Joe and Kari: Rich vs Poor

Homebody info

Well we've been open for a while now & already had our first Art Show. It was a great success & I can't wait to have more! We've got more cleaning up in the back half of the bottom floor that we should be finished with soon & then we can start on the top floor, again. Our goal is to remodel the small bathroom that is already upstairs, so that we can go ahead and move in! So in about 6 months, we should be living Downtown!!

6.30.2006

Rich vs Poor

Between 1997 and 2006 the minimum wage has not been raised and it's been the longest period the wage hasn't been increased, ever. Just more proof that the rich continue to get richer and the poor get poorer.

Whats ironic, is that the people who are making less money or minimum wage tend to be the people working the hardest or dealing with the most crap. I say, lets pay politicians minimum wage and let's get some people who will work harder for us.

9 Comments:

I think that would be called "Fantasy Island" because not a one of those politicans making boo-koos of money & after all they have gone thru to get where they are today, going to say, "Yep, take me down to minimum wage sir." Do you really want a minimum wage worker deciding the fate of our cities, states & country??? We just need some good men whose true interest is what is best for our government & not compromise what this country was built on. "In God We Trust"... We need politicians who are God fearing Christians who read the bible & start their day w/ prayer for our government & it's leaders. We are on a down hill spiral now as it is... don't think minimum wage is the way to go. "Da Plane Da Plane" Oh well, that is my point of view, now tear it up yall!!! :)

By Denise, at June 30, 2006 3:43 PM
You're so right, Joe! That is totally ironic! A good example would be teachers. We educate the future 6 figure makers like doctors, lawyers and politicians, and we put up with bucketloads of crap. You'd think we'd be paid accordingly for that.

By Anonymous, at June 30, 2006 7:51 PM
This post sparked quite a discussion between Melissa and I. I have been on both sides of the fence on the issue of a minimum wage hike every time it comes up. I'll let Melissa give you her take, but here is mine (at the moment.) Minimum wage salaries ver directly effect inflation because those companies hiring low or unskilled labor are those that we encounter in our daily lives most often. If minimum wage is raised, then every business has four choices: 1) take a hit in the profit margin (which is why they are in business in the 1st place) by sucking up the extra payroll cost, 2) raise the prices for their goods or services (and pass the cost of the mw hike on to the consumer, their employer), 3) make more effective use of their current employees by requiring more training, more responsibilities or by just finding better employees and getting rid of the ones who don't meet the higher standard (This last option has the effect of hurting the people a raise in MW was intended to help), or 4) reducing payroll cost by hiring fewer people... which raises unemployment...which means less disposable income...which means more surplus goods and services in the ecomomy...which leads to...anyone?...inflation...which means that all of our wages are worth less including the MW employees that just got a raise. I don't pretend to know all sides of the issue, but I do think that raising MW at a time when inflation is also going up is probably unwise.
As for politicians, shady lot I agree, but money attracts skill and we definitely want skill where they are concerned. (Also a good touch of the things Denise mentioned.)
AS...FOR...Teachers? We will never be paid or treated what we are worth because our salaries are tied to taxes. For us to be paid more, the public has to pay more in taxes which is not a popular thing. Sad but true. Our rewards often come in other ways. Not always ways you can eat, mind you. This doesn't keep me from griping about our treatment, though.
Joe, you did again you little firebug. You got me sermonizing...not Simonizing.

By Tim and Melissa, at June 30, 2006 10:25 PM
oooh I hate those spinny wheel hubcaps. When are you taking over the world and can I have a place in the new order? Seriously lets raise minimum wage, do straight percentage taxation, require some sort of services or labor performed for welfare, make divorce cheap and marriage licenses expensive (requiring classes in parenting, budgeting, and minor home repair), make recycling a nation wide law, make ethics and character classes required courses in public schools, and I'm sure I think of more given time. Oh oh - I also want to make it a law that people remember what they learned in kindergarten - walk on the RIGHT! One of my pet walmart peeves.

I agree that people should be rewarded for superior work but that would only happen in a world where good is always rewarded and evil is always punished. We don't live there yet...

By Anonymous, at July 01, 2006 10:11 AM
It's just the same over here.

Except when they "appear" to give people more, they take it of somewhere else surreptisiously and the poor are no further forward... if not worse off.

By mirk, at July 02, 2006 9:46 AM
I'm with the Chief for the most part on this one. The best way to get politicians to start working for us is to cut off the hand that's feeding them.

The original Roman Senate had about 300 members and the reason for having so many was that no one interest could manipulate so many people. Senators could even be kicked out if they were found to be misrepresenting their public. You would think that with our 435 total members of Congress we would be safe. But the fact is that corporations and their lobbies are the ones determining the course of our nation and unless that changes soon our country will no longer be the "beacon" it's so commonly described as.

Raising the minimum wage is definitely going to ruffle some feathers, but if one of the arguments against it is that corporations are going to lose some profit, boo-friggin-hoo. My concern is not for corps but for small businesses whose CEOs don't make 300 times as much as the average worker and are either unable or sacrifice greatly to offer some kind of medical insurance. That's not an imaginary figure either. In 1973 CEOs made 45 times as much as workers; in 1991, 140 times; in 2005, 300 times! Concentrated wealth is not good for the general welfare. Businesses should have to abide by a formula that keeps its top wage-earner in check with its lowest paid full-timer. As for the small businesses, instituting a National Health Care program would get rid of some of the burden.

How could we possibly pay for that?! Close loopholes and tax shelters for corporations that equal billions and billions of dollars a year. And that's a bill that will never pass without eliminating lobbying as it exists today.

By Brian Rhea, at July 03, 2006 6:10 PM
Hillary Clinton has introduced legislation in the Senate that ties Congressional pay raises to the minimum wage. In the terms of her bill, for every increase our legislators vote themselves, MW has to increase by an equal percentage.

It'll never pass, but I think it's a clever way to make a point.

By cruisermom, at July 10, 2006 8:05 AM
I like that bill, it is very clever...unfortunately I agree with you that it would never pass

By Kari, at July 10, 2006 8:34 AM
I'm with you guys on a lot of what's been written. I find the idea of lobbyists deplorable when I think of large corporations dumping grotesque amounts into swaying politicians to their point of view not on the merit of thier argument, but because they provide more perks. (Whew! long sentence.) Buuut... I know that without the lobbying provided organizations like the Association of Texas Professional Educators and Texas Music Educator's Association, some very poorly concieved legislation could have made it through the works in the last years. You can't isolate the legislature completely. So when do cross to the dark side in lobbying? I don't know.
I do know, however, that although some very unfair things are done in the name of free enterprise, I would rather have that than the alternative (state owned and run companies). There was a small country in Asia that tried that and it failed miserably. You might know it. Maybe the answer to big business interest is bigger teeth and finer discrimination in the Anti-Trust laws. Profit is good when fuels our economy and bad when it runs our government. A greater variety of smaller companies might mean that they wouldn't have the concentration of wealth to launch these politician altering lobby compaigns.
To recap, big business interest...bad, government regulation should be regulated, and I'd still rather live here than there.

By Anonymous, at July 10, 2006 10:13 PM

Homebody info

Photo Galleries

Previous Posts

6.30.2006

Rich vs Poor

9 Comments:

PONDER This

readin'