rickyp wrote:No one's ;likely to defend Obama care Fate.

The basic failing is that the US has decided to provide health insurance through employers.... Obama has incrementally improved the delivery of health insurance but it doesn't over come this basic failing. And as you point out, exploitative employers will find a way to minimize their benefit costs to the detriment of their lowest paid labour.

Not exactly on point.

1. I think some have defended Obamacare.
2. It's not employers exploiting workers. It's the government making law that defies common sense. All one has to do is think for a moment to realize the government setting limits means businesses will try to avoid those limits. Duh. Any person with a normal IQ could sort that out--which explains why the Democrats supported the bill.

If you think its a failing that companies will cut back hours so that they can avoid paying benefits under Obama Care then, if you are at all consistent, you have to think its a failing that companies like WalMart manage to keep so many workers "part time" through careful computer generated work schedules today. And have be doing so for decades.

So what?

Many companies, including those run by big money Democratic donors hire relatively permanent employees as "consultants." Why?

To avoid paying them fringe benefits.

Do you want names of said corporations and how much time the President spends extracting money, er, fundraising, from them?

Don't pretend for a moment that this is some sort of Wal-Mart exploiting the poor problem. Corporations do this to enhance their bottom line.

Here's the issue: businesses exist to make money; they are not charities. If you want to extol the virtues of charities, go right ahead.

I know you think government is more efficient than business. That's at the heart of your "medical insurance companies make too much money and the government can mandate they make less" arguments.

However, you have an inherent contradiction: businesses are in business to make profit. Whether it's WalMart, Microsoft, or Blue Cross. When the government interferes with that, there are going to be unanticipated consequences every single time.

When you have a poorly thought-out bill like the ACA, there are going to be many of those issues.

and still, we hear the protests that Walmart should pay more money but not the smaller competition. These people want to penalize Walmart for doing well while rewarding the little guy for not doing well. Typical liberal Robin Hood thinking!

Tom, I've not suggested that there be different minimum wages for Walmart and for small businesses. Who has?

I would, and do here in the UK, see a point in having a lower minimum wage for younger employees than for those over 21 (or 18). That would reduce or even remove the impact of a higher 'adult' minimum wage on youth employment. So far, I have not see much proof of what the effect of increased minimum wages are on adult employment and unemployment.

Fate - not going to defend the 30 hour rule (16 seems a more sensible level, if any should be applied), but there we have the problem with the system as a whole. The government sets a rule trying to help people but which has an unintended consequence. Companies, holding the interests of capital (the owners) above that of labour, take action to safeguard their interests at the expense of employees, who then are more likely to be claiming money from the state in the form of food stamps or other in-work benefits.

Neither government nor employers come out of it well, and the employees lose out, while taxpayers subsidise their wages.

Freeman mentioned it, Ricky seems to echo that sentiment but never said it as clearly as did Freeman.
No you did not, I understand your position and I never mentioned you in particular said any such thing.

tom

Ricky seems to echo that sentiment

bs

GMTom wrote:Freeman mentioned it, Ricky seems to echo that sentiment but never said it as clearly as did Freeman.
No you did not, I understand your position and I never mentioned you in particular said any such thing.

Ah right - I think they (and maybe just Freeman) were responding to protests about the small businesses who "can't afford" to pay better wages, with the suggestion of an opt-out at that level.

Personally I think minimum wage policy doesn't work with such a policy, but chances are it would not just hit Walmart, but also a lot of medium-sized companies and even fairly small ones, or it would be pointless (and would simply serve to disincentivise a company from expanding over a limit).

bs?
but what did you say? Your words are what we go by and you mentioned Walmart being bad and Walmart taking advantage of the system, how Walmart has a revolving door of employment and how Walmart should pay more. At one point you did say something about the situation in general ...but brought it back to Walmart. What part did I get wrong? And notice I even said you seemed to echo that sentiment while not saying you actually said so. That leaves the door open for you to explain yourself, instead you simply hurl a "BS" at me and ask us to ignore what was actually said and inferred.

GMTom - the problem is that the inferring is done by you - Yes, he did slag off Walmart, but that doesn't mean he advocated singling them out for legislation - just that the system as a whole should be changed so that they don't get such a big advantage over everyone else while their employees are on food stamps

Why don't you quote what you're specifically referring to Tom? You have a real knack for reading what you want something to say, rather than what was written.

I have never said that there should be different levels of minimum wage for different companies.
I've said the minimum wage should be high enough so that someone working a standard work week at minimum wage shouldn't qualify for food assistance. That, is essentially a government subsidy for the employer. Whether its WalMart, or Jacks Buggy whip Company.

So to reiterate RickyP's statement. Minimum wage should be high enough that a person working a standard (40?) work week at minimum wage should not be on food assistance.

We have proven that 1 person (a person?) working 40 hours at Walmart will get (QUOTING RAY JAY):
For a household of 1 it is $1,211 per month. If you work 40 hours per week X 4.33 weeks per month, at $7.25 per hour you are at $1,255.

I think that refutes RickyP's statement. Now we will hear that some people have kids, and some people can't work,and a myriad of other excuses. RickyP's statement is false.

bbauska wrote:I think that refutes RickyP's statement. Now we will hear that some people have kids, and some people can't work,and a myriad of other excuses. RickyP's statement is false.

Having kids is an 'excuse'? Good grief, man. 1 person with a child will be below the line (and let's not get into a debate about how they came to be a single parent, let's just point out that not all single parents are there by choice).

I already pointed out that it's only just above the line, and if people are on zero-hours contracts, don't get paid holidays or go sick, or are working a 7 hour day (which is standard in the Anglo American company I join in June), they go below the line, too.

danivon wrote:Fate - not going to defend the 30 hour rule (16 seems a more sensible level, if any should be applied), but there we have the problem with the system as a whole.

16 would be so much better!

. . . if you want the economy to collapse. Okay, it would not be a collapse, but putting MORE costs on employers for part-time help is going to help . . . what?

The government sets a rule trying to help people but which has an unintended consequence. Companies, holding the interests of capital (the owners) above that of labour, take action to safeguard their interests at the expense of employees, who then are more likely to be claiming money from the state in the form of food stamps or other in-work benefits.

No, companies take action to protect themselves from the demands of government! They're not after their employees--the government is after them!

Neither government nor employers come out of it well, and the employees lose out, while taxpayers subsidise their wages.

The Democrats should have either encouraged competition or socialized the whole deal. Instead, they created a monster.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Fate - not going to defend the 30 hour rule (16 seems a more sensible level, if any should be applied), but there we have the problem with the system as a whole.

16 would be so much better!

. . . if you want the economy to collapse. Okay, it would not be a collapse, but putting MORE costs on employers for part-time help is going to help . . . what?

I was offering compromise. Personally I don't see why it should not be single-payer, funded by payroll taxes.

No, companies take action to protect themselves from the demands of government! They're not after their employees--the government is after them!

My point is that companies when it comes down to it do not have their employees' interests at heart, and if they need to make a change (whether due to government action or market forces or management failure), it will be employees who lose out in preference to the owners.

Working in the (truly) private sector has taught me a thing or two about how it works.

The Democrats should have either encouraged competition or socialized the whole deal. Instead, they created a monster.

Yep. Because they were split on that question, and a small number of them were able to hold the rest to ransom (because the GOP were never going to support reform towards 'socialization').

oh yeah, we should just love Walmart. They don't innovate, they haven't come up with products that make our lives better. All they do is shake down workers by virtue of their bargaining power to pay them less, use Chinese suppliers (who pay their workers very little), and they give part of that savings to consumers and the rest they pocket themselves.
Because large businesses can use their bargaining power to artificially lower wages I am most concerned about them. I don't believe that you would have wages paying beneath the poverty line but for powerful corporations dictating that. So, yeah, I would not mind if small employers (say under 10, maybe 25) got an exemption from the minimum wage so that maybe small employers paid $9 an hour and large employers paid $12 an hour.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:I think that refutes RickyP's statement. Now we will hear that some people have kids, and some people can't work,and a myriad of other excuses. RickyP's statement is false.

Having kids is an 'excuse'? Good grief, man. 1 person with a child will be below the line (and let's not get into a debate about how they came to be a single parent, let's just point out that not all single parents are there by choice).

I already pointed out that it's only just above the line, and if people are on zero-hours contracts, don't get paid holidays or go sick, or are working a 7 hour day (which is standard in the Anglo American company I join in June), they go below the line, too.

Having kids is not an excuse for being on assistance. It is the excuse RickyP could use to make his statement seem factual. Relax...