$9.50 minimum wage? Hillary is Crazy - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

BVF · 02-12-2008, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

Wrong...anything over 20 hours per week is considered to be full time.

I'm just going to sit back on this and let others pick apart your fallacy.

GatorB · 02-12-2008, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

dumbass - he doesn't have enough posts to put up a link

dumbass it's not my job to see who has enough posts or what color they are before I post about them. go continue to suck goat cock.

GatorB · 02-12-2008, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

Wrong...anything over 20 hours per week is considered to be full time.

Where is this at? Which planet?

baddog · 02-12-2008, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

did i piss in your cheerios or something. i remember only being nice to you?

Why can't a make any observation without you taking it personally? If I had seen cherrylula's comment first I would have addressed her instead.

Now, instead of taking it personally, you tell me . . . if you were making $9.15 an hour, how much porn would you be purchasing? I doubt many people on minimum wage are dining at Buca di Beppo either . . . unless they are someone's guest.

theking · 02-12-2008, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVF

I'm just going to sit back on this and let others pick apart your fallacy.

It is not fallacy...it is fact.

candyflip · 02-12-2008, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

Wrong...anything over 20 hours per week is considered to be full time.

Pigshit.

baddog · 02-12-2008, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

Wrong...anything over 20 hours per week is considered to be full time.

Really? When did that happen?

BVF · 02-12-2008, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

It is not fallacy...it is fact.

Snake Doctor · 02-12-2008, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVF

Ah they just repeated the soundbyte of that part of her speech....She said that every American that works FULL TIME will have a minimum wage of $9.50...So that means your local Walmart can work you 37 hours a week and pay you $5.85.....

It's interesting how wordplay can mean everything.

I'm the last person who wants to defend Hillary, but put your conspiracy theory hat away.

I seriously doubt that what you're implying is actually the case, I just don't think she's going to go into all of the mind numbing details of her proposal during a campaign rally that the cable news networks were carrying live.

My best educated guess is that her proposal will have a different minimum wage for people who are full time students.....or workers under 18 years old...... or something like that. That's something business owners have been asking the government for since the 1970's, and it's probably the carrot you'd need to keep the republicans from filibustering a bill with a 9.50 minimum wage.

tony286 · 02-12-2008, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

Why can't a make any observation without you taking it personally? If I had seen cherrylula's comment first I would have addressed her instead.

Now, instead of taking it personally, you tell me . . . if you were making $9.15 an hour, how much porn would you be purchasing? I doubt many people on minimum wage are dining at Buca di Beppo either . . . unless they are someone's guest.

Well it seems lately I post you quote it but you have a point.

baddog · 02-12-2008, 10:03 PM

I am doing a little looking around and it appears that the employer can make 20 hours a week full time if they want to.

Snake Doctor · 02-12-2008, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Sure it is better for businesses. Do you think it's good that business have to increase wages $2.10 over 2 years? Would it not have been easier on them to have it go up 15 to 20 cents and hour each year since 1998? Of course it would have.

Your premise only works if minimum wage goes away, which is fantasy. It's not. So since it's not, what is better way to raise it? Every 10 years with $2 an hour increases or 20 cents each year?

Actually it's better for business for it to not go up for a long time and then go up alot than it is to have it go up in small increments.

For instance, that's 20 cents per hour, per year that they don't have to spend for every employee working for them. Then 40 cents an hour the 2nd year, 60 cents the 3rd year.

That adds up to ALOT of money over a 10 year period.

I agree that the minimum wage should be indexed to inflation and then we wouldn't ever have to talk about it again. Unfortunately, Republicans don't want their business constituents to have to pay mandatory wage increases every year....and democrats need the issue to get the working poor to show up and vote for them on election day, so neither party wants to fix it for good.

theking · 02-12-2008, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

Really? When did that happen?

I do not know when and I am not going to research when...but it is fact. When the government issues unemployment/employment stats it issuing stats on those employed under/over 20 hours per week. Employers that have benefits do not have to pay benefits to those that are employed less than 20 hours per week but do have to pay benefits to those employed more than 20 hours per week because anything over 20 hours per week is considered to be full time employment. There may be some variance on this from State to State but I think not.

Snake Doctor · 02-12-2008, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

People don't get this. FDR, Reagan and BW are but a few handfuls of presidents that could get congress to do most of what they wanted. And just because his own party may control congress don't think Obama will necessarily get his way. Just ask Jimmy Carter.

Actually the reason FDR and Reagan (I can't figure out who BW is) were able to get congress to go along is because they won in landslide elections. They had a clear mandate from the people so congress does what it always does....looked out for their own ass.

If a president wins in a very close election, they don't have as much of a mandate and congress feels free to stand up to them.

That's the argument Barack is making against Hillary. She "may" be able to win a 50% + 1 majority in November and get elected, but she'll never bring in the independents and moderate republicans that he will to win in a landslide and have the mandate and political capital to make sweeping changes in Washington.

BVF · 02-12-2008, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

I do not know when and I am not going to research when...but it is fact. When the government issues unemployment/employment stats it issuing stats on those employed under/over 20 hours per week. Employers that have benefits do not have to pay benefits to those that are employed less than 20 hours per week but do have to pay benefits to those employed more than 20 hours per week because anything over 20 hours per week is considered to be full time employment. There may be some variance on this from State to State but I think not.

You're probably correct, but SOMETHING kicks in once a worker hits 40 hours a week that is significant...If you work more than 40 hours, that is overtime....and I know for a FACT that NUMEROUS employers limit your hours to just under 40 hours a week in order to avoid paying 'full time' benefits....

baddog · 02-12-2008, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

Well it seems lately I post you quote it but you have a point.

I will try to find someone after you that is saying the same thing, and quote them instead. I would hate for you to get a complex about it.

Cherrylula, I meant to quote you.

theking · 02-12-2008, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

Actually it's better for business for it to not go up for a long time and then go up alot than it is to have it go up in small increments.

For instance, that's 20 cents per hour, per year that they don't have to spend for every employee working for them. Then 40 cents an hour the 2nd year, 60 cents the 3rd year.

That adds up to ALOT of money over a 10 year period.

I agree that the minimum wage should be indexed to inflation and then we wouldn't ever have to talk about it again. Unfortunately, Republicans don't want their business constituents to have to pay mandatory wage increases every year....and democrats need the issue to get the working poor to show up and vote for them on election day, so neither party wants to fix it for good.

President Reagan wanted to eliminate the minimum wage...as he felt small businesses would hire more people if they could pay them less.

Snake Doctor · 02-12-2008, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVF

You're probably correct, but SOMETHING kicks in once a worker hits 40 hours a week that is significant...If you work more than 40 hours, that is overtime....and I know for a FACT that NUMEROUS employers limit your hours to just under 40 hours a week in order to avoid paying 'full time' benefits....

Well if we get a national health care system then that won't matter much anymore.

Snake Doctor · 02-12-2008, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

President Reagan wanted to eliminate the minimum wage...as he felt small businesses would hire more people if they could pay them less.

I was referring to congress when I was saying that nobody wanted to fix the issue. Reagan could only get re-elected once, congressmen have to run for re-election every two years....they're the ones who need either the financial support of the local business community, or turnout on election day from the working poor.
Hence, neither of them want to index minimum wage to inflation.

theking · 02-12-2008, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVF

You're probably correct, but SOMETHING kicks in once a worker hits 40 hours a week that is significant...If you work more than 40 hours, that is overtime....and I know for a FACT that NUMEROUS employers limit your hours to just under 40 hours a week in order to avoid paying 'full time' benefits....

Up until the Republican controlled congress...if you were employed over 20 hours per week anything over eight hours per day was overtime pay. The Republican controlled congress changed it to be anything over forty hours per week...which screwed a major portion of the working people out of extra income.

Ayla_SquareTurtle · 02-12-2008, 10:19 PM

every job I ever had before adult purposely limited hours to just under 40 to avoid full time status. Then I got into adult and went on a contract basis and then now independent. So I've never had the benefits of being a full time employee...

BVF · 02-12-2008, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

Up until the Republican controlled congress...if you were employed over 20 hours per week anything over eight hours per day was overtime pay. The Republican controlled congress changed it to be anything over forty hours per week...which screwed a major portion of the working people out of extra income.

Wow, I didn't know that...I guess I was the one who was conveying the fallacy.

Snake Doctor · 02-12-2008, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

Up until the Republican controlled congress...if you were employed over 20 hours per week anything over eight hours per day was overtime pay. The Republican controlled congress changed it to be anything over forty hours per week...which screwed a major portion of the working people out of extra income.

You really need to back this up with data.

I had my first job during the George H.W. Bush administration and the democrats controlled congress....and the law was that overtime was for over 40 hours a week....there was nothing in the labor laws about over 8 hours a day.

Now alot of union contracts call for overtime for anything over 8 hours a day, and some employers may voluntarily offer that to their people. But not since I had my first job in 1990 was that ever federal law.

The republicans didn't take control of congress until 1994.

Kard63 · 02-12-2008, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Fucking American consumers want high wages for everyone then buy Chinese products built by 30 cent a day workers.

yep. We should have never sucked china's little dick.

theking · 02-12-2008, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

You really need to back this up with data.

I had my first job during the George H.W. Bush administration and the democrats controlled congress....and the law was that overtime was for over 40 hours a week....there was nothing in the labor laws about over 8 hours a day.

Now alot of union contracts call for overtime for anything over 8 hours a day, and some employers may voluntarily offer that to their people. But not since I had my first job in 1990 was that ever federal law.

The republicans didn't take control of congress until 1994.

Law is law but not everyone abides by the law and this includes employers. I for example once belonged to the Laborers union and worked for a contractor that decided he would work the crew for 12 hours per day without the four hours overtime pay. I for one went along with his program but kept track of the hours that I worked and when I quit the job I turned it over to the union as well as labor and they saw that I was paid for all of my overtime hours and fined the contractor. I have also known of employers that do not even pay the Federal minimum wage let alone the State minimum wage which is...in many states...higher...but for the wise person there are remedies to this problem.

L-Pink · 02-12-2008, 10:33 PM

Actually the employer sets his own definition of full/part time, this classification only comes into play when determining who is eligible for certain company benefits. The only things the Feds are involved in is minimum wage and if time and a half applies.

theking · 02-12-2008, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

You really need to back this up with data.

I had my first job during the George H.W. Bush administration and the democrats controlled congress....and the law was that overtime was for over 40 hours a week....there was nothing in the labor laws about over 8 hours a day.

Now alot of union contracts call for overtime for anything over 8 hours a day, and some employers may voluntarily offer that to their people. But not since I had my first job in 1990 was that ever federal law.

The republicans didn't take control of congress until 1994.

As I previously stated there may be some variance from State to State.

theking · 02-12-2008, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Actually the employer sets his own definition of full/part time, this classification only comes into play when determining who is eligible for certain company benefits. The only things the Feds are involved in is minimum wage and if time and a half applies.

You are at the least...partially correct...as different States also have...State labor laws/regs that determine what an employer may or may not define.

L-Pink · 02-12-2008, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

I do not know when and I am not going to research when...but it is fact. When the government issues unemployment/employment stats it issuing stats on those employed under/over 20 hours per week. Employers that have benefits do not have to pay benefits to those that are employed less than 20 hours per week but do have to pay benefits to those employed more than 20 hours per week because anything over 20 hours per week is considered to be full time employment. There may be some variance on this from State to State but I think not.

Wrong, the classification of full/part is up to the business owner. The government uses 20 hours as their own benchmark for compiling stats.

baddog · 02-12-2008, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

congressmen have to run for re-election every two years....

ummm . . . where is that?

theking · 02-12-2008, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Wrong, the classification of full/part is up to the business owner. The government uses 20 hours as their own benchmark for compiling stats.

As I stated already...you are partially correct...but State labor laws also dictate what an employer can classify/define...not just federal law.

DonX · 02-12-2008, 10:45 PM

theking · 02-12-2008, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

ummm . . . where is that?

Every state in the union...congressmen...who are members of the house...have to be reelected every two years.

Dagwolf · 02-12-2008, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Bullshit and you know it. going by you logic minimum wage should be $2 an hour . Oh wait if you did that no one would work for McDonald's and they go out of business. yes let's keep wages low so those people can get MORE welfare and MORE food stamps and BIGGER earned income credit checks and contribute LESS to social security which is already heading for a shortfall very soon. REAL fucking smart.

Cause and effect you know.

No one should ever work at McDonalds except at the executive level. It's a demeaning, dehumanizing experience.
Uh.. so they tell me. I wouldn't know personally.

6foot4 · 02-12-2008, 10:49 PM

it is I believe $8.00 here in Ontario Canada. They were saying something about bringing it up to $10.00 as well very soon.

Well I think that is great and dandy..but the problem is.. wages go up.. then so do prices on EVEYRTHING.

This is why some things are cheaper in the US. Since wages are less.

Here are Canada's wages to date.
http://canadaonline.about.com/library/bl/blminwage.htm

Violetta · 02-13-2008, 02:08 AM

woot? Minimum wage her in norway is 15$ I think... But only 18 year old kids make that...

angeleyes · 02-13-2008, 02:53 AM

I'm torn on this topic, but what I think sucks is (for example--yep, I have a friend that works at walmart)... He started out at 6/hour and gets 10 cent raises here and there, been there for four years almost and these new kids coming in are hired in way above him. I personally think companies should adjust and reward loyal employees before bringing in fresh/clueless meat and paying them way more than the ones that have been there all along.

9.50 seems fair for minimum wage. Someone made a point, if you keep MW too low, then we all pay for the welfare, food visa cards (new food stamps) etc. I personally think anyone on welfare for more than 3 months that claims they can't find a job because of this or that, boo-fucking-hoo...... the government should give them jobs picking up trash at parks or whatever, but make them work for their welfare check, period! Might make them think twice about picking up dog shit in Central park and getting a job slinging hotdogs....... at least it would be an honest living.

Snake Doctor · 02-13-2008, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

Law is law but not everyone abides by the law and this includes employers. I for example once belonged to the Laborers union and worked for a contractor that decided he would work the crew for 12 hours per day without the four hours overtime pay. I for one went along with his program but kept track of the hours that I worked and when I quit the job I turned it over to the union as well as labor and they saw that I was paid for all of my overtime hours and fined the contractor. I have also known of employers that do not even pay the Federal minimum wage let alone the State minimum wage which is...in many states...higher...but for the wise person there are remedies to this problem.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you made a long ass post before where you just made shit up.

You said that overtime law was for anything over 8 hours a day until the republican congress changed it. That is patently false.

If you're going to make shit like that up why should we believe anything else you say?

Snake Doctor · 02-13-2008, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

ummm . . . where is that?

ummmmmm....in the United States of America.

L-Pink · 02-13-2008, 10:41 AM

Time and a half over eight hours a day has to be something from that particular unions labor agreement. It is NOT from the Federal Gov.

theking · 02-13-2008, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you made a long ass post before where you just made shit up.

You said that overtime law was for anything over 8 hours a day until the republican congress changed it. That is patently false.

If you're going to make shit like that up why should we believe anything else you say?

Fact...the Republican Congress did change it and not that long ago. I did not make anything up and there is nothing patently false in anything that I said. There was a major outcry about the change in the law specifically from Nurses. So check your facts before you speak.

theking · 02-13-2008, 11:08 AM

It may have been the Fair Play act passed in 2004 (but as I stated I am not going to research the matter so I am not certain about the specific act or when it was passed) that according to the Republicans was designed to provide overtime pay for more than forty hours per week of work that previously employers were not required to pay to certain employees...but in essence what it really did was give an out for employers not to have to pay overtime for working more than eight hours per day. Some employers took advantage of this...some did not...but overall it hurt the working man.

Enemator · 02-13-2008, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NosMo

Great so then the dollar menu will be the five dollar menu. Cause and effect.

NosMo

Good! That way you get less fat fucks weighing down the health care system. They can work longer, pay more taxes and spend more money instead of being a burden with clogged arteries and shit like that.

Less fat fucks = good.

The only people complaing about this are fat fucks and people that sell fat fucks because their production costs rise

xmas13 · 02-13-2008, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Fucking American consumers want high wages for everyone then buy Chinese products built by 30 cent a day workers.

pr0 · 02-13-2008, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cherrylula

better for workers, NOT businesses.

If people are dumb enough to make a living based on minimum wage, I have zero problem with it. You can't blame a business owner when there are tons of willing to take the jobs they offer.

When I go to a fast food drive through, there better be someone to take my money. When I want to buy something at the mall, there better be sales people to help me, or I will go somewhere else with my cash.

But this $5 crap is really fucking low. They need to raise it so people can at least buy more porn.

Raising the minimum wage makes me money.

wouldn't you rather some clean cut "passing grade" high school students handed you your food....instead of some fucking hood rats?

well i sure prefer it that way.....

$10 minimum wage would push the crack heads out & put decent middle class children in the jobs

scottybuzz · 02-13-2008, 12:01 PM

they said it was bad news when there was a hike in the minimum wage in england, yet everything played out well and I think everyone benifited well.

woj · 02-13-2008, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DareRing

Minimum wage should be tied median home prices

No they shouldn't, what are you smoking? Your pay should be based on demand for your skills... minimum wage is really no different than welfare, except employers pay the tab, instead of the government...

xmas13 · 02-13-2008, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

Your pay should be based on demand for your skills... minimum wage is really no different than welfare, except employers pay the tab, instead of the government...

Drake · 02-13-2008, 12:20 PM

That'll suck for small businesses who have to increase wages for employees even if they can't afford to do so.

woj · 02-13-2008, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xmas13

...

How about explaining what's wrong with my logic instead of posting some lame pic? Someone's skills are for example worth $5/hr, can you explain why the employer should be forced to pay $9.50/hr for work that is worth $5/hr?

02-12-2008, 10:19 PM	#71
Ayla_SquareTurtle Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: 5000 full paysite reviews and counting Posts: 3,550	every job I ever had before adult purposely limited hours to just under 40 to avoid full time status. Then I got into adult and went on a contract basis and then now independent. So I've never had the benefits of being a full time employee... __________________ gone. long gone. aylasquareturtle .."a"t".. gmail dawt com

02-12-2008, 10:45 PM	#82
DonX Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: San Jose, California Posts: 1,917	__________________ Monkey Spanking Cash 50/50 Rev Share Program DonX: 300599159 Galleries Click Here

02-12-2008, 10:49 PM	#85
6foot4 Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 109	it is I believe $8.00 here in Ontario Canada. They were saying something about bringing it up to $10.00 as well very soon. Well I think that is great and dandy..but the problem is.. wages go up.. then so do prices on EVEYRTHING. This is why some things are cheaper in the US. Since wages are less. Here are Canada's wages to date. http://canadaonline.about.com/library/bl/blminwage.htm __________________ Adult Design Group - Providing Affiliate Programs & Paysite Owners with the materials they need since 1998. Services include: Website design, Print Design, Website Updates & much more. ICQ: 55814808 \| phone: 1.705.734.0416 \| Email: [email protected]

02-13-2008, 02:08 AM	#86
Violetta Affiliate Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 28,735	woot? Minimum wage her in norway is 15$ I think... But only 18 year old kids make that... __________________ M&A Queen

02-13-2008, 02:53 AM	#87
angeleyes Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Wandering around FL using random Wireless Connections Posts: 3,584	I'm torn on this topic, but what I think sucks is (for example--yep, I have a friend that works at walmart)... He started out at 6/hour and gets 10 cent raises here and there, been there for four years almost and these new kids coming in are hired in way above him. I personally think companies should adjust and reward loyal employees before bringing in fresh/clueless meat and paying them way more than the ones that have been there all along. 9.50 seems fair for minimum wage. Someone made a point, if you keep MW too low, then we all pay for the welfare, food visa cards (new food stamps) etc. I personally think anyone on welfare for more than 3 months that claims they can't find a job because of this or that, boo-fucking-hoo...... the government should give them jobs picking up trash at parks or whatever, but make them work for their welfare check, period! Might make them think twice about picking up dog shit in Central park and getting a job slinging hotdogs....... at least it would be an honest living. __________________ Need a Writer? Contact Me. I write quality descriptions, short erotic stories, quality one-liners.. whatever you need.

02-12-2008, 10:03 PM	#61
baddog So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: the beach, SoCal Posts: 107,089	I am doing a little looking around and it appears that the employer can make 20 hours a week full time if they want to.

02-12-2008, 10:33 PM	#76
L-Pink working on my tan Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Florida/Kentucky Posts: 39,151	Actually the employer sets his own definition of full/part time, this classification only comes into play when determining who is eligible for certain company benefits. The only things the Feds are involved in is minimum wage and if time and a half applies.

02-13-2008, 10:41 AM	#90
L-Pink working on my tan Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Florida/Kentucky Posts: 39,151	Time and a half over eight hours a day has to be something from that particular unions labor agreement. It is NOT from the Federal Gov.

02-13-2008, 11:08 AM	#92
theking Nice Kitty Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: The good old USA!!! Posts: 21,053	It may have been the Fair Play act passed in 2004 (but as I stated I am not going to research the matter so I am not certain about the specific act or when it was passed) that according to the Republicans was designed to provide overtime pay for more than forty hours per week of work that previously employers were not required to pay to certain employees...but in essence what it really did was give an out for employers not to have to pay overtime for working more than eight hours per day. Some employers took advantage of this...some did not...but overall it hurt the working man. __________________ When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me! FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

02-13-2008, 12:01 PM	#96
scottybuzz Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2006 Location: NY Posts: 14,800	they said it was bad news when there was a hike in the minimum wage in england, yet everything played out well and I think everyone benifited well. __________________ $$$$$ MAKE HUGE MONEY IN CAMS - CLICK HERE $$$$$

02-13-2008, 12:20 PM	#99
Drake Hello world! Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 12,508	That'll suck for small businesses who have to increase wages for employees even if they can't afford to do so.