Unexpected Consequences: Min Wage Hike Fallout

[fskimospy]

He admitted that he didn't know that one person out of six cities called the cops when he presented it as the man having done nothing. He didn't know.

He also admitted to purposefully deceptively editing the tape. Deception is also known as ...lying.

Long story short, O'Keefe lied about some people in a video and Breitbart uncritically reported those lies. Breitbart at no time exercised appropriate due diligence and when notified of the deceptive nature of the video did not change their reporting on it.

That's the definition of an organization committed to outcomes, not information. ie: a propaganda site.

They found no impropriety by the technicality that O'Keefe and Giles were only pretending so there was no criminal behavior for them to assist with. You are cherry picking to dismiss the fact that some did offer help to what they thought were criminals. Only three of six contacted authorities.

This is incorrect. The California AG's report that investigated the employee conduct found no evidence of intent by the employees to aid them. This was echoed by the GAO.

http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1888_acorn_report.pdf

(page 16)

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11484.pdf

Additionally, ACORN employees have no affirmative obligation to report so those three that did were actually going above and beyond what the law requires.

 

[waggy]

in most jobs you cannot get your employer to reduce the hours anyway.

Every employee brings overhead costs. I would refuse as an employer to do this as the cost per man-hour would increase because they are spread over many part time employees. There are enough mexicans willing to work full time. But admittedly sponsoring migration is probably more difficult in the US.

When i worked fast food and other min wage jobs (target and walmart) when i asked to get my hours reduced it wasn't a issue.

Then again it was usually for school or sports. heck both walmart and McDonalds would let me get away with almost all of wresting season off. or at most 3 hours a week. Target refused that wich is why i went t walmart.

Granted that was 23 years ago..

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Okay, Breitbart is not a good source.

How about right from the horse's mouth on local news.

http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/nonprofit-worker-reduced-hours-requested-stay-subs/nmYYS/

Nonprofit employer: Workers requested reduced hours to stay in subsidized housing

 

[Retro Rob]

Okay, Breitbart is not a good source.

How about right from the horse's mouth on local news.

http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/nonprofit-worker-reduced-hours-requested-stay-subs/nmYYS/

Still, the source doesn't change the truthfulness of the information, though.

 

[Retro Rob]

When i worked fast food and other min wage jobs (target and walmart) when i asked to get my hours reduced it wasn't a issue.

Then again it was usually for school or sports. heck both walmart and McDonalds would let me get away with almost all of wresting season off. or at most 3 hours a week. Target refused that wich is why i went t walmart.

Granted that was 23 years ago..

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.

 

[Perknose]

Okay, Breitbart is not a good source.

How about right from the horse's mouth on local news.

http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/nonprofit-worker-reduced-hours-requested-stay-subs/nmYYS/

The question is, do you understand the situation? Do you understand that, even at the "lordly" wage of $13/hr, these people wouldn't be able to afford a place to live in Seattle? Do you understand how ugly and economically skewed that situation is?

Well, do you?

Directly from your link:

“This has nothing to do with people’s willingness to work, or how hard people work. It has to do with being caught in a very complex situation where they have to balance everything they can pull together to pull together a stable, successful life,” Gibson said.

Gibson said she fully supports a minimum wage increase but was not surprised when her employees asked for fewer hours.

“The jump from subsidized housing to market rate in Seattle is huge,” she said.

 

[Perknose]

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.

Of course you would. I guess you don't even care that, even working 40 hours a week, those people in Seattle couldn't afford a place to live? The obscenity of this situation is not something you give a rat's ass about, so, fuck them, right?

 

[fskimospy]

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.

So let's paint this picture:

1. You are paying someone minimum wage and they live in subsidized housing.

2. Because of the increase in minimum wage, they will lose housing subsidies that are worth far more than the extra pay they are getting, thus potentially causing them to lose their home.

3. They don't want to lose their home, so they come to you with this problem and ask for fewer hours.

4. You fire them for this.

Wut?

If anything, this exposes a flaw in how housing subsidies are dispensed. That's a good thing to uncover.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Of course you would. I guess you don't even care that, even working 40 hours a week, those people in Seattle couldn't afford a place to live? The obscenity of this situation is not something you give a rat's ass about, so, fuck them, right?

No, they can afford a place to live. They just might have to share it with 1-3 other people in an apartment in-which multiple people live in their own rooms.

You know, that thing we all did in college?

oh wait I'm sorry, as CITIZENS of TEH UNITED STATES... you are ENTITLED to a salary that pays for MY RIGHT TO LIVE and a nice cozy 1-2bdroom apartment all to myself!111one

edit: Oh, and it has to be able to pay for my 3 kids from 3 different fathers too!

 

[werepossum]

O'keefe is lower than scum. Quit defending the guy simply because he hates the same things you hate. Anyone who uses dishonesty to accomplish their goals should be a pariah to all, because if honesty doesn't work there's likely a reason for it. That reason being that the hatred motivating the dishonesty is not based on good reasoning.

Except of course for things like "If you like your plan, you can keep it." That was clearly for our own good - we're such children.

So what do you think he paid him a hundred grand for?

That's crystal clear. He had illegally taped the guy, the guy could show actual damages, and the lawyers were telling O'Keefe that he would not qualify for the First Amendment protections enjoyed by traditional media in the exact same situations. He was going to lose and lose big time. $100k was cheap to get out of that.

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.

Your new hires would have the exact same problem - they simply lose money if they work as many hours as they work absent the minimum wage hike. There are certainly some people who as a matter of pride and principle would piece together two part time jobs in this situation to get off of assistance, but most of us when faced with the choice of working fewer hours and staying on the dole versus working twice as many hours for the same overall financial situation are going to choose to work less. In principle this is black and white; in real life it's shades of gray and while every action has unintended consequences, that doesn't necessarily mean that inaction is the best policy. It just means it's messy.

 

[waggy]

The question is, do you understand the situation? Do you understand that, even at the "lordly" wage of $13/hr, these people wouldn't be able to afford a place to live in Seattle? Do you understand how ugly and economically skewed that situation is?

Well, do you?

Directly from your link:

the whole situation is fucked.YOU have people saying i need this pay to live! they get right under that.

Oh shit! we need less hours now because i don't want to lose my housing!

...

Why not do what the everyone around here does. work 60ish hours a week. highest hourly pay around here is roughly $15. i see families surviving on that with no problems.

granted as i said they work a full time job and part time and save where they can.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The question is, do you understand the situation? Do you understand that, even at the "lordly" wage of $13/hr, these people wouldn't be able to afford a place to live in Seattle? Do you understand how ugly and economically skewed that situation is?

Well, do you?

Directly from your link:

It happens in place where the minimum wage is far lower. A friend of my wife works just enough to stay under the level that would reduce her subsidies. The father of her child lives with them even though the government thinks she lives alone with her 2 children (one from a previous relationship). My wife being a resident alien couldn't fathom why she was able to get so much aid while living in a house that cost $40k ($200k) more than the house we live in.

 

[Retro Rob]

Of course you would. I guess you don't even care that, even working 40 hours a week, those people in Seattle couldn't afford a place to live? The obscenity of this situation is not something you give a rat's ass about, so, fuck them, right?

What do you mean "afford a place to live"? How much would one HAVE to pay in rent?

 

[Perknose]

What do you mean "afford a place to live"? How much would one HAVE to pay in rent?

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.

 

[Retro Rob]

So let's paint this picture:

1. You are paying someone minimum wage and they live in subsidized housing.

So?

2. Because of the increase in minimum wage, they will lose housing subsidies that are worth far more than the extra pay they are getting, thus potentially causing them to lose their home.

Again, that's what they get for thinking they're simply entitled to my money because I have it.

Why not encourage these people to STOP TRYING TO LIVE OFF THE BARE MINIMUM WAGE anyway?

3. They don't want to lose their home, so they come to you with this problem and ask for fewer hours.

You can't have it both ways, brotha. Adjust their standard of living. You DO understand that these same people are walking around with Iphone 6's and $150/m internet and cable bills, right?

They think they're entitled to a life of relative luxury on my dime and the Government's dime.

 

[fskimospy]

So?

Again, that's what they get for thinking they're simply entitled to my money because I have it.

Why not encourage these people to STOP TRYING TO LIVE OFF THE BARE MINIMUM WAGE anyway?

Well then why didn't you fire them before, since your goal is to have people not live on minimum wage?

You can't have it both ways, brotha. Adjust their standard of living. You DO understand that these same people are walking around with Iphone 6's and $150/m internet and cable bills, right?

They think they're entitled to a life of relative luxury on my dime and the Government's dime.

My guess is from that statement you know very few of these people. A life of relative luxury? Please.

You haven't answered the very basic question I put forward to you. In that circumstance this minimum wage increase dramatically negatively affects that person's life, and you want to fire them for making an economically rational decision.

I'll repeat: wut.

 

[Retro Rob]

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.

In that case, it would probably need to go up (min wage), or the price to live needs to be dramatically reduced.

 

[Ichinisan]

Of course you would. I guess you don't even care that, even working 40 hours a week, those people in Seattle couldn't afford a place to live? The obscenity of this situation is not something you give a rat's ass about, so, fuck them, right?

I don't expect people to live on minimum wage. The high school kid working a summer job and living with his parents doesn't have a family and house payment.

I suppose there are some people that can't learn a skill and are forced to live on minimum wage. Aren't they already subsidized by the government?

 

[Retro Rob]

Well then why didn't you fire them before, since your goal is to have people not live on minimum wage?

It's my goal to make a profit, its up to them to not live min wage. I'm only going to pay what I can afford to pay anyway, and if you want reduced hours but I need you there when you're looking to be off, what use do I have for you anyway?

My guess is from that statement you know very few of these people. A life of relative luxury? Please.

Never said I did anyway.

You haven't answered the very basic question I put forward to you. In that circumstance this minimum wage increase dramatically negatively affects that person's life, and you want to fire them for making an economically rational decision.

I'm in business to make a profit, not to make sure people can afford housing -- that's THEIR job.

Why abdicate that on to me?

 

[CZroe]

No, they can afford a place to live. They just might have to share it with 1-3 other people in an apartment in-which multiple people live in their own rooms.



You know, that thing we all did in college?



oh wait I'm sorry, as CITIZENS of TEH UNITED STATES... you are ENTITLED to a salary that pays for MY RIGHT TO LIVE and a nice cozy 1-2bdroom apartment all to myself!111one

Actually, the entitlement/expectation is even worse because they expect you to raise kids and care for a spouse without having to get a second income.

The question is, do you understand the situation? Do you understand that, even at the "lordly" wage of $13/hr, these people wouldn't be able to afford a place to live in Seattle? Do you understand how ugly and economically skewed that situation is?



Well, do you?



Directly from your link:

Do you understand that the $13 an hour jobs aren't for people trying to make it on their own in Seattle? Just like waggy working at Wal-Mart, not everyone needs a wage that affords them the ability to make it on their own in the big city. Here's an idea: commute. I think it was San Francisco that effectively forced all caterers out of their city by raising minimum wages such that catering businesses based in the city could not compete with catering companies that commuted in. The nature of the business involves travel, so their competition was set up with a huge advantage and inner city caterers were screwed.

In addition to my primary job (full time, $10 an hour) in San Diego, I did catering as a side job and I had a roommate in the suburbs (Mira Mesa). I didn't own a car and used a cheap motorcycle to get around (practically a scooter). Not once did I think I was entitled to a wage from my primary job that would allow me to "make it my own." It's laughable that anyone thinks minimum wage is supposed to enable city life for full time fast food workers living on their own.

When i worked fast food and other min wage jobs (target and walmart) when i asked to get my hours reduced it wasn't a issue.



Then again it was usually for school or sports. heck both walmart and McDonalds would let me get away with almost all of wresting season off. or at most 3 hours a week. Target refused that wich is why i went t walmart.



Granted that was 23 years ago..

Funny how people assume that a job appropriate for a student who didn't even need it is supposed to pay for them to live comfortably and raise a family without government assistance. You should feel ashamed for keeping that job from some deserving bread-winner! 😉 Actually, why did you leave instead of demanding that it pay a living wage so that you could just work there forever?!

He also admitted to purposefully deceptively editing the tape. Deception is also known as ...lying.



Long story short, O'Keefe lied about some people in a video and Breitbart uncritically reported those lies. Breitbart at no time exercised appropriate due diligence and when notified of the deceptive nature of the video did not change their reporting on it.



That's the definition of an organization committed to outcomes, not information. ie: a propaganda site.







This is incorrect. The California AG's report that investigated the employee conduct found no evidence of intent by the employees to aid them. This was echoed by the GAO.



http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1888_acorn_report.pdf



(page 16)



http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11484.pdf



Additionally, ACORN employees have no affirmative obligation to report so those three that did were actually going above and beyond what the law requires.

I already saw an article linked to in this thread where Breitbart "changed the reporting" on it but insisted that it was still damning. You are choosing to ignore it to continue dismissing Breitbart's website as a biased source, proving your own bias in the process.

...and we've already discussed why the conclusions of CA and NY into their particular ACORN offices does not say what you imply it says. As for there being nothing illegal because they weren't legally compelled to report it: so what? It's still despicable. Were they ever claiming it was illegal?! Just plug your ears and say "It may be despicable and that may have been the whole point but I'm going to ignore that because it was not illegal!"

 

[Retro Rob]

It seems people like Eskimospy would rather keep people indefinitely dependent on the Government WHILE forcing employers to fund people's lifestyles at the same time, giving people no incentive to either (1) go make something of yourself and perhaps run your own business, or (2) make adjustments to their standard of living to make sure they can live and eat.

Sad, and pathetic.

 

[fskimospy]

It's my goal to make a profit, its up to them to not live min wage. I'm only going to pay what I can afford to pay anyway, and if you want reduced hours but I need you there when you're looking to be off, what use do I have for you anyway?

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.

Never said I did anyway.

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

I'm in business to make a profit, not to make sure people can afford housing -- that's THEIR job.

Why abdicate that on to me?

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.

 

[ivwshane]

Bubble penetration averted!

Just more righty retard logic. If you can't fix the problem with one silver bullet with 100% accuracy then don't bother fixing the problem!

 

[fskimospy]

I already saw an article linked to in this thread where Breitbart "changed the reporting" on it but insisted that it was still damning. You are choosing to ignore it to continue dismissing Breitbart's website as a biased source, proving your own bias in the process.

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.

...and we've already discussed why the conclusions of CA and NY into their particular ACORN offices does not say what you imply it says. As for there being nothing illegal because they weren't legally compelled to report it: so what? It's still despicable. Were they ever claiming it was illegal?! Just plug your ears and say "It may be despicable and that may have been the whole point but I'm going to ignore that because it was not illegal!"

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.

 

[fskimospy]

It seems people like Eskimospy would rather keep people indefinitely dependent on the Government WHILE forcing employers to fund people's lifestyles at the same time, giving people no incentive to either (1) go make something of yourself and perhaps run your own business, or (2) make adjustments to their standard of living to make sure they can live and eat.

Sad, and pathetic.

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

You're ranting like a lunatic.