Why Do People Vote Against Their Own Interest?

[Accountable]

The problem is your employees are part of your team or they are not. And if they are your employees, they deserve a living wage.

My definition of a living wage allows you to live independently of your parents in some level of comfort, in at least an apartment, with your medical covered, above the poverty level.

So as a business owner (which I'm not) I should not hire someone to do a job - any job at all - unless I am prepared to pay enough for him/her to live independently of his/her parents in some level of comfort, in at least an apartment, with medical covered, above the poverty level. Is that right?

 

[Minor Axis]

So as a business owner (which I'm not) I should not hire someone to do a job - any job at all - unless I am prepared to pay enough for him/her to live independently of his/her parents in some level of comfort, in at least an apartment, with medical covered, above the poverty level. Is that right?

I'm talking full time jobs offered by major corporations who are worth millions/billion. And no I don't approve of major corporations hiring a preponderance of part time workers so they can avoid any support of those workers, for example insurance coverage. Now is that outrageous and unrealistic? Should we ask the board of directors or the millions of workers?

You want a living wage, you need to do work thats worth a living wage. Too many people know how to scrub toilets and sweep floors....

How does your philosophy fit in with businesses who think it's ok to ship every good paying job out of the country that they are allowed to? "Tough shit?" They have no regard for society. They just want to maximize profits. No one thinks or cares if these practices are going to hurt the domestic market place or the country in the future. They just want their quick profits up front so they can retire and live life large. So you think that is fine and dandy. I don't.

You can never look for social leadership from business. Again... it takes a government.

 

[Accountable]

First you come off sounding noble yet completely unrealistic:

The problem is your employees are part of your team or they are not. And if they are your employees, they deserve a living wage.

My definition of a living wage allows you to live independently of your parents in some level of comfort, in at least an apartment, with your medical covered, above the poverty level.

Then you add a huge caviat that excludes the vast majority of US employers.

I'm talking full time jobs offered by major corporations who are worth millions/billion.

Okay, I'll visit my chiropractor later about the whiplash, but I'll try to keep up with you. So you're saying that the pay of the job is dependent on the size of the employer, is that accurate? A stocker for a local five & dime can be paid $14,000 per year, but a Wal-mart stocker has to be paid closer to $40K plus bennies?

 

[Minor Axis]

Then you add a huge caviat that excludes the vast majority of US employers.

That caveat has been in every employment discussion I've ever had in this forum. If you have whiplash it's your own damn fault. Major corporations can afford living wages. I really don't know how the smallest of small businesses could afford insurance, maybe they could, depends. I don't know what guidelines would be needed to determine minimum pay comparing a local Mom and Pop drug store (do they still exist?) to a Walgreens. But every day more small businesses disappear to be replaced by large profitable corporations. We have a minimum wage, however it's too low, but businesses gripe about it as it is. I guess as far as they are concerned, slave wages would be good...

What I'm expressing to you an ideal. Is it a worthy ideal or is it not? Or is making sure the CEO gets his 100 million so the bottom tier of the company can scrape by at poverty level a better ideal? The point is if you have a business worth running are you running a slave ship or providing a means for fellow citizens to support themselves? And creating a healthy market where your goods can be sold to a healthy middle class? Hence a living wage.

It would be really good to see some numbers of employment and the pay ranges, to get a better feel for where the majority of jobs lay. Anyone got a link?

I can't believe the conservatives in this crowd don't seem to care about domestic jobs going over seas. Why is that? We could turn into an India from the 70's crawling with college graduates but no jobs. "Oh well, supply and demand, whatever the market bears" That is so much BS. The market is being manipulated by business for their gains, not for the good of our citizens. Only government can keep business in check. Will it? That remains to be seen. Maybe when the majority understand where their best interests lie. Maybe that will never happen because they are too stupid...

 

[Strauss]

Sounds like someone believes in socialism and/or dictatorship. The government is going to tell companies how they will pay their employees, the amount and the benefits to be provided. Hello, welcome to Red China.

 

[Accountable]

That caveat has been in every employment discussion I've ever had in this forum. If you have whiplash it's your own damn fault.

You should put that caveat in when you respond, because the response applied to the whole previous post unless you specify otherwise.

What I'm expressing to you an ideal. Is it a worthy ideal or is it not? Or is making sure the CEO gets his 100 million so the bottom tier of the company can scrape by at poverty level a better ideal? The point is if you have a business worth running are you running a slave ship or providing a means for fellow citizens to support themselves? And creating a healthy market where your goods can be sold to a healthy middle class? Hence a living wage.

Your ideal will stay just that - an ideal - because it is not a realistic standard. Raising wages raises overhead, which raises prices, which results in higher-paid employees who still can afford no more than they could when they earned less. Corporations are run by businessmen who tend to loathe throwing good money after bad. If they felt the CEO was not worth the millions they pay, the CEO would not make the millions.

I can't believe the conservatives in this crowd don't seem to care about domestic jobs going over seas. Why is that?

Because we're the United States of America, Goddammit! We lead in innovation because we don't let hardship stop us. If we can't find a job, we create a job.

eta: Keeping the old jobs here so things can go on the way it's always been? Who's the conservative in this equation??

 

[Minor Axis]

Your ideal will stay just that - an ideal - because it is not a realistic standard. Raising wages raises overhead, which raises prices, which results in higher-paid employees who still can afford no more than they could when they earned less.

Who says you're not a comedian? While they keep employee pay down they've increased management pay by 1000 fold. "Oh, you want a $5/hr pay raise? I'm sorry that just does not make business sense." They are damn greedy. Please do, argue that they are not.

Corporations are run by businessmen who tend to loathe throwing good money after bad.

What bad money is that, paying their employees?

If they felt the CEO was not worth the millions they pay, the CEO would not make the millions.

Oh, well then certainly, they know what's best for society and the country. :smiley24:

 

[Accountable]

Oh, well then certainly, they know what's best for society and the country. :smiley24:

And there it is. The socialist wants the government to decide what its citizens will do and earn based on what it decides is best for society and the country.

Corporations don't make business decisions based on what's best for society and country. Neither to politicians.


Why didn't you address my question, you conservative you? It was the only part of our conversation that directly addresses the op.

 

[Minor Axis]

Corporations don't make business decisions based on what's best for society and country. Neither to politicians.

And there it is, corporations don't make decisions based on what is good for the country, only what is good for their profits and lately they aren't smart enough to do that as decisions are overly influenced by what can I do to enrich myself, screw the company (in the long run).

 

[Accountable]

And there it is, corporations don't make decisions based on what is good for the country, only what is good for their profits and lately they aren't smart enough to do that as decisions are overly influenced by what can I do to enrich myself, screw the company (in the long run).

So I take from your tacit responses that you agree with me about American innovation, that politicians don't have the country's best interests in mind, and that you're more conservative than I. Right?

 

[Minor Axis]

So I take from your tacit responses that you agree with me about American innovation, that politicians don't have the country's best interests in mind, and that you're more conservative than I. Right?

This question?

eta: Keeping the old jobs here so things can go on the way it's always been? Who's the conservative in this equation??

Maybe if you are the conservative who is watching your job evaporate, then you'll become more moderate in your views?

 

[nova]

Who says you're not a comedian? While they keep employee pay down they've increased management pay by 1000 fold. "Oh, you want a $5/hr pay raise? I'm sorry that just does not make business sense." They are damn greedy. Please do, argue that they are not.

I'm going to argue it with the blatantly obvious numbers and scale.

As of 2006 wal-mart employed 1.6 million people. The average hourly employee made $10 hour.

$10/hour X 40 hours/week X 52 weeks/year X 1.6 million employees = $33,280,000,000 in wages per year.

A 10% average raise to $11 hour would cost them another $3 billion dollars a year.

Given the small number of high dollar executives, even considering the increases in pay, they probably haven't spent that in executive pay in the last TEN years.

Thats your business case. It looks even better considering unlike most hourly workers, the talents and work ethic of executives is not easily replaced.

 

[Francis]

I'm going to argue it with the blatantly obvious numbers and scale.

As of 2006 wal-mart employed 1.6 million people. The average hourly employee made $10 hour.

$10/hour X 40 hours/week X 52 weeks/year X 1.6 million employees = $33,280,000,000 in wages per year.

A 10% average raise to $11 hour would cost them another $3 billion dollars a year.

Given the small number of high dollar executives, even considering the increases in pay, they probably haven't spent that in executive pay in the last TEN years.

Thats your business case. It looks even better considering unlike most hourly workers, the talents and work ethic of executives is not easily replaced.

Hummmm..

I am sure this site is bias but how much is fact ?
Wake-Up Wal-Mart: The Real Wal-Mart Facts

Also how many Wal-mart ( or any store employee for that fact ) employees work 40 hour weeks.. I remember working for Sears and never getting more then 20 hours at max a week..

 

[namratasnv]

i still think most of the "townhall crazies" were paid to act by the insurance industry. i mean so angry that they wouldn't even listen when one of the speakers asked them what kind of compromise they would agree on. that just made them angrier. *shrug*

You are right I do see them and they simply gets so angry that just dont listen what you are saying and they only sticks to their words with their gestures.

Thanks

 

[Accountable]

This question?


Maybe if you are the conservative who is watching your job evaporate, then you'll become more moderate in your views?

Okay, since you're unwilling to engage any point I've made, I'll go back to a definitive statement you made:

The myth of globalization is that cheep jobs go overseas while the good jobs stay here. Now that only happens if you have a government who makes that happen.

The verb you need is allows, not makes. What you don't seem to understand is that progressively complicated restrictions on business only helps, not restricts, large businesses. The more complicated and expensive the government requirements, the more they like it because that makes it progressively more difficult for smaller competition to grow ... or even start. Fledgling entrepreneurs can't hope to start a business on a shoestring budget when they have to comply with mountains of paperwork and miles of red tape. Established, big, corporations have staffs of lawyers and accountants to handle that. The onerous requirements become an alligator-filled moat protecting them from new enemies.

Lifting gov't restrictions, allowing jobs to stay and/or be created here, is the way to go.

 

[Tim]

Lifting gov't restrictions, allowing jobs to stay and/or be created here, is the way to go.

Seriously? What are these government restrictions that keep me from starting and running a business?

 

[Alien Allen]

Seriously? What are these government restrictions that keep me from starting and running a business?

anything to do with driving most trucks would be a start

The CDL laws are absurd. When they are putting a pickup with a trailer in the same category as a semi and retroactively putting points on licenses for trucks that fail inspections it is bull shit. Nothing but a frigging money grab

You own a business and the govt is all over your ass. That same truck and trailer could be twice as heavy and if it is a personal vehicle and trailer the laws do not apply. How friggin convenient. Because business is bad and people dont give a shit if it affects a business. But if they used the logic of all vehicles that size apply regardless of if it is personal then people would bitch and they would make the law less onerous.

 

[Tim]

If your trailer/truck fail inspection, then that's on you and not the regulations.

CDL laws are state based and while some states are stricter than others in regards to rules, they are in place to keep the public safe, not to give you a hard time.

The company I work for has two full time CDL drivers and two trucks. We are in and out of Philly daily... Yeah the rules are tough but keep your trucks up to date and your drivers responsible and there are no problems at all. I would rather that than to have a free for all on the highways.

So tell me how that would hinder me running a business.

 

[Alien Allen]

If your trailer/truck fail inspection, then that's on you and not the regulations.

CDL laws are state based and while some states are stricter than others in regards to rules, they are in place to keep the public safe, not to give you a hard time.

The company I work for has two full time CDL drivers and two trucks. We are in and out of Philly daily... Yeah the rules are tough but keep your trucks up to date and your drivers responsible and there are no problems at all. I would rather that than to have a free for all on the highways.

So tell me how that would hinder me running a business.

move to MI and it would be obvious

I have two trucks right now that would never pass inspection. I may not even make payroll this week so I have to risk either going bankrupt to buy new trucks or gamble on not getting a ticket. You do realize that this is a huge cash cow for cities don't you? One cop said he could take a brand new truck off the lot and find something to ticket it for every time.

I have one truck that is under 10k GVW.... It is not supposed to be under CDL requirements but they pulled it over and ticketed it. Their interpretation which the judge agrees with is that because somebody could over load the vehicle to more than 10k the law applies

A friend was driving in a pickup with no trailer attached. They pulled him over and ticketed him because they knew it was a work truck. Just a plain old pickup but it had a barrel of water on it and so they assumed it was being used for work.

Both these drivers will now get points retroactively. Yes retroactively because drivers were not being held accountable.

These are friggin 1 ton pickup trucks at the most in size. The problem is you could have one of those with duel wheels hauling around your monster boat or travel trailer and not be subject to any of the CDL laws.

 

[BlackCherry]

Without having read the entire thread as I see it turned into something about CDL laws etc, I'm going to answer the original question very simply: because people are lazy.

They wait for their respective parties to tell them what they want and they go nuts at teabagger meetings or they rally around a policy that is so watered down and garbage it basically accomplishes nothing. In fairness, the politicians we've elected, or not elected as it were represent this laziness by digging in their heels and just sticking to the ideals of the party instead of speaking to each other and making real policy changes that would benefit the people as a whole. Sadly for the ones that do, they just get the big "NO" from whatever party is opposed to them simply because of who they are affiliated with.

As long as this party system exists, we are going to swing like a pendulum from the right to the left and back again with nothing being accomplished. It's a perpetual turd polishing and neither party has stepped up to the plate to actually do something about it beyond trying to pass it off to the other.

Given that, the majority of the people simply listen to the crap that their respective parties throw at them as absolute truth, feign outrage and rabble rabble over it at townhall meetings rather than actually doing the research, listening what said representative has to say, and then basing an opinion and electing candidates accordingly.

Feh...I'm kind of sick of the whole thing.