While it is easy to rake Bush over the coals for suspending the Davis-Bacon Act and it is probabily true his Friends will make a lot of money- When you think about it, wasn't it the correct thing to do?
Paying people a living wage isn't bacon. Bush crony companies are gonna over-charge the Government for no-bid contracts and at the same time pay workers as little as possible. End result - Bush cronies walk with pockets full of taxpayer money, workers forced to work for less than they are en led too, and a much, much more bloated deficit.
What's not to like?
Dan
Wouldn't creating the means for the sort of lower-wage WPA-style public works jobs program that might actually help thousands of poor, unskilled workers in LA and Mississippi as opposed to a relative few better-paid union workers be a good idea?
Doesn't this act, if left in place assure the construction "Unions" people,
a job with BACON and it would benefit
a powerful special intrest of the Dems.
the Building and Construction trades Department of the AFL-CIO?=which is not a real big fan of Bush and his daddy.
Case in Point
Belton Roofing is looking for roofers with 10years experience at $9.00 a hour.
without this act suspended I bet it would be at $15.00 an hour or more.
Last edited by AFE7FATMAN; 09-23-2005 at 05:22 AM.
Yeah, if it was unskilled-jobs we are talking about here, but it isn't. What the Republicans want to do is make it legal to hire foreign skilled laborers at lower than scale wages to rebuild New Orleans instead of hard-working skilled Americans in NO who need the jobs and money.Wouldn't creating the means for the sort of lower-wage WPA-style public works jobs program that might actually help thousands of poor, unskilled workers in LA and Mississippi as opposed to a relative few better-paid union workers be a good idea?
One again, the administration puts the interests of it's crony buddies before what's good for the American people.
It is not only the administration-The Dems are in agreement with the WORLD Economy-New World Order,etc
Bill Gates is bringing in Skilled Workers for less
USAA is doing it.
Why not the Government? at least some of the money saved will belong to you and me. I don't see anyone complaining about Gates doing it, USAA doing it-They just tell you to retrain if your a programer. or are you pissed the the Unions are getting bitten in the rear? Yep I'm anti-union
We are also talking aboiut unskilled workers, ie.
picking up the trash for about what a Nurse's aid makes? Is this right?
It's the DLC and it's members who supports corporatism. They used to be known as Centrists, now they are just Republican-lite. They do not run the Democratic party anymore. All the Party fundraising is done by the DNC, Howard Dean and Progressives.It is not only the administration-The Dems are in agreement with the WORLD Economy-New World Order,etc
Bill Gates is bringing in Skilled Workers for less
USAA is doing it.
Why not the Government? at least some of the money saved will belong to you and me. I don't see anyone complaining about Gates doing it, USAA doing it-They just tell you to retrain if your a programer.
I believe the Davis-Bacon Act has never been suspended before in over a century. Not even during the Great Depression.
IMO your headed in the wrong direction Dan
It's not the DLC
It's GWB and his daddy's Group and Karl Rove that actually understand
the difference between interest-group liberalism and reform liberalism and besides who needs Mr Reed's DLC, that's why Howard dean is the head of the DNC.
I'd have to google it> I know that FDR broke a union strike over prevailing wages in order to save the WPA.
PS Sorry I'm at work and I gotta go.
Nahh, it's right. American's are gradually turning toward Progressive positions. Most are now against the war, don't trust a word W says, and believe that the WH and the Republican-controlled Congress are on the wrong track economically. Republican will deny it to the end. But the political pendulum has swung as recent polls have prospective Democratic candidates out-polling prospective Republican candidates by a 65-35 margin in 06.
What's a "living wage"? Is it $6 an hour? $10 an hour? $20? That has to be one of the more overused slogans in politics today.
Also, I've never understood why the left wants the government out of virtually every personal decision in one's life and yet wants the government restricting their economic decisions. It would be great if you could totally separate out your personal life from your financial one. But you can't.
That's not to address the actual impact of throwing in price floors in the labor market. At best there's no effect because the market clearing price is above the floor or demand for whatever product is inelastic enough so that the cost can be passed along to the buyers. At worst, you reduce the employment opportunities for those who want them the most. So you tell an employer they need to pay 25% more per hour in order to offer a "living wage". Then the employer cuts back the hours that employee gets, cans them or finds other ways to mitigate the impact, such as taking their operations elsewhere.
Seeing as how a lot of lower wage employees work in industries with fairly elastic demand, the worst case scenario is likely to occur.
I think any type of minimum wage or living wage law is the first stop on the 'wrong economic track'.
Last edited by Marcus Bryant; 09-23-2005 at 09:14 AM.
"the government restricting their economic decisions."
Nobody wants the govt in their personal lives (well, the right actually wants the feds in our bedrooms and doctors offices), but a key role of govt has always been to protect people from business.
If left unrestricted, businesses will
each other until one ends up as a monopoly (like abusive Microsoft) or a price-fixing/non-compete cartel,
all the while ing their employees (lowest possible wage, no workplace safety),
ing their customers with the highest prices for the tiest products they can get away with sold with the deceptive marketing/labelling, and
of course, ing over the environment.
... which is where US industry in the late 19th century was, and still would be today if fed govt had not stepped to regulate business in all the above areas in the 20th century.
The US minimum wage pays a 40-hour/week worker about $10K GROSS/year, aka extreme poverty. If there were no minimum wage, businesses would be thrilled to pay the low-end works $2 or $3/hour. Day laborers in Jamaica make about $15/day, cash.
So basically, the poor dumb people are incapable of making financial decisions for themselves.
So what should be the minimum wage? $10? Why stop there? Let's make it $20. After all, there's no impact, right? Nobody's going to lose their job.
You know, in most industries the prevailing wage is significantly higher than the minimum wage. It's only in jobs that what you describe is even remotely close to being correct. So you advocate pricing those who most desperately need work out of the market. Great idea.
How many businesses that over their customers with defective products are going to last long in the US?
As for MSFT, at best they have a temporary monopoly until the next great thing comes along. And I would add that there are very few true monopolies or even oligopolies in the US, save for utilities.
You seem like a bitter individual. Government regulation isn't going to make the pain go away.
Once again, most of these are skilled jobs that are protected by Davis-Bacon, jobs like electricians and plumbers. These jobs typically pay scale wages, but what the WH is doing is lowering the bar on that scale for hard-working Americans so that those who chose to take jobs rebuilding NO have to compete with the lower wages which foreign skilled labor will work for. However, all this is not saving you or I any money because the no-bid contracts sure to be awarded to Republican crony companies have guaranteed profits already build into them.So basically, the poor dumb people are incapable of making financial decisions for themselves.
So what should be the minimum wage? $10? Why stop there? Let's make it $20. After all, there's no impact, right? Nobody's going to lose their job.
You know, in most industries the prevailing wage is significantly higher than the minimum wage. It's only in jobs that what you describe is even remotely close to being correct. So you advocate pricing those who most desperately need work out of the market. Great idea
Once again, the White House is opening up compe ion for those skills and in the end will save the taxpayers some $ (for a change). What's the problem?
They aren't saving the taxpayer's money. The contractors are still going to charge abhorrent prices to the FEDS, but they are going to get away with paying piddly wages to the people who are going to do the real, roll-up-your-sleeves, work rebuilding NO.
Maybe they will have compe ive bidding instead of Neocon conspiracy theory #2,742.
In addition, if those firms had to pay the inflated wages then likely fewer individuals would have an employment opportunity.
I was watching The Daily Show....and they interviewed a Republican senator....he had no idea what the Davis-Bacon act was about.
"the poor dumb people are incapable of making financial decisions for themselves."
you have SERIOUS problems reading. The poor, dumb people have almost no power to decide anything in the employment marketplace. It's a buyers market. So they have to take whatever they can find, sell themselves cheap, and the rich, smart people running companies will buy their labor for peanuts, aka, US minimum wage, and if there were no minimum wage, the corps would pay even lower.
If all corps pay over the minimum wage, why the do the Repubs absolutely refuse to raise it?
Wal-mart avg salary is $17K, and that includes all the layers of much higher paid mgmt.
"How many businesses that over their customers with defective products are going to last long in the US?"
no long, BECAUSE the federal trade/consumer protection regulatory structure has succeeded in protecting the consumer, employess from the immoral, rapacious corps and fostering compe ion, NONE of which would exist without federal regulation.
"if those firms had to pay the inflated wages then likely fewer individuals would have an employment opportunity."
EXCELLENT. You've stepped right into socialism, where the pie slices are kept small so more people can eat pie.
Sorry, but as an employer, it is to my DISTINCT disadvantage to hire poor, dumb people...well, dumb people anyway...especially at a premium wage. How can I expect someone in the "can't find your ass with both hands and a map" category to carry out any potentially complicated tasks? You're going to have to give me a pretty damn good reason to even consider it. A little lower wage maybe?
And what, exactly, would a fair wage be for putting groceries in a sack or pushing in all of the carts from the parking lot?
Actually I didn't, because it would be the government who was artificially inflating the wage. Duh.
You have a problem understanding basic economics you dumb mother er.
Pork fat rules baby!!
Thanks to Bush , I have no choice but to make it on my own,
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
