ADVERTISEMENT

The middle class's 'minimum wage"

W

WATU2

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
May 29, 2001
13,093
200
63
Americans work longer hours than workers in other industrialized countries. Despite rising productivity, in real terms their wages have been stagnant or falling for decades. So the ranks of the poor increase, the middle class shrinks, and income inequality increases along with the concentration of wealth at the very top. All data driven statements.

Here's another element driving this process.



Middle class's shrinking "minimum wage"
 
Great article. Makes one wonder why this agenda hasn't been one of the Administration's top priorities over the last several years. I wouldn't anticipate a huge financial windfall for the American worker as employers would adjust schedules and hire additional workers to avoid OT pay but adding payrolls and fairer working arrangements are benefits.
 
Wouldn't the political hue and cry would be enormous? Impeachment, princeps, and worse. Especially before the election?

Look what is going on with immigration. A bi-partisan Senate bill has been sitting in the House since 2013. It would easily pass the House but kept from a vote. Obama did a side deal with Boehner not to push it publicly to help Boehner with the TP with the understanding that if the House would bring it to a vote by the end of the year, or Obama would move ahead. But now that the election is over, Boehner and the Turtle are screaming bloody murder about Obama moving ahead. (They could just bring the bill up for a vote)

In this kind of political environment I guess one has to pick his battles.
Originally posted by lawpoke87:

Great article. Makes one wonder why this agenda hasn't been one of the Administration's top priorities over the last several years. I wouldn't anticipate a huge financial windfall for the American worker as employers would adjust schedules and hire additional workers to avoid OT pay but adding payrolls and fairer working arrangements are benefits.
Click to expand...
 
Granting the type of amnesty the Admimistration is talking about is widely unpopular with voters....especially Republican voters. Both parties withheld votes for political purposes prior to the election. This isn't just a Republican House tactic. There were plenty of red state senators critical of Reid for this very tactic.

As far as amnesty, I'm not sure the votes are still there to pass the bill as written. Granting amnesty by executive order is a huge mistake, sets a bad precedent, and would likely be his third EO ruled unconstitutional by the Supremes not to mention ruin any hopes of a working relationship between the White House and Congress. Time for some give and take which Presidents like Clinton, Reagan, Sr. Bush were so good at with the opposition party. I'll start....give the Keystone Pipeline in exchange for concessions on immigration.
 
Pipeline for immigration.

As a registered Voter, I have really enjoyed the recent falling gas prices.

As a poverty level income citizen, who receives no Government Redistribution, I would gladly trade $5.00 a gallon in exchange for deporting everyone of them.
 
Yep, both parties have tied things up in Congress. It undermines the credibility of D.C. in general.

But getting back to overtime, given the constant stream of threats to Obama (remember Boehner is also suing Obama over Executive Orders), it's likely that Executive Orders are not the first thing the President thinks of.

Boehner is a weird dude. First he sues the President for exceeding his power through executive orders, then he claims the President can and should fix immigration problems created by Bush administration legislation (something Congress should fix), and now he is threatening the President if he issues an Executive in a situation created by Boehner's refusing to bring a bi-partisan Senate bill to a vote since 2013 because of Boehner's problems with the TP. This Republican controlled Congress can overrule the President any time with legislation anyway. Does Boehner thinks he should be able to run the Executive Branch when he can't even get things done in a Republican controlled House?. Reminds me of House of Cards.

Regardless, my guess is that Boehner and the Turtle don't want to Obama to get credit for stepping in on Immigration and putting the Republicans in the position of opposing an action helping out immigrants, mostly Latinos. A 2016 issue.
 
First off I'm no fan of Boehner so I'm not here to defend him. However, he asked the President to use an EO for the narrow purpose of streamlining the judicial process in order to cope with the thousands of aliens being held in U.S. facilities. Using an EO to grant amnesty to 5 million illegals is an entirely different animal and no EO of this scope in an non-national security situation has ever be done. Such an action will poison any hope of a functioning government going forward.

As far as suing Obama for his prior EO, is that the one in which the all the Supremes (something that almost never happens in political decisions) ruled that said EO was unconstitutional regarding the appointment of Labor Board members? He did in fact sue him and he was correct. Worse, Obama knew his actions were unconstitutional and still signed the EO.
 
The interesting thing is that no one forces most of these employees to work the unpaid overtime. They work it because they want raises, bonuses, and promotions in most situations.
 
Ronald Reagan and George Bus, famous liberals, used an EOs instead of waiting for immigration legislation to pass. Reagan's affected about 3 million immigrants and provided a pathway to citizenship. President Obama's EO will not provide a pathway and is temporary. Yes, both sides will argue the precedents; that's what we do.

Boehner still has a law suit pending against the President. See link.

So now instead of passing a bill or voting on a bipartisan bill, we will go through the wailing and gnashing of teeth accompanied with a thick wad of distortions for the political audiences.

But we digress. The point of bringing this up (which I shouldn't have; it's distracting) was that even for good ideas like expanding those covered by overtime; EO's come a great political cost. And, hey, even once in a while Congress should take credit for a good idea.



Boehner suit
 
Reagan absolutely did not utilize an EO to effect 3 million people on immigration. Reagan signed Simpson-Mazzoli which was PASSED by Congress which did grant amnesty to up to 3 million. If I'm incorrect here please set me straight.

Here's the problem and it's not necessarily the contents of this vast EO. The problem is that Obama, who has already used EO's unconstitutionally, is now setting the precedent that the POTUS can write and enact laws soley at his descretion which directly effect millions of people with no legislative basis. What's to stop future Presidents from writing and enacting laws through EOs which harm a class of people! We have checks and balances for a purpose. This is a dangerous act. Don't be blinded by your support of the guy doing it. Next time it may be coming from a guy whose policies you don't support.

Again...if your right and I'm wrong about Reagan and Simpson-Mazzoli please correct me.
 
Originally posted by WATU2:

Ronald Reagan and George Bus, famous liberals, used an EOs instead of waiting for immigration legislation to pass. Reagan's affected about 3 million immigrants and provided a pathway to citizenship. President Obama's EO will not provide a pathway and is temporary. Yes, both sides will argue the precedents; that's what we do.

Boehner still has a law suit pending against the President. See link.

So now instead of passing a bill or voting on a bipartisan bill, we will go through the wailing and gnashing of teeth accompanied with a thick wad of distortions for the political audiences.

But we digress. The point of bringing this up (which I shouldn't have; it's distracting) was that even for good ideas like expanding those covered by overtime; EO's come a great political cost. And, hey, even once in a while Congress should take credit for a good idea.
Click to expand...
If you are referring to the so called 1986 "amnesty"; that was actually a bill passed by congress. This is it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986


The difference between Reagan signing a bill and an executive order by Obama is night and day. One is a lawful act by a president abiding by his oath and the other is an act of subterfuge by a lawless dictator.

IMO


Also there's this

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/11/reagan-and-bush-41-provide-no-precedent-for-obamas-amnesty-by-executive-order.php#1
This post was edited on 11/20 8:38 PM by rabidTU
 
Why does it seem that every time Libs make policy to "level the playing field" it ends up just "lowering the standard"?
 
The money at the top is a function of a couple of things:

1. Transfer of wealth between generations (inheritance).

2. Companies shifting to compensation plans based upon stock price (I could write a book on the follies of that little practice).

The numbers shown for wages are somewhat misleading.

3. Changes in compensation structure that lead to perceived changes in actual compensation have skewed the numbers so they look worse than they really are.

Liberals are as if not more guilty of supporting #1. Imagine a Pelosi or any modern Kennedy sans inheritance and forced to live on their own. I keep hoping that #2 will fix itself but no joy thus far (just read a Credit Suisse analysis of IBM that chills the soul). For #3, changes in compensation include the ever increasing cost of medical insurance (which OCare has not changed in the least), the advent of new forms of compensation (the common availability of IRA, SIRA and 401-K matching contributions). So what would have been a raise in previous decades now is eaten up by insurance costs or retirement fund matches.

The minimum wage is easy to fix in a controlled fashion. Get with Congress and suggest a bill that raises it $.50 every six months for the next five years. Insert a feedback loop in the bill that allows an annual review of the impact of the increase on inflation and other wholesale prices. Adjust as necessary. If not for the narcissistic and clueless community organizer in the White House this could be done in a few months. Unfortunately, Obama is all about Obama and doesn't really care about any of the ideals he espouses. He just wants to look good to other liberals. A controlled and gradual correction to the minimum wage won't get him any of the recognition for which he lives.
 
the difference between Democrat and Republican politicians.

Republicans say "I got mine, I dont really care about the rest; but if you work hard you might get yours"
Democrats say "I got mine, I dont really care about the rest, but I want eveyone to think I do"
 
My comments interspersed.

Originally posted by old_goat_23:
The money at the top is a function of a couple of things:

1. Transfer of wealth between generations (inheritance).
2. Companies shifting to compensation plans based upon stock price (I could write a book on the follies of that little practice).
The numbers shown for wages are somewhat misleading.
3. Changes in compensation structure that lead to perceived changes in actual compensation have skewed the numbers so they look worse than they really are.

Liberals are as if not more guilty of supporting #1.

Exactly. Viewing this as a partisan (Dem vs Rep) issue is to miss the point. We have the best government money can buy...regardless of who is in office. According to SCOTUS, money is speech, and Congress obeys the voice that it hears loudest and keeps it in office.

#2 will fix itself but no joy thus far (just read a Credit Suisse analysis of IBM that chills the soul).

I'll have to take your word for this, but tax changes could certainly move it along.

For #3, changes in compensation include the ever increasing cost of medical insurance (which OCare has not changed in the least), the advent of new forms of compensation (the common availability of IRA, SIRA and 401-K matching contributions). So what would have been a raise in previous decades now is eaten up by insurance costs or retirement fund matches.

Interesting idea, but other factors are also involved such as US subsidies on moving jobs overseas and incentives to hold profits overseas. As for Obamacare not holding down costs, the US healthcare industry spent billions on lobbying and campaign incentives to make sure that the primary effect was expanding healthcare coverage not cutting into industry profits. We still spend nearly twice the % of GDP to deliver a fraction of what other countries spend to cover everyone.

Let's not ignore the effects of the Bush tax cuts and the effects of the Bush delivered financial meltdown. The poor and middle class took a hit in 2008 leaving them without a chance to participate in the market and real estate recovery. Obama's refusal to prosecute criminal behavior in the mortgage scandal only insures that it will happen again in some other form.

The minimum wage is easy to fix in a controlled fashion. Get with Congress and suggest a bill that raises it $.50 every six months for the next five years. Insert a feedback loop in the bill that allows an annual review of the impact of the increase on inflation and other wholesale prices. Adjust as necessary. If not for the narcissistic and clueless community organizer in the White House this could be done in a few months. Unfortunately, Obama is all about Obama and doesn't really care about any of the ideals he espouses. He just wants to look good to other liberals. A controlled and gradual correction to the minimum wage won't get him any of the recognition for which he lives.

In psychology would this be a good example of projection?
Click to expand...
 
Kennedy clan, nancy pelosi, mariocuomo, HRC, Jane fonda and ted turner, Hollywood, Barbara Streisand, Brabara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Michael Moore, Spike Lee, . . . most of congress;

not republicans, but Rich.
This post was edited on 11/29 7:43 PM by aTUfan
 
I would hope there's a sliding state by state scale as far as pay when it comes to designating someone a manager. A person making $60k in California or New York is in a very different situation than someone making that same wage here in Oklahoma.
 
Agree. Hopefully, they're smart enough in DC to realize that one size doesn't fit all and that areas of the country are different as far as what constitutes a living wage. Common sense here boys and girls.
 
It is is called Minimum wage; not living wage.I believe that you must EARN what you make. You cant start off at the top of the pay scale; there is no where to go as you become EXPERIENCED, and VALuable to the company.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W

US productivity - Still leading the world

Replies
2
Views
274
Crossfire
lawpoke87
L
W

Has the WSJ sold out to communists?

Replies
5
Views
1K
Crossfire
TU Man
T
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back