Should a minimum wage be a "living wage"?

[Little-Acorn]

Some cities are passing a law called a "Living-Wage Law", that says someone working for a large retailer must be paid at least 1-1/2 times the city's Minimum Wage. The purpose, they say, is so that the person can support a family (I presume a family of 4?) on his wages.

What if his work (clerking or flipping burgers or whatever) doesn't increase the company's revenue by that much?

What cosmic law suddenly made that company responsible for this person's family? Isn't that the person's responsibility himself? I thought companies (whether the corner store or K-Mart) were founded to sell good and make a profit for the people who risked their money to invest in them and set hem up?

Did God hand down a new commandment, saying that a family's needs must be supplied by working as a clerk or burger flipper?

As far as I know, that kind of work has never been sufficient to support a family of four. Someone who tries to support such a family while only working for McDonalds or Joe's Lawnmower Shop, is himself guilty of neglect. It's no different from trying to lift a 50-pound weight by using only a piece of kite string.

Does someone think they can change that by passing a law?

[aboutime]

Little-Acorn. Problem is. WHO decides WHAT the Living Wage should be?

Some might say 8 dollars an hour, while others might just say 20 dollars an hour.

But, what if someone decides it should be 50 dollars an hour?

How many small businesses can expect to stay in business at that kind of Cost?

Actually. What almost nobody wants to see, or believe is. Government decides HOW MUCH, and WHO gets what.
Which, in reality is...Socialism where Government controls what small business pays. And eventually FORCES small
businesses out of business...forcing the people to DEPEND on Government.
Tricky, but true.

[Little-Acorn]

If I'm trying to start a landscaping business, and I need to hire somebody to haul large amounts of dirt and rock from place to place while I do the planning, planting, decorating etc....

...do I suddenly become responsible for they guy's family too? Or is HE responsible for them?

[aboutime]

If I'm trying to start a landscaping business, and I need to hire somebody to haul large amounts of dirt and rock from place to place while I do the planning, planting, decorating etc....

...do I suddenly become responsible for they guy's family too? Or is HE responsible for them?


LA. Kinda creates more problems than you should be expected to deal with. But the politicians who want to play games, using Minimum Wage as their PROMISE while campaigning...just never seem able to answer that kind of question.
Just look at the high unemployment rate of Teens, Minorities, and others who have become more accustomed to Government handouts that are Higher than any DAMNED MINIMUM WAGE. So...why should they bother looking for a job where THEY HAVE TO WORK, or GET THEIR HANDS DIRTY???

If you ask a politician that question. You never get an answer, or anything close to an Honest one.

[tailfins]

Some cities are passing a law called a "Living-Wage Law", that says someone working for a large retailer must be paid at least 1-1/2 times the city's Minimum Wage. The purpose, they say, is so that the person can support a family (I presume a family of 4?) on his wages.

What if his work (clerking or flipping burgers or whatever) doesn't increase the company's revenue by that much?

What cosmic law suddenly made that company responsible for this person's family? Isn't that the person's responsibility himself? I thought companies (whether the corner store or K-Mart) were founded to sell good and make a profit for the people who risked their money to invest in them and set hem up?

Did God hand down a new commandment, saying that a family's needs must be supplied by working as a clerk or burger flipper?

As far as I know, that kind of work has never been sufficient to support a family of four. Someone who tries to support such a family while only working for McDonalds or Joe's Lawnmower Shop, is himself guilty of neglect. It's no different from trying to lift a 50-pound weight by using only a piece of kite string.

Does someone think they can change that by passing a law?

If they are going to be good liberals, shouldn't the living wage be based on TWO incomes? Who would want to exclude women from the workplace?

[Robert A Whit]

Acorn, did you study the cities that pass laws to force high wages on business?

Did you spot the part about health care insurance?

We in CA have lived with these laws and where it happens, you notice the unemployment rate is not falling.

[Larrymc]

Some cities are passing a law called a "Living-Wage Law", that says someone working for a large retailer must be paid at least 1-1/2 times the city's Minimum Wage. The purpose, they say, is so that the person can support a family (I presume a family of 4?) on his wages.

What if his work (clerking or flipping burgers or whatever) doesn't increase the company's revenue by that much?

What cosmic law suddenly made that company responsible for this person's family? Isn't that the person's responsibility himself? I thought companies (whether the corner store or K-Mart) were founded to sell good and make a profit for the people who risked their money to invest in them and set hem up?

Did God hand down a new commandment, saying that a family's needs must be supplied by working as a clerk or burger flipper?

As far as I know, that kind of work has never been sufficient to support a family of four. Someone who tries to support such a family while only working for McDonalds or Joe's Lawnmower Shop, is himself guilty of neglect. It's no different from trying to lift a 50-pound weight by using only a piece of kite string.

Does someone think they can change that by passing a law?Sounds like another Liberal Fix, Like Minimum Wage, Minimum Wage hands handle at some point every product they and everyone else buys, so of course every thing go's up proportionately there by helping no one, Unearned income is another one, working people pay 35% of there income while people who don't work or work very little, not only pay nothing but get back thousands "How Dose that make sense????

[red state]

Well, one only needs to re-evaluate what happened in DC to get an idea of why it is wrong or (at least) why it doesn't work.
Take Walmart...cuz another State certainly is. DC had the opportunity to gain yet another Walmart but through liberal dealings and going back on their word, these liberals have cost DC citizens over 2,000 jobs!!! That is what Blue States and liberals don't understand....we DO NOT need you or their silly little sewer cities.

I personally believe that we have become a society (a much weaker one I might add) that doesn't take responsibility for THEIR own lives. I raised my own family....sometimes my pay was very low (minimum to less than minimum wage in some instances) but I always worked harder and my wife and I worked double jobs if we had to. Through RESPONSIBLE, WISE management and hard work, we have managed to become debt free at the age of 42 and if I (or old tymers who made it during the Depression can make it without a hand out) others can too.

Now, for the other part of the question (IF) you are an employer. (IF) you are an employer (a good, Christian employer) you'll pay your folks as best you can but you also have an obligation to KEEP them employed so being good to your employers doesn't always mean paying them beyond your means. You could pay them extremely well for a time but if it drives you out of business, you've only hurt them, their co-workers and yourself. You can help in other ways and it is such a blessing to be able to help raise the children of GOOD employees so help them the Christian way and you'll be good to go (go on for years that is).

[red state]

A responsible person (or parent) will work two jobs until they can get the GOOD JOB....I had to do it and others can too. It is the American Way of running after success....not having it handed to you (at the expense of others). That is thievery.

[avatar4321]

Government shouldnt be doing anything like that. We need to abolish the Federal minimum wage and let the States determine their own stuff.

[DragonStryk72]

Some cities are passing a law called a "Living-Wage Law", that says someone working for a large retailer must be paid at least 1-1/2 times the city's Minimum Wage. The purpose, they say, is so that the person can support a family (I presume a family of 4?) on his wages.

What if his work (clerking or flipping burgers or whatever) doesn't increase the company's revenue by that much?

What cosmic law suddenly made that company responsible for this person's family? Isn't that the person's responsibility himself? I thought companies (whether the corner store or K-Mart) were founded to sell good and make a profit for the people who risked their money to invest in them and set hem up?

Did God hand down a new commandment, saying that a family's needs must be supplied by working as a clerk or burger flipper?

As far as I know, that kind of work has never been sufficient to support a family of four. Someone who tries to support such a family while only working for McDonalds or Joe's Lawnmower Shop, is himself guilty of neglect. It's no different from trying to lift a 50-pound weight by using only a piece of kite string.

Does someone think they can change that by passing a law?

actually, you used to be able to get by flipping burgers at McDonalds, but thanks to wage laws, requirements for insurance and so on, companies now only keep part-timers outside of management. Heck, when I started with Walmart they were hardcore about hiring people full time if they had the availability.

The very laws that were "helping" people to get by are the very laws that have been screwing them over

[Jeff]

Well, one only needs to re-evaluate what happened in DC to get an idea of why it is wrong or (at least) why it doesn't work.
Take Walmart...cuz another State certainly is. DC had the opportunity to gain yet another Walmart but through liberal dealings and going back on their word, these liberals have cost DC citizens over 2,000 jobs!!! That is what Blue States and liberals don't understand....we DO NOT need you or their silly little sewer cities.

I personally believe that we have become a society (a much weaker one I might add) that doesn't take responsibility for THEIR own lives. I raised my own family....sometimes my pay was very low (minimum to less than minimum wage in some instances) but I always worked harder and my wife and I worked double jobs if we had to. Through RESPONSIBLE, WISE management and hard work, we have managed to become debt free at the age of 42 and if I (or old tymers who made it during the Depression can make it without a hand out) others can too.

Now, for the other part of the question (IF) you are an employer. (IF) you are an employer (a good, Christian employer) you'll pay your folks as best you can but you also have an obligation to KEEP them employed so being good to your employers doesn't always mean paying them beyond your means. You could pay them extremely well for a time but if it drives you out of business, you've only hurt them, their co-workers and yourself. You can help in other ways and it is such a blessing to be able to help raise the children of GOOD employees so help them the Christian way and you'll be good to go (go on for years that is).

I agree 100% , when I had my first son I was working for the DOT in NJ and it was winter time so I had snow work ( ice calls as well as snow) 3 to 4 nights a week and worked at a sub shop and delivered pizza's on the nights I didn't work at the sub shop to make it , as my pay went up I cut out the 2nd and 3rd job but felt I still wasn't making enough so I went to Driving , I was a over the road trucker for years and made a lot of money but it took its toll on my health ( those 5 and 6000 mile weeks are rough) but if I had listened to my parents and went on to college I could of made the same money in 40 hours so I hate to hear about these people needing more money go out and work for it its there if you are willing to work

[tailfins]

I agree 100% , when I had my first son I was working for the DOT in NJ and it was winter time so I had snow work ( ice calls as well as snow) 3 to 4 nights a week and worked at a sub shop and delivered pizza's on the nights I didn't work at the sub shop to make it , as my pay went up I cut out the 2nd and 3rd job but felt I still wasn't making enough so I went to Driving , I was a over the road trucker for years and made a lot of money but it took its toll on my health ( those 5 and 6000 mile weeks are rough) but if I had listened to my parents and went on to college I could of made the same money in 40 hours so I hate to hear about these people needing more money go out and work for it its there if you are willing to work

Experience is more important than immediate cash. Working at a low skill minimum wage job for a year is 95% as bad as being unemployed for a year. In fact one would be much better off being unemployed for a year if they spent that time getting a MCSD http://www.microsoft.com/learning/en-us/mcsd-certification.aspx

But you can't stop there. Make sure you practice and really know the material. Be prepared to answer snap questions and show on a white board how to inherit and do partial classes for example.

[Larrymc]

A responsible person (or parent) will work two jobs until they can get the GOOD JOB....I had to do it and others can too. It is the American Way of running after success....not having it handed to you (at the expense of others). That is thievery.Your right by the time I was Thirteen i was washing dishes seven days a week, nights and weekends, by fifteen i was out on my on, so no i didn't have the benefit of an education, (So for all you grammar cops out there please fell free to skip my post) what i did know was in this country if you where willing to work hard and was not afraid of getting a little dirty you could do just fine. Once in my life i went to apply for food stamps and was told i could expect them in about two weeks, "Shocked" i ask you mean the average person coming in here can wait two weeks, she began to explain that i could do more paper work to get an emergency portion, i said lady if i had food and gas money to go job hunting to day i wouldn't be here till tomorrow, and I left. Praise God one of the many places i had applied to called in wasn't the job or the pay i wanted and needed but it would suffice. My work history and ethics finally got my into a machine were i learned a trade that i did for thirteen years before I was diagnosed with Kidney Failure and could not do that work anymore, so I stated Driving a tanker across country for five more years before i also could not do that either

[Larrymc]

Government shouldnt be doing anything like that. We need to abolish the Federal minimum wage and let the States determine their own stuff.I agree, and i like your signature

[aboutime]

Your right by the time I was Thirteen i was washing dishes seven days a week, nights and weekends, by fifteen i was out on my on, so no i didn't have the benefit of an education, (So for all you grammar cops out there please fell free to skip my post) what i did know was in this country if you where willing to work hard and was not afraid of getting a little dirty you could do just fine. Once in my life i went to apply for food stamps and was told i could expect them in about two weeks, "Shocked" i ask you mean the average person coming in here can wait two weeks, she began to explain that i could do more paper work to get an emergency portion, i said lady if i had food and gas money to go job hunting to day i wouldn't be here till tomorrow, and I left. Praise God one of the many places i had applied to called in wasn't the job or the pay i wanted and needed but it would suffice. My work history and ethics finally got my into a machine were i learned a trade that i did for thirteen years before I was diagnosed with Kidney Failure and could not do that work anymore, so I stated Driving a tanker across country for five more years before i also could not do that either


Larrymc. Forget about those who always feel they have to instruct others, and point out their errors. That is sometimes. The only way they can make themselves feel so superior to everyone else who is.....BENEATH THEM.
I grew up calling them SNOBS.
Met many of them during my years in the Navy. Took me a long time to come to the realization....they are no different than anyone else....despite their NOSE being jacked-up higher than everyone else's. Made them so STUCK UP, they tripped over their own humanity, and looked like the fools they will always be.
Watch how some....may even show their STATUS here, by correcting everything I have said.
And, if they remain quiet. It proves my idea about them being SNOBS.

[fj1200]

Government shouldnt be doing anything like that. We need to abolish the Federal minimum wage and let the States determine their own stuff.

Even if so this is being done at the local level, even below the States. We need a welfare overhaul but the libs have no imagination in devising a better solution; they think mandates on private business is good enough.

[Kathianne]

Even if so this is being done at the local level, even below the States. We need a welfare overhaul but the libs have no imagination in devising a better solution; they think mandates on private business is good enough.How about expanding the earned income credit? Incentive to work instead of SNAP or other federal help?

[DragonStryk72]

Even if so this is being done at the local level, even below the States. We need a welfare overhaul but the libs have no imagination in devising a better solution; they think mandates on private business is good enough.


How about expanding the earned income credit? Incentive to work instead of SNAP or other federal help?


SNAP should be getting run like WIC. instead of just dumping funds at people, it gives them specific lists of items that they are allotted that will fill their nutritional needs. This will result in both healthier eating, and in teaching people how to get by. it also has the side benefit of limiting abuse of the system.

Mandates on private business almost never really work, and come back to bite us, the employees, in the ass. We need to incentivise good business practices, not punish bad practices. Nature will simply take care of it from there.

Example: in VT, there's a tax incentive for businesses that provide at least 25% of their own power. No punishment if you don't, but it can save you a lot of money long term if you do.So a lot of business go with the program because its in their own self interest. The money saved by the government on providing power can be moved to building more low cost wind farms to further lower the bills long term.

[gabosaurus]

Government shouldnt be doing anything like that. We need to abolish the Federal minimum wage and let the States determine their own stuff.

So you believe businesses should be able to pay people whatever they want? Are you for bringing back sweat shops and 12-hour, 6-day work weeks? If some small business with five employees decides to pay them $2 an hour so he can make more profit, do you favor that?

[Nell's Room]

If I'm trying to start a landscaping business, and I need to hire somebody to haul large amounts of dirt and rock from place to place while I do the planning, planting, decorating etc....

...do I suddenly become responsible for they guy's family too? Or is HE responsible for them?

You have a duty to pay him what he deserves. If he does all that work you shouldn't pay him $8 an hour, he is worth more than that. At least ten dollars - over here, he'd probably get at least $20 per hour.
He has to be responsible for his family, you need to be fair and not scrimp on the wages because you care too much about profits.

[fj1200]

So you believe businesses should be able to pay people whatever they want? Are you for bringing back sweat shops and 12-hour, 6-day work weeks? If some small business with five employees decides to pay them $2 an hour so he can make more profit, do you favor that?

You do understand that people don't have to work for $2 an hour don't you?


You have a duty to pay him what he deserves.

And who decides what he "deserves"? Let me guess. :rolleyes: Nevertheless if you mandate that someone earn what they "deserve" which may be above the value that they add, that job may not be around very long.

[fj1200]

How about expanding the earned income credit? Incentive to work instead of SNAP or other federal help?

Can't say I know for sure. I was thinking the EITC was rife with fraud but how about something like the negative income tax? I'm more on the side of expanding business opportunities by lower taxes, regulations, etc. while at the same time limiting the new entrants to the low wage markets. :cough: immigration :cough:

[Kathianne]

Can't say I know for sure. I was thinking the EITC was rife with fraud but how about something like the negative income tax? I'm more on the side of expanding business opportunities by lower taxes, regulations, etc. while at the same time limiting the new entrants to the low wage markets. :cough: immigration :cough: I don't know enough, but anything that encourages work over handouts is a good thing in my book.

[Larrymc]

So you believe businesses should be able to pay people whatever they want? Are you for bringing back sweat shops and 12-hour, 6-day work weeks? If some small business with five employees decides to pay them $2 an hour so he can make more profit, do you favor that?The point is if that business only pays $2 while other similar businesses pay $7 and $8 who is going to work for him, Also abolishing the minimum wage would not change the good labor laws that we have, but i agree that some of those laws that we have need to change such as the benefits full time vs part time, it doesn't get anyone more benefits, it causes most to have two part time jobs to juggle, instead of a solid full time job. its why there is such a big turn over in minimum wage jobs because many of those people are trying to juggle two or three jobs, and when they can't keep up they lose jobs.

[aboutime]

The point is if that business only pays $2 while other similar businesses pay $7 and $8 who is going to work for him, Also abolishing the minimum wage would not change the good labor laws that we have, but i agree that some of those laws that we have need to change such as the benefits full time vs part time, it doesn't get anyone more benefits, it causes most to have two part time jobs to juggle, instead of a solid full time job. its why there is such a big turn over in minimum wage jobs because many of those people are trying to juggle two or three jobs, and when they can't keep up they lose jobs.


Larrymc. What gabby intentionally DID NOT MENTION, in order to sound more knowledgeable about this topic is. She knows. No business in the United States would ever last, or be competitive in any way by paying employee's $2 an hour.
In fact. Ask Gabby to NAME any business in this country that is making a profit, and have her also tell us what/how much the Employer pays their workers.
Bet gabby won't find one that pays less than Minimum wage, that has stayed in business more than a week.

See Larrymc. What they DON'T SAY, like Obama. Is just as Intentionally a pack of lies as the actual lies they tell.
Some would call it half truths, or intentional Omission of Facts to enhance their KNOWN LIES.

[fj1200]

I don't know enough, but anything that encourages work over handouts is a good thing in my book.

No question but the fraud is massive in the program from what I've heard. I think it has pretty poor standards like merely claiming some self-employment income to the level that releases money. The burden of proof is pretty low. I'm getting that info second hand so my interpretation might be wrong.

[Kathianne]

No question but the fraud is massive in the program from what I've heard. I think it has pretty poor standards like merely claiming some self-employment income to the level that releases money. The burden of proof is pretty low. I'm getting that info second hand so my interpretation might be wrong. I'm not sure what you are speaking of. If EIC, one needs to attach their W2's and then fit them into the parameters. I'm unsure how someone with an income over $36k can claim an EIC with one dependent, 2 years later with income at $18k and no dependents be denied and owing taxes. Truth is, disincentive to work. Better off not working at all.

[gabosaurus]

The point is if that business only pays $2 while other similar businesses pay $7 and $8 who is going to work for him, Also abolishing the minimum wage would not change the good labor laws that we have, but i agree that some of those laws that we have need to change such as the benefits full time vs part time, it doesn't get anyone more benefits, it causes most to have two part time jobs to juggle, instead of a solid full time job. its why there is such a big turn over in minimum wage jobs because many of those people are trying to juggle two or three jobs, and when they can't keep up they lose jobs.

Obviously you don't understand the practice of wage fixing. Let's say that Wal-Mart decides that all part-time workers were going to be paid $3 an hour. In many small communities, Wal-Mart is a major employer is many small towns. The big grocery store chains can then go along, followed by fast food chains.
Why do you want to regress back to turn of the 20th century, when business owners had all the power and workers had none?

[Kathianne]

Obviously you don't understand the practice of wage fixing. Let's say that Wal-Mart decides that all part-time workers were going to be paid $3 an hour. In many small communities, Wal-Mart is a major employer is many small towns. The big grocery store chains can then go along, followed by fast food chains. Why do you want to regress back to turn of the 20th century, when business owners had all the power and workers had none? Ok, and Walmart attempted such tactics where?

[gabosaurus]

Ok, and Walmart attempted such tactics where?

Never. I was just using them as an example.
The minimum wage is in place to help people make a living. If your business can't survive while paying workers a fair wage, then you shouldn't be running a business.

[Kathianne]

Never. I was just using them as an example. The minimum wage is in place to help people make a living. If your business can't survive while paying workers a fair wage, then you shouldn't be running a business. So skip Walmart, where is the example of which you speak? Who is to say what is a fair wage? The business? The workers? Some liberal group? Some conservative group?

[DragonStryk72]

Obviously you don't understand the practice of wage fixing. Let's say that Wal-Mart decides that all part-time workers were going to be paid $3 an hour. In many small communities, Wal-Mart is a major employer is many small towns. The big grocery store chains can then go along, followed by fast food chains.
Why do you want to regress back to turn of the 20th century, when business owners had all the power and workers had none?

Wal-mart goes out of business when its workers unionize, and the resulting PR rips them into shreds, assuming any employees will be left not working for Target and the other retail stores of the area.

Why is it that you have no faith in people to fight back?

[Larrymc]

Obviously you don't understand the practice of wage fixing. Let's say that Wal-Mart decides that all part-time workers were going to be paid $3 an hour. In many small communities, Wal-Mart is a major employer is many small towns. The big grocery store chains can then go along, followed by fast food chains.
Why do you want to regress back to turn of the 20th century, when business owners had all the power and workers had none?It seems like common sense to me, but ill try to make my point, lets say a large company was able to pull that off and start a chain reaction in wages, the price of goods would have to follow people could not continue pay the same price, How do think people got by before minimum wage, when people worked for say a dollar an hour, well you could buy a loaf of bread for a nickel, the one thing that has made the greatest deference is labor laws, and we can thank the unions for that, but know there usefulness is void now they only exist to deepen the packets of there bosses and politicians, as well as creating a greater divide between the low and middle class.

[aboutime]

Obviously you don't understand the practice of wage fixing. Let's say that Wal-Mart decides that all part-time workers were going to be paid $3 an hour. In many small communities, Wal-Mart is a major employer is many small towns. The big grocery store chains can then go along, followed by fast food chains.
Why do you want to regress back to turn of the 20th century, when business owners had all the power and workers had none?


Simple gabby. First, and Foremost. YOU need to tell us WHO, and WHERE there are any PRESENT DAY Americans who would work for $3 dollars an hour, and what business WOULD expect to remain in business with NO EMPLOYEE'S?

[fj1200]

I'm not sure what you are speaking of. If EIC, one needs to attach their W2's and then fit them into the parameters. I'm unsure how someone with an income over $36k can claim an EIC with one dependent, 2 years later with income at $18k and no dependents be denied and owing taxes. Truth is, disincentive to work. Better off not working at all.

I think this is along the lines of what I'm talking about.


The actual fraud methods vary, but many of the worst offenders avoid the required employer-verification required for salaries by using fake or misreported (http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2012/04/26/abusing-a-tax-loophole-meant-to-aid-the-poor/) Schedule C tax forms, common among small business and not subject to verification except during audits. The clients, short on time and information, don't often question the preparer's work, especially when the size of the refund (unlike for the preparers) determines the difference between being able to pay bills or not.
http://www.demos.org/blog/eitc-fraud-good-tax-credit-meets-bad-accountants

I think it's pretty clear we've got the wrong approach.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by gabosaurus http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=652140#post652140)
Never. I was just using them as an example. The minimum wage is in place to help people make a living. If your business can't survive while paying workers a fair wage, then you shouldn't be running a business.


So skip Walmart, where is the example of which you speak? Who is to say what is a fair wage? The business? The workers? Some liberal group? Some conservative group?

Maybe she does not realize that wages must be passed along to the customers. When customers won't pay, wages can't be raised. I want to state up front that I could never locate machinists who would work for minimum wages. That was simply impossible to find such workers.

I had no union to protect me or my workers when I owned the machine shop.

I had to generally bid on jobs though a few companies held it over my head by telling me they would pay what I invoiced but should they feel my prices were too high, they would not use me ever. And I mean EVER.

My shop rate in the late 1960s was set at $12. per hour. My best man got top wages of $5.50 per hour. Sounds like my profit was $6.50 but that did not include rent for the shop, payments on very expensive machines nor state taxes nor county taxes nor utilities and trash pick up nor bookkeeping. Nor fuel for my car and fuel for my welding equipment. Nor the huge cost of small tools and coolants to properly machine various metals. Most metals needed a coolant for that metal. It did not include the cost to set up the shop nor the last months rent that was paid up front. I was struggling at $12 per hour and of course not all jobs made profit so there were losses as well. Then to get paid quicker to pay my workers, I had to give them discounts for fast pay.

Apparently to Gabby we were robber barons.

Now the hourly price. I was flat boxed in by what other shops charged. To try to make money, i spent a lot of time with my workers teaching them ways to do work very fast. My shop foreman was awesome and his speed and accuracy is why though very young, I paid him top wages.

Bear in mind that any worker in my shop could earn a raise by simply being better at the job and up to the same par as my foreman. I wanted to pay them more wages. It was the workers holding themselves back and not me.

I had to edit so I could include costs to the shop such as insurance for health of the workers, insurance on the shop required in the lease plus insurance on the company truck.

Did I say I needed an income from my own business? Well, I will say that the men always got paid even if I had tell my wife that we were going to have to live on her wages in Silicon Valley. She hated my business.

[red state]

I agree....to liberals, most things seem "fair" when it is on paper but they rarely have all the facts and numbers so they go with illogical solutions such as spend billions (even trillions) to get out of trillions upon trillions in debt.

The liberal mindset paved the way for waitresses to automatically get 18% (never mind a more than fair 15%). This is much the same principle as some of the ball parks where EVERYONE wins. Funny thing is that even the kids know that someone had to lose so the adults lie to the kids and tell them that it was a tie!!! PC (Pinko Crap) has ruined this nation and if a waiter does a terrible job, I'll tip him 10% or less. If he's an absolute moron, I'll leave him some "advice". I've tipped $100.oo when I have been well taken care of and/or get the feeling that this person could really use the help. In those cases, I'll leave a Bible verse with the tip that will hopefully lift their spirits. I can recall being extremely proud of my wife who when back and put money in the hand of a lady who was not our waitress BUT she was serving just about EVERYONE (including us) because we and a few others had the "lazy" waitress. We say the father and the daughter come in so we knew that they probably needed the money during the Christmas Season.

I said all that to make this point. My wife has been a waitress putting herself through college and she knew how hard it was but she made it. The bad thing is....she was far more qualified than some but because of this PC world we live in, she was passed over (from the boss's own words) because they had to hire a more "discriminated" individual. My wife finally made her way but decided to home school our children till they were old enough to play sports (at the time, you couldn't play sports unless you were enrolled as a public school student). My wife then picked right back up and renewed her career and is now running a multi million dollar pharmaceutical information business. Her pay depended upon her success in continually building the business and it has only grown leaps and bounds during these terrible years of B.O. Those under her are rewarded in like manner and those who are content to simply draw a paycheck usually don't last very long. Their philosophy is getting rid of the weeds so that the business will bloom and BOOM. It is a successful and profitable campaign that could not be possible if EVERYONE were "GIVEN" a "FAIR" salary. Reward should come to those who EARN it and that is something we were founded on and so quickly forgotten.

[Robert A Whit]

I agree....to liberals, most things seem "fair" when it is on paper but they rarely have all the facts and numbers so they go with illogical solutions such as spend billions (even trillions) to get out of trillions upon trillions in debt.

The liberal mindset paved the way for waitresses to automatically get 18% (never mind a more than fair 15%). This is much the same principle as some of the ball parks where EVERYONE wins. Funny thing is that even the kids know that someone had to lose so the adults lie to the kids and tell them that it was a tie!!! PC (Pinko Crap) has ruined this nation and if a waiter does a terrible job, I'll tip him 10% or less. If he's an absolute moron, I'll leave him some "advice". I've tipped $100.oo when I have been well taken care of and/or get the feeling that this person could really use the help. In those cases, I'll leave a Bible verse with the tip that will hopefully lift their spirits. I can recall being extremely proud of my wife who when back and put money in the hand of a lady who was not our waitress BUT she was serving just about EVERYONE (including us) because we and a few others had the "lazy" waitress. We say the father and the daughter come in so we knew that they probably needed the money during the Christmas Season.

I said all that to make this point. My wife has been a waitress putting herself through college and she knew how hard it was but she made it. The bad thing is....she was far more qualified than some but because of this PC world we live in, she was passed over (from the boss's own words) because they had to hire a more "discriminated" individual. My wife finally made her way but decided to home school our children till they were old enough to play sports (at the time, you couldn't play sports unless you were enrolled as a public school student). My wife then picked right back up and renewed her career and is now running a multi million dollar pharmaceutical information business. Her pay depended upon her success in continually building the business and it has only grown leaps and bounds during these terrible years of B.O. Those under her are rewarded in like manner and those who are content to simply draw a paycheck usually don't last very long. Their philosophy is getting rid of the weeds so that the business will bloom and BOOM. It is a successful and profitable campaign that could not be possible if EVERYONE were "GIVEN" a "FAIR" salary. Reward should come to those who EARN it and that is something we were founded on and so quickly forgotten.

:clap::clap::clap::coffee: