Wage rules lifted

[mickeyfan2]

Like I said...supply and demand will cause wages to rise. No one really needs to be worrying about the legit construction workers.

I could not agree more.

 

[peachgirl]

If you'd give me a couple of minutes, you wouldn't have to post multiple times..

You're right I did make those errors. Jump that up to a whopping $99 a month in assistance.

If they had a car worth $1500 or more or qualified resource that would cut into if not eliminate that $99.

I didn't include any special circumstances. I didn't disallow them for vehicles and I didn't give deductions for childcare. I said that up front. Housing deductions are not automatic (generally have to be more than 1/2 of the net income) and as such, didn't include them.

 

[mickeyfan2]

You're right I did make those errors.

It is big of you to acknowledge your error. When making a valid arguement it takes away from your credibility that you always make mistakes when you are making a point. Just like the reporter that you bashed on another thread, untruths are untruths.

Jump that up to a whopping $99 a month in assistance.

That is 10 times what you were giving them. So it is a big deal.

If they had a car worth $1500 or more or qualified resource that would cut into if not eliminate that $99.

This was also not included in your $9 calculation so for your example the answer is $99. You cannot change the rules when your answer is proved in error.

I didn't include any special circumstances. I didn't disallow them for vehicles and I didn't give deductions for childcare. I said that up front. Housing deductions are not automatic (generally have to be more than 1/2 of the net income) and as such, didn't include them.

Well if you had then the $9 would have been more. If they are part of the calulation that the government does, then they need to be included.

 

[peachgirl]

It is big of you to acknowledge your error. When making a valid arguement it takes away from your credibility that you always make mistakes when you are making a point. Just like the reporter that you bashed on another thread, untruths are untruths.

Be very careful, you're razor close to being in violation of the posting guidlines. Your veiled insult that I'm lying won't go unnoticed.

That is 10 times what you were giving them. So it is a big deal.

The percentage of increase has nothing to do with whether it's a big deal or not.

This was also not included in your $9 calculation so for your example the answer is $99. You cannot change the rules when your answer is proved in error.

That's exactly right..so to try and include child care or excessive housing costs wouldn't be fair either. I also didn't deduct the $1 hr + that would not actually be in the form of wages.

If they are part of the calulation that the government does, then they need to be included.

See the last response...

One thing I will agree with, with the repeal of this act, you can bet there are going to be a lot of them that qualify for assistance.

Bottom line...to say that yes, they would qualify is wrong. I'll agree that it's possible, but it's just as likely not and even if they did, it wouldn't be for much.

Bottom line...One shouldn't whine about welfare recipients when they don't want to pay them a decent wage.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

I swear some people don't want to read certain posts...

Peachgirl, I don't think there is anything to really worry about since basic economics will come into play. Supply and demand will drive wages up. Honestly, the only thing Davis-Bacon does is give Prime Contractors an excuse to drive up project costs. Like I said in my first post on this thread, you could bid two equal projects, one using federal money and one with our own capital, and the bids will be completely different. The project utilizing federal funds will be much higher and it's not because the contractor is paying its workers, subcontractors, etc. more. There is such demand out there right now that prevailing wages (or more) is what is paid.

 

[Free4Life11]

Just a note on food stamps. I applied last November and I made about $6000 last year. I was denied because I was a student. They said students are only eligible if they have a work-study. Well I called and said that I DO have a federal work study and she gave me all sorts of run-around about how it has to be a "certain" work study. Basically I think it was a bunch of bull. Way too much hassle. I am not a free-loader I was just going through a tough time and needed some help. It was frustarating that I spent all that time filling out forms only to be denied. I probably could have fought it more but I just didn't have the time to do it.

 

[mickeyfan2]

Be very careful, you're razor close to being in violation of the posting guidlines. Your veiled insult that I'm lying won't go unnoticed.

I was not insulting you. If you took it that way, I'm sorry. I was just point out that you previously stated that the wage was $9 but was disproven to be $10.50, now you said $9 and it is more (maybe $99). I even used the site that you posted to prove the $10.50. I am not calling you a lier but pointing out the error in your calculation. If you are making a case, then do it with numbers that we cannot prove wrong.

Bottom line...One shouldn't whine about welfare recipients when they don't want to pay them a decent wage.

Who said I did not want to pay them a decent wage? I want them to work and pay their own way. I only want to help when they have done everything in their power to make ends meet but still cannot. If a man makes a child(ren) and then abandons them, I want the Feds to track him down, take his networth, send him to hail, garnish his wages whatever it takes to make him pay for his child(ren). The number one cause of poverty is single parent households lead by women. How does this happen? By men making kids and leaving. I don't want to pay for your kid(s) only mine. If it is your money and you can spend it how you want then it is your kid(s) and you spend you money on them. No I am not insulting you saying you are a single mother.

 

[peachgirl]

I was just point out that you previously stated that the wage was $9 but was disproven to be $10.50, now you said $9 and it is more (maybe $99). I even used the site that you posted to prove the $10.50. I am not calling you a lier but pointing out the error in your calculation.

As I said, I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong, but you've got your facts wrong here.

First, I used a different website the 2nd time. As I told you, I didn't save the link for the $9 hr rate. When I did another search, I found the official site that I considered to me more reliable. It doesn't list the wage as $10.50, it lists it at $9.55 with $1.05 fringes which makes $10.60.

Since I clearly stated the fact that the websites were different, it's not a mistake and it's not a lie, it's a variance in websites.

If I were trying to lie about the food stamp issue, I certainly wouldn't have put the figures out for any fool to see. It was pretty easy to catch the mistake, it was a glaring one.


Now, those are the facts, you have fun with them but I'm sick of your insults and innuendo so take it somewhere else.

I was not insulting you. If you took it that way, I'm sorry.

Of course you were and you shouldn't engage in the same activity you accuse others of.

 

[Charade]

What bothers me most about this is that there are some workers who always made the prevailing wage. My DH used to work for a company that only did prevailing wage. He worked there for 4 years. There was never a lay-off....there was never a week he worked less than 40 hours. We bought our home and based our life on this wage. I know we would have been pretty ticked off if, all of a sudden, his employer just cut his pay because he now had permission to do so.

Why does the government have the right to dictate what wages a company has to pay an employee if they are federally funded?

 

[toto2]

I stopped reading after page 5 to anwser a few thing , in no particular order. A lot of things are feelings , so we can discuss about it.


I often see the US governement talking about familly vcalues , and the importance of famiily , and taking care of children. I even read those type of things here in the DIS.

Then I read , here that it is allright to let go of some of the protections some workers have to receive a wage that would provide the strict minimum ( or even less in some case). I read : they can take some part time jobs over that , and have the second adult in that familly work as well , maybe a second job too , in order to provide the minimum to there familly. I am sure these people will have a fine familly lfe and take exellent care of there childreen. This is the ultimate anti-familly value that is being promoted here.

My second impression is that a lot ( again read it often here on the dis) of people would do away with minimum wage. A lot of big companies are only waiting for the governement to do something like that , and the current administration is very , very close to a lot of these companies. This event is opening the door to that. The rule of the market is not always the solution to all and every problems our societies face. This is the beguining of the Walmartization of the workforce in the USA.


The second

 

[AllyandJack]

Why does the government have the right to dictate what wages a company has to pay an employee if they are federally funded?

I don't think they have a right. However, when someone is being paid a certain amount based on a certain set of rules, I think it stinks when the rules are suddenly changed and someone's income is cut.

I would feel the same way if Wal-Mart suddenly cut all their wages. It's just not fair.

I know...life's not fair.

When DH started making BIG money, it was always in the back of our mind that his company would pick up a non-prevailing wage job and his rate would get cut by $20./hour. So, he moved on to another company where his non-prevailing wage rate is more than the prevailing wage rate. People have to take some responsibility for their lives, but it stinks when someone's worked years in a job making a certain amount of money and then it's cut because the rules were changed. Not saying the prevailing wage rules are right (in MA, an unskilled laborer makes about $30./hour....that's insane), but cutting someone's income isn't right either.

 

[BuckNaked]

Then I read , here that it is allright to let go of some of the protections some workers have to receive a wage that would provide the strict minimum ( or even less in some case).

This subject of this thread has nothing to do with the minimum wage.

 

[mickeyfan2]

Now, those are the facts, you have fun with them but I'm sick of your insults and innuendo so take it somewhere else.

Please show me these and I will appologize to you for them too. It may just be possible that you read into my comments and I really was not insulting you.

Of course you were and you shouldn't engage in the same activity you accuse others of.

Sorry that you cannot accept an appology when one is offered.

 

[mickeyfan2]

My second impression is that a lot ( again read it often here on the dis) of people would do away with minimum wage.

I for one would never want to see an end to minimum wage. I would prefer an end to welfare and the implementation of workfare. For example, you work at McDonalds for 40 hours per week and get minimum wage. I would want you to work there, and have the workfare system send you a second check (only if you worked 40 hours, were on paid vacation, sick) to bring the wage to an amount to make it so you could live. Once your children see you going to work, they will want to get a better job then McDonalds. So in my example lets make minimum wage $5 and a liveable wage $15. You would be paid $200/week by McDonalds and $400/week by the workfare system. This is the hand-up that is needed. I have oversimpified it here, but this is the basic idea.

 

[toto2]

This subject of this thread has nothing to do with the minimum wage.

I know that , but , it has to do with lifting some laws that have to do with wages paid to workers

"The Davis-Bacon law requires federal contractors to pay workers at least the prevailing wages in the area where the work is conducted. It applies to federally funded construction projects such as highways and bridges."

I was just trying to imply that , in my view , it might be the beguining of something not very good. Not that it is going to happen , but that it could.

 

[shrubber]

The Prevailing Wage law is nothing more than a seperate minimum wage. It should be banished altogether.

 

[toto2]

The Prevailing Wage law is nothing more than a seperate minimum wage. It should be banished altogether.

Why ?

 

[jgmklmhem]

How likely is it to you that someone who makes less than $24000 a year (but not that much less) will actually get more than a few dollars a month even if the gvt actually agrees to give it to them? Its only about $2000 a year. That works out to $166 a month. Thats like change in your pocket.

As a single person living alone, I know I can live on $1200 a month (did it for years). Family of 4? Do you think they can live on $2000 a month? Thats just enough to give a single person some little benefits so they aren't just barely paying their bills each month. Never mind a family of 4.

Either some people have been living under a rock or they never had to support a family on that kind of wage. My mother did it ($1600 a month and a family of 3) but I had to start working at 15 to help her because she couldn't afford the bills on her own.

How much do you really think living costs?

I and my family of four lived off of less than 20,000 a year when I was in graduate school. The only thing the govt gave us was the cheap insurance on the kids from FL and the EIC and of course paid no taxes. It can be done and done well. As you can see during that time we went to WDW quite a few times (1999-2004). I think some of you cannot imagine living off of so little
but I have done it and while not great is actually quite easy to manage. Yes you have to shop at the evil Wal-Mart and buy stuff second hand (clothes,cars,toys etc), but again we did and still went to WDW a few times. Heck just because of my situation I am still making less than $30,000 and we are doing just fine. So if you budget correctly and watch your money well it isn't as hard as the media and you guys make it out to be.

 

[shrubber]

Why ?

Why? If the Davis-Bacon Act requires that any worker handling a hammer and a nail, for example, be paid $25 an hour, no contractor in his right mind is going to hire a worker with $10 an hour skills and pay him $25. Any minimum wage law tends to discriminate against the employment of low-skilled works; the Davis-Bacon Act is simply a super-minimum wage.

 

[AllyandJack]

Why ?

It's a drain to local taxpayers. Instead of paying a laborer who has no education and no skills $15./hour, you have to pay him $30. That means you have to pay the skilled people more.

The prevailing wage for an electrician in MA is $59./hour. Get an electrical license and you're making $59./hour. It got to the point where DH, being a foreman and in the trade for over 8 years, was making the same as a kid just out of trade school. There is no reward for being a good, hard worker and no punishment (i.e. no raises if you didn't earn it) if you're a slacker.

DH's company does some prevailing wage work, but it doesn't matter since his flat rate is more than the prevailing wage. The newly licensed guy on the job makes about $30./hour less. The guy who shows up late every day didn't get a raise at his annual review. DH works hard because he hopes for a raise at his annual review.

It also causes a lot of job-hopping and unemployment. Some rates are less....the further from Boston you go, the less the rate is. So, you have a guy making $59./hour and the project ends. He gets sent to another city and the rate is $49./hour. So, this guy finds a company hiring for a project at the $59./hour rate. When that project ends, he's laid off.

High pay should be earned. My DH put in his time making $12./hour at the beginning of his career. You work hard, you make good money. You slack off, you're making $12./hour forever. That's the nature of life.