Unexpected Consequences: Min Wage Hike Fallout

[CZroe]

That same article says a one bedroom goes for around $1200. This disconnect between the minimum wage and housing costs started some time ago, and has only gotten worse.



It's a situation that, somehow, needs to be addressed. eskimospy pointed out that the flaw in housing assistance is a straight cut off instead of a graduated, dollar for dollar reduction, which creates this ugly disincentive.

I paid $1,400 a month in San Diego and negotiated it down to $1,200 a month for my third year. I got my sister to half that with me so I was comfortable at $10 an hour with the side work I mentioned earlier (worked that when I needed the money for something I wanted). I was 15 minutes away from downtown San Diego. If it got to be harder or if I had to take care of kids or something then I would move further away and pay less rent and get government benefits until I could find a better-paying job.

 

[Retro Rob]

According to you, you wanted to fire them for the simple act of asking for fewer hours, not refusing to work those hours when you told them they had to.

Asking for fewer hours give me less coverage and forces me to hire someone unnecessarily. This negatively impacts my business, so you'll end up costing me more.

Why do you I need you if you're running up my costs?

Does it seem like a good idea to make sweeping judgments about them then?

Its true, though. There are millions of people in this country that don't have food, but have IPHONES and internet. I'm not making sweeping anything.

Where was that responsibility placed on you? You're the guy who said you would fire someone for simply asking for fewer hours at your hypothetical business. You were moralizing.

You asked me why would I fire someone for basically trying to make sure they can afford a home. You've basically said that its my job to reduce their hours so they can afford to live.

lol

 

[Subyman]

All retro needs is "some people" to do something and then its a disaster for all.

 

[Ichinisan]

According to you, you wanted to fire them for the simple act of asking for fewer hours, not refusing to work those hours when you told them they had to.

No. He said it would increase his overhead to have more employees dividing up the same amount of time.

In other words, it would cost him more.

The employee asking for reduced hours is making a decision based on financial economics.

Retro Rob would be making his decision based on financial economics.

 

[CZroe]

Thinking Breitbart is biased is evidence of my own bias? Are you joking?



Clearly thinking DailyKos is biased is simply evidence of your own bias then as well. Good to know.







Which of course encompassed the offices in question in the video.



Again, it's not that nothing illegal happened because they weren't required to report it. It's that nothing illegal happened, period. Read the reports.

Once again, the accusation was never that they were doing anything illegal, it's that they were doing something despicable. Go on ignoring that by misrepresenting the impact of the "legal or not legal?" conclusions in the reports.

 

[fskimospy]

No. He said it would increase his overhead to have more employees dividing up the same amount of time.

In other words, it would cost him more.

The employee asking for reduced hours is making a decision based on financial economics.

Retro Rob would be making his decision based on financial economics.

Nope.

I would just fire someone who asked for reduced hours in order to stay on Government assistance.

Low-skill jobs are easy to fill anyway.

He said he would fire someone who asked for reduced hours, there was no mention of having to increase his overhead. No getting around it.

 

[fskimospy]

Once again, the accusation was never that they were doing anything illegal. It's that they were doing something despicable. Go on ignoring that by misrepresenting the impact of the conclusions in the reports.

Nope. Go read the reports. They explicitly stated that there was no evidence of any intent to aid them.

You should seriously actually go read the reports, because a lot of what you've been told about the 'scandal' is likely more lies from Brietbart and other associated sources.

They really lie a lot. Like, a whole lot.

 

[Retro Rob]

Nope.



He said he would fire someone who asked for reduced hours, there was no mention of having to increase his overhead. No getting around it.

Learn to read, Einstein.

Asking for fewer hours give me less coverage and forces me to hire someone unnecessarily. This negatively impacts my business, so you'll end up costing me more.

Why do you I need you if you're running up my costs?



Its true, though. There are millions of people in this country that don't have food, but have IPHONES and internet. I'm not making sweeping anything.



You asked me why would I fire someone for basically trying to make sure they can afford a home. You've basically said that its my job to reduce their hours so they can afford to live.

lol

 

[fskimospy]

Asking for fewer hours give me less coverage and forces me to hire someone unnecessarily. This negatively impacts my business, so you'll end up costing me more.

Why do you I need you if you're running up my costs?

It's a hypothetical business. Why can't you hypothetically give more hours to other employees that don't ask for fewer hours?

You stated you would fire them simply for asking. It was moralizing bullshit and you know it.

Its true, though. There are millions of people in this country that don't have food, but have IPHONES and internet. I'm not making sweeping anything.

You already admitted you're making general statements about people you don't know. Bad idea.

You asked me why would I fire someone for basically trying to make sure they can afford a home. You've basically said that its my job to reduce their hours so they can afford to live.

lol

I asked before for a quote where I said this, but you did not supply one. Can you tell me why?

I asked you why you would fire someone for SIMPLY ASKING for fewer hours, not refusing to work hours to which they were assigned. All you've done is desperately try to avoid answering that question, most likely because it makes you look like an asshole.

 

[Retro Rob]

If you think I have said anything even remotely approaching that, please quote exactly where.

You're ranting like a lunatic.

To summarize you, you're OK (?) with hour reductions with the wage increase so they can maintain Government assistance with housing, right?

If "Yes", then my point was dead-on.

 

[Retro Rob]

I asked you why you would fire someone for SIMPLY ASKING for fewer hours, not refusing to work hours to which they were assigned. All you've done is desperately try to avoid answering that question, most likely because it makes you look like an asshole.

Splitting hairs in an attempt to save face, Eskimospy. :whiste:

Why would one ask for hour reduction IF THEY PLAN ON NOT TAKING THE REDUCTION?

God, you're an idiot.

 

[fskimospy]

Learn to read, Einstein.

Your later attempt to change your argument to make it less shitty doesn't alter what your original argument was.

 

[fskimospy]

Splitting hairs in an attempt to save face, Eskimospy. :whiste:

One person's 'splitting hairs' is another person's 'quoting your statements verbatim'.

You could of course always say, 'Whoops, I didn't mean I would fire someone for asking, but I would fire them if they refused to work more hours'. That would be a reasonable position to have. It's not what you originally said, but it would be reasonable.

 

[Ichinisan]

Nope.



He said he would fire someone who asked for reduced hours, there was no mention of having to increase his overhead. No getting around it.

It was in the quote tree. Waggy quoted the statement about increased overhead.

Both waggy and Retro Rob added their comments along that sentiment.

Retro Rob later elaborated:

Asking for fewer hours give me less coverage and forces me to hire someone unnecessarily. This negatively impacts my business, so you'll end up costing me more.

Why do you I need you if you're running up my costs?



Its true, though. There are millions of people in this country that don't have food, but have IPHONES and internet. I'm not making sweeping anything.



You asked me why would I fire someone for basically trying to make sure they can afford a home. You've basically said that its my job to reduce their hours so they can afford to live.

lol

 

[fskimospy]

Why would one ask for hour reduction IF THEY PLAN ON NOT TAKING THE REDUCTION?

God, you're an idiot.

You should stop digging now, you're just going to keep looking stupider.

You can request vacation days at work. Your employer can either approve or deny them. Simply asking for a vacation day does not mean you're going to take one regardless of whether or not they approve it. Taking a vacation day that was approved is fine. Taking one that was unapproved might get you fired. This is not complicated.

You're letting pride get in the way of rational thinking.

 

[Retro Rob]

Your later attempt to change your argument to make it less shitty doesn't alter what your original argument was.

I didn't change it, I simply expounded on my point.

Had you read my response to you instead of frothing at the mouth at some perceived "moralizing", then you'd not look like such a jackass.

 

[Retro Rob]

You can request vacation days at work. Your employer can either approve or deny them. Simply asking for a vacation day does not mean you're going to take one regardless of whether or not they approve it. Taking a vacation day that was approved is fine. Taking one that was unapproved might get you fired. This is not complicated.

Complete non-sequitir.

 

[fskimospy]

Complete non-sequitir.

I don't think you know what that word means.

 

[werepossum]

Asking for fewer hours give me less coverage and forces me to hire someone unnecessarily. This negatively impacts my business, so you'll end up costing me more.

Why do you I need you if you're running up my costs?

Its true, though. There are millions of people in this country that don't have food, but have IPHONES and internet. I'm not making sweeping anything.

You asked me why would I fire someone for basically trying to make sure they can afford a home. You've basically said that its my job to reduce their hours so they can afford to live.

lol

I would not deny your right to fire someone who refused to work as many hours as you wish them to work, just pointing out that this is a structural problem and your replacement workers would likely have the same situation. It's possible that you could work your way to having all workers without that situation since it won't be universal, but in the market you'd probably have to pay a premium to attract and hold that minority of minimum wage workers.

One person's 'splitting hairs' is another person's 'quoting your statements verbatim'.

You could of course always say, 'Whoops, I didn't mean I would fire someone for asking, but I would fire them if they refused to work more hours'. That would be a reasonable position to have. It's not what you originally said, but it would be reasonable.

Weak sauce. Everyone here, including you, understood that his firing them would be contingent on them refusing to work the hours he needed them to work.

 

[Retro Rob]

I don't think you know what that word means.

Vacation time has nothing to do with someone asking to be off work for X amount of hours on a weekly basis.

I don't have to hire someone else to pick up the slack if you take a week off. I do if you want 25 hours per week instead of 35 hours.

You're grasping at straws, sir.

 

[fskimospy]

I didn't change it, I simply expounded on my point.

Had you read my response to you instead of frothing at the mouth at some perceived "moralizing", then you'd not look like such a jackass.

I read every one of your responses. I think you got an idea in your head that you had written something different than what you had actually written. I've clearly, calmly, and repeatedly shown you why what you said was dumb. You've responded with insulting me, attempting to attribute ridiculous ideas to me, etc, etc. If anyone's frothing and looking like a jackass here it's you.

You said something shitty. Maybe that's not what you meant, and if that's the case it's okay. Don't try to go after other people for engaging with you on what you actually said as opposed to what you wish you had said.

 

[fskimospy]

Weak sauce. Everyone here, including you, understood that his firing them would be contingent on them refusing to work the hours he needed them to work.

Did I now? What else do you know about what I know?

I took him saying 'I would fire someone for asking for fewer hours to stay on government assistance' to mean 'I would fire someone for asking for fewer hours to stay on government assistance'.

It's not like it was an ambiguous statement.

 

[fskimospy]

Vacation time has nothing to do with someone asking to be off work for X amount of hours on a weekly basis.

I don't have to hire someone else to pick up the slack if you take a week off. I do if you want 25 hours per week instead of 35 hours.

You're grasping at straws, sir.

They're both situations where someone asks to be absent from work where the employer can either approve it or deny it. Not showing up when approved is perfectly fine, not showing up when not approved is often grounds for termination.

They're pretty much identical.

 

[piasabird]

Raising wages in the city only causes all kinds of problems. This is why many department stores are just outside the city limits. Of course that would be a neat trick for New York City. I tend to be for raising the minimum wage maybe in increments to let people get use to the price changes. However, this would be better addressed at the federal level or the state level.

My feelings is large companies that use minimum wage are treating workers like slaves while they keep downsizing the amount of food in packages and raising prices like there is no tomorrow. So I say raise the minimum wage and if they are caught not paying the full wage to illegals, then fine them for $10,000 each.

 

[Retro Rob]

They're both situations where someone asks to be absent from work where the employer can either approve it or deny it. Not showing up when approved is perfectly fine, not showing up when not approved is often grounds for termination.

They're pretty much identical.

But we're not talking about approving/disapproving time off -- we're talking about costing me more money here by trying to keep Gov't assistance so you can "afford to live".

Like I said, you're reaching for something that isn't there.