Michelle Bachmann Says She Would Consider Minimum Wage Changes

[The Good Michael]

Stephen,

I'm not blaming everything on Reagan, because people have made terrible life choices on theri own, yet, consumerism is driven by marketing and enough marketing creates a psychological need for the SUV or the trip to Hawaii, or even the video game consoles. Though people make bad choices, they are also sucked into it without much control because that is the purpose of marketing, to sell you stuff you don't need, and it works as we can see by the massive credit card debt. Deregulation creates enormous sociological issues and in this case has contributed to vast amounts of poverty in America. I would love to see limits on mass media marketing and re-regulation of credit cards. Maybe somegthing like, one needs to earn 40K a year (dollars) and have shown repayment of past loans and be 25. This is how it was in the past, sort of. A huge part of government is the protection of its citizens. So far, all America can do is create enemies, go to war against them, and say, "This is so they don't come here into your homes and eat your babies." The boogeyman is unchecked capitalism which allows for hypnotic marketing and creates governmental bedfellows who reap benefits for allowing things to be unchecked.

Mike

[Limehouse]

The minimum wage a disastrous effect here in Britain. What people overlook is that if you force employers to increase wages above that which is economically viable they will have to recoup their extra overhead by increasing prices. Who pays the increased prices? The people getting the minimum wage, so they are in effect no better off and so it goes on in an ever increasing spiral.

The other downside is that you erode differentials. My wife is a manager in a care home and every year the minimum wage increases, but of course hers doesn’t. You can’t blame the owner, he says that he is forced to give pay rises to one section of the work force. The outcome is that my wife as a manager is now earning only 15p per hour more than the most junior member of staff. Some of the managers have said sod it – carrying all that responsibility for an extra 15p an hour isn’t worth it and they revert to junior carer.

Several working men used to supplement their wages by driving taxis; they were paid a percentage of the takings. However now they are enforcing minimum wage they have been let go as quite often the taxi doesn’t take the minimum wage per hour. So they go back to claiming benefits and who does that improve.

Owners of business must be allowed to run their business in the way they see fit without constant interference from Government.

Here’s a true story. I read an article by a reporter who went to some third world country to run a story on sweat shops. The story got a lot of publicity in Britain and the companies were forced to use only those factories that paid minimum wage.
Two years later he went back to talk to one family he had interviewed previously and see how much better off they were. He found them on the rubbish dump picking through the garbage – that was all they had after the factory was closed down. Now do you think their situation had improved or not?

The minimum wage is pitfully low and few people can afford to live on it. It is not for the lowest wage earners to subsidise prices. Goods should reflect the TRUE cost of production including labour costs.

Capitalism relies on low wages for the majority of workers and high rewards for shareholders, stock market dealers, bankers and CEOs who are given huge rewards for often atrocious performances.

Some of the most successful companies in this country pay higher than the minimum wage and are rewarded with employee and customer loyalty - and they do not even have shareholders!

[jason_c]

Well I am back from the grocery store. Not as bad an ordeal as I thought it would be. Although schlepping heavy bags of groceries in the pouring rain was not pleasant. Not crowded at all. I spoke to the check out person and she said yesterday was completely crazy. So many people that they had to keep people outside and regulate how many they let in. The shelves were pretty well stocked with a few exceptions like bread.

Yes, I really dislike Michelle Bachmann and so many of her Republican colleagues. I think they are corporate whores and religious wackos. They also like to wave the flag while they are spouting their BS. The few moderate (and sane) Republicans in their party are absolutely hated by the rest of the faithful.

And yes, the rain has really picked up.

c.d.

Never mind, theres still over 12 months to rack up the national debt by another few trillion dollars. Until then you just keep on posting about the important stuff in US politics.

[The Good Michael]

Let's get back to term limits and volunteer politics. It all began to go nuts when people knew they could get paid well and get great benefits to do nothing but disagree with each other. They are all corporate whores and party affiliation plays no part in that. Party affiliation is a facade.

Mike

[sdreid]

They are all corporate whores and party affiliation plays no part in that. Party affiliation is a facade.

That's true Mike but I'll be voting for the neo-feudal state corporatist who'll get rid of Obamacare over the neo-feudal state corporatist it was named after.

[Bob Hinton]

laboThe minimum wage is pitfully low and few people can afford to live on it. It is not for the lowest wage earners to subsidise prices. Goods should reflect the TRUE cost of production including ur costs.
Capitalism relies on low wages for the majority of workers and high rewards for shareholders, stock market dealers, bankers and CEOs who are given huge rewards for often atrocious performances.

Some of the most successful companies in this country pay higher than the minimum wage and are rewarded with employee and customer loyalty - and they do not even have shareholders!

Couple of points, first off a lot of self employed people would love to be on minimum wage - a lot of taxi drivers round here dont see anything like that.

Please dont lump shareholders in with the rest of the rubbish.

A shareholder is a person who finances jobs - take away the shareholder and you will lose the majoriy of jobs.

[Limehouse]

Couple of points, first off a lot of self employed people would love to be on minimum wage - a lot of taxi drivers round here dont see anything like that.

Please dont lump shareholders in with the rest of the rubbish.

A shareholder is a person who finances jobs - take away the shareholder and you will lose the majoriy of jobs.

My husband is self employed - and as it happens he's a taxi driver. His fares are set by the Carriage Office and obviously reflect the cost of fuel, running the taxi and a profit for the driver.

Mini cabs are a different story as the fares are unregulated and drivers are often compelled to rent a car and pay a route fee to the company owners. Regulation is the answer there. so - it all depends on what you mean when you refer to 'taxi drivers'.

Shareholders should only gain from a company when all other costs have been paid. Their dividends should be based on bottom line profits and that bottom line should be achieved once all other costs have been met - including fair wages.

The best answer is to have profit sharing schemes rather than shares. It directs the rewards back directly to the people who produce the results. Waitrose and John Lewis are very successful and highly profitable companies who pay well above the minimum wage and share bottom line profits between the staff based on results in each store. Other, smaller companies run along similar lines.

It is a simple fact that low wages cause poverty.

[Fleetwood Mac]

It is a simple fact that low wages cause poverty.

If we're dealing in 'simple facts' then surely there is a cause engendering the effect of 'low wages'? And surely this cause rests squarely with the individual?

What is it with blaming 'Capitalism' and the like?.

The reality is that the people on a minimum wage are the people who are not pushing themselves forward. They're content to do the bare minimum and get out as quickly as possible in order to head for the pub, watch shite television or whatever else they'd rather do than work and study/learn. This romanticised view of the downtrodden working class is simply a pipe dream. I'm from the North East; I know a lot of people up here; I can categorically state that one of the main reasons this region is relatively low value in terms of economic performance is that too many people up here are prepared to do only the bare minimum. The people who have done better for themselves are the people who've put the effort in.

My mates took low paid jobs in factories and the like and have no intention of doing anything more than going to work 9-5 and doing a steady shift. They don't care about learning. All they care about is the pay cheque, which is in line with what they do. On the other hand, I worked my knackers off studying, I sat 17 accountancy exams over a 3 year period while I was working (and it was hard work for me because my degree is in history - my brain isn't naturally suited to accountancy). Every job I've been in, I've worked at least 50 hours a week, more during the bedding in period. I make a point of making sure I'm always learning so that my career progresses as I'd like it to. I go home thinking: "how can I do my job better? what do I need to do to get to the next level?" as well as taking work home.

But, you want me and people like me to support legislation to give these people a 'fair crack of the whip'? You have to be joking.

They're getting a fair crack of the whip. They have the option to go to college if they're not happy with their lot.

Contrary to your assertion that workers are bled to death, there is a spectrum of positions and associated wages beneath the CEO.

It's all a pipe dream, Limehouse, as opposed to the real world. These poor disadvantaged people eh. You're handing power on a plate to ne'er do wells which enables them to excuse their position and push responsibility onto someone else. You're not helping; you're hindering these people.

Also, a civilised society looks after those unable to look after themselves. You're not advocating that. You want to prop up those unwilling to make more of an effort to get the rewards they want. It is a gross distortion of civilisation and one ultimately that is holding back this country.

In every left leaning liberal policy you can see the disastrous results that their supposed grand ideals generate: we have the virtuous revolutionaries who believe their own hype and before you know it they're shooting people to maintain power; we have the modern, subtler version (although every bit as fascist in their policies) who just want to make everyone 'equal' when actually they're hindering all concerned.

Limehouse: it must take up a lot of energy dreaming of being your brother's keeper. Power is attractive, I suppose.

[Limehouse]

If we're dealing in 'simple facts' then surely there is a cause engendering the effect of 'low wages'? And surely this cause rests squarely with the individual?

What is it with blaming 'Capitalism' and the like?.

The reality is that the people on a minimum wage are the people who are not pushing themselves forward. They're content to do the bare minimum and get out as quickly as possible in order to head for the pub, watch shite television or whatever else they'd rather do than work and study/learn. This romanticised view of the downtrodden working class is simply a pipe dream. I'm from the North East; I know a lot of people up here; I can categorically state that one of the main reasons this region is relatively low value in terms of economic performance is that too many people up here are prepared to do only the bare minimum. The people who have done better for themselves are the people who've put the effort in.

My mates took low paid jobs in factories and the like and have no intention of doing anything more than going to work 9-5 and doing a steady shift. They don't care about learning. All they care about is the pay cheque, which is in line with what they do. On the other hand, I worked my knackers off studying, I sat 17 accountancy exams over a 3 year period while I was working (and it was hard work for me because my degree is in history - my brain isn't naturally suited to accountancy). Every job I've been in, I've worked at least 50 hours a week, more during the bedding in period. I make a point of making sure I'm always learning so that my career progresses as I'd like it to. I go home thinking: "how can I do my job better? what do I need to do to get to the next level?" as well as taking work home.

But, you want me and people like me to support legislation to give these people a 'fair crack of the whip'? You have to be joking.

They're getting a fair crack of the whip. They have the option to go to college if they're not happy with their lot.

Contrary to your assertion that workers are bled to death, there is a spectrum of positions and associated wages beneath the CEO.

It's all a pipe dream, Limehouse, as opposed to the real world. These poor disadvantaged people eh. You're handing power on a plate to ne'er do wells which enables them to excuse their position and push responsibility onto someone else. You're not helping; you're hindering these people.

Also, a civilised society looks after those unable to look after themselves. You're not advocating that. You want to prop up those unwilling to make more of an effort to get the rewards they want. It is a gross distortion of civilisation and one ultimately that is holding back this country.

In every left leaning liberal policy you can see the disastrous results that their supposed grand ideals generate: we have the virtuous revolutionaries who believe their own hype and before you know it they're shooting people to maintain power; we have the modern, subtler version (although every bit as fascist in their policies) who just want to make everyone 'equal' when actually they're hindering all concerned.

Limehouse: it must take up a lot of energy dreaming of being your brother's keeper. Power is attractive, I suppose.

Fletwood, I respect your views and your drive and determination to improve yourself. I too have worked very hard to get where I am today despite some difficult experiences in my early life. I did a full time degree whilst raising two very small children. I then completed teacher training and post graduate qualifications as my children progressed through school and at one point I was the sole wage earner as my husband recovered from serious illness. I am no stranger to graft and hard work.

However, not everyone can do what we have done. Firstly, I was unable to enter higher education until I was 35. The opportunities were simply not there for me. Prior to gaining entry to university I was always in low paid employment but I was always a very hard worker. I had no stability in my life from the age of 11 until I married in my mid twenties and everything was a huge struggle. No matter how hard I worked, progress was always slow and there were always barriers such as gender and my background in care from the age of 11.

My parents had to leave school at 14 and bring in money to support their families. They were young adults when WW2 broke out and were called up into civillian service. They did not have the educational opportunities to improve themselves and grafted very hard in low paid employment but remained poor. They died within 14 months of each other before I was even out of primary school.

Not everyone can access higher education no matter how hard they work. I am very lucky in that I had the ability to achieve a university degree once I eventually got there but many people of my age and background remain poorly paid and poorly qualified.

You state that people can go to college to get better qualified and that may be true for 16-19 year olds but once you are 19 you have to pay a lot of money for these courses. If people aren't earning much money they can't afford the courses. Additionally, it's very difficult for people from families who do not have a tradition of further/higher education to break the mould and find the confidence to study post 16.

Finally, there will always be people who are happy to do factory work or shop work, gardening, catering, labouring etc. We need these people and we need their skills. They should not be punished for opting for these employments. They are still being productive and/or creative and are providing services for which they should be fairly paid.

I am not trying to be anyone's keeper. Every working day I am responsible for supporting young people in becoming independent and confident learners, responsible citizens and employable adults and I know what a struggle it is for many of them - especially if we have to send them out into a world that wants to pay them less than £6 per hour - an income that will not put a roof over them or fill their bellies.

And by the way - there are plenty of graduates out there who have worked hard and who have no job or a low paid job.

[Bob Hinton]

My husband is self employed - and as it happens he's a taxi driver. His fares are set by the Carriage Office and obviously reflect the cost of fuel, running the taxi and a profit for the driver.That’s not strictly true. When fares are set by the Council or other authority they have absolutely no interest in whether or not the driver makes a profit, otherwise they would have to be reset on at least a monthly basis – most drivers are lucky if they get a review every three years. In Carmarthenshire for instance they didn’t get an increase for over eight years.

A taxi driver is the only occupation (I believe) where the person has absolutely no control over their income. In a normal business you can increase your prices to keep in line with rises in overheads – as a driver you can’t – your income is decided for you.

People tend to forget with taxi drivers that the amount paid for the fare is not what they make – it’s what they take. Overheads have to be deducted from that. I used to own a taxi business running four vehicles and every year I calculated how much it cost to move one vehicle one mile. My MPV for example in overhead (not counting wages) cost 75p to move a mile. The council allowed us to charge two pounds for one mile. Therefore if you travelled one mile I could charge two pounds, however the cost to me was 1.50 – the passenger only travels one mile but the taxi travels two. You have a front end loading of 2.20 to offset this somewhat but it still works out roughly that for every trip you lose about 40-50% on overhead.

In case some of you are wondering why the overhead is so high here’s an example. My 7 series 4.4 litre BMW costs 280 per annum for insurance, fully comp, bonus protected etc for both me and my wife. My MPV registered as a taxi costs over 1300 pounds.

[Limehouse]

My husband is self employed - and as it happens he's a taxi driver. His fares are set by the Carriage Office and obviously reflect the cost of fuel, running the taxi and a profit for the driver.That’s not strictly true. When fares are set by the Council or other authority they have absolutely no interest in whether or not the driver makes a profit, otherwise they would have to be reset on at least a monthly basis – most drivers are lucky if they get a review every three years. In Carmarthenshire for instance they didn’t get an increase for over eight years.

A taxi driver is the only occupation (I believe) where the person has absolutely no control over their income. In a normal business you can increase your prices to keep in line with rises in overheads – as a driver you can’t – your income is decided for you.

People tend to forget with taxi drivers that the amount paid for the fare is not what they make – it’s what they take. Overheads have to be deducted from that. I used to own a taxi business running four vehicles and every year I calculated how much it cost to move one vehicle one mile. My MPV for example in overhead (not counting wages) cost 75p to move a mile. The council allowed us to charge two pounds for one mile. Therefore if you travelled one mile I could charge two pounds, however the cost to me was 1.50 – the passenger only travels one mile but the taxi travels two. You have a front end loading of 2.20 to offset this somewhat but it still works out roughly that for every trip you lose about 40-50% on overhead.

In case some of you are wondering why the overhead is so high here’s an example. My 7 series 4.4 litre BMW costs 280 per annum for insurance, fully comp, bonus protected etc for both me and my wife. My MPV registered as a taxi costs over 1300 pounds.

It is true that a taxi costs a lot to buy and run, especially in London where they are purpose built. The fuel costs are high and, as you point out, the insurance is also very high. Fortunately, my husband manages to earn a reasonable income by working four afternoons and nights per week. Obviously, being self-employed, he gets no sick pay or holiday pay. It is fortunate therefore that I have a regular income which keeps us going when work is slow for him (in the summer for instance).