Race To Bottom Fueled By Federal Government

The Feds have created more low paying jobs than Wal-Mart?! That doesn't fit the narrative- here's the story though
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/federal-government-creates-more-low-wage...
The federal government is better at creating low-paying jobs than Wal-Mart and McDonald's combined, according to a new report.

A study released earlier this month from the public policy group Demos states that through various forms of government funding in the private sector, nearly two million people are making $12 an hour or less. The number of workers at Wal-Mart and McDonald's together at $12 an hour or less is currently around 1.5 million, according to the report.

Now I'm sure that it won't be long before ignorant Wolfman blames Bush, the Koch brothers, non union jobs, Conservatives, Bain, Brian Wilson, and any number of other strawmen but the story is out there nonetheless.
Oh and before ignorant Wolfman claims it's a right wing shill for anyone here's what Demos is-In the late 1990s, Demos was conceptualized by Charles Halpern, President of the Nathan Cummings Foundation (1989–2000). Halpern wanted to create a counter-argument to the growing influence of the many right-wing think tanks and establish a multi-issue organization that would focus on progressive policy development and advocacy. David Callahan, a Fellow at the Century Foundation, and Stephen Heintz, Vice-President of the EastWest Institute, joined Halpern in helping to found Demos. Founding Board members included Arnie Miller, of Isaccson Miller, an executive search firm; David Skaggs, a Colorado Congressman; AND BARACK OBAMA AN ILLINOIS SENATOR.

No votes yet

Aren't you the same one who was screaming bloody murder regarding raising the minimum wage?

Now a question for others who comment on this forum. There seem to be a few lonely, and possibly mentally unbalanced, individuals who post inflammatory stories here just to get attention. They refuse to even consider facts and I suspect they make up a lot of stuff. I'm beginning to wonder if I'm just wasting my time in a nuthouse. Why do the more sane of you continue to post here?

Why. If we let Abby Normal continue without being challenged, some people may not get a balanced view.

I don't believe I was screaming bloody murder, but I am against a minumum wage that the government sets. That and the story I posted are not mutally exclusive. The story is posted to offer the other side of the low income worker that ignorant Wolfman doesn't present. The board has been inundated with repeat videos presenting a skewed version of wealth inequality and it's reasons. This story was posted to present a second side of the story.
I hope this fits in with your hopes for the site should be like. If not, there are other site all over the internet that should match your intelligence so you won't feel you're in a nuthouse.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

real American's, under employed, unemployed, or who are working part time.
Both of these stats are historically FIRSTS, in all of American History.

All because of who you vote for in every election since allowed by Law to!!!

Being a soulless liberal, I know it matters nothing at all to you because it is all one man's fault.
ALL TOGETHER NOW , LET'S SAY IT IN UNISON -

The problem with Fred is he suffers from a polarized mind. People who have this malady often have had a traumatized childhood bring on feelings of insignificance. A sort of inferiority complex. Those individuals have no sense of balance in their thinking resulting in ignorant thought. Ignorant thought results from filling ones mind with one ideology (a fixation) and a blatant disregard of reason. We've discussed before of troubled Fred and what appears is his bouts of depression caused from job stress. I've called on Fred to seek professional counseling in the past but its obvious he still has this deep seated problem of hatred of others that projects in his everyday interpersonal relationships.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

entire web world,has the skills or know how, to evaluate as if a psycho-analyst ?!

That must have been your job at Jeep, when a unionized scumbag shot and murdered some employees there !!

NICE JOB ASSHOLE !!!

What rock did you crawl from under Tater? Your silly mindless kool-aid drinking comments had me laughing so hard I thought it was comedian Ron White.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Hey Fred, isn't this article about private companies that get government money then pay cheap wages? You make it sound like the government is creating low paying jobs, when instead it is private companies. With lines like :"The biggest offenders came from those companies receiving direct federal contracts. Some 560,000 workers in those firms make $12 an hour or less, says the report." I think the article is actually talking about companies that get the benefit of government money but don't really pass along the fruits to their workers. You might want to read more than just the headline.

For me the point of the article is that despite the government's best intentions, and lofty promises it can't solve a problem by throwing taxpayer money at it. And yet they will continue to do so despite their own evidence that it doesn't raise wages or standard of living.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

How is it about government throwing money at a problem?

The story is about private companies being contracted by the government. That's privatization, a practice conservatives always claim will solve problems. You like privatization, right?

It shouldn't be this hard for you guys to understand. Privatization is not government handing out grants and subsidies. From the article But the amount is still huge. American businesses got $446.5 billion from taxpayers last year in the form of grants, loans, and subsidies. " That is not privatization. Privatization is government not having it's own work force which it must pay for and supply benefits for. It would mean that government would hire private companies that are responsible for their worker's wages and benefits. It's not subsidies, grants, and loans. Is that clear now?
In the case of a govt. hiring a private company it's the same as you hiring someone to do work for you- if you aren't happy you change companies, you look for the best price. What you wouldn't do is give one company money in the form of a grant, loan, or subsidy and then hire them on top of that to do the work.

Clear?

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

Here's a direct quote from the article: "The biggest offenders came from those companies receiving direct federal contracts. Some 560,000 workers in those firms make $12 an hour or less, says the report". It's talking about privatization.

In other words, the article says "the biggest offenders came from those companies receiving direct federal contracts", not grants, loans, and subsidies. Clear now? You are not reading the whole piece.

Sure I have, I don't post without reading, I'm not ignorant Wolfman. That quote makes my point about the government expecting government dollars to have some effect which obviously it can't control.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

First of all, privatization is a misnomer. When a government project is privatized, the state generally retains substantial authority over that project and takes a substantial financial gain for the administratio n and oversight of the project. Whatever state retains the project it can stay political and the skiming from the oversight can push the real price higher then the market price, right back to political prices.

Secondly, the enterprises attracted to, and most likely to garner contracts for, privatization schemes aren’t necessarily the most efficient market enterprises. Rather, they’re the enterprises which hire the best lobbyists that have the most political influence. I n this respect,privatization, rather than being a solution for government failures, it can render the private sector with the same failures.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

Yes, I agree with you when you say "privatization schemes aren’t necessarily the most efficient market enterprises. Rather, they’re the enterprises which hire the best lobbyists that have the most political influence".

I think you are totally correct in the above statement.

You just admitted in effect that government should be minimal in order to similarly minimize such automatic features of bloat.

Minimal in what respect? Privatization ends up mirroring the politcal costs in some cases.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

At this juncture in history, minimal in the sense of a government that does what its constitution or charter says it must, and nothing else.

Fat Fredo posting as Tater so he can express himself like he really wants to. LOL
You go girl.

7.25 USD per hour (Jul 24, 2009)

United States of America, Minimum wage

First they complain it's too high, then it's too low, then it's too high,..........

the article: "This is another example of our low-wage economy," said Jason Bent, a professor of employment law at Stetson University. "Private companies with government contracts are doing the same thing as those that don't have contracts. They're paying low wages to cut costs."

Again, it's not talking about grants or subsidies.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.