• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

The Democrats Are To Blame For The Plight Of Hourly Employees

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
60,376
12,347
136
Wages are not about what the company can afford to pay.

Wages are about the value a prospective employee will bring to the company and what that employee is willing to do it for.

No one is forcing people to work for Walmart.
Bullshit. Given the surplus of labor, people will fill whatever jobs are available. Just because I have a better job than Walmart doesn't mean there are better jobs for everybody.

Obviously, the people working at Walmart need to work somewhere, and when that's what they can get, it's what they'll take.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,762
136
106
www.countrylifenet.com
Wages are not about what the company can afford to pay.

Wages are about the value a prospective employee will bring to the company and what that employee is willing to do it for.

No one is forcing people to work for Walmart.
And that attitude is why we have a record number of people on welfare.

The factories have gone to china and replaced by low paying retail jobs.

While companies make record profits, welfare rolls are increasing.
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
While companies make record profits, welfare rolls are increasing.
You can thank Mr Bernanke and Mr Yellen for this. They said their goal was to increase inflation. This is done to make the price of everything go up while your wages stay the same, effectively giving every American a pay cut.

What's really weird is that they openly say this, and not a single person has tried to shoot either one of them.
 

MagickMan

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2008
7,537
3
76
Maybe you differ from me, but I want the best product period and won't buy something inferior just because it was nominally made in a particular place. Why the hell would I buy a shitty "American" car like a Chrysler that was actually built in Mexico just to appease some UAW asshole in Detroit when I can have a far better car like a Toyota Camry that was built in Ohio? Personally I don't give a shit if the car was built on Mars. Indeed, for the vast majority of products I'd daresay the value proposition of having it built in the U.S. rather than somewhere else is essentially zero - are you really going to argue that a T-shirt made in Birmingham, AL is better quality than one made in Bangaladesh? If not, you think I should pay a significantly higher price for what - just to ensure someone here in the U.S. doesn't need to update their skills beyond those sufficient for a job that can literally be done by a 3rd world worker with a 2nd grade education?

Here's a true way to fix the country and its industry - demand they make better quality products and leave making super-low quality 99cent store shit to the Chinese.
I've not encountered a situation where "the best" is sold at Walmart. :confused:
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,040
1
81
Bullshit. Given the surplus of labor, people will fill whatever jobs are available. Just because I have a better job than Walmart doesn't mean there are better jobs for everybody.

Obviously, the people working at Walmart need to work somewhere, and when that's what they can get, it's what they'll take.
Bullshit. Anyone can get a better job if they work for it. And if they can't, why do they deserve the pay of a better job?
 

shady28

Platinum Member
Apr 11, 2004
2,173
53
91
Bullshit. Given the surplus of labor, people will fill whatever jobs are available. Just because I have a better job than Walmart doesn't mean there are better jobs for everybody.

Obviously, the people working at Walmart need to work somewhere, and when that's what they can get, it's what they'll take.
There's another corollary to this.

If you raise the wage at a place like wal-mart, lets say to $15/hr, then guess what? The people that work there right now, within a few years, won't be working there anymore.

The reason being, management will get the best people they can at the wage they are offering. That won't be the same people there now filling the jobs at $8/hr.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
27,630
7,397
136
Bullshit. Anyone can get a better job if they work for it. And if they can't, why do they deserve the pay of a better job?
If anything you said was true then someone who brought a lot to a minimum wage job would be paid higher than the guy who got hired before or after them, and yet that doesn't happen, they all get paid the same. So no, an employer doesn't pay a potential worker based on what they will bring to the employer, at least with entry level jobs. Which leads us to the fact that it's the market that decides what employers will pay their potential workers and as jhnnn pointed out, there is a surplus in labor and therefor employers can pay the minimum amount.

The question you should be asking is, "why should I support higher pay for entry level workers?".

For me, I support higher pay because I don't feel Americans should be subsidizing the pay for workers whose employer makes enough in net profit to pay their employees more. Which is exactly how Walmart opperates.

For others the answer is more of a moral issue and they feel people, if they are working, should be able to afford the basics in life without worrying about where their next meal will come from.
 

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
You can thank Mr Bernanke and Mr Yellen for this. They said their goal was to increase inflation. This is done to make the price of everything go up while your wages stay the same, effectively giving every American a pay cut.

What's really weird is that they openly say this, and not a single person has tried to shoot either one of them.
Some inflation is a good thing. It makes sure people invest their savings rather than hoard them. You're right that wages should be raised at the same time, but unfortunately we're too busy taking glee in punishing the poor to do something logical like index minimum wage to inflation or promote a balance between labor unions and management.

Bullshit. Anyone can get a better job if they work for it. And if they can't, why do they deserve the pay of a better job?
Must be nice in your fantasy land where there's not significant unemployment on top of long-standing issues like racism, varied educational opportunities, and other issues that have dramatically reduced opportunity for economic advancement. The real world isn't a meritocracy. Some people are on top because they 'earned' it, others because they inherited it. Some are on the bottom because they're lazy, others because they're working two 40-hour jobs and still can't get a break.

http://business.time.com/2012/01/05/the-loss-of-upward-mobility-in-the-u-s/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2013/06/13-facts-higher-education
http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Economic_Mobility/Economic_Mobility_in_America_Full.pdf
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
27,630
7,397
136
There's another corollary to this.

If you raise the wage at a place like wal-mart, lets say to $15/hr, then guess what? The people that work there right now, within a few years, won't be working there anymore.

The reason being, management will get the best people they can at the wage they are offering. That won't be the same people there now filling the jobs at $8/hr.
Or...and this might be a stretch...their current employees might actually perform better. But I've never seen a study that suggested people work harder when they feel their work is valued more. I mean if that crazy idea was true then we would have CEO's getting raises for doing a good job and that doesn't happen, but we all know good CEO's only show up when they are initially paid well./s
 

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,285
87
86
And you have links to support that? Or is that just an affirmation of faith?
Anyone who has been reading the news and paying attention to the numbers. Around 4 million were dropped and at best 2 million signed up for the ACA.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/millions-americans-are-losing-their-health-plans-because-obamacare_764602.html

That says as many as 16 million will get dropped. I got a notice that I would be dropped but luckily I was able to renew. I just graduated college I should have a full time job by the time mine expires at the end of 2014. I'm not too concerned. There is no way most normal people can afford the ACA it would've doubled my rates. Hence you get around 4 million dropped in the individual market so far (19million in total). The rates for me personally would have doubled (silver) OR deductibles quadroupled (bronze), so it makes sense a whole lot less are signing up after getting dropped.

Democrats can do math right? The republicans are supposed to be the dumb ones remember.

When it went into effect Jan 1, 2 million had signed up so far. Fact. And I'm being generous because half of those, around a million hadn't even paid their first premium yet.
 
Last edited:

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
27,630
7,397
136
Anyone who has been reading the news and paying attention to the numbers. Around 4 million were dropped and at best 2 million signed up for the ACA.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/millions-americans-are-losing-their-health-plans-because-obamacare_764602.html

That says as many as 16 million will get dropped. I got a notice that I would be dropped but luckily I was able to renew. I just graduated college I should have a full time job by the time mine expires at the end of 2014. I'm not too concerned. There is no way most normal people can afford the ACA it would've doubled my rates. Hence you get around 4 million dropped in the individual market so far (19million in total). The rates for me personally would have doubled (silver) OR deductibles quadroupled (bronze), so it makes sense a whole lot less are signing up after getting dropped.

Democrats can do math right? The republicans are supposed to be the dumb ones remember.

When it went into effect Jan 1, 2 million had signed up so far. Fact. And I'm being generous because half of those, around a million hadn't even paid their first premium yet.
Did you bother looking into what "dropped" meant or did you just blindly accept that "dropped" must mean "lose coverage" and by "lose coverage" it means they are no longer covered by anything?

Propaganda can be a real bitch sometimes;)
 

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,285
87
86
Did you bother looking into what "dropped" meant or did you just blindly accept that "dropped" must mean "lose coverage" and by "lose coverage" it means they are no longer covered by anything?

Propaganda can be a real bitch sometimes;)
No I figured the article was biased. I'm technically not "dropped" but part of the 16 million that will be. Its really simple, did more people sign up for the ACA than were dropped? Answer is definitely no. Anyone who kept their plan like me would have had to renew with the insurance company IE actually decide not to go for the ACA.

I have no doubt that 16 million got cancellation notices for 2014 and just weren't dropped yet. Anyone with half a brain when they see their rates/deductibles skyrocket is going to keep their plan. My Insurance was BCBS it wasn't some shit plan or anything. It just didn't cover maternity as a male or whateveer other BS they cooked into the ACA thus was a non-qualifying plan. Ya know incase I got pregnant.
 
Last edited:

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
No I figured the article was biased. I'm technically not "dropped" but part of the 16 million that will be. Its really simple, did more people sign up for the ACA than were dropped? Answer is definitely no. Anyone who kept their plan like me would have had to renew with the insurance company IE actually decide not to go for the ACA.

I have no doubt that 16 million got cancellation notices for 2014 and just weren't dropped yet. Anyone with half a brain when they see their rates/deductibles skyrocket is going to keep their plan. My Insurance was BCBS it wasn't some shit plan or anything. It just didn't cover maternity as a male or whateveer other BS they cooked into the ACA thus was a non-qualifying plan. Ya know incase I got pregnant.
Plans get 'cancelled' or 'dropped' all the time and always have. They have to do that any time there's a substantive change, usually they also jack the rates as much as they think they can get away with, then sell you basically the same plan with whatever changes under a new name. The difference is now people are paying attention, plus more plans are getting tweaked in this way. They have to 'cancel' the old plans because of laws intended to keep insurance companies from tricking you by quietly jacking up rates / reducing coverage without telling you, and that's been the case for a long time.

But the vast majority who are 'dropped' in this way will just get new insurance like always, through their employers. They're not losing insurance in any meaningful sense, any more than they have almost every year or few years anyway before immediately getting it again. If their rates are changed by a larger amount than usual, and that's not just the insurance companies using Obamacare as a cover to do so without any financial reasoning other than 'more profit,' then sure, that's a problem. People getting 'dropped' in this way really isn't the problem, though. It's just a side effect. It would be true regardless of whether or not Obamacare ends up working to reduce costs.
 

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,285
87
86
Plans get 'cancelled' or 'dropped' all the time and always have. They have to do that any time there's a substantive change, usually they also jack the rates as much as they think they can get away with, then sell you basically the same plan with whatever changes under a new name. The difference is now people are paying attention, plus more plans are getting tweaked in this way. They have to 'cancel' the old plans because of laws intended to keep insurance companies from tricking you by quietly jacking up rates / reducing coverage without telling you, and that's been the case for a long time.

But the vast majority who are 'dropped' in this way will just get new insurance like always, through their employers. They're not losing insurance in any meaningful sense, any more than they have almost every year or few years anyway before immediately getting it again. If their rates are changed by a larger amount than usual, and that's not just the insurance companies using Obamacare as a cover to do so without any financial reasoning other than 'more profit,' then sure, that's a problem. People getting 'dropped' in this way really isn't the problem, though. It's just a side effect. It would be true regardless of whether or not Obamacare ends up working to reduce costs.
Yea, I get that. Except I haven't gotten sick nor use the insurance very much. I fully understand if I got very sick I wouldn't have the same plan next year just like if I got in 5 car accidents in one year at my fault I'd end up having to get insurance through the general :awe:.

I don't think the ACA solves many problems. Nobody can afford group quality coverage in the individual market, or else thats what people would have had to begin with. Employers contribute a ton of money to those plans. Someone self-employed with a family of four has a $12,700 deductible with a bronze plan. :/ The individual market was messed up and it still is. Solved nothing. They changed the formula is all, better coverage, more expensive, and so less people will be able to afford it. Pretty simple.
 
Last edited:
Oct 30, 2004
11,449
20
81
Bullshit. Anyone can get a better job if they work for it. And if they can't, why do they deserve the pay of a better job?
Is that like saying, "If 20 horses are in a race, all of the horses can finish in first place and win the race?" If everyone "works for it" will jobs magically materialize to accommodate everyone who "works for it"?
 

Agent11

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2006
3,535
1
0
If you are willing to travel they will be available. My brother in law was offered a position in Turkey after he got his masters in nuclear physics, evidently he decided that managing a UHAUL was a better option.

Can't really blame him, he has a family and that is entirely too close to the crazy part of the planet for peace of mind.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,133
1
0
This thread is approved by Karl Rove. Accuse your enemy of your own greatest weakness. Bravo on projection!
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,820
1,123
126
Congrats to boomerrang! I addressed one of his two paragraphs but not the one you wanted so you will proceed to whine and stamp your feet!

Keep going!
He's just pissed off because he's reached the point in his life where the whole diaper thing has come full circle...

Old man sits on porch.. yells at cloud.. shits his pants.. Obama's fault, of course...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY