• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Target employees upset about working on Thanksgiving…

whysoserious said:
I personally believe two jobs that pay $12 an hour are more beneficial to society than 6 that pay $6.50 an hour.
Click to expand...

tell that to the 4 unemployed people and the taxpayers who are supporting them



Well, when that guy comes around, PM me so that for once we can actually argue on the same side! :)
Click to expand...


you can count on it ;)
 
whysoserious said:
They may or may not need to make up all of that 5%. However, assuming they do, perhaps they put 10% of the rise into cost, and 90% into labor cuts. I personally believe two jobs that pay $12 an hour are more beneficial to society than 6 that pay $6.50 an hour.
Click to expand...

LOL, O.K. but we are going to need to tax the hell out of that $12 an hour to support the other 4 out of work.
 
OscarB63 said:
tell that to the 4 unemployed people and the taxpayers who are supporting them
Click to expand...

But those jobs are a "dime a dozen". Shouldn't they be able to turn around and find work anywhere else? I mean, remember, these people are useless and replaceable at any point, right?

1Perry said:
LOL, O.K. but we are going to need to tax the hell out of that $12 an hour to support the other 4 out of work.
Click to expand...

They'll be in a higher tax bracket so you won't need to. Not to mention, at $6.50 they probably weren't really paying much in taxes - if any federal and state tax at all. Also, see above, why can't these useless individuals find work somewhere else?
 
Last edited:
1Perry said:
Closing the barn door after the horse has escaped doesn't work.
Click to expand...

You're blaming the unions for the bankruptcy. That's entirely unfair. They did plenty to help, but they are not 100% responsible. Plenty of non-union businesses have gone bankrupt lately.
 
OscarB63 said:
tell that to the 4 unemployed people
Click to expand...

Bet they wish other workers had more to spend so the economy would recover and they could get jobs too.
 
whysoserious said:
But those jobs are a "dime a dozen". Shouldn't they be able to turn around and find work anywhere else? I mean, remember, these people are useless and replaceable at any point, right?
Click to expand...

Seems to me that you support doing away with these other lower wage jobs that they would have to turn to. Only those who have to work Friday mornings should get this wage increase?
 
misterman said:
You're blaming the unions for the bankruptcy. That's entirely unfair. They did plenty to help, but they are not 100% responsible. Plenty of non-union businesses have gone bankrupt lately.
Click to expand...

Rarely is any one thing the cause of a bankruptcy. It would be unfair to blame just the unions and I would never do that.
 
misterman said:
Bet they wish other workers had more to spend so the economy would recover and they could get jobs too.
Click to expand...

nah, more likely they are pissed that they got fired/laid-off so that 2 of their former coworkers could nearly double their salary. people that work for minimum wage typically aren't deep enough thinkers to worry about how the economy works. all they know is that they don't have a job because someone else is making more money
 
1Perry said:
Seems to me that you support doing away with these other lower wage jobs that they would have to turn to. Only those who have to work Friday mornings should get this wage increase?
Click to expand...

To be honest, I am not sure what I propose. I know there is something inherently wrong with a system that can allow for individuals to live in squalor while working for the same business that allows another to live in excess. The best thing I can think of, so far, is some sort of ratio'd limit to salary. Sure, you can make $30 million a year, but you can earn up to, let's say, 50 times your lowest paid employee. That way, if you want a raise, guess who else gets a raise? That way, personal income is never limited, but it cannot be earned off of the backs of others.

I know I'll get hammered for that opinion, but eh, that's just my opinion. Every job in a company is important, or else that job wouldn't exist.
 
1Perry said:
Rarely is any one thing the cause of a bankruptcy. It would be unfair to blame just the unions and I would never do that.
Click to expand...

Then don't.

You have a way of making sweeping statements and then qualifying them after I challenge you. We're a good team.
 
OscarB63 said:
nah, more likely they are pissed that they got fired/laid-off so that 2 of their former coworkers could nearly double their salary. people that work for minimum wage typically aren't deep enough thinkers to worry about how the economy works. all they know is that they don't have a job because someone else is making more money
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but that's not relevant to whether it's actually true, right?
 
misterman said:
Perhaps, but that's not relevant to whether it's actually true, right?
Click to expand...

and neither was your comment. do you actually have an on topic point or are you content to simply disagree with everything I post? (aka trolling) ;)
 
whysoserious said:
To be honest, I am not sure what I propose. I know there is something inherently wrong with a system that can allow for individuals to live in squalor while working for the same business that allows another to live in excess. The best thing I can think of, so far, is some sort of ratio'd limit to salary. Sure, you can make $30 million a year, but you can earn up to, let's say, 50 times your lowest paid employee. That way, if you want a raise, guess who else gets a raise? That way, personal income is never limited, but it cannot be earned off of the backs of others.

I know I'll get hammered for that opinion, but eh, that's just my opinion. Every job in a company is important, or else that job wouldn't exist.
Click to expand...

Today is a great day to prove my point of where the problem lies.

Bernanke comes out today saying that the Fed is going to make money even cheaper.

Fed, Five Central Banks Cut Dollar Swap Rate - Bloomberg

Who is benefiting today? The markets.

INDU Quote - Dow Jones Industrial Average Index - Bloomberg

Did the workers at Target get a raise because they are going to need it.

Oil above $101 on central banks's liquidity plan - Yahoo! News

Fundementally are things getting better? That is, the markets are rising but is it because of the things that will creat employment? No.

News Headlines

Read this headline. The things that would actually create real growth has been revised downward with wages following. Shouldn't the markets react negatively to this? No, they are rejoicing because Bernanke is going to continue creating inflation.

There is your problem.
 
Last edited:
OscarB63 said:
so you admit you brought it up. thanks for playing ;)
Click to expand...

No, that I replied to you. Thanks for being clueless again.

Let's one of us be the mature one and just drop it now.
 
misterman said:
Then don't.

You have a way of making sweeping statements and then qualifying them after I challenge you. We're a good team.
Click to expand...

Like when you stated that increasing wages was completely dismissable to prices rising?
 
misterman said:
You also weren't an Economics major, were you? :lol:
Click to expand...

No, I was a business owner that had to actually figure out how to pay my employees, pay taxes, while at the same time keep prices low enough to attract business.

But I guess in your mind a person sitting in a classroom chair knows more than a person that actually does it for 30 years.
 
Gill said:
No, I was a business owner that had to actually figure out how to pay my employees, pay taxes, while at the same time keep prices low enough to attract business.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that every time you had an increase in labor costs, you always raised prices?
 
misterman said:
So you're saying that every time you had an increase in labor costs, you always raised prices?
Click to expand...

Of course. Not immediately, but rates increased annually each year to keep pace with salaries. All professional firms do the same.

Are you that clueless??
 
Gill said:
Of course. Not immediately, but rates increased annually each year to keep pace with salaries. All professional firms do the same.

Are you that clueless??
Click to expand...

So you never ever adjusted any other costs down, whether or not your labor costs went up? All increases in costs always led to price increases?

And did you lose business due to the price increases?

And why did you raise salaries in the first place?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom