugh McMillan You say that like the free market is the answer. The free market is an amazing thing until it runs amoke, and it has. Hypothetically speaking, if we all agreed to pay an extra 50 cents for every hamburger…would that money go to employees or to shareholders? Corporations left to their own devices are by design there to maximize profits to the absolute maximum extent of the law, with no cosideration given to anything else. THAT is the corporation…by definition. And now, that “law” has allowed them to take advantage of even the government, by taking advantage of programs designed to help low income people. They push their responsibilities off on the government becase the government allows them to do it in fear that they might not expand, they might relocate, they might shut down. It’s an empty threat, but we fall for it every time and just open up the checkbook. $7 billion in government assistance handed indirectly to the corporations in the fast food industry…corporate welfare…allowing them to not pay living wages to employees, and all most of us think to do is cut the programs. Who does that hurt? Not the corporations. In the last 8 years, Bic Macs have gone up in cost more than 30%, but the wages of the people who produce them have not gone up at all.
Hugh McMillan
Remove
Hugh McMillan Most none of what you said is true. Based on 2015 data the top 25% paid over 86% of income taxes. We have one, if not the highest cooperate tax rate in the world. Companies pay taxes on money paid to shareholders in the form of dividends. Then those of that recieve dividends pay income taxes on those dividends. If we happen to sell our shares for more than we paid for them we pay capital gains taxes. If we save enough and invest enough our children pay taxes on what they inherit even if it is not in the form of liquid assets often forcing sale of income producing property at below a level that would generate the income of that property.
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen Hugh McMillan Yep, you are right, the average top 25%’er paid an average of $30,700 of income tax on an average income of approximately $178,000. That represents the average of 34.5 million households/tax returns that make up the top 25%, and if you are married, and your estate is worth more than about $10 million when you die, your heirs pay an inheritance tax. My question is, so what? We can just put you in the category of people (and you are certainly not alone) of comfortable or wealthy people that simply do not give a shit about the country, nor anyone else in it. That’s cool, your choice, just don’t waste anyone’s time trying to convince others how the system is unfair to you and your family. You have made that money, by whatever means, and good on you. But you are quick to forget that you have made most, if not all, of it based on the labor of others that are struggling to get by, either directly or indirectly. The people that built the roads you drive on, the people that serve you your morning coffee, maybe the people that maintain your lawn so you have more time for recreation. I’m not saying you did not earn your money, you did, no doubt, but you also should not forget about everyone else who made that possible, including the person that hands you your cheeseburger at the drive thru while you drive from meeting to meeting. You are nothing without them, and the system that afforded you the opportunity to get ahead doesn’t exist without them.
Hugh McMillan
Remove
Hugh McMillan You do not know what the hell you are talking about. I worked my way though college with zero debt. I purchased a car one Sat., graduated the next, got married the next (she had a small college debt) and reported to Ft. Knox the next. So we started in the hole. We both worked like hell. My wife gave up full time work when we started a family. We raised two children and the fathers of my 5 grandchildren serve this country one is my son. We earned nothing off the backs of others. We saved and invested for over 45 years. My first job was $1 an hour. My first full time job was $40 a week for however long it took. While in college I would park the company truck and go into class nasty from working at a fertilizer plant and delivering to farmers. Additional part-time jobs during Christmas. Some summers I worked 11-7 at night, a day job and some classes. It took me 6 years to get a 4 year degree. Don’t lecture me about low paying jobs. I have been there. What I did not do is buy new or fast cars. We did not have children until we could do right by them. I’ll guarantee you I have worked harder longer on weekends than you will work your entire life.
Like · Reply · 1 · 3 hrs
Gary Belie
Remove
Gary Belie Arnie Olsen You are missing the influence of the law of supply and demand. If there were a shortage of unskilled workers capable of stuffing hamburgers in a bag, then the law of S&D would dictate employers must pay more to get the staff they need, When government steps in with artificial minimum wages for a group that already has too many qualified workers, the number of jobs for this group must decrease. It also makes automation more financially viable, again costing the very jobs of people who believed they needed a minimum wage. Most people forget that employers and investors are bound by the law of supply and demand. If they cannot get workers at a given level of pay and benefits, they must adjust them. They are also squeezed by the law of S&D on the other end because if their prices increase the demand for the product goes down making them less money and making them less attractive to investors. If investors don’t get enough return on their investment, they quit investing, which also kills jobs. The only way for this all to work is for employees to work hard to make themselves more valuable to employers, for employers to seek to be as efficient as possible to be attractive to investors. A government minimum wages does nothing but screw with a free market and natural market forces to kill jobs and business. It may not seem “fair” to the economic illiterate, but it is the way it works.
Like · Reply · 1 · 2 hrs
Doug Newell
Remove
Doug Newell Arnie once again you have swallowed the “you didn’t build that” crap and this is even sadder because you did build things.
Like · Reply · 1 · 1 hr
Arnie Olsen
Write a reply…
 
Richard Forscutt
Remove
Richard Forscutt The problem with raising the minimum wage is it doesn’t work. Businesses pass the cost along to the customer or they go out of business if they can’t make a profit. As far as government programs for poor, there should be a safety net for those that are truly needy, but there also needs to be a balanced budget and the national debt needs to be paid off (now it is almost 20 trillion dollars). Companies are in business to make a profit and to provide a service that the customer wants. Jobs are created in the private sector and not in the government sector. If you cut taxes to corporations, so that are tax rates are competitive with other countries of the world, then American businesses can compete on a global basis. We had eight years of Obama and the rhetoric was anti-business. There was no job growth for almost 8 years and a march by the government from capitalism (free enterprise markets) to socialism. It did not work.
Like · Reply · 3 · 3 hrs
Hide 36 Replies
Gary Belie
Remove
Gary Belie You are right, employers are not in business to dish out welfare to employees or to provide their employees with any level of life style they choose. A person with no skills and no motivation is not worth $15 an hour to an employer who must compete to make a profit. Need more money? Make yourself more valuable by improving your skills or value to a potential boss, and finally live within your means rather than demanding someone else pick up the slack for you!
Like · Reply · 1 · 2 hrs
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen Richard Forscutt What qualifies as a safety net? If both adults in a family are working full time, they alternate shifts so they don’t have to pay for childcare, and theynand they walk to work so they don’t have a car payment, insurance payment, maintenance or gas to buy. The jobs that are available in their area (which isn’t a huge area because they can’t drive anywhere, don’t forget), do they qualify for your government safety net if they need help with rent or food? Do they deserve your mercy, or are they still not worthy? As for no job growth during the past 8 years? Unemployment right after the “free enterprise market “nearly destroyed us all because it was allowed to run free was 8.1% and there were 71,767,000 jobs in the US (non-institutional) according the the Department of Labor (Bureau of Labor Statistics) and by the end of 2016, unemployment was at 4.8% and there were 74,432,000 people working. So, based on that unemployemnt dropped by over 40% and we added nearly 3 million jobs over that 8 year period of “socialism”.
Jeffrey D Davis
Remove
Jeffrey D Davis Gary Belie and these employers should not be receiving welfare in the form of cheap illegal alien labor undercutting American workers. The market should and would set a fair minimum wage if our labor law were enforced.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · 2 hrs
Doug Newell
Remove
Doug Newell Great Arnie from the bottom of a deep recession in 8 years it got somewhat better. Never hit 3% growth. Sounds like excuses to me. Neither Obama nor anyone on his team knew shit about business and it showed.
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen And Trump does? How about the boys on Wall Street in 2008? The auto industry? All experts in your mind?
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen Jeffrey D Davis Agreed! They also should not be receiving a government subsidized American workforce. If everyone believes in the free market as much as you all claim, then go it alone…all of you. Stop taking the corporate welfare and stop taking the tax incentives offered by the government. Be manly men doing manly things the way it is “supposed to be”. And when your business fails, don’t use the law to declare bankruptcy or use the corporate veil to protect your assets…put it all out there. Put it all on the line, and go it alone. Just don’t be pathetic hypocrites that selectively choose to use the same system when it is to your advantage that you rail on others for using when it helps them.
Doug Newell
Remove
Doug Newell Trump is giving good signals and bad. Getting rid of bullshit regulations good. Talking about tariffs very bad.
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen Doug Newell Agreed on the tariffs. Mixed feelings on regulations, some good and some bad.
Doug Newell
Remove
Doug Newell I and the politicians I support like Mark Meadows and Rand Paul are opposed to corporate welfare.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · 1 hr
Doug Newell
Remove
Doug Newell Cost of the regulations should be estimated and shown in the budget so we see what things cost.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · 1 hr
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen They would possibly support one of my ideas for tax reform…cut the crap with the whole trickle down idea by just giving blanket tax cuts…pay for results. Give a company 1.5x tax deduction for wages paid if they agree to voluntarily adhere to a $15/min wage…give a 1.5x tax right off for investment in infrastruture that creates jobs, give a tax cut to corporations that actually hire people and produce things…construction, manufacturing, transportation, etc. No tax cuts for hedge funds and people that hire few, are heavily compensated and produce nothing…they just move money electronically. things like that
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen And as for regulations, things that apply to an entire industry, like fuel economy goals for vehicles, why cut those? The end result of using lss fuel helps everyone (except the oil industry I suppose) and if it makes it more labor intensive to build the cars, that means more work, and people may pay a little more for a car, but they get the benefit of cheaper operation and in the long haul, no one can say less pollution is not a good thing. In that case, it just made no sense to drop the regulations because all carmakers were still on a level playing field, even import cars that would have to comply to sell here.
Doug Newell
Remove
Doug Newell It is none of the government’s business how many mpg my car gets.
Doug Newell
Remove
Doug Newell They can tax pollution if they want.
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen But how does it hurt to have car companies produce more feficient vehicles overall?f
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen I just think there are some regulations that don’t hurt anything, and only help the overall society.
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen Overall, I just think there is a good balance from both sides. as a group, most people just see things from their side, but at the end of the day, there are good decisions that can be made that benefit the majority of people. The upper 25% or 1% or whatever can have a lot of freedom to make their way in life and pursue success, but it does not have to come at the expense of everyone else. If the rich get too rich while the poor suffer, it’s not good for anyone. If you want to reduce crime and reduce taxes at the same time, don’t spend billions more on law enforcement…some is needed, but take away the incentive to commit crime because there is better education and better jobs available. Reduce illegal immigration not by spending billions on a wall or rounding them up in handcuffs, enforce laws across the board that prevent businesses from benefitting from hiring illegals, and punish them when they do.
Doug Newell
Remove
Doug Newell For example?
Doug Newell
Remove
Doug Newell Mpg regulations kill more Americans than terrorists.
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen And I acknowedge you might be statistically corect because actually very few Americans die as a result of terrorism. The fear outweighs the actual impact in that case.
Doug Newell
Remove
Doug Newell It forces the manufacturers to build more little cars. You die in little cars in accidents and that is very project able. Drop 500 lbs. Off the cars on average and X people will die.
Doug Newell
Remove
Doug Newell Regulation have consequences. FDA kills more people by deferring progress than it saves by reducing fraud.
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen Doug Newell I can’t say that I believe the theory that driving a giant hunk of iron is safer than driving a lighter car with crumple zones, air bags, better restraints, etc. In some types of accidents, sure, but I don’t think that is a universal rule.
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen I think the FDA in theory is a good thing, but I think their approach is wrong more often than it is right. They don’t protect people from things they should and delay the release of things that can help now.
Doug Newell
Remove
Doug Newell How many people died today who would have been saved by a device or drug stuck in FDA land. You won’t see that in the news.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · 1 hr
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen i agree, That is partially caused by the FDA and also in a huge way by the private insurance industry who refuses to cover so many different treatments because they classify them as “experimental”…anything to avoid giving people something for their premiums.
Doug Newell
Remove
Doug Newell The weight/death rate is not theory. It’s fact. I have a big ass BMW diesel. I hit a prius they die I live. Period.
Doug Newell
Remove
Doug Newell So all you want is big government that doesn’t do stupid things like a big government. Connect the dots.
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen Didn’t say I want big government, but I do want the government to establish rules to govern our country, so that we do not live in Lord of the Flies. People over centuries have proven that they will consume each other if not kept in check to some degree. I am not suggesting communism, and I am not suggesting pure natural selection…somewhere in between so all types of different people from the 320 million we have here can all survive.
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen And I want those rules to be applied fairly…not selectively by the ones who have enough money and power to control the rule makers.
Doug Newell
Remove
Doug Newell Capitalism is not Lord of the Flies. If someone taught you that ask for your money back. It is not a zero sum game. Bill Gates money did not come at your expense.
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen Doug Newell Check out the blog I started if you are interested. You’ll see more of my ideas on ways I think we can improve this place. www.independentcy.com. It’s also mirrored as a page here on Facebook….independentcy.com. It’s not some liberal fluff, and it’s not right wing conservative. I try to look at different issues and provide accurate into.

In response to my original article on the reasons for raising the Federal Minimum Wage, I…
independentcy.com
Doug Newell
Remove
Doug Newell The more power you give the rule makers the more incentive there is to buy influence with them. You would douse a fire with gasoline. The rule makers should follow the Constitution and limit their activities to the duties enumerated there. Setting wage levels or mpg limits etc are all extra Constitutional.
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen That would be great to only allow the government to do the thing specifically itemized in a 230 year old document. They were good, but they were not good enough to foresee every situation and advancement that has presented itself since. What they did was provide a framework for governance that allows future leaders to figure out how to deal with what comes along and have the country still be here.
Doug Newell
Remove
Doug Newell Worst bullshit yet Arnie. The nature of people and their relationships with their governments have not changed. Internet or printing press, musket or AR15. Doesn’t matter. The Constitution was design to protect people from people like you who are clueless about (minimum wage, mpg standards, FDA, etc) who would give my liberties to a government. Individuals are the ultimate minorities. We are intentionally not a democracy. If we were we could vote to shoot you…or even worse shoot me.
Arnie Olsen
Write a reply…
 
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen I know the difference between Lord of the Flies and Capitalism, but in it’s purest form, capitalism will consume itself eventually. The fastest way to screw with the law of supply and demand is to eliminate the ability of half the population to be able to afford anything more than the necessities in life. The more money the lower half makes, the mor money the upper half makes…that is where growth comes from. The way things are, the pool of potential consumers keeps shrinking because more and more people are eliminated from the system. You want to make a dent in the deficit, then either pay the bottom more so they pay more in taxes or take more from the top because the poorer the bottom half gets the bigger the bill is going to be for the government.
Doug Newell
Remove
Doug Newell You have been lied to.
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen In what way? That a system where only the strong survive eventually gets very lonely for those who survive?
Doug Newell
Remove
Doug Newell Capitalism has lifted most of the world out of 100 centuries of poverty. If you wish to go the other way Venezuela and North Korea await your studies.
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen LOL. Capitalism has lifted some of the world out of poverty. If it lifted everyone out, we wouldn’t have any in this country, or at least a lot less than we do.
Doug Newell
Remove
Doug Newell Only the strong survive??? What horseshit. We 99% of us…live better than kings and Queens of the 18th century.
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen Our poorest have more money, yes, but if everything around you costs more and you don’t have the luxury of servitude, not so much.
Doug Newell
Remove
Doug Newell One can only be a liberal by having a combination of economic and historical illiteracy. Look around you. As I grew up starvation was a huge problem in India.
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen Ok, question then…pure capitalism…if you are a business owner, do you want 320 million potential customers or 160 million?
Doug Newell
Remove
Doug Newell Our poorest have more money…Mike drop.
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen Yep, our poorest 50% average $15,000 per year gross. Unless you are a slumlord, or run a thrid rate grocery store in a bad neighborhood, they can’t afford anything you sell, nor can they support any other businesses that you might then sell to.
Hugh McMillan
Remove
Hugh McMillan A family of 5 is living in a 4 br, 21/2 bath we own rent free. That is $1,400 a month we giving up to keep a woman and 4 children from being homeless. What the F…. are you doing for the poor? You, just you and your husband.
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen Hugh McMillan I owned a manufacturing company that I started with no credit and no investors and built it up to be a 17,000 SF operation, and have 31 employees that all made between $13 and $21/hour, most living paycheck to paycheck (but without govt assistance). When a developer and his three lawyer partners decided not to pay me the last $500,000 of a project we had completed and delivered, I cashed out my remaining 401(k) I had from before I started the business, and had not spent trying to start it, and sold all the equipment to make sure that I paid every last one of them what they were owed for their work so they would not lose the roofs over their heads or havetheir cars reposessed, and then because that still wasn’t enough to settle supplier debts that I had personal guarantees on, I paid what I could and then had to beg one to stop garnishing my WIFE’s $10.55/hour paycheck until I could scrape together enough cash to file personal bankruptcy. I could have used the money to put the business in bankruptcy, walked away with all my personal assets and stiffed 31 employees, the way that developer and his partners stiffed me, but I chose to do the right thing to my financial detriment. It’s easy to give up money you can afford to give up anyway,and I am sure $1,400 a month does not make a dent in your finances or life, if it did, I highly doubt you would help them at all. You’d either evict or sell the property so they were someone else’s problem to deal with. The measure of a man’s character is what you do in situations where you face a decision to protect yourself or protect someone else, and you know you can’t do both. And I am confident that you and I are nothing alike in that department, so don’t question me again or try to make yourself out to be some example for people to look up to. You do nothing, and likely never have to deserve that level of respect…and nice touch by the way, insinuating that I have a husband and am therefore gay at the end of your post…you are nothing but a self-rightous, homophobic waste of time and space. You’ll need to find a someone different to give you the affirmation of your existance people like you require…what a joke…lmao. Good night!
Arnie Olsen
Write a reply…
 
Doug Newell
Remove
Doug Newell As a business owner I don’t give a crap if I have 320M or 160M. I want to make money. I can do that by: 1. Getting more customers 2. Getting each customer to buy more 3. Getting them to buy at higher margins 4.Getting them to come back more often 5. Getting lost customers to be recovered.
Doug Newell
Remove
Doug Newell Arnie if you don’t know how to lie with statistics I do. That $15,000 does not include government benefits. A portion of that 50% in in school, others are retired. You have latched onto a bullshit statistics and you embrace it. Question everything.
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen That is the average of the lowest 50% of tax returns filed, whether they be filing single, married and filing jointly, head of household or whatever, meaning that it only includes people earning enough incom to even need to file a return. It also does include some portions of government assitance, such as unemployment because it is taxable. What it does not include are things like government subsidized housing, the SNAP program, etc.
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen And the top income of that 50% is $37K gross. As a staunch libertarian which do you prefer, those people to stop needing government assistance or for them to simply die off or leave YOUR country?
Doug Newell
Remove
Doug Newell Arnie….of the tax returns files. Huge numbers of people don’t file. Unless you can tell me a hell of a lot about what number that is …it’s meaningless.
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen It is the breakdown of every one of the individual income tax returns filed that year. It consists of a total of 138.3 million tax returns filed, and the lower 50% is the 69.15% of all returns filed with the lowest AGI on them. It breaks down like this if that helps…Total Population: 316,500,000
Children 17 and Under: 73,600,000
Approx Taxable People: 242,900,000
Total Tax Returns Filed: 138,313,156
Approx Married, Jointly: 104,586,844
Approximate Single Returns: 33,726,312 It is data straight from the IRS, not someone’s website or blog for the 2013 tax year which was the most recent year available in its entirity.
Doug Newell
Remove
Doug Newell Sorry but at one point I was a tax accountant. You have made no point quoting AGI.
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen How is that? Because people making minimum wage have a crapload of tax writeoffs that aren’t included? If anything, the higher up the food chain you go, the more innacurate that number is, but when you have nothing, there really are no tax breaks for you.
Arnie Olsen
Write a reply…
 
Doug Newell
Remove
Doug Newell “People stop needing government assistance” are you serious? You mean when they have food housing big screen tvs, air conditioning, cars,……check out data on assets of welfare recipients. Or look at wealthy people with their hands out. If the government is giving their will be takers. It never stops.

Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen You mean like my McDonald’s example where they let the government subsidize their employees, or Wal-Mart?
Arnie Olsen
Remove
Arnie Olsen Doug, I am checking out of this conversation. I have actual work to do and a flight to catch to a jobsite in about 9 hours, so I am out. I’ll check back some other time and see what else I am wrong about. Godo night.
Doug Newell
Remove
Doug Newell Long list I suspect. Have a safe flight.
Like · Reply ·

One thought on “Minimum Wage: Part 3, War Is Upon Us”

  1. And one final parting shot I just received…lol

    Hugh McMillan Well, well the ad hominem finally kicked in. You do know that the argumentative fallacy of the ad hominem is the classical sign of the loser of an argument or discussion.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s