That is what you call damniing with faint praise.

I agree...and I suggest that Obama for all his education and intelligence, go back and take a basic economics course. He would then understand the unintended consequences of raising the minimum wage, including layoffs, lack of hiring, etc.

FIFA really doesn't know what he is talking about. I in fact have a graduate level business degree. LOL

Clearly "Australopithecus" would have. ;))

I am suggesting that you ought to make some serious money in 3 million years.

In 3 million years, if Australo guy saved even a few dollars a week and invested same in a simple money market account, he would have enough money to hire Bill Gates to wash his cars. Compound interest is a wonderful thing.

I can be accused of many things, but being left wing is not one of them.

What Walmart does is morally wrong. As one of the largest employers in this country, they should set an example. I agree that businesses should not be forced to pay specific wages etc., but shaming them into it is another story. Purposely scheduling large numbers of employees under 40 hours a week to avoid paying benefits is morally wrong. It may be legal, but it is wrong.

Ultimately, we as consumers can control what Walmart does by taking our business elsewhere. I do. I will never shop at Walmart because I find their business culture morally reprehensible. That is neither left or right wing. That is simply being an educated consumer. If other people want to spend $2 in gas to save 50 cents, that is their choice. It's stupid, but the goverment should not be in the business of saving people from their own stupid decisions.

Unfortunately, many young people today do not know how to read, write, or do basic math. They are passed through school and graduate unprepared to go onto college or to hold an entry level job. If they drop out, the schools are quick to withdraw them so their school absence doesn't affect their drop-out or attendance rate. Its a bigger issue that involves leadership on multiple levels. Unfortunately in our current time, leadership on the county, state and federal levels is sorely missing.

FALSE. If the primary wage earner works a SKILLED job that provides health care but the other parent can't even find a part time job earning minimum wage, because those jobs are scarce due to the government price fixing them above what they're worth, the whole family might just say, "Screw it" and apply for food stamps and beneifts. Not every job CAN be a "living wage." We need entry level and part time and seasonal jobs for students and primary care taker parents, too.

Walmart doesn't pay any worse than any other retailers. It's not their responsibility to pay more than the market says the job is worth. Get skilled, get married and stay married when you have kids and it's not a problem.

Huh? You seem to be completely missing the point and telling me some family's life story for no reason.

"t's not their responsibility to pay more than the market says the job is worth."

That's EXACTLY the point. Walmart, et al. AREN'T paying the real market rate for their employees - they simply rely on the government to pick up the slack w/low income safety nets (e.g. medicaid, section 8, food stamps). This artificially low labor cost further bolsters profit margins which are reaped by those at the top of the food chain.

Who in their right mind would support such massive government subsidization of businesses? Obviously, many politicians are beholden to rich and powerful corporations and that's why the system is set up as it is, but most certainly it doesn't make sense for regular, tax paying citizens to support such corporate welfare.

There are many among the family I describe, just like the ones you describe that can't make it on a job at Walmart. Of course you can't, but you're not supposed to be able to do that.

Walmart, fast food, other retail are paying market wage and maybe way above if they can get people to work for that. Where it is not market wage, they have to pay more to keep people. You simply don't know what "market wage" is.
Market wage for fast food in some parts of ND is $15 an hour.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/28/pf/north_dakota_jobs/index.htm

Where jobs are plentiful, they have to pay more to keep people in those jobs.

The govt. should encourage economic boom, not set prices on labor. Price controls are a communist concept.

I see my original comment of people "ironically hid[ing] behind guise of 'capitalism' and 'the market'" has been fulfilled. I've already explained how Walmart, et al. don't pay the "market wage" - they rely on the government to subsidize many of their employees. That's an exceedingly obvious fact. If I haven't adequately explained or you don't have the ability to understand the economics at play, I apologize and encourage you to educate yourself further on the subject through other means. Cheers.

That the government subsidizes some of their workers has nothing to do with "market wage." If you think otherwise, you have no idea what market wage means. What you're talking about is not an economic term, but the made up, ambiguous liberal term "living wage."

All grown ups know that you can't raise a family on one Walmart wage. A job like that is great for a high school or college student, a mom who wants part time or seasonal work, a construction worker who wants to pick up hours in their slow season, or retail managers. All you do by forcing greasy spoons and retailers to pay more is make the little ones go out of business or not start up at all, or make the big ones make their staff work harder, and expect more of them. Either way, it costs jobs.

One reason that the "market rate" for unskilled labor is so low is due to the millions of illegal immigrants. It's simple supply and demand. Prevent the millions of illegals from working and wages would rise as the pool of unskilled laborers decreases,

Both sides want to continue exploiting illegal immigrants. It keeps wages low and that what the folks that run Walmart Et al want.

Illegal immigrants have nothing to do with it.

Both Jag and Chris W. are spot on here with their posts.

I love how he indicates raising the minimal wage involves more government spending. It's most likely just the opposite - the more money people make, the less government dependence (i.e. money from you and me) they'll need.

I've heard this statement repeatedly - "you shouldn't be raising a family on a minimum income job". Ok, so now you know why so many fiscally and educationally downtrodden give up, or get into illegal activites. What do you want these people to do??

Granted, there's a subset of - let's call them mindless breeders - that I have no sympathy for.

However, the majority of lower income folks may have one kid or two...maybe they used to have a good job and then something happened. Alcoholism, maybe a long term injury/disease, etc and now they are fiscally wrecked.

See, on the one hand those on the right pontificate that everyone should be working if they are capable. I agree with this! However, on the other hand they're also saying "Hey, you shouldn't work at THIS job, because we won't allow you to support your wife/family with it". This is where the right loses me. It's hypocrisy coming from the wealthy. It's disgusting.
Same thing with Obamacare. First, everyone complains about health care costs constantly skyrocketing due to all the uninsured. Then, when insurance gets legislated for them, oh my gosh, the raaaage from these same greedy b******s. Babies. All of them.

Fun fact: The 6 bucks an hour I made in 1980 at my first job?

It's worth about 17 bucks an hour today.

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=6.00&year1=1980&year2=2013

Tim, in 1980 minimum wage was way less than $6/hr what is your point? Even if that were the case, does that mean that you believe we should raise it to $17 now? How about $20? $25? Where does it end? Obviously you are not familiar with how wages are set in a free market (or what is supposed to be a free market). Let me tell you, it isn't by the govt in any successful society.

My point is that we are not making the market work. I am opposed to forcing a company to pay a specific wage, but I am all for using the power of the purse to change their behavior.

Why, just because he's black? I find your comment pretty despicable, and racist.

So I guess he is not "black enough" for you?

Typical racist garbage from Steve.

And that's why they call this little twerp Stanker Steve.

Nothing Racist at all. It 's the new GOP (Grumpy Old People)'s latest program. They realized after the last election that running two milque toasty white guys on the same ticket will never get elected.
The thought they had a person of color with Michael Steele, but two many BDSM Strip clubs on the expense account they realized he wasn't going to work out. Then they thought they were being "Progressive" by including a woman on the ticket. But somewhere in the middle of the campaign trial they finally figured she is dumb as a rock. So , they cast their aspirations on Herman "The Serial Groper" Cain. That didn't work. Allen West and his fiscal problems didn't work. Now its a free for all to become the GOP's "Next Person of Color". They ought to televise it like a contest similar to "American Idol".

Say what you will , B.O. But you know for sure that 26% of the population is not fooled in the least by the Herman Cain scam. http://bit.ly/WUvRjK

Steve..you are the epitome of a liberal. A racist, crony elitist, hypocrite. God forbid a black man speaks proper English or is successful. Pains you to be unable to keep a black man in his place. I know your type very well.

What would you Liberals do without blacks? Who would you use? Who would you rely on to exploit for personal and political gain? I'm really curious?

"Man, HermanCain is making a comeback - says he likes working with Fox team, particularly some of them fine-ass white women they got there"

Steve, You are the most predictable poster on the Patch. Predictable and pathetic. As soon as you see a black person with a political view outside of the standard liberal Obama, Jesse Jackson left wing ideology, you attack him as a token or Uncle Tom. You need help.

CP: No offense, but conservatives are also loaded with the charateristics of racism, crony elitism, and hypocrisy. Libertarians not as much.
If you can't see this, you're simply too biased to look, which isn't surprising for this forum population.

Tim,

Turn off Rachel Madcow. Republicans are not racists. There are certainly people who are racists, but they exist on both sides.

Herman Cain is a case in point. He had a lot of support from republicans because of his ideas. Condi Rice is an even better example. If she had run in the primary, Mitt Romney would have been just another also ran.

"Nickel and Dimed" is a good read. The implications for public policy are even better.

People today have no shame. In years past, corporate leaders understood that the welfare of their workers was their responsibility. The government did not get involved, and yet they still provided for their workers (for the most part). If they treated their workers badly they would be ashamed.

The same can be said of of the poor receiving welfare. There was a time when people were ashamed if they needed to go on assistance. Now it is an expectation.

You must have exactly zero historical perspective and knowledge considering the anti-government junk you spew constantly. You yearn so badly for it to be 1903 again, yet don't have any concept of how awful that'd actually be.

So you are a socialist? Socialism has never worked.

Only a moron calls what's going on in this country actual socialism.
Don't believe me? Ask an actual socialist what they think, then come back less stupid.

Well that's interesting Tim, because in one of your other posts you claim conservatives are racists. Now I would deny that (because I believe it's charge from those primarily who can't argue the facts and then throw one of the most inflamtory charges one can make). But you say it's true. Now if socialists deny we have socialism maybe they too don't know if enough to make such a statement. However you obviously are coming at this from a liberal point of view which must be taken into consideration as well when judging your statement. For example you think Obamacare is a good thing, do you not? With that kind of perspective I have to question virtually every comment you make on here.

Even those Dirty Heritage Foundation Socialists thought Nationalized Healthcare was a good idea until it was championed and signed by the first Black President.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/health-care-provision-at-center-of-supreme-court-debate-was-a-republican-idea/2012/03/25/gIQAoCHocS_story.html

Ah Steve the racist. You know it's unfortunate that you have nothing to offer other than the race card 24/7. This discussion is about the minimum wage yet you find a way to inject your bile into the debate. Quite sad.

amark, have you noticed who is the routinely the first to through out the "racist" label on the Patch? Your ilk? Why is that? It is really bizarre.

Fifa how nice of you to run to Stevie's defense. What you say couldn't be further from the truth. I challenge you to point out one time where I have used race on here. You won't find one. Unfortunately the lefties on here rountinely do it to delegitimize those they disagree with no matter what the subject of the thread. For example, once you label someone a racist, you can then say "well you can't take that person seriously, they are a racist". When someone like Ben Carson or Herman Cain is brought up by your ilk, it is generally to make some sarcastic remark or imply they are a sellout. The gentleman who wrote this article is African American and has a conservative point of view, is that a problem for you? I believe in looking at people as individuals and judge politicians by their policies not their race.

Psst amark, look at your post above. Two paragraphs from here, first line 4th word.

So in FIFIs world, Steve can insinuate that all a Republicans, who he has repeatedly labeled "Grumpy Old White People" , are against anything the "first Black President" does. Somehow, in FIFIs feeble little mind, that position is not racist.

My what a narrow view.

Chris W, in your world your online friends like amark, Kongo, Sanchez, Lorna, etc. can immediately call someone a racist and you never once question them. You only question Steve who does like to yank your chains. Why? Then you accuse me of something when I don't respond to Steve's posts? Get real Chrissy. See how the name calling begins, grow up.

Is it racist to call Fido what he is: a filthy little weeping junkyard mutt? LMAO

Do you deny the the fact that his comment is racist in nature? Also, the posters you named specifically do not post bigoted crap like Steve does, there may be an occasional comment that can be misinterpreted, but that Is a big difference from Steve's full throated condemnation of "old white people"

Steve can speak for himself Chris W. I see his speech as poking fun at you and your friends' beliefs that you do not think are racist in nature. Steve sees many of those statements as the proverbial "dog whistle". So does Steve's suggestion you guys make racist comments make him racist, since when? Why most of Steve's stuff has a hurt to it, is there is some truth to it. Does he exaggerate to make his point, yes. Does that make him a racist, no.

Have a great day and stop with the name calling. I've been working at that too.

Fido has cleaned up his act? I'll believe that when I see it. As for Stanker, the Stank of Mom's basement is irredeemable.

Although off topic, interesting exit polls for Chris W from the 2012 election.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls

There's a little thing called "free enterprise". You should look it up sometime.

free enterprise never actually exists - nor has it ever existed.

Like most Libs you hate America. Self loathing is a mental condition.

I second that CP.

I'm scared to know FIFA's age. Comes off as a 15 yr old.

Fifa is about 60 in spite of his childish comments. Also Clemson will defeat MD on Saturday.

amark, you are within the "margin of error' on age, but you are very wrong about the orange squash we will lay on you on Saturday, look for me, I'll have a red shirt on.

Give me something to read about that, amark. As long as a good working drone spends every penny they get, I don't see the difference--as long as its just enough to get them to come back to work Monday morning, eh? But, you are the economist. Please share.

CP, consciousness is a mental condition, too.

Fifa, would that red shirt happen to be a government handout, LOL.

amark, as i predicted and you were wrong. I now have a new combination of a fruit and a vegetable. Better known as Orange Squash! Terps beat Clemson handily. Did you stand out? I couldn't see you!

Ha Ha.

not bad, but not enough spurious aspersions to liberals.

Amark: Ever heard of the term collusion? Free market my ass.

Tim, are you suggesting that all employers are colluding to hold down wages? Besides that being absurd on it's face, the thing to remember with collusion is while it benefits the group as a whole to collude, it benefits each individual employer to "cheat". In this case, offer to pay a bit more and get the best workers. Regardless, your suggestion is absurd and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of economics.

That's what conservatives on this forum are best at - irrationality and hurling insults.

although to be fair, we do have a couple of horrible liberal flamethrowers here as well.

Charlie, you actually were doing well when describing the labor percentage that McDonalds uses as their model. Your analysis that follows comes up short on facts though.
1. If you do not make "labor" you do not lose money, McDonalds makes less money than they wish and push hard on the Managers. Very few McDonalds have ever closed because McDonalds is very good at making money, not a bad thing.
2. Regarding the 150 hours, do you really think the store could survive if it cut hours by what you suggest? If they could, they would have done it already. Any reduction in hours is offset by an increase in your pay!
3. A Big Mac is currently $3.99, if 18% of that is "labor" as you state, the labor component of that Big Mac is $0.72. If I gave you a 20% increase in pay (from $7.50 to $9.00), that 72 cents will have gone up 14.4 cents. That 14.4 cents is what McDonalds needs to recover to break even. Of course McDonalds will want to keep its profit margins the same so maybe they raise the Big Mac by 20 cents.

Good luck Charlie. I am curious, does the Company inform the employees about the Minimum Wage issue presently happening in the newspapers?

Steve, I know plenty of members from several different unions that will say the one spreading myths is YOU! Most hospitality, service industry, retail workers, skilled trade unions, and even utility workers as well as some government employee unions have language in their contracts that directly bases how their wages are calculated off the minimum wage. Most of them also make adjustments to their base wage package at the same percentage as adjustments to the minimum wage.

That garment workers and farm laborers would have their wages adjusted based on the coming of Christmas or a cold snap does not seem unfair or unwarranted to me.

I guess you are living somewhat above the poverty level. What? Are you looking for a cheap bra or an inexpensive head of lettuce?

What are you yammering about?

I gave you the link for "Center For Union Facts".

They aren't facts. They are fabrications.

Other Tim, I think he read the article and has some issues with some unsourced surveys and negotiations defined as raises.

Typical Other Tim.

Sue, you can believe this all you want but the unspoken truth about minimum wage jobs is they are most often not filled by the "head of household" wage earner so the point about it being below the poverty level is moot. The claim that raising the minimum wage by $1.75 (or if Obama got his way by $2.75) would only result in a few pennies increase for goods and services is a pipe dream. This much of an increase will result in a snowball affect on the cost of everything from fast food and groceries to hotel stays and retail goods.

Fifa's earlier example of McDonald's labor cost was wrong from the beginning but not just because he calculates the labor cost increase affect on the gross margin incorrectly but also because he is not including the eventual cost increases to everything involved in the restaurant operation such as food cost, cleaning supplies, packaging, advertising, even pest control that will all be directly connected to the increase in the minimum wage.

Anyone that assumes that increasing the minimum wage will only increase labor cost for any business clearly never sat through a semester of Business 101 and perhaps never even managed a business of any kind.

... or do what the majority of us do, skip over certain contributors altogether.

You said it needaname.

ditto

from your video... "and this has only gotten worse in the last 20-30 years"

imagine that, it coincides with full deployment of the minimum wage for all covered, non exempt workers which began in 1978. From your video in 1976, before this full tilt minimum wage, allegedly more americans held more of the wealth.

So what exactly is the point of your video as it pertains to this blog/post? Are you suggesting that raising the minimum wage will actually narrow the gap? that it will actually employ more people? that it will raise the wealth of the poor while lowering the wealth of the rich? Surely you're not that naive.

The point is that the income gap is increasing to all times highs equal to that of the Great Depression of the 1930s, you make of it what you wish. Those are facts, deal with it.

"Those are facts, deal with it."

What evidence do you have that I dont 'deal with it'?

You've yet to illustrate though how, as you may be suggesting, raising the minimum wage will solve the problems your video discusses.

I guess you understand the dire implications of falling off the chart, of becoming so microscopic that even whipping out the magnifying glass won't help find you and your babies.

And we are supposed to preach non-violence and obeying the law and working hard and getting a good education to people who are off the chart?

Do you even buy it?

Mc, the problem is much larger than the minimum wage. The minimum wage is just a window into the problem.

And in actuality, the cause is mostly due to individual income tax rates at 60 year lows.

"Mc, the problem is much larger than the minimum wage. The minimum wage is just a window into the problem."

Minimum wage is more than a window into the problem its an actual culprit. Again, you remove the ability or capacity for unskilled (the poor) to acquire skill (the wealthy). I'm not rehashing statements/posts already made in this same thread that you ducked due to convenience or whatever reason...

you and 1ke can discuss it all youd like.

You're right Mc, at least 1ke and I would have an intelligent discussion about the topic. Good day.

"I think the most frightening thing is the part that basically decent people play in defending the justice of this scheme to the bitter end."

Something we both agree on, i guess liberals will never learn!

What's the difference in skill levels between a burger flipper and a hose puller? Not much.

Drama-rama, OT. Skill was the issue, not working conditions.

@1ke
Let me get this correct your saying the skill of a firefighter is that of a burger flipper?

Walking in the door, yes, the skill set is about the same. Come to work, do as you're told, take advanced training as it is offered, and climb the organizational ladder.

The fitness requirement is much more demanding for firefighters.

Now, if the entry requirements have been raised because of budget-torture imposed by taxpayer resistance or an expanded pool of unemployed people, that has no bearing on the skills argument.