Will falsely suggested most employees affected by Dems' proposed minimum-wage increase are "students and other part-time workers"
SUMMARY: George F. Will falsely suggested
that most employees who would benefit from a Democratic proposal to raise the
federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour are "students and other part-time
workers." In fact, a majority of those who would be affected by the
Democratic minimum-wage proposal are full-time workers.
On the November 19 edition of ABC's This Week, Washington Post columnist George F. Will falsely suggested that most employees who would benefit from a Democratic proposal to raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25 per hour are "students and other part-time workers." In fact, while the majority of workers earning the current minimum wage of $5.15 per hour are part-time workers, according to the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS does not provide data for "students"), the majority of workers who would see their wages rise under the Democratic proposal are not; according to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a majority -- 54 percent -- of those who would be affected by the Democratic minimum-wage proposal are full-time (at least 35 hours a week) workers. Similarly, an October 25 EPI study found that "[i]f the federal minimum wage were increased to $7.25 per hour by 2008, 14.9 million workers would see their wages rise," and those affected by a minimum-wage increase would be "mainly adults who typically work full time and provide significant income to their families."
From the study:
Analysis of the 2005 Current Population Survey reveals that the workers potentially affected by a minimum wage increase are mainly adults who typically work full time and provide significant income to their families. If the federal minimum wage were increased to $7.25 per hour by 2008, 14.9 million workers would see their wages rise. The vast majority (80%) of workers affected are adults age 20 and above. Twenty-six percent of these workers are parents, and as a result over 7.3 million children of low-wage workers would see their parents' income increase if the federal minimum wage was increased to $7.25 per hour by 2008. From a historical perspective, this demographic portrait is consistent with the make-up of workers benefiting from the last federal minimum wage increase (Bernstein and Schmitt 1998).
Furthermore, the earnings of minimum wage workers are essential to their families' total income. While not all minimum wage workers are poor or are the sole breadwinner for their families, it is striking how important low-wage workers' income is to their economic well-being. On average, families with affected workers rely on those workers for over half (59%) of the families' total earnings. Nearly half (46%) of all families with an affected worker rely solely on the earnings of those workers.
Today, the earnings of a full-time minimum wage worker (working 40 hours/week, 52 weeks/year) with a family of three would earn $10,712 a year, thus falling 35.5% below the official 2006 federal poverty level of $16,600. Although the federal poverty line is an inadequate measure of the income needed to support a family, this comparison highlights the severe insufficiency of the current minimum wage (Fisher 1999).
A statement released in October by EPI, which it said had been endorsed by "[o]ver 650 economists, including 5 Nobel prize winners and 6 past presidents of the American Economic Association," argued that "modest increases in state minimum wages in the range of $1.00 to $2.50 and indexing to protect against inflation can significantly improve the lives of low-income workers and their families, without the adverse effects that critics have claimed." The statement approvingly cited the 1999 Economic Report of the President, which found that "modest increases in the minimum wage have had very little or no effect on employment."
Despite arguing against a minimum-wage increase by misrepresenting the demographics of those who would benefit from the Democratic proposal, Will also made the seemingly contradictory point that "[m]ost poor people are making more than the minimum wage," a statement that appears to bolster the case for raising the minimum wage by showing how low the current minimum wage is.
From the November 19 edition of ABC's This Week:
WILL: I mean, let's call it fair trade -- that's just for protectionists who don't have the courage of their foolish convictions. It seems to me very clear they have two ideas. One is the minimum wage, raise the minimum wage. Most poor people are making more than the minimum wage, and most people making the minimum wage are not poor people; they're students and other part-time workers. With regard to free trade: If we know anything at all -- and a great tribute to your old boss, Bill Clinton, who stuck in there and passed NAFTA with a majority of Republicans and against his own party -- we know that protectionism makes the world poorer.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (host): Bob, you have 30 seconds.
We're talking about increasing the base pay for WORKERS, not increasing welfare checks. WORKERS. As in those who WORK for a living.
Why do conservatives continue to hate the working class?
My problem with raising the minimum wage is two fold. First off, my libertarianism tells me that the government has no place mandating or telling employers how much they must pay anyone, it is up to the individual employer and the worker to come to that agreement, none of the government's business.
Secondly, when employers are mandated to increase their costs in any way, the first most controllable expense they cut is salaries, wages or staff. Any businessperson will say the same thing. So the unintended consequence of a raise in the minimum wage is the loss of some jobs as a result. The loss may be minor in the scheme of things, but try telling that to someone whose being let go because of seniority and a pay increase to the minimum wage for another employee. To deny it happens is naive.
So as proponents of an increased minimum wage love to shout out how heartless and anti-worker the opponents are, that is not it - at least for me. Everybody deserves a decent wage, but for the government to set some arbitrary figure is disingenuous - if they were, they would set it at $15.00 per hour or another comparable wage.
the government has no business applying health standards to food suppliers and restaurants. Libertarians, for the most, part believe in the 'buyer beware' dictum. Does that mean that the government ought not have regulations in place to protect consumers?
My point is that the wage increases do fall under the purview of the government to mandate a minimum as a protection against predatory employment practices.
You don't agree, I could care less.
This libertarian did not discuss health practices for restaurants, that is off topic and irrelevant.
Most employers I know value good workers and want to keep them - but if your employer is "predatory", chances are he or she will be out of business in no time given that attitude.......but in the meantime, unless you have a contract signed by both the employer and employee, you can always find other, more attractive, employment.
It speaks to the hands off approach of many,' you're on your own,' type of Conservative Libertarians.
It speaks to the consistency of your argument. Does government have any role to play in the market?
Your intent to take this discussion into an off topic area is pointless, even you said you could care less, now you want to talk about Libertarian principles?
I have stated my stance on this issue, when a topic is introduced by MMFA on restaurant health practices, then it can be discussed. Take it up with the moderators, otherwise off topic posts are generally banned.
as I know you never have or never would take a thread off topic! Give me a break, dude.
I understand you not wanting to discuss the consistency of an argument that you initiated, i.e. that the government has no business mandating a minimum wage as according to your Libertarian principles. I further understand that you don't want to answer the question about government's role in the market. It's too much of a slippery slope for you to answer that you believe in government regulated consumer protections. That would force you to defend your position on a mandatory minimum wage from something other than it's wrong for the government to regulate the market.
Yes, I could care less. I'm just passing the lonely hours, Tommy.
The fact that you want to divert this away from the topic at hand is what is so revealing. Sorry, moderators don't like it. If you don't like it, file a complaint.
Any mode of argument that doesn't conform to your standards of absolutism is off topic. Is that it?
I'm not allowed to present an argument by way of syllogism? Or are you just too loathe to admit that the government can and should regulate the market for the benefit of the working class and the consumer?
I don't make the rules buddy, take it up, as I said, with the moderators. You want to discuss the minimum wage, that is the topic here.
Every topic thread could be extrapolated into a broader discussion - i.e. criticizing the Iraq War could easily lead to other wars or all sorts of extraneous areas, what's your point?
But to indulge you with an overall answer, government regulation should be limited, efficient, smart, cost effective and not like an albatross hanging across private enterprise's heads. It goes without saying that employee and public health should be priority one........with meddling in private businesses to over regulate as the last priority.
He's assailing the logic behind libertarianism, which you assert informs your opinion on minimum wage. Thus, your opinions of other intrusions into market dynamics by the government is wholly pertinent.
I think we can file your answer as simply non-responsive. Which is understandable.
i said it, but just ignore it. since he leads his initial argument with a comment about his "libertarianism", it's more than relevant. own up to what you say, and stop whining when others respond.
So, the market isn't 'free' and regulations are not necessarily bad?
People first unless that hinders the profit margin? It's a burden to pay people a smidge more money on the hour but not burdensome to require businesses to follow safety guidelines?
Seeing as how you're all of a sudden the self-appointed On-Topic Nazi, the topic is actually George Will's false suggestion that most employees affected by Dems' proposed minimum-wage increase are "students and other part-time workers", not what your own personal problems are with the minimum wage.
Good one Dave, the topic is the minimum wage. Thank you for pointing that out, in your patented argumentative way without subtstance.
Tommy, as the newly-self-appointed scolding, On-Topic policeman, you can't even follow your own rule. And that's not an argument, it's a fact.
I will give you credit for one thing this time around, although it does show your inconsistency. Normally you rubber stamp and are one head cheerleader for everything this website says and does, a good little soldier. But now you defend a poster who wants to break one of their cardinal rules! - posting off topic.
But I suspect that your joy in arguing with me is even at the expense of your website loyalty. And on that, you are very consistent, even though your integrity is compromised.
You only assert that it's off-topic because you find it uncomfortable. Your attitude towards other analogous government regulation of capitalism is completely relevant.
Most grown-ups learn that you don't scold others for breaking rules you yourself don't follow.
For the record, not one of your posts to this point even mentions students, part-timers, George Will or Democrats---all of which are the topics of this thread.
1) George Will makes a FALSE statement: "Most poor people are making more than the minimum wage, and most people making the minimum wage are not poor people; they're students and other part-time workers. "
2) MMFA points out that Will is wrong.
3) Fantagor posts a comment,specifically addressing the FACT that Will's comment minimizes the people affected by the minimum wage increase.
4) Tommy responds to Fantagor by explaining why he has a problem with the very idea of the minimum wage, but does not at all adress what Will said, or attempt to indicate that Media Matters point is wrong. In doing so, he uses his self-ddescribed libertarian beliefs to explain his position. While it serves as a response to Fantagor's comments about conservatives hating the working class, it does not address the actualtopic of the original article - who would actually receive the minimum wage increase.
5) Roundhouse responds to Tommy by invoking the very libetarianism Tommy invoked, comparing the overall libertarian view of government as exemplified by the idea of health standards being inappropriate with the Tommy's idea that the government should not interfere in the market's wage-setting.
6) Tommy claims health is off-topic and re-states his argument.
7) Roundhouse points out he is addressing something Tommy brought up - libertarianism.
8) Tommy again claims it is off-topic.
9) Roundhouse implies that Tommy is hypocritical because Tommy has taken threads off-topic himself,and re-states his argument about libertarian attitudes toward the market.
10) Tommy again claims it is off-topic, invoking "the rules."
11) Etc.
Eventually, Tommy gets around to calling Dave_Chicago "argumentative," depite the fact that he keeps arguing with people about what is off-topic. he impugn Dave's "integrity." All this, despite the many times he has told people that if his ideas are so ridiculous, they shouldn't engage with him and just move on. I guess, when Tommy keeps engaging people he thinks are ridiculous it's different, and when he keeps arguing the same point over and over, that's not argumentative.
Whatever.
Back to minimum wage: the fallacy its opponents rely upon is the claim that companies can just dispense with workers if the wage goes up-- just like that.
Not any more. Few companies have extra workers. If they fire people, work doesn't get done. So they just pay the higher wage instead.
That's why the statistics bear out this reality: an increase in min. wage doesn't result in lost jobs.
Dave is right the topic is Will LYING about who is effected by the minimum wage hike
If the libertarian's dog eat dog world view had been the prevailing one the human species would have died out long ago. We have survived because we recognized that it was esential to our survival to operate as a community and to shore up the weak links. We gave priority to the efforts for the common good. The right can't dismiss this truth by using the socialist pejorative at anyone who doesn't believe in their every man for themself ideology. Libertarians scare me.
Libertarians are a scary lot. They are basically frontier fossils. You know it's that frontier mentality that declares that if I can't get along with my neighbor, I will either kill him or move further west and live the way I want.
Well, there is no longer a frontier, just neighbors.
Libertarians live in a naive dream world. Their ideology is unworkable-- the 19th Century showed that.
The reason libertarians scare you is pretty easy to figure out - they don't look to the goverment to solve problems and bail you out of your own mistakes. They value personal responsibility and don't look to the government to bail you out of your own mistakes. They promote limited government, low taxes, and self reliance and don't look to the government to feed off while punishing success - oh, and yes, to bail you out of your own mistakes.
I am 48 years old not 16 and I am so sick of lectures. I have lived a responsible life and done ALL the things on your list, so none of that scares me. The difference between you and I is that I think as a community we should pool resources to facilitate opportunity for everyone and to assist others who have not been as fortunate as others. I've always had people in my life that encouraged me and they taught me through verbal lessons and through example how to maneuver a world that can be tough at times. Tommy the world that you and those like you would create is cruel, dispassionate, and indifferent and it's against everything I've been taught and that goes for my Christian education as well. I'm glad you won't win. I remember reading some of the post during the Katrina tragedy, how many Libertarians/conservatives came here and made heartless statements like they (the victims) should have walked, they should have bought water, they should have been better prepared and how they should shoot anyone “looting”. They made these statements while there were literally bodies floating down the streets and people stranded on roofs and in trees. Like I said Tommy that kind of heartlessness is scary and so very sad to me.
I did not lecture you or anyone else. Your blanket statements about some cruel, heartless eutopian world that I envision is way off base. There is nothing heartless about promoting personal responsibility and encouraging people to be the best they can be - I don't cater or pander to those that wallow in their "victim" mentality, of any stripe; I am not in any way saying that is you, on the contrary you seem like nothing of the sort, but there are many who feed off of that and blame everyone and everything else for their choices and their lot in life.
You and I have had these discussions before and I don't judge or value people by their wealth, stature, good looks, or political affiliation - I judge them by their character and their integrity, regardless of their race, sexual orientation, religion, economic status, or political party.
All people need to be treated with dignity and respect, and valued, especially children. I can't speak for other libertarians anymore than you can speak to other Democrats - I take responsibility for my own actions and words.
Have a very nice Thanksgiving, Lynn.
This Thanksgiving I'm thankful that libertarians are pitiful, bitter tiny minority and will stay that way forever.
Perhaps you guys should start your own country somewhere. Surely, there's some rich folks among you that can pool their money and buy a country. Then you can setup your government based on your dog-eat-dog ideals. You could call it Laroucheland. It might work for a generation. But alas sadly, it couldn't be a democracy. Democracy and libertarianism are incompatible. For what happens if sometime down the road, the people decide that they do want some controls on business or expanded government services? You couldn't have the majority overturning the delicate every-man-for-himself nirvana you've worked so hard to establish.
Social democracy is the natural evolution of societies. People want freedom, but they also want protection from the inherent inequities of pure capitalism. It's called balance and we have achieved a pretty good one here in America.
Perhaps no Libertarian will ever be elected to any national office, but that is more because of the entrenched two party system which has a stranglehold on our electoral process - and it's in their best interest to keep it that way.........but I don't need a political party apparatus to conform my views or values, or validate their worthiness.
What is on the downside and fast becoming extinct in this country, thankfully, is far left liberalism and the entitlement mentality that it trives from. Bloated and inefficient government, stifling and job killing high taxes, and the blame everybody else mantra that many follow has seen it's better days.
And that is something to be thankful for - Happy Holiday.
Hardly. Liberalism is always at the forefront of society and will continue to be. The majority of Americans are, issue by issue, socially liberal. That's a proven fact. And it's increasing. Examination of the young people today shows that they are more liberal than their parents. That's the way it's always been and always will be. Our society is evolving and slowly shedding the fear and jingoism so prevalent in previous generations. It's an ongoing enlightenment.
Libertarians are a tiny minority simply because most people are compassionate and don't believe in a dog-eat-dog society. Most people understand the need for the concept of 'commons' and our responsibility to each other. It's simple really. The two-party system has nothing to do with it.
No government, corporate controlled, let poor and disabled people die, heartless, loveless, no tax on the rich, no roads, no, education unless you are rich enough to buy it, the choice of what you can afford, never blame ANYONE no matter how guilty they are Money is GOD, conservativism. This is at least as accurate as YOUR mindless description
too Tommy, enjoy the day!
You arent heartless you just dont pander to a victim mentality. Here is a newsflash. There are VICTIMS in the world. They are victims to illnesses, accidents, physical and mental infirmities. They NEED help. YOU arent heartless you just ascribe to the Ebeneezer Scrooge School of economic Darwinism. If you CANT do what tommy has done and make it on your own, tommy doesnt want to hear about your problems because THAT would be pandering to a 'victim' mentality. Dont confuse tommy with the vaguaries of fate, with things that have happened beyond your control. Either those who need pull themselves up by their bootstraps or their 'vicitim mentality' means they arent WORTH worrying about much less helping. Doesnt matter that they dont even have boots much less bootstraps. You know tommy, I have no reason to worry about government solving every problem. I have a great life. A good job, money is never a worry for me. I own my home and cars, I have health insurance, a good education, can afford to send my kids to college, and in my world I want that for everyone. Tommy says I got it so get it for yourself or sink and die.
A venal motive to make up for the fact you dont have a cogent argument. Caring about one another is NOT a weakness its a strength its the difference between a large group of people and a society. The problem I see with libertarianism is a basic flaw in the logic of dispising government. It seems that the libertarian argument assumes that there is a finite amount of political power, which is true, and that what they take away from government would go to the people. That is not the case when there is power to be had it is competed for and those who already HAVE inordinate amounts are most likely to end up with any new power available. That is corporations. Large corporations will end up with any power abandoned by government. Government is the only entity that has the power to stand up to them and government is at least somewhat accountable to the people. Corporations are fascist by nature, that is not a criticism it is a simple statement of fact. Corporations are NOT accountable to anyone. Its decisions come from the top down and they are beholden to no one. We can change the government at the ballot box when they arent doing right. Corporations do wrong all the time and where is the accountability? Its not that they are evil and trying to hurt people its just that people are incidental, they dont matter ONLY profit matters.
Many of the coprrate comglomerates were and still are predatory. You seem to have much more faith in the heartless entity that is big business than you have in individuals. From some of your past post you seem to think that all individuals given the opportunity to scam the system but somehow business and business owners are of a more noble breed.
It's very curious how this is so contradictory for many of you. On one hand many argue how heartless and cruel companies and employers are, and yet on the other hand they say that the same nasty employers would never lay off anyone if their payroll expenses were increased by a minimum wage hike?
Can't argue that from both ends, it doesn't make sense.
We're saying that they can, but history shows that they don't, your anecdotal neighbor aside.
Aren't you out doing your study yet?
"but history shows that they don't" - wow, no anecdotal musings from you.
The studies have already been done by economic experts and they all point to minimal negative impact to raising minimum wage.
won't lay them off because like it or not they NEED to employees to produce the products and services that make money for the company maybe they will have to live with a smaller profit margin, but they'll still make money. That's the way it's always been.
"Attention all employees. As you know the minimum wage has been raised and as a result we have had to lay off two workers to keep costs in line. Therefore I will either need increased productivity from all you who are still thankfully employed - as for my salaried management team, whatever you cannot motivate the hourly workers to do, you will pick up the slack please - even if you have to work an extra hour per day. I will also be working longer hours to assist. Thank you for your time"
You're so into anecdotal evidence. Why don't you ask the average minimum wage worker if they'd like their pay increased? Or do business owners anecdotal stories trump low income worker's anecdotal stories?
You are so blinded by your own ideology you won't look at the real world. That's fine, but the point of our discussing it is????????.........pointless.
People making minimum wage are the real world. What on Earth are you talking about?
By YOUR ideology YOU wont face reality. Actually based on track record alone I would say that is much more likely
"Hi John, Would you like your minimum wage increased?", asked the employer.
"Sure!!, of course!!, wow", said the employee.
"Hi Bill, Sorry we had to increase mimimum wage to John and now we have to lay you off, very sorry", said the employer.
__________________
I asked John like you asked me too. Now, why don't you ask Bill? (of course you won't)
The studies show this scenario doesn't play out. You can't get around it.
...what you just did is pure fantasy based on your political ideology. That little bit has absolutely no basis in fact.
It's actually quite funny to see your responses about raising the minimum wage and taxes.
I am curious where you get your 'information" from?
I had to pay my workers more and if I want to make my payments on my mansion and Ferrari I had to lay off a worker its ok if I dont make my contracted allowance of widgets this month isnt it?
Answer it sure is but from now on we will get our widgets from someone else
We have had to lay off two workers because of the minimum wage, we now cannot make our quota of widgets, so we lost our largest contract. We did that because we are morons. Now we are out of business.
You're right. Studies show this to be true. Unfortunately, for Tommy, he's trying to fight economic consensus with anecdotal stories from his uncle Charlie. That may fly in conservoland, but not here.
The reason why companies don't lay people off is NOT because they are sentimental. It's because they need them.
There's no contradiction. If they need the employees-- and they do-- they'll pay them the going wage. They'll bitch and moan and lie about it, but they will.
What we are saying is that whatever the wage they would lay off ANYONE they COULD. That there are no unnecessary employees TO lay off. If there were they would already be GONE. Every employee left is necessary to making them MONEY. How is THAT hard to understand? So you have absolutly NO POINT much less we cant have it both ways YOU DONT MAKE ANY SENSE.
Tommy’s Lovely Money!!!
I live in Portland, Oregon, and have friends and family on both sides of the river in Washington. The Minimum Wage is the highest in the nation in both states, and they have already linked the steady, and sometimes best nationally growth economically to the added disposable income created by an increase in the minimum wage!!
Social programs have been suffocated by Republican rollbacks, and obstruction preventing cost adjustments that were partially alleviated by the increased wages among the working poor.
Liaise Faire Economics have proven to be a social disaster leading to world hunger and eventual economic widespread revolution as was the case in Europe in the end of the 19th Century, and earlier 20th Century. Socio-Economic disparity, and repression from individuals, and corporations excesses could be argued was a driving force in fostering two world wars, and if not for economic disparities that allowed the Soviet Union to be created.
I for one would like to pay some heed to the past!!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
//and sometimes best nationally growth economically // correction: //and the best growth economically in the nation at times //
Has never happened. Also, in case you don't know this, minimum wage laws only apply if you employ 30 or more people. Small business owners aren't impacted. Also: small businesses pay more than cheap labor mills like McDonald's because training and learning curve costs trend much higher for the small business owner. What you are defending is big businesses ability to collaborate and artificially fix wages as low as possible. They did it in 1900, and they would do it in 2006, if it weren't for minimum wage laws. If you haven't, read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair. In toto, it's hyperbole. Still, consider the parts severally. One word: horrific...unless you were a wealthy business owner. Then it was a sweet deal. An endless supply of exploitable labor.
You bring up another interesting point, that minimum wage isn't really a living wage at $7.25/hour. I agree. But according to your logic, McDonald's would close shop if they had to pay $15/hour. Nonsense. They would pass the cost onto the consumer. EVERY business model is designed to pass costs onto the consumer. And with people making more money, which means more buying power, they could afford to pay that other mythology, the "higher cost".
FACT: in order for Wal-Mart to "afford" to pay its workforce $10/hour across the board, they would have to the raise price of every item they sell...by ONE PENNY. That's it. One red cent. So if minimum wage were raised to $15/hour, the adjustment is TWO CENTS an item. Buy 50 things, it'll cost you ONE whole DOLLAR more. Wow. That'll sure kill their consumer base.
And lest I forget another thing: Wal-Mart and other minimum wage labor farms don't pay enough so those people end up getting FEDERAL assistance, ergo the US government is SUBSIDIZING Wal-Mart. Another way of saying it is they are SOCIALIZING some part of the costs of shopping at Wal-Mart. Now of course you'd argue we should eliminate social programs. Heck, it's not your children starving. Why don't they just get a job! They do have a job. They work at Wal-Mart.
It doesn't matter whether you employ 20 people or 200 people. When your expenses are raised, payroll is usually the first place gone to in order to lower expenses. That is not some right wing talking point, that is the way businesses are run.
So, the debate over minimum wage will continue, but to deny there are negative consequences that hurt many of those that the raise is intended to help is undeniable.
Your other points about McDonalds and Wal Mart are good ones.
"So, the debate over minimum wage will continue, but to deny there are negative consequences that hurt many of those that the raise is intended to help is undeniable."
-----
Whenever you state your opinion as if it were fact, it is deniable on its face. Your statement has no facts to back it up, and no unbiased research has ever confirmed a word of it.
Ask any business owner and he will give you his or her own "study" with plenty of cold facts about how expenses are controlled within most companies. Don't take my word for it.
Anecdotal evidence trumps economic study? Another O'Reillyesque trait you are exhibiting.
Reality and "pragmatism" trumps theory.
(You might want to change your screen name, pragmatic you are not)
It's not theory. It's reality. You can never get the real picture by asking one person. That's why it's called "anecdotal".
Where did I say one?
Instead of blabbering about what you know nothing about - take a break from your posting, walk to any business owner and ask them what expense is the most controllable in their business. Report back when you get a few of the same answers.
Once again. Anecdotal. You prove my point.
We had an earthquake here once. Not a big one. It was about 5.2 or so. Enough to shake you up a bit. After it was over, the news coverage kicked in. For the first half hour or so, there was no word of the official strength or duration of the event. During that time, the newsroom was receiving reports from individual people saying that the duration was two minutes. I nearly laughed off my couch because it was thirty seconds at most, and I was a mere few miles from the epicenter. Finally, word came in from the UW seismology lab that the official duration was thirty seconds. The next words out of the news anchor's mouth was, "....but remember, we've heard reports of up to two minutes!" In other words, Joe Q. Citizen somehow knew better than a highly respected University that is known for its seismology expertise. This is what anecdotal is all about
People perceive things personally and it skews their attitude. That's why you have to look at the big picture objectively and with precision.
You are no pragmatist either Tommy. Tom Dewey and Oliver Wendall Holmes Jr. were pragmatists and you are not one. And your "logic" is usually based on false assumptions; ergo is incorrect. If you so profoundly misunderstand the need for a minimum wage hike it's because you wish to remain ignorant to facts like results from economic studies that don't jibe with your point of view. All the sudden it's "off topic." You went off topic on your first post. The icing on the cake is you cling so tightly to your opinion despite being wrong so often.
Is fantasy, and you have put out anything BUT theory, NOT ONE SINGLE THING you posted has been anything but your hypothetical theories.
I have managed retail stores for a small local chain before, I live in California where the wage is higher than many other states, and the state has raised the minimum wage while I was working and managing staff. Some of the staff did work at minimum wage, some were above it.
We never, ever layed anyone off because the rate got raised. Now if business had gone down, yes we would have, but we never did because the wage was increased.
Pure 100% baloney.
Please provide us the evidence from past minimum wage hikes showing the effects you say are going to happen?
I would love to see it.
I really am curious.
When their workers DO THE WORK. THAT is the basis for ALL wealth created. Your imaginary scenario assumes they have excess workers that are NOT involved in making them money. IF they had people that WERENT necessary to run their business they would ALREADY be laid off. Businesses dont put people on the payroll for charity.
Fantagor, I've never heard that minimum wage laws only apply to 30+ employers. Not in my state, and I suspect the same applies to Federal law.
If that were true, every company would have 29 employees!
There are some exceptions for "training wage" vis a vis the number of employees, but that's not the issue here...
Fantagor, I've never heard that minimum wage laws only apply to 30+ employers. Not in my state, and I suspect the same applies to Federal law.
If that were true, every company would have 29 employees!
The 30 worker standard is what I learned when I was in college (that was a long time ago, it has perhaps changed).
As for your second comment: So you believe if there is such a law that Microsoft would have topped out at 29 employees and foregone BILLIONS in profits as to not pay people minimum wage. That makes sense. Just think of all the money Bill Gates wasted becoming the world's wealthiest man. Makes you sick, doesn't it?
If a business can save money by cutting workers, it will do it whether the minimum wage is raised or not.
Like with raising taxes, the consequences of raising the minimum wage are all theoretical. They don't seem to happen when the idea is actually tried.
"So the unintended consequence of a raise in the minimum wage is the loss of some jobs as a result. The loss may be minor in the scheme of things, but try telling that to someone whose being let go because of seniority and a pay increase to the minimum wage for another employee. To deny it happens is naive."
What I would tell that person, if they were living where I live, is, “There are plenty of other minimum wage jobs to choose from,” as callous as that may be.
My state, Oregon, has had a minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, since January of 2005. Our minimum wage has made Oregon the target of attention due to our unemployment rates, but the large uptick in Oregon joblessness occurred in 2001, although the state minimum wage had not increased since 1999. This is because Oregon is losing jobs in the manufacturing sector to other US states (as was the case in one of my previous jobs), or to sweat shops overseas (as was the case with Pendleton Woolen Mills). There is no shortage of minimum wage jobs in the Portland area, as retail continues to grow here with it’s trendy shopping districts, all despite our ‘devastating’ minimum wage.
The economic effects of a few less people working at Starbucks is nothing compared to the effects of losing thousands of good-paying jobs in the manufacturing sector.
The really naive thing to do is focus on the loss of low-skill, minimum wage jobs, there are plenty of them (at least where I live). We should be worried about which big manufacturing company is going to outsource next.
First place you cut costs is in procedure. Working out how the entire machine can perform better. If you have to drop employees, it's because your procedures no longer require them. Dumping employees is not the first choice, it's an after-effect.
But for that argument to make sense you need to show how many businesses have workers around that they really dont need to get the work done that makes their money. I hear this argument every time the minimum wage is increased and yet we never see any skyrocketing unemployment AFTER it is raised
The republican's rich friends like cheap labor.
When one out of every six people living in New York City can't afford to put food on the table, we have big problems.
[link to news.yahoo.com]
You can debate how increasing the minimum wage will "hurt" businesses. You can argue that the rich are taxed to death. You can argue that to be poor in this country must mean you have a "mental disease" like some pundits have said recently, but something has to be done.
NOW!
Cutting taxes on the wealthy won't do it, neither will prayer. Both work slowly if at all.
This is the most prosperous country that has ever existed. Some, on the right, never get tired of saying that this is a "Christian Nation". If one out of six people go to bed hungry then we are the biggest hypocrites that ever existed. I'll give credence to "libertarian" ideals when everyone who wants a good paying job has one, and when every child in America goes to bed with a full belly. I'm willing to bet that those who hold those views have never known hunger.
Until that time comes, we need to raise the minimum wage. we need to do more to see that fewer people fall through the cracks and get ground up by our system.
We do have big problems, but in my opnion, you are trying to cure a broken leg with heart medicine. Of course it is an abomination when anyone goes to bed hungry, especially children, in this country. But raising the minimum wage up by a couple bucks is not a cure all for that. It only displaces more people on the bottom rung of the ladder and does very little to even help those that get the tiny little boost every paycheck.
I am not smart enough to know the answers for our ills, it's likely a combination of alot of things that need bipartisan solutions - not right or left. Electing people who care more about solving problems would be refreshing instead of party hacks who only want power.
Why don't you look at states that have a higher minimum wage? I live in one. A higher minimum wage is both humane and economically sound.
Look at California.
California is so screwed up they have the sixth largest economy in the WORLD.
But you cant back it up. PROVE that a minimum wage increase drastically increases joblessness to the point that it is WORSE than the good effects of a wage increase or you are baying at the moon.
In my opinion, this is the best MMFA article I have seen, for these reasons:
They examined what an educated, coherent conservative said. He used the wrong basis for his comments, the current minimum wage, and came up with a wrong statement. He should have used the proposed minimum wage.
This is what I see MMFA doing at its best. They corrected an influential conservative on an important topic.
I would truly like to see fewer, better articles like this from MMFA rather than the larger quantity they put out daily, much of it not worth reading and much of it off their posted mission statement. MHO.
I agree with you on the importance, relevance and the worthiness of this topic thread included here. We may disagree on the minimum wage, but articles and discussions like this are constructive and educational........you make a very good point.
It is far more important than some rant or offensive blubbering out of a big mouth of some talk show or cable news host......while they may be shocking and jaw dropping, normally they are here for their "red meat" purposes and not much beyond that.
There are several million other websited you can go to. It is up to NEITHER of you to decide what MMFA posts and no one CARES what you think about what they post. Its not up to you, feel free to start your OWN websites. I also dont need your scolding. Its flat out NOT your decision.
...most employers will low-ball their workforce. This is a sad facet of human nature - selfishness. If we are to, as Tommy proposes, allow the individual boss/owner set his/her 'minimum' wage...we would see the most minimum wages possible. I believe that. In fact, there are reasons why we have had reform and a minimum wage set by way of the Fair Labor standards Act of 1938...
[link to www.dol.gov]
Why? Because, if left to their own devices... proprietors and owners (more likely of much larger businesses) will not treat their workers fairly. These right wingers (Will included) seem to forget these little details and are perpetually cryingof the 'inevitable' time when the entire workforce crumbles by being too 'fair'. Please.
By the way, my parents ran a small pizza place in rural Arizona for 22+ years... they never had to worry about the minimum wage...because they consistently paid their workers more than minimum wage...and, those workers earned every penny.
However, if you believe that big business has any self-interest in paying a fair wage to their workers... I have some swampland to sell you in FL. Thank you.
By the way, my parents ran a small pizza place in rural Arizona for 22+ years... they never had to worry about the minimum wage...because they consistently paid their workers more than minimum wage...and, those workers earned every penny.
***********************
Your above point is exactly why some businesses fail and others succeed. Your parents knew, I would imagine, that paying people a decent wage, without govermental interference, was a very smart business decision - they did it for over 22 years and must have been good at it.
That is my point - businesses figure out fast how important their workers, good workers, are to them. If they constantly have the expenses involved in training new employees, then they are in trouble - and better fix it fast. No government program or mandated wage fixes bad employers.
If that were true, then there wouldn't be a problem as nobody would be paying the minimum wage at all. Since there are, the idea is to set a floor below which they will not be allowed to further exploit their workers.
Um...business doesn't always self-correct
**********************
Those that don't go out of business.
Wrong. There's profit to be had exploiting those that through lack of talent and/or skills have limited economic opportunities. Raising the minimum wage simply tells those people that they are entitled to a little less profit off the backs of those most vulnerable.
You keep, intentionally, using that word exploit - that is ridiculous. Nobody is exploited, people are not slaves or indentured servants to any company. They are more than free to find other employment or improve their education or skills to better themselves.
This exploitation term is misused, and very ideologically driven where you are concerned. Sell it somewhere else, I don't buy it.
The exploitation term is very apt in many situations. Here is one that I know you can agree with, The American CORPORATISTS like having a steady flow of illegal immigrants to EXPLOIT as a cheap labor force. You may or may not agree with this next one, but the corporatists don't really have an interest in minimum wage earners advancing their skills and knowledge because what they really want is a cheap labor force to exploit to maximize their profit because that’s all that matters to them. If there were no regulations on minimum salary China type wages would be the norm here. Moreover, what is even more disheartening for me is that many of the Corporatists and their shills have shamefully made many of my otherwise decent fellow Americans hate the poor and engage in an idolatry of worshipping money and people with money.
I agree, but hiring illegals is not only exploiting, it is also ILLEGAL. That is the point. People are not forced to work anywhere. Their economic conditions, or their education, or their skills may limit their choices, but there are choices. And businesses that do undercut employees and try to get something for nothing do so at their own peril - they will go out of business eventually........that's why we need the crackdown of the ones who are hiring illegals.
...to see said 'crackdown' at some point in the near future. I do.
Big money and big business have little need for an educated workforce or, even, a legal workforce. That's exploitation... and, it's happening daily. Is that too conspiratorial? I don't think so.
Of course, we all have the opportunity (as Tommy states) to better ourselves in this great land. And, I agree with the sentiment/ideal. However, as you point out, I believe the ability... the means... the ease with which that occurs is being minimized under this current political regime (the GOP). The Dems will try to institute some fair measures, but will be called out as socialists or pandering to the 'lazy', etc... all the stuff we hear regularly from this group.
I have often said I am against affirmative action based on race, however I am very much in favor of it based on economic reasons. No person should be denied an education just because they cannot afford it.
So I am not part of "that group" that would be opposed to such a program.
...from your comments, I didn't think so. And I agree, for the most part, with what you say.
Very tough/fine balance of offering people the means, while letting them 'do' for themselves. The Dems historically haven't done it very well, unfortunately -- although I do believe their 'hearts' have been in the right place. The Repubs, from what I can see, just don't care.
People making minimum are exploited simply because they have no further down to go. An employer knows this, and wisely from a profit standpoint utilizes it to his advantage.
My employer has limited opportunity to exploit me, because there are other employers who could pay me more in a heartbeat. People with minimal skills and/or capability don't have that luxury. So, the table is tilted in the employers favor in those situations.
Another analogy that will probably be lost on Tommy. Housing. Housing prices around my area have gone up unreasonably over the last decade. It's proved to be quite a burden for those of us that want to live relatively near our work. Now, I can move further out to keep my rent the same. That's economics. But what if I already was in the worst possible housing with the longest possible commute but was the best I could possibly afford, where would I go? My landlord would have me by the short hairs. Exploitation would quickly follow.
Employment is the same. The working poor who make minimum wages often have few options. Employers know this and exploit this. This is economics. Establishing a minimum wage helps to attenuate this exploitation.
We should encourage all those that wish to "rise above" the minimum wage plateau to get the schooling, training, etc necessary to make them more valuable to any employer. If no one, or not enough, were willing to work for minimum wages, the wages would have to go up. Look at places around the country where there is a shortage of "underskilled" workers and you will find even McD offering above minimum wage pay in order to staff their establishments. Most of us have some skill (that we may not even be aware of) that will get a position that pays above (in many cases, substantially) minimum wage. The company I work for has been trying for some time now to find experienced employees in the US, unsuccessfully I might add, so that work is being outsourced. But Joe Hi Grad will probably not have those skills without additional training.
"We should encourage all those that wish to "rise above" the minimum wage plateau.."-Oscar the Grouch
Encourage or facilitate? It's the difference between good intentions and positive initiative. We used to have vocational schools in this country, publicly funded. Now we have private for profit technical schools coupled with outrageous student loan interest rates. But we should encourage folks into to debt to learn job skills.
The ripple effect that high paying union jobs have on local economies. But since unions primarily support liberals, many conservatives oppose unions despite the positive benefits they promote for the work force in general.
Our state still has a fairly decent Community College base, with vocational programs at a decent cost. I have two sons, one of who took out loans to complete his education, but the return has been worth it in his eyes. The other son borrowed money for one term and then decided he would work to pay for his education, took a little longer but he has a decent income and little debt. Can you do it on $5.15 per hour? Of course not, but there are some programs in place to help. Enough of them? Probably not, but if there is will on the part of the "underskilled", there is a way.
Has limited power to exploit me because I belong to a VERY strong union which happens to be backed by Federal laws.
...if you "buy" it or not. That has nothing to do with facts or if it is true or not.
This whole thread has exposed your own ideology and biases, which you have no problem telling other people they have, but which you seem to not be self aware enough to see in your self.
Taking advantage IS exploitation by definition. I worked for minimum wage when I was young for a drilling company. To further screw me they wanted me to come in an hour early WITHOUT being on the clock, also taking a half hour for lunch OFF my timeclock whether or NOT I got time out to eat. Now I lived in California where NO ONE can get away with messing with your paycheck so they pressured me to do that and I told them to take a hike. They fired me. They hired someone else. The FACT that the next guy didnt recognize his rights or didnt value himself enough to stand up doesnt change the FACT he WAS being exploited. Some business owners DO exploit their workers PERIOD. They charged their costumers 15 dollars an hour for having me on the job and paid me 2 dollars and fifteen cents an hour if they COULD have paid me less they WOULD have.
...in a perfect world, perhaps. The fair folks succeed and the selfish sweatshop-type owners do not. But, I'm afraid it doesn't work that way.
In my parents' case, they knew that...in order to retain good, loyal workers... they compensated them well. In fact, to the point of even setting up retirement accounts for a few (this is a pizza place, mind you). They were the other (good) extreme. They ran a good/smart biz for a long time... but, always tried to be fair.
But, this is one restaurant... a small business. The prob - in my mind - comes when you have huge operations with 100s, 1000s of employees... there is middle-management, etc... People get lost in the shuffle...become numbers. History, I believe, has shown that without some sort of policing body, the biz will eventually exploit their workforce to some degree.
I think there should be an equitable balance. At this point, we have companies going belly up, the CEOs make out like bandits, the workforce is screwed, etc... our priorities as a nation -- and I hate to say it -- due to our current regime (i.e. the the top .1% had their profits/income increase by 85%!! since Bush got into power)... please. There has to be some balance restored. And, yes... the redistribution of our tax dollars into the mouths of the uber rich has to come to a halt. It's all tied together in my mind.
No one should opine on the apocalyptic effect of a minimum wage increase unless they've had to live on minimum wage. If they did, they'd know that you cant live on minimum wage.
There is a war going on in this country. A war against the working people of this country. Bankruptcy "reform" that benefits no one but credit card companies, because of "abuses of the system"? PUHLEEZE. The only abusers of the system are the gigantic corporations that file for debt protection one day and go out and get multimillion loans the next. Think a person who works for a living could do that? Complicit action between Republicans and business to destroy unions. The so-called "labor relations" board fill with pro-business appointees to systematically strip workers of their rights. Outsourcing jobs to other countries where the work gets done for pennies on the dollar because minimum wage and OSHA do NOT exist.
So excuse me Tommy if I don't cry myself to sleep over the plight of the oppressed businesss man. If they can't handle the cost of having employees, maybe they shouldn't go into business in the first place.
If the minimum wage law is such a good idea, why not make it $25 / hour? Or even "better", $50 / hour? That would really teach a lesson to those mean, greedy employers who are "exploiting" their employees.
Or, merely employing a tried-and-true method of the right-wing punditry - reduce the discussion to the point of absurdity. I think it's the latter.
Greek- I'm trying to get you and the others on this site who back the minimum wage law to think. Answer the question. What's wrong with a $50 / hour minimum wage?
Come on. That's a straw man argument. Nonone is proposing it because their is a much more reasonable number with a minimal impact on employers and a little bump for minimum wage earners who turn around and dump every penny back into the local economy. Everyone benefits. Why not raise it to $50? Why doesn't the government just print up more money? I'm being sarcastic of course. The point to this thread though goes to the absurd belief by some illustrated here by Will, that the minimum wage only effects a small segment of society. Will said something and bases his subsequent economic theories, based on a big ol' lie.
The most recent numbers I could find (from 2002) were on the US Department of Labor web site: [link to www.bls.gov] I don't know how much things have changed from 2002 but it appears George Will knows what he's talking about (as usual). If anyone has data that disproves Will's assertions, please post the link.
Take a look at the links in the above text provided by MMFA.
Face a wall at 30 paces. Bend at the waist and run as fast as possible until you are stopped?
I've given my reasons and I believe, exercised with good reason and judgement, the minimum wage law as well as other laws to force employers to be humane and just...are needed. To distort the discussion with an absurd hypothetical is inane at best...
I agrees Greek, typical right-wing tactic. The problem is, it makes them look like jackasses. Or in a truer light :)
I guess I'll have to conclude that Greek and Watcher won't answer why a $50 / hour minimum wage would be a bad idea because it would undermine their whole concept of the minmum wage.
Your question was irrelevant to the topic and absurd on it's face. Yet you claim some kind of victory because no one answered it to your liking. The "theory" behind the minimum wage is pretty simple. Less poor people, the better it is for society. Government must regulate industry to ensure the EXPLOTATION of laborers doesn't happen again. No where in the Constitution does not protect markets or business it protects people's liberties. Righties have no sense of history.
"No where in the Constitution does not protect markets or business it protects people's liberties."
What about the liberties of the employer and the employee to come to a mutually agreed upon contract? Nope, that won't do for a Leftie. Gotta have government involvement! Can't let those people be free to make their own way. They simply wouldn't make it without help from Big Daddy Government.
It's about preventing exploitation. Minimum wage, even with the increase is often impossible to live on. People have to make horrible sacrifices in their life to get by. Things like healthcare have to come second to feeding, clothing and sheltering a family. It's inhumane to allow employers to exploit workers who find themselves in this situation, whether it's low skills, or low aptitude. That's the bottom line. The government should not allow inhumane treatment at those at the bottom.
Regulate the amount of interest a bank can charge? Why shouldnt they be able to charge 500% interest per month? Because it would be BAD FOR SOCIETY. The constitution demands government promote the general welfare.
Pragmatic Liberal has it right -- it's about limiting exploitation of the workforce. Your addition has added nothing to the discussion.
For the same reason that when someone is thirsty you dont DROWN them. No one is arguing for excess. Some workers do make that much money. It isnt a bad thing but no one ANYWHERE is suggesting we immediatly raise everyone up to that level for that reason alone your argument is ludicrous. Why if its a good thing to invade Iraq dont we invade the entire world? Why if its good take an asprin for a headache wouldnt it be better to take the entire bottle. Because its stoooopid
The minimum wage needs to be higher, that much I will grant, but I would also be willing to bet that within a couple of years of it reaching say $7.25/hr, the push will be on for $10.00/hr. A lot of labor contracts, printed or implied, are based on minimum wage. Once it goes up, it will ripple through all the wage scales, resulting in a minimum wage that in real terms is less than it was before the rise. I agree with the posters that say a lot of the problem is at the top end with CEOs, CFOs, COOs, etc making too much in relation to the "working stiff" on the plant floor, but then I also feel that there are those in other industries (entertainment, pro sports, etc) that are making too much in relation to what they are contributing to society (outside of taxes). I think it would be interesting for someone to compare state unemployment rates with state minimum wage rates. If I didn't have to work for a living, to pay the mortgage, buy the food, clothes, pay the taxes, perhaps I would have time. Based on some of the posters here, I'm sure there are several with extra time on their hands, an internet connection and the desire to see the correlation.
Could the minimum wage possibly be indexed to inflation to keep pace with the cost of living?
..it could and California tried to do it. Arnold vetoed it because he didn't like that part of a package to raise the minimum wage here.
[link to sfgate.com]
Let's be really clear here. Every single time anyone talks about raising the minimum wage conservatives are against it because, they say, it will hurt the very people it is intended to help.
They have never, ever met a minimum wage that they liked.
Ever.
have indexed minimum wage to inflation and have minimum wages well above the Federal minimum. I believe WA minimum will be just under $8.00/hr come Jan with OR not far behind. The economies seem be be absorbing these at the present, however some agricultural related industries have moved out of WA in favor of lower labor costs in South America. Has been really tough on one nearby small town, their only industrial base was a vegetable cannery, now closed. I believe there will be a "tipping point" in regards to minimum wages, but I don't know what that point is, although I would guess it would be around $10/hr.
having a minimum wage and having it adjust to cost of living factors is a very good thing.
every time it is adjusted up, the economy flourishes. the temporary strain of paying out is quickly turned around by increasing your customer base.
also, all the wages of hourly people in all businesses and trades etc., adjust upwards. they are based on the minimium wage, not on executive salaries.
more people buying more with money rather than with credit, which the banks hate, but is good for everyone.
you can use terms like "predatory employers" etc., but is it not just "good business" to get more for less? even if it means treating human beings as a commodity.
people need to work to buy the basics of life. we are now slaves to an economy. a post above referred to employers wanting good people and that they want to attract and keep those people.
well, i don't know if you've noticed, but all employers, big and small, have been dropping health plans, reducing/eliminating vacation time, stealing/renegging on pensions, etc. how frequently do these businesses even make cost of living adjustments to their wages?
meanwhile, the stock markets are at unprecedented and ever expanding levels. executive benefits have become sickeningly extravagant.
it's good business. get more for less.
that's where a government formed by "we the people", with representation, comes in. we can pass laws that allow good business practices to be applied, so long as they don't become a tyranny in their own right.
anybody that gives up their time, body, attention, and in many cases risks their health and physical safety, should be paid a living wage.
not one person should have to work more than 40 hours, or more than one job just to put a roof over their head, feed themselves and their family, and have a hope of just getting by.
the conservatives have been trying to get you thinking that those who are not wealthy, or can't manage their money well, are stupid, lazy, or just willfully living beyond their means. or all three.
if you take on a second job, or do something for extra income, to get ahead, that's one thing.
but to not even be able to afford the basics in a society which has more endemic and created lucre than any other time in the history of humanity, is a rational and moral disconnect so...
judge the health of a society, (and for that matter an economy) by those at the bottom. those at the top are ALWAYS doing well.
Which has more value? a) $5.15 in 1997. b) $5.15 in 2006.
Answer: b) naturally because of inflation.
Furthermore since it is worth less now, by definition, the minimum wage has gone DOWN. Not only should minimum wage be increased at the present, it should be tethered to inflation, at least.
Another statistic that I'd like to see someone dig up is how many people below the poverty line work more than one part-time job to provide essentials for themselves and family. Most large retail employers have more part-timers than full-timers so that they do not have to pay extra benefits. It's facts like these that Republican conservatives fail to cite in order to obscure real-life conditions among many Americans. And then people like Will don't understand why Americans are not happy with the economy when inflation and unemployment are down and growth and the stock market are up, benefitting the top income earners. Yet many poor people adversely affected will foolishly vote Republican because they think that party promotes "family values." What a scam!
I worked for $7.50/ hour once. Just looking at my paycheck was depressing. Not making much more right now. The cost of living compared to $7.25 is just subsistence these days.
As a member of the great American proletariat, aka working class, I can honestly say that this is just more smoke-n-mirrors from a pack of parasites who get 4% annual pay increases and a free health plan courtesy of my labour and their tax collector.
Um, Will admits that those making more than the minimum wage are poor, then says most people making the minimum wage are not poor. So, if you make the minimum wage you aren't poor, but if you make more than the minimum wage you are poor? Should we then pity the filthy rich?
And may you have a peaceful night.
and don't forget to yank them bootstraps up, pinko!
And if any family members complain about the traffic or the airport or the lumpy gravy or the dry turkey, give 'em a good pistol whippin', and tell them to pull up them bootstraps!
My Birkenstocks dont't come with straps, the turkey is tofu and my gun is loaded with glue. But I'll do my best!
I'll get a "pasting?" Have a great weekend!