I had a boss years ago who claimed he couldn't afford to give the three guys in my department raises, but he took half a dozen ski trips each year. Had he taken five trips instead of six, our raises would have been covered. I turned him in to OSHA, and it cost him $5000 by the time all was said and done. Pay up now, or pay up later. 

Many business owners drive new SUVs yet claim they cannot afford to pay $7.50 an hour. There's a word for this. It called lying.

OSHA fined him 5 grand because he didn't give you guys raises? 

I think there's a word for it when you're forced to give your profits to others so they can have what you have no matter how hard you worked to get where you are.

I'm all for a fair minimum wage (and 8 bucks an hour is fair) but if I've worked all my life to earn the money for ski trips why am I expected to provide those same perks to an entry level worker?  Good pay should be earned..not handed over.

(gulp..that's a conservatives view huh?)

No, OSHA fined him $2500 and it cost another $2500 to install approved exhaust fans, etc. This was in 1982. I turned him in for exposed wiring, and OSHA found several other violations that we didn't even know were there! He never did find out who turned him in.

People who have competent employees should pay them what they're worth, not what they can get away with paying them. A good employee is not lucky to have a job, his or her employer is lucky to have them. No one said that an entry level worker should get ski trips, but he shouldn't have to apply for food stamps while the boss is looking at Cartier watches (but claims that a 75c per hour raise will break him!)

The old concept that a business should provide a realistic livelihood to EVERYONE has gone by the wayside.  What happened to the idea that you could make a decent living in America by working hard.  And, before I get lambasted by the conservative bloggers,  I admit that higher education plays a large part in obtaining higher incomes.  However, education should not be the only criteria for obtaining higher wages.  What about experience and vocational skills?  Shouldn't those have substancial value? 

Thanks to corporate greed, favorable tax laws, and job outsourcing the chasm between the rich and middle classes is growing exponentially.    Americans work more hours every week than any other nation (with the possible exception of Japan).  However our ability to stay ahead is getting harder. 

Our value system in this country is screwed up.  People should have more value than profits do.

Audrey wrote, 'The old concept that a business should provide a realistic livelihood to EVERYONE has gone by the wayside.  What happened to the idea that you could make a decent living in America by working hard. "

The paradigm is changing, isn't it.  The conservatism that I identified with was closely tied to the work ethic.  But what is being touted under the name of conservatism these days is strongly averse to the work ethic.

*  The traditional work ethic suggests that the way to make a living is to go and get a job.  But nowadays, many neo-"conservatives" argue -- with all their collective might -- that there is no moral obligation whatsoever to pay workers a living-making wage.  This actually defeats the old ethic of employment as a means to making a living.

*  The traditional work ethic rewards hard work and discourages sloth and laziness.  But nowdays, neo-con policies structure the laws, including but not limited to tax laws, to reward sloth by taxing it lightly (e.g. cutting/eliminating capital gains and dividend taxes) -- while continuing to tax worked-for wages at the typical higher rates.

The neo-con policy agenda is consistently slanted against the work ethic and in favor of manipulative, exploitative, and/or lazy ways of making money rather than working hard for it.

Being mostly Libertarian, I would strongly prefer not to see a government-mandated solution to this.  Simplistic legislative solutions have a way of wrongfully hurting people.

But the arguments against higher wages need to be refuted.  Higher wages will not send consumer costs blasting through the roof.  What will, in the long run, work better than a government mandate, is a return to the old model in which workers, businesses, and management each see themselves as mutually duty-bound to one another and to society.

God, you are so right Hardliner!  Thanks for the informative post.

Lunch for my 13 year old daughter and I, was $46.00 dollars, plus tip, at Mexicali last week.. The last minimum wage increase was what, 4 years ago..

Don’t think you can blame the $46.00 dollar plate of beans and rice, on the minimum wage.

Raising the minimum wage has only improved economic conditions for the nation.

In fact it is proof the Reaganistas trickle down economics is bogus.

Economic expansion has always followed a minimum wage increase.

Increasing the minimum wage will increase FICA contribution improving the health of the S.S. system.

It will increase contributions to the Medicare system.

It will increase spending in the local market place. Because the minimum wage earner lives and plays in his locale cities. Not the Caribbean.

It will increase both state and Federal revenues..

How could a helping hand up out of poverty. Be bad for our nation?

WOW..remind me not to go to Mexacali for lunch.  I've never heard of a Mexican meal for two costing 46 bucks.  What on earth did you have?

Do you know what the poverty level is right now?

Approximately 13% of Americans live in poverty; 46% of blacks and 40% of Latinos in the U.S. live in poverty. Most of this can be attributed to a lack of education and out-of-wedlock births.

Here are selections from the latest data online for the Census Bureau's poverty thresholds for 2000:

• One person, under 65 years -- $8,959
• One person, 65 years and over -- $8,259
• Two people, householder under 65 years, including one child under 18 years -- $11,869
• Four people, including two children under 18 years -- $17,463

The Department of Health and Human Services doesn't make distinctions based on age, but it does separate Alaska and Hawaii because the cost of living in those two states is "traditionally believed to be significantly higher than in other states."

Here are some highlights of the Department of Health and Human Services' poverty guidelines for 2001:

• One person in the 48 contiguous U.S. states and Washington, D.C. -- $8,590
• One person in Alaska -- $9,890
• One person in Hawaii -- $10,730
• Two people in the 48 contiguous U.S. states and Washington, D.C. -- $11,610
• Four people in the 48 contiguous U.S. states and Washington, D.C. -- $17,650

As you can see, the numbers from the Census Bureau and the Department of Health and Human Services are pretty close. Basically, if an individual makes less than $9,000 per year and a family of four makes less than $18,000 per year, they're earning below the poverty income level in the United States.

And that just shows how extremely low the official poverty line is.  A person could be earning twice that amount -- and still barely make ends meet even if living in the cheapest one-room apartment in town, and eating little more than beans and Ramen noodles.

The poverty line is completely useless.

My home is a entry level home. Worth $300.000.00 dollars.

Two married entry level police officers, fireman, or nurses. Could not qualify to buy my home.

A single mature person. One who has spent a good deal of time in any of those fields. Could not purchase my home..

May 11, 2006 1:53 am US/Pacific

Housing Costs Raise California's Poverty Rate

(AP) FRESNO, Calif. A survey shows California has one of the highest poverty rates in the nation after the cost of living is taken into account.

The official measure, which looks at income and the number of people in a family, says the state has the 15th highest poverty rate in the country, with more than 13 percent of its residents below the federal threshold.

But when housing costs are included, California shoots to third highest, with 16 percent of its residents in poverty, behind only Washington D.C. and New York.

In San Francisco, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates rent for a two-bedroom apartment is about $1,775 a month, or more than $21,000 a year -- more than $2,000 a year higher than the poverty line for a family of four.

When rent takes one of your two checks per month and you have a car payment with incurance, the poverty line is closer than one thinks.  Raising minimum wage isn't going to help that much.  To think employers can pay an actual living wage is ludicrous.  At 15 bucks an hour, you'd be hard pressed to make it alone with rent having gone up the way it has.  And you can forget about buying a home..even one costing a lot less than 300K.

Is that where we're headed?  Keep raising the minimum raise until everyone makes the same?  (I know that's extreme)  People with years of experience in retail won't be making more than 12-15 bucks most likely and raising the min wage to bring entry level workers in is going to cause a lot of unhappy older employees.

Well, that's why I'm hesitant to resort to ham-handed government solutions if they are avoidable.  I'd prefer to see the concept of employment as a realistic means of economic self-sufficiency restored -- with low-wage jobs serving as the stepping stones for younguns starting out.

I think it's unrealistic to insist that a kid fresh out of high school be paid a wage capable of buying my house -- but the ideal, the goal of an average adult paycheck being enough to sustain one adult is something we should voluntarily strive for.

That's why I get my knickers in a knot when some neo-conservatives try to excuse employers from any moral responsibility at all, viewing an adult's wages as a pure market force rather than a moral calling to the community as well.

Employers shouldn't be forced to pay adults a self-sufficient wage -- but it should be seen as at least an ideal -- the right thing to do, if at all possible.

Employers can't afford to pay a living wage.  That's the point some of us have been trying to make.  Just what constitutes a living wage to you?  Not all employers are big business and the smaller ones just cannot bear the weight of supporting society.

If one goes to work for say, McDonalds for just above min wage to get thru college that's one thing and I'm not going to feel obligated to pad his paycehck.  If that same person goes to work for McDonalds and works up to shift leader then asst. manager and on up the ladder..then he should be making a wage according to his position.  That's supposed to be the American way.  Remember..a hand UP not a hand OUT.  The thing our country has been proud of is that everyone has a chance to make a better life for him or her self.  Working hard, getting education, earning your way is the right thing to do. 

Continuing to raise the min wage is telling people who work hard and want to continue on the job that some piker can come on board, work two weeks, quit, and make the same money as the one who stays.  No..they should all make the same and get raises in increments based on performance and attendance.  That's what entry level is all about.  You get paid for your experience as you go. 

Call me a neo conservative or anything you want but but the sad thing to me is that while you're wanting rights for employees you're taking the business owners rights away.  You tell me how that's the right thing to do.

Huh?

I was talking about voluntary goals, and ideals, not compulsions.  Please don't turn my words completely upside-down.

Gee whiz.

Read the key sentences again:

"prefer to see the concept of employment as a realistic means of economic self-sufficiency restored -- with low-wage jobs serving as the stepping stones for younguns starting out."

"I think it's unrealistic to insist that a kid fresh out of high school be paid a wage capable of buying my house -- but the ideal, the goal of an average adult paycheck being enough to sustain one adult is something we should voluntarily strive for."

"Employers shouldn't be forced to pay adults a self-sufficient wage -- but it should be seen as at least an ideal -- the right thing to do, if at all possible."

Gee whiz, how did we get to such a point where a guy can't even mention an idea without people going off half-cocked???

Sorry H...that post wasn't directed at you particularily..I was voicing my opinion and I should have said so.   It was a statement made in general and just the way I feel.

(edited) I have a bad habit of just starting to talk and expecting people to know what or who I'm talking about.  When I put "you" in a post, most of the time it's like the royal "we".  Not a personal rebuttal.

Let the law of supply and demand work as it should. Restrict the flow of ILLEGAL immigrants. Fine and imprison employers that hire illegal’s.

The law of supply and demand is simple.. But it will not survive in the presence of criminality.

If land can not produce a profit. Then it is not worth what you paid for it. Devalue the land. Not the dignity of a man..

You can’t justify illegal immigration. For any reason.

Capitalism can not survive in the presence of criminality..

True capitalist will understand my next statement. Those who oppose it. Do so for selfish and greedy reasons. Not because of capitalism..

Capitalism can not survive without some form of redistribution of wealth. That is one of the basic tenants of Adam Smith Capitalism.

With out some form of redistribution of wealth.

All wealth will tend to pool. Until all wealth. Is possessed by one individual..

A Fiefdom.. One in which, ‘Serfing’, is drudgery and destitution. Not a hobby..

tkozy..you lost me...(not hard to do at times I'll admit) but you post seems to contradict itself here and there. 

Commerce should help the redistribution of wealth but to say it's right for me as a business owner to supply people with a living wage is almost like a dictatorship.  I thought free enterprise was the law of the land but obviously I'm mistaken.  If I choose to keep my proftts for myself and not "share" them, that should be my right.   I don't resent paying taxes, I know they go for roads, schools, and the greater good (even lining the pockets of politicians) but I do resent the government and the public dictating to me how much I pay workers.  If they can make more money elsewhere and leave my place then fine..I got what I deserved and will have to consider raising the pay to get GOOD workers.  But it should be MY right to make that choice.

Your first line bears out what I mean.  Law of supply and demand.

Gotta go for now guys..my great grandson Aidan just got into town and I'm on my way to see him for the first time.

Nothing in my post about commerce supplying redistribution of wealth. A good example of Redistribution is the progressive income tax. The problem with our current system of progressive tax. Is that there is no sanction on excessive or unearned profit..

A greater tax on extreme profit. Will produce investment. It will allow for small business to take away, from corporate business.

Banning monopolies is a form of redistribution of wealth.

Redistribution of wealth does not mean handouts. Think of it as protecting an endangered species. The family. The family business.

Your thinking is not much different from mine. Except you insist on arguing a system, that does not include the criminality associated with our current illegal work force..

Eliminate the illegality. Put the basic law of supply and demand to work. And a living wage will be set.

This will be achieved both by the increase in wages due to a stabilization of the work force and the devaluation of land or product that can not earn it’s keep..

Wages going up. Do not necessarily mean the cost of products will go up.

In the mid to late 60’s I earned in excess of $700.00/ week. Trucking watermelons and swapping grapes during the summer.. You can’t make more than about $350.00/week today.

Wages have been cut in half. But the price of the product has risen 100’s of percent….

No Wonder the farmers can’t keep workers. The work is hard. The pay is lousy. And there are plenty of criminal building contractors that will hire them..

The days of the migrant worker are long gone. The illegal is heading straight to the meat packing shop or the building trades..

On some farms that I know of the only migrant worker you might find, is working for an independent labor contractor that is running a crew doing a specific task ie: picking,planting. Most labor contractors I have heard of are of Hispanic heritage. Some labor inequities with illegals are 'brown on brown' crime.

Anony

I would suggest that it is more than some. The farm contractor is a shame. But it is not a new scheme. Read the Grapes of wrath..

Or check into the building industry just prior to WW2. A common scheme during that period. Was to charge 10 dollars to provide an individual a job. Work that individual for 40 hours at 25 cents an hour. Then lay that individual off and hire another for a fee of 10 dollars..

Now consider the Coyote fee for smuggling in an immigrant. With promises of a job.

Things don’t change..

In some way I feel pity for these people. But I can’t forget that t they are trying to take a short cut. Trying to get something without putting in the time.

I can’t forget that they are taking away some child’s father’s job.

There is nothing magical about our dirt here in America.

If you work hard. You can fulfill your dreams in Mexico..

There is a Mexican dream.

If we are going to live in a Nation without borders.

Whose Flag are we to salute?  

Who’s anthem are we to sing?

The country of Mexico should be growing their own middle class rather than importing it to the USA.

I believe that this is an issue that the respective Presidents should address.

There has been one proven method, that over time has never failed to raise people out of poverty.  It's called hard work and determination.  You can't get it at the local welfare department.  Most of the time you inherit it from your parents.  It can be passed down from one generation to the next, but in some families, it is looked upon as shameful, so they stop passing it on.  Instead, they give their kids everything they want.  Eventually, whole families forget how to work and are intorduced back into poverty.  Those who roll up their sleeves, seldom loose their shirts.

Anon 2

Tkozy wrote..."Your thinking is not much different from mine. Except you insist on arguing a system, that does not include the criminality associated with our current illegal work force.."

What system? And what does my post have to do with illegal aliens?  I guess that's what you're referring to.

The comment about distribution of wealth thruough commerce was mine..I didn't say you said it.  And from from I can gather I think we do believe in the same thing...I just have a hard time figuring out just what it is that you're saying.

NancyII on Dec 29, 2006 at 10:50 AM wrote:

>>>gulp..that's a conservatives view huh?)

--->Not just conservatives feel that way Nancy.  I share that view and I'm one of those crazy liberals!  ;)

Anon 1, Anon 2 , Nancy

Anon 1 says:

The "Grapes of Wrath" was a scheme by red authors like Steinbeck to capitalize on the popular socialist theme growing in this country during the thirties. Read your own Kern County history.

TK says:

I know Kern County history. There is no sense discussing a topic with someone who insists on rewriting history. Your post is nonsense.

Anon 2 says:

It's called hard work and determination.

TK says:

Yes, hard work does prove results. But your broad brush statements, are absolutely bigoted.

There are many reasons for poverty. And they are not limited to race , nationality or heritage.

Thank GOD your family has been Blessed with good health.

Nancy says:

What system?

TK says:

A system that offers appeasement to the businessmen who put on a air of suffering. A system that has kowtowed to those who have flagrantly abused capitalism to avoid punishment for their criminality..

Did you know that the book ‘Grapes of Wrath’, was Banned from our schools and libraries for decades?

Did you know that outside of Bakersfield this winter. The farming towns will have unemployment approaching 40%? And that these unemployed. Are not the lazy that anony 1 and 2 speak of. They are the illegals. The so called hard working illegals that the farmers say are the only ones that will do the work,that so called lazy Americans will not.

Do you know, that a local building contractor. Fired over 20 of his employees last spring for marching in the illegal alien march.

Not for being illegals which he admittedly knew. But for taking the day off..

This contractor made headlines a number of days. And has not been sanctioned for his admitted crimes as far as I know.

It does not matter that you only hire legals. If you knowingly allow others to hire illegals. You harm your own profit. Don’t accuse your employees..

If you knowingly allow others to hire illegals. You take food out of my grand children’s mouths.

A system that will call a man lazy, if he refuses to pay 10 dollars a week. For a 40 hour/week 25 cent/hour job.

I always thought working in the fields WAS hard work.

It's surely human nature for those that 'have' to want to keep what they have, and not be forced to 'distribute' it amongst their fellow humans. It doesn't matter what color the people are in that regard. That is why a minimum wage is mandatory. Yes, the country is based on capitalism, but one shouldn't cry socialist just because the government tries to keep the playing field fair. Otherwise, you should also cry socialism over everything from our public school system, to medicare, to traffic lights. Two working parents making minimum wage bring home about $450 a week. As Nancy stated, that means half of their income goes just to have a roof over their heads. Periodically, there has to be adjustments to the minimum wage. Poverty creates crime, and although there are surely people 'using' the system to bilk taxpayers and don't want to work, for every one of them, there are a dozen people trying to make ends meet for their families.

tkozy,

I have seen people who through working in the fields, raise themselves up out of poverty and become land owners themselves.  The trouble is, many can't see the big picture.  They try to fill themselves with small desires, forgetting that these things are the trappings of poverty. 

My parents were poor, tkozy.  My Pop milked cows for ten dollars a day...............split shift!  My mom had uterine cancer at 22 and I provided him with more medical bills than I care to admit.  Yet, we did without things like a telephone if we couldn't afford it.  We didn't have color TV.  My Pop never had a new car.  He did his own repairs when it broke down.  Fixed the things that broke around the house.  Did without things himself so his girls could have a little more.  I remember him digging a pair of old beat up boots out of the trash over and over, because they were good enough for doing chores.  Mom hated the fact that he wore those ugly holey things, but he wouldn't spend the money for new ones.  When I got married at 18, my parents were still paying for surgery I had at 14.  No medi-cal, no welfare, no AFDC, it was all the hard work and determination Anon 2 talks about. 

My Pop lost his heel when he was a little boy.  It was re-attached, but bad enough to keep him out of the military.  He tried every branch, but they turned him down.  I don't know if you have any idea what a cold wet concrete floor can do to an injury like that, but my Pop was in pain a great deal of the time.  Yet he was able to work split shifts non stop for more than two years.  No vacations, no days off, nuttin honey. 

Pop died three years ago, just before Christmas.  His legacy, a family who isn't afraid of work.  A family who loves and respects him.  A family whose not afraid to roll up their sleeves.

DG says,

Pop died three years ago, just before Christmas. His legacy, a family who isn't afraid of work. A family who loves and respects him. A family whose not afraid to roll up their sleeves.

Tk says:

But did you know that only 25% of Barkerfieldians, could qualify to buy a average house today?

No disrespect, DG.. But in the world that surrounds us. You are average. In previous posts. It was stated that only 16% of Californians live below the poverty line.

Do you understand that includes the Autistic. And those family members who may have to provide for them?

Do you understand that if your father had outlived his family. And suffered from Alzheimer's Disease. It would include him while committed to a convalescence facility..

Intelligence and average physical ability. Does not guarantee a high work ethic or high standard of morality..

But the absence of average intelligence and physical ability. Can certainly make for a hard row to hoe..

tkozy..I was raised in Bakersfield so of course I know about the things you've brought up, but my disagreeing with you doesn't make what I say "nonsense."  My parents worked in the fields along with the oilfields when we first came here so that they could build a little house out of used lumber for them to raise their kids.  Before that we lived in a transient camp on Edison Highway..in fact we lived in two different camps.    You may look at life from a different perspective but the mistreatment of farm laborers in the 40's is well known..among them at least.  And that is NOT nonsense.

Farm labor isn't the only place that type of treatment occured...the coal mines is another.  When there were company stores that allowed people to buy food and necessities on credit they pretty much had the workers over a barrel. 

I don't know if it's just me or not but your posts always seem to contradict themselves.  Maybe it's the way you write or maybe I'm missing something.  Are you for or against illegals being in the labor force?  You're saying only 16% live below the poverty line but in the same post state that only 25% could afford to buy an average house.  You lost me again.

You said "A system that offers appeasement to the businessmen who put on a air of suffering. A system that has kowtowed to those who have flagrantly abused capitalism to avoid punishment for their criminality."  Raising minimum wages is appeasing businessmen?  What criminality?  Refusing to give up huge amounts of profit to workers is criminal?  Am I misreading you?  If I am I apologize..but I'm just going by what I see on the screen.

Nancy, It was Anon that called ‘The grapes of Wrath’, a lie.

It was Anon’s post, that I called nonsense.

I know it was a honest mistake, directing your post toward me…

Sure makes me proud, that I am, ‘Always on your mind”.. ;)

tkozy, my Pop never owned a house.  It's the American Dream, not an American Right!  But, his children have done better.  That is the legacy of hard work and determination.  The legacy the welfare system has given us is generation after generation on welfare. 

I have a mentally disabled cousin, by marriage.  He worked for us several years ago.  Learning to be a mechanic and doing very well!  The job gave him great pride and Independence.  Some of his family members convinced him he should go on social security disability!  He came in one day and quit his job.  He was all smiles when he told us he was retiring at 21.  He's in his late 30's now.  You know what he does? NOTHING!  He was a productive member of society, making a contribution and proud of himself for doing it.  The last time I saw him, he was on anti-depressants.  It was heartbreaking!  But that is the legacy his father left him! 

We learn what we live.  Then we pass it on down to our children.  Where do you think my Pop got his work ethic?  It didn't come in the mail on the first of the month, I can guarantee you that!

I am sorry to hear of your cousin.

Dg, your father’s, father. Was your Cousin‘, Father’s, father. How does your idea of legacy, fit that story?

Facts are Dg. Success doesn’t just come upon someone one day. Success is always one day away.. Success is how you live tomorrow. Not how you have lived, up until today..

What you know today, what you accomplished today. Can be gone in a moment.

Lottery winners achieve great success in a moment. Yet seem to have a dismal record as a whole. As far as maintaining that level of success..

The immediate concern for your cousin may have been, being able to obtain a position that did not rely on the kindness of his family.. I can’t read his mind..

If you were to die at childbirth. Would your legacy theory, condemn your child to poverty and immorality?

Count your blessings. Honor your family. But do not attribute your success to heredity. It only diminishes your own accomplishments.

He was a cousin by marriage.  He came from my first husband's mother's family.  You've just restated in different words what I've been saying.  But most people don't want to put the time and work into raising themselves up out of poverty.  They simply want it done for them............RIGHT NOW, DAMINT!!!!!!!