A Complete Waste of Space

I couldn't read much past this BS:

"Here’s her logic: If you took the minimum wage from 1960 and indexed it for workers’ gains in productivity, it would be $22 an hour today. And why shouldn’t employees reap the benefits of their own improved labor practices?"

How does an overall improvement in worker productivity apply to entry level jobs? Probably not at all. For example, look at the modern productivity advantage of a highly skilled CNC machine operator, who can crank out a prodigious quantity of very high quality product, or any number of skilled 'workers' that use a computer today for work.... business managers, stock brokers, sales reps etc, vs a relatively unskilled worker at a cash register or door greeter, or someone in food service. Skilled labor gets a much better multiplier from technology than unskilled, mostly physical workers. To take an average increase in worker productivity and apply it to those that aren't boosting those numbers doesn't hold much water.

Entry level wages should be motivating for individuals to get on a path of education/training to improve their value as a 'worker', and improve their condition. You shoudn't make a 'living wage' just because you work at all, you should earn it from an employer willing to pay for it. Look at French worker productivity if you want evidence of government guaranteeing QOL regardless of output....

All of what Barfly said.

I wasn't gonna play in this cat box.
Thanx Barfly, ya said it all.

NP Pud.. to add... I just realized this is the bimbo who declared Native American ancestry, for which thorough inquiry provided no evidence? I declare her "discredited"!! overall, lol. Slick style in effect...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html

Elizabeth Warren is one of the best economic minds on the planet. Further, I would suggest anyone interested in the subject of working, and surviving, to watch HBO's documentary, "Winter in America", and then tell me this is how the status quo ought to work in America. The number one priority this nation OUGHT to have is NOT the deficit(borrowing is cheap right now), it is long term employment stability and the restoration of a robust middle class. This requires family dynamics where both parents aren't forced to work, access to high quality education, and a liveable minimum wage. No, Barfly, I don't think it ought to be $22 per hour.....no one does, even Warren. But it should be high enough for a person to get by alone, or contribute to raising a family so we don't have a nation of transients and uneducated folks wandering about looking for a way to afford basics. In the long run, yes, we need to aim for professional level, high productivity work for as many people as possible, but those workers need to be supported by service workers(food, sales, etc), and those service workers need to be able to do that work and live properly. It's the arrangement we had in the 1950's and 60's and we had a very robust economy. Your choice: either do what is required to get back to that, or watch the nation sink.....and it won't be 'Obama's fault' or whoever you all wish to blame. It will be yours when you don't send people to Washington or your local capitols to do what has to be done.

Barfly wrote:I couldn't read much past this BS:

"Here’s her logic: If you took the minimum wage from 1960 and indexed it for workers’ gains in productivity, it would be $22 an hour today. And why shouldn’t employees reap the benefits of their own improved labor practices?"

How does an overall improvement in worker productivity apply to entry level jobs? Probably not at all. For example, look at the modern productivity advantage of a highly skilled CNC machine operator, who can crank out a prodigious quantity of very high quality product, or any number of skilled 'workers' that use a computer today for work.... business managers, stock brokers, sales reps etc, vs a relatively unskilled worker at a cash register or door greeter, or someone in food service. Skilled labor gets a much better multiplier from technology than unskilled, mostly physical workers. To take an average increase in worker productivity and apply it to those that aren't boosting those numbers doesn't hold much water.

nonsense, you still have nothing by way of an economy or a society, if you don't also have service businesses, and employees. Those people have to move up the scale along with the professional/production workers, or the whole thing goes to shit.....as you've seen, if you look around.

Entry level wages should be motivating for individuals to get on a path of education/training to improve their value as a 'worker', and improve their condition.

that's a charming thought.....damned shame, wasn't it, that generations of Pullman porters, waitresses and shopkeeping help managed to feed, house, and clothe their families on such work, huh? What were we doing wrong all those years, trying to build a middle class through generational change, not change in status over a career?

You shoudn't make a 'living wage' just because you work at all, you should earn it from an employer willing to pay for it. Look at French worker productivity if you want evidence of government guaranteeing QOL regardless of output....

I say the converse....no one should work full-time at any job unwilling to provide a living wage. And further, any society who accepts, and as you seem to do, encourages less compensation, is a sorry-ass excuse for humanity.

Barfly wrote:NP Pud.. to add... I just realized this is the bimbo who declared Native American ancestry, for which thorough inquiry provided no evidence? I declare her "discredited"!! overall, lol. Slick style in effect...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html

I do believe, that makes her?
An "Indian Giver"....

callmeslick wrote:

Barfly wrote:I couldn't read much past this BS:

"Here’s her logic: If you took the minimum wage from 1960 and indexed it for workers’ gains in productivity, it would be $22 an hour today. And why shouldn’t employees reap the benefits of their own improved labor practices?"

How does an overall improvement in worker productivity apply to entry level jobs? Probably not at all. For example, look at the modern productivity advantage of a highly skilled CNC machine operator, who can crank out a prodigious quantity of very high quality product, or any number of skilled 'workers' that use a computer today for work.... business managers, stock brokers, sales reps etc, vs a relatively unskilled worker at a cash register or door greeter, or someone in food service. Skilled labor gets a much better multiplier from technology than unskilled, mostly physical workers. To take an average increase in worker productivity and apply it to those that aren't boosting those numbers doesn't hold much water.

nonsense, you still have nothing by way of an economy or a society, if you don't also have service businesses, and employees. Those people have to move up the scale along with the professional/production workers, or the whole thing goes to shit.....as you've seen, if you look around.

Entry level wages should be motivating for individuals to get on a path of education/training to improve their value as a 'worker', and improve their condition.

that's a charming thought.....damned shame, wasn't it, that generations of Pullman porters, waitresses and shopkeeping help managed to feed, house, and clothe their families on such work, huh? What were we doing wrong all those years, trying to build a middle class through generational change, not change in status over a career?

You shoudn't make a 'living wage' just because you work at all, you should earn it from an employer willing to pay for it. Look at French worker productivity if you want evidence of government guaranteeing QOL regardless of output....

I say the converse....no one should work full-time at any job unwilling to provide a living wage. And further, any society who accepts, and as you seem to do, encourages less compensation, is a sorry-ass excuse for humanity.

That must be the explanation for all the unemployment and no job creation in the U.S. Or, maybe it's the college education thingy you brought up awhile back?
Which is it?

no, my red-type obsessed brother.....that should be the goal of any society that wishes to not lose a middle class. My observations on the need for more college grads is the long-term goal for a society that wishes to lead in the 21st century, as opposed to picking up the scraps. Two different issues.

So, in between, the gap, folks should sit at home and wait for the check?
Or, should they go out and get another job?

I worked multiple jobs all my life prior to retirement. 70-80+ hours a week for 28 years straight. That's what it took. That's what I did. It was my choice. It's theirs.
It's yours. However, no indefinite "free ride".