COMMENTS: 33
Minimum Wage Increase Is Good for Business
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
The usual array of "Chicken Littles" have claimed a hike in the wage floor will be bad for business and hurt low wage-workers. Earlier this month, columnist George Will suggested that the "minimum wage should be the same everywhere: $0. Labor is a commodity."
So it's surprising and refreshing when you meet small business owners and CEOs who believe the opposite: that competing on the basis of who pays less is a dead end.
"People who tell you that raising the minimum wage will hurt small business are flat out full of it," said Lew Prince, co-owner of Vintage Vinyl, a music retail business in St. Louis. "Small business owners know that keeping workers is easier and cheaper than finding and training new ones."
Prince and a growing number of small business owners argue that paying a decent wage lowers employee turnover, improves morale and is the right thing to do. "Our long-term employees are way more likely to establish ongoing relationships with customers," said Prince.
Prince has joined several hundred business owners in signing a public petition of business owners and leaders who support a hike in the federal minimum wage. The effort is coordinated by the interfaith coalition Let Justice Roll and a network currently in formation called Business for Shared Prosperity.
Some of the well-known signers include Jim Sinegal, CEO of Costco; Eileen Fisher, CEO of apparel giant named after her; Margot Dorfman, CEO of the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce, and Bill Foster, the cofounder of Electronic Theater Controls.
For many business owners, paying their workers well is common sense. "Trying to save money by shortchanging my employees would be like skimping on ingredients," said Kirsten Poole, a petition signer and co-owner of Kirsten's Cafe and Dish Caterers in Silver Spring, Md. "I'd lose more than I saved because of declining quality, service, reputation and customer base. You can't build a healthy business or a healthy economy on a miserly minimum wage."
A growing body of evidence shows that successful businesses that are "built to last" don't skimp on wages. "It is a sound business decision to increase the minimum wage," said venture capitalist Adnan Durrani, president of Condor Ventures in Stamford, Conn. "I have found that without exception in the successful ventures we've backed, providing sustainable living wages yielded direct increases in productivity, job satisfaction and brand loyalty from customers, all contributing to higher returns for investors and employers."
Research by the Economic Policy Institute validates the theory that raising the minimum wage will have a positive effect for low-wage workers without a negative effect on the economy.
The measure will eventually pass the Senate. The only question is how much corporate lard will be added to slide it through the Senate and across the President's desk. Small-business owners know that most of these tax breaks aren't for them. "They're trying to add a bunch of pork and so-called tax breaks for the big businesses that are trying to gobble up our customers," observed Lew Prince.
On Friday, Republicans in the Senate continued to offer amendments to the minimum wage bill, leading Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., to finally blow his stack. "When does the greed stop?" he asked on the floor of the Senate, pointing to over 70 amendments costing over $200 billion. "How much more do we have to give to the private sector and to business? How many billion dollars more, are you asking, are you requiring?"
Senate Democrats should keep pushing for a minimum wage bill unencumbered by billions in tax breaks. Let's cleanly raise the minimum wage and get on with the people's business.
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Leman on Jan 29, 2007 12:43 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Could it be because raising the minimum wage is not good for all companies but only those who already pay above-minimum wages? Yes, these business owners are doing the right thing and I salute them for that. But is it their moral convictions or competition from their lower paying rivals that prompted these petitions?
Let's say, I am a restaurant owner and I cook only Kosher food. I think it's the right thing to do. I feel good about myself and hope that God feels good about the whole deal too. It's more expensive but that's OK. Now, if I band together with other fans of Kosher food and push a petition calling for mandatory compliance with the Rabinical regulations for all food vendors in the country - would you write something as optimistic about us as you did about those progressive record store owners? Or would you rather suspect that I am losing customers to my non-Kosher neighbors because my food is more expensive?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "We know what's good for you"
Posted by: staringatthesun
» The minmium wage fallacy
Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: "We know what's good for you"
Posted by: Leman
» RE: "We know what's good for you" Gee.. I don't know Leman....But were you
Posted by: ekipnrut
» The Negative impact of raising the minimum wage
Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: The Negative impact of raising the minimum wage
Posted by: yellow
» RE: The Negative impact of raising the minimum wage
Posted by: Leman
» RE: The Negative impact of raising the minimum wage
Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: "We know what's good for you"
Posted by: willymack
» RE: "We know what's good for you"
Posted by: yellow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jan 29, 2007 1:47 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good for business: more taxpayers paying more in taxes, which reduces their tax burden
Good for current taxpayers for the same reason, with added bonus that having more people paying more in taxes might--just might--make those folks sit up and take notice of where their "raise" is really going.
Good for our society because, coupled with the fact that fewer people will qualify for the EITC, the government can use those additional savings and additional receipts to pay down the national debt, fix highways, work on commuter transportation, etc. (Provided that we choose representatives who are willing to represent our interests.)
Good for just about everybody, especially the sixteen and seventeen year-olds who will be able to buy their x-box 25% faster.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Crazy H on Jan 29, 2007 2:42 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sojourner on Jan 29, 2007 3:20 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The argument that what is good for working people is good for capitalist owners is a long-term argument. So what really is at stake is the foreseeable future against today's bottom line. That's what needs to be argued.
The retort to this writer is something like, "Well, if I cannot pay people's salaries next week, I'll have to shut down. And by the way, I have enough to live comfortably without working. Doesn't everyone?"
I noticed the writer here did not dare to mention sending jobs overseas. In fact, this half-truth article doesn't mention most of what's relevant. Give us the facts, man; if not all the facts, at least enough to make a cogent argument.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You are a greedy DUMBASS!
Posted by: Setnakt
Comments are closed-
Posted by: popsicle67 on Jan 29, 2007 4:43 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Wow, that's 17 for and 2 million against
Posted by: yellow
» RE: Wow, that's 17 for and 2 million against
Posted by: richholland
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TWilliams on Jan 29, 2007 10:17 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Too bad this article didn't address how they got screwed over.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: YogiBear on Jan 29, 2007 10:25 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Personally I'm happy with this line from the right wing. It's like a broacast message to Americans: "When times are bad, Republicans want to take what little protections you have away altogether." The Democrats couldn't buy this kind of advertising.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The bigger they are...
Posted by: yellow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: richholland on Jan 30, 2007 4:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I remember 20 years ago when the tradeunions and socialists
made the minimum wage obligatory many "business"men told us the country would collapse but instead of this within some years we all had a better life, all the big companies made more profit, because people with a minimum salary spend every right back into the society, to goods, to schools etc. Indeed some uncapable, old fashioned shops lost their cheap labor and had to close.
For the benefit of the country the workers need could salaries
and good medicare. In the long run a descent life for everybody is better then many poor people and some billionaires.
Maybe the fact that we have in Europe at least three political
movements has something to do with it.
1. Christian Democrats
2. Liberals (in fact your Republicans.
3. Socialists (your Democrats )
The result is a mixed society not so different from America.
If labor just is a commodity and people are treated such as you create desperaid terrorists. But maybe some stupid Rich love to do this.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sabresong on Jan 30, 2007 4:58 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we keep the current minimun wage as it is, the hope of beating poverty is gone for individuals. And whether the minimum wage can actually help beat poverty or not, we need that hope.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Forget business .. what about the workers?
Posted by: richholland
Comments are closed-
Posted by: djnoll on Jan 30, 2007 1:03 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Get a Clue: the rise in minimum wage in a free market economy is not borne by the business, it is borne by the consumer. The business will pass along the rise in wages to the consumer in the increased cost of the good. If they get greedy, and overprice, they will lose money. If they do not adjust, they MIGHT lost money depending on their existing price structure. If they adjust for the increase in a competitive way, matching the median price of their competitors, then they do not gain or lose anymore than they do now. The arguments of business are irrelevant and nothing more than smoke and mirrors. They like the cheap labor and they do not want to change the status quo. Their arguments are nothing but hot air because of the market factors, both nationally and globally, and because of the tax breaks afforded businesses. They, after all, not only have to pay the wages and the taxes assosciated with those wages, but they also get to deduct all that as operating expenses from their taxes. The businessman or woman does not pay wages, they pay out profits in the form of wages, and they do not want to do anymore than they are required to do.
A hike in the minimum wage is a non sequitor. It should be done, and done quickly. Those employers who already pay above that level will not be affected, and those who do not will adjust accordingly within a free market and tax-friendly economy. These are the facts, the truths if you will, and any person in business who turns a blind eye to them is a fool destined to lose both employees and business. And, deservedly so.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Is It Just Me, or Is the Argument Being Missed?
Posted by: Leman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cinattra on Jan 30, 2007 2:46 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can't legislate procrastination or lazy.
Some careers protect themselves through a license process or some other minimum needed set of skills. Not all jobs can do that.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Low minimum vs high minimum
Posted by: richholland
» RE: Low minimum vs high minimum
Posted by: Leman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vince78 on Jan 30, 2007 2:48 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have included some additions/modifications to excerpts I obtained from the previously mentioned ruling and from an October 1997 report on the costs and benefits of retail
activities at military bases by the U.S. Congressional Budget Office (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/1xx/doc158/retail.pdf) :
Based on annual sales, the Dept. of Defense operates the 10th largest supermarket chain in the nation. Congress appropriates almost $1 billion for commissaries each year. The appropriations pay for most of the stores' operating costs including the salaries of DECA's 18,000 employees who are members of the civil service.
In 1995, commissaries sold $5 billion in groceries, collected almost $300 million in surcharges, and spent about $1 billion in appropriated funds. More than 300 commissaries are run by the Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) It is projected that in April 2007, after construction is complete, San Diego will become home to the largest commissary in the world.
DECA managers are excused from the rules that safe-guard the behavior of most public agencies. The legislation that permits DECA to treat it's baggers as independent contractors has helped control the agency's need for appropriations. However, it has left 10,000+ workers who are in effect federal employees (people who work in commissaries, using commissary equipment, under the supervision of store managers) unprotected by minimum wage or workers compensation laws. There is no union available. At the 32nd Naval Station Commissary, San Diego CA, baggers are forced to pay $1/hr to work even though they are according to DECA, working for the patrons (8 million active duty personnel, retirees, DoD civilian overseas personnel, and affiliated family members) Thus, DECA implies it is solely the patrons responsibility to furnish a baggers income.
In the past, DECA has estimated that if it was responsible for paying baggers it would need to levy only a 2 percent service charge. See Robyn Chumley, "Shoppers Speak Out" Airman (Dec 1994, pg 47)
Although paying baggers directly might cost DECA an additional $100 million/year in appropriated funds, the current treatment of baggers (many of whom are members of minority groups) appears to be at odds with the governments efforts to set a high standard as an employee. See Ellen Sorokin, "Belvoir Baggers Unpaid, Sue U.S." The Fairfax Journal, December 13, 1996, pg 1
DoD's approach to estimating the benefits of commissaries overstates the financial savings that the patrons receive, neglects the difference between financial savings and patron's
actual benefits, and fails to account for the departments inability to target this non cash benefit effectively. At the same time, DoD understates the economic cost of commissaries by not taking into account forgone state and local taxes or the forgone return on capital.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: what now cartoons on Jan 30, 2007 9:00 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Then when I read that 28 senators voted on a bill they presented to get rid of the Minimum Wage entirely, and that the media had not even reported this disgusting greedy bill and it's votes, I hit the ceiling.
I had to do a cartoon on this topic since people will read a cartoon before they read an article.
to see the cartoon, "Minimal progress with the Minimum Wage" at my website;
www.whatnowtoons.com
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "Minimal progress with the Minimum Wage" ( a cartoon )
Posted by: richholland
» RE: "Minimal progress with the Minimum Wage" ( a cartoon )
Posted by: yellow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Leman on Jan 29, 2007 12:43 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Could it be because raising the minimum wage is not good for all companies but only those who already pay above-minimum wages? Yes, these business owners are doing the right thing and I salute them for that. But is it their moral convictions or competition from their lower paying rivals that prompted these petitions?
Let's say, I am a restaurant owner and I cook only Kosher food. I think it's the right thing to do. I feel good about myself and hope that God feels good about the whole deal too. It's more expensive but that's OK. Now, if I band together with other fans of Kosher food and push a petition calling for mandatory compliance with the Rabinical regulations for all food vendors in the country - would you write something as optimistic about us as you did about those progressive record store owners? Or would you rather suspect that I am losing customers to my non-Kosher neighbors because my food is more expensive?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "We know what's good for you"
Posted by: staringatthesun
» The minmium wage fallacy
Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: "We know what's good for you"
Posted by: Leman
» RE: "We know what's good for you" Gee.. I don't know Leman....But were you
Posted by: ekipnrut
» The Negative impact of raising the minimum wage
Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: The Negative impact of raising the minimum wage
Posted by: yellow
» RE: The Negative impact of raising the minimum wage
Posted by: Leman
» RE: The Negative impact of raising the minimum wage
Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: "We know what's good for you"
Posted by: willymack
» RE: "We know what's good for you"
Posted by: yellow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jan 29, 2007 1:47 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good for business: more taxpayers paying more in taxes, which reduces their tax burden
Good for current taxpayers for the same reason, with added bonus that having more people paying more in taxes might--just might--make those folks sit up and take notice of where their "raise" is really going.
Good for our society because, coupled with the fact that fewer people will qualify for the EITC, the government can use those additional savings and additional receipts to pay down the national debt, fix highways, work on commuter transportation, etc. (Provided that we choose representatives who are willing to represent our interests.)
Good for just about everybody, especially the sixteen and seventeen year-olds who will be able to buy their x-box 25% faster.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Crazy H on Jan 29, 2007 2:42 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sojourner on Jan 29, 2007 3:20 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The argument that what is good for working people is good for capitalist owners is a long-term argument. So what really is at stake is the foreseeable future against today's bottom line. That's what needs to be argued.
The retort to this writer is something like, "Well, if I cannot pay people's salaries next week, I'll have to shut down. And by the way, I have enough to live comfortably without working. Doesn't everyone?"
I noticed the writer here did not dare to mention sending jobs overseas. In fact, this half-truth article doesn't mention most of what's relevant. Give us the facts, man; if not all the facts, at least enough to make a cogent argument.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You are a greedy DUMBASS!
Posted by: Setnakt
Comments are closed-
Posted by: popsicle67 on Jan 29, 2007 4:43 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Wow, that's 17 for and 2 million against
Posted by: yellow
» RE: Wow, that's 17 for and 2 million against
Posted by: richholland
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TWilliams on Jan 29, 2007 10:17 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Too bad this article didn't address how they got screwed over.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: YogiBear on Jan 29, 2007 10:25 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Personally I'm happy with this line from the right wing. It's like a broacast message to Americans: "When times are bad, Republicans want to take what little protections you have away altogether." The Democrats couldn't buy this kind of advertising.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The bigger they are...
Posted by: yellow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: richholland on Jan 30, 2007 4:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I remember 20 years ago when the tradeunions and socialists
made the minimum wage obligatory many "business"men told us the country would collapse but instead of this within some years we all had a better life, all the big companies made more profit, because people with a minimum salary spend every right back into the society, to goods, to schools etc. Indeed some uncapable, old fashioned shops lost their cheap labor and had to close.
For the benefit of the country the workers need could salaries
and good medicare. In the long run a descent life for everybody is better then many poor people and some billionaires.
Maybe the fact that we have in Europe at least three political
movements has something to do with it.
1. Christian Democrats
2. Liberals (in fact your Republicans.
3. Socialists (your Democrats )
The result is a mixed society not so different from America.
If labor just is a commodity and people are treated such as you create desperaid terrorists. But maybe some stupid Rich love to do this.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sabresong on Jan 30, 2007 4:58 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we keep the current minimun wage as it is, the hope of beating poverty is gone for individuals. And whether the minimum wage can actually help beat poverty or not, we need that hope.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Forget business .. what about the workers?
Posted by: richholland
Comments are closed-
Posted by: djnoll on Jan 30, 2007 1:03 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Get a Clue: the rise in minimum wage in a free market economy is not borne by the business, it is borne by the consumer. The business will pass along the rise in wages to the consumer in the increased cost of the good. If they get greedy, and overprice, they will lose money. If they do not adjust, they MIGHT lost money depending on their existing price structure. If they adjust for the increase in a competitive way, matching the median price of their competitors, then they do not gain or lose anymore than they do now. The arguments of business are irrelevant and nothing more than smoke and mirrors. They like the cheap labor and they do not want to change the status quo. Their arguments are nothing but hot air because of the market factors, both nationally and globally, and because of the tax breaks afforded businesses. They, after all, not only have to pay the wages and the taxes assosciated with those wages, but they also get to deduct all that as operating expenses from their taxes. The businessman or woman does not pay wages, they pay out profits in the form of wages, and they do not want to do anymore than they are required to do.
A hike in the minimum wage is a non sequitor. It should be done, and done quickly. Those employers who already pay above that level will not be affected, and those who do not will adjust accordingly within a free market and tax-friendly economy. These are the facts, the truths if you will, and any person in business who turns a blind eye to them is a fool destined to lose both employees and business. And, deservedly so.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Is It Just Me, or Is the Argument Being Missed?
Posted by: Leman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cinattra on Jan 30, 2007 2:46 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can't legislate procrastination or lazy.
Some careers protect themselves through a license process or some other minimum needed set of skills. Not all jobs can do that.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Low minimum vs high minimum
Posted by: richholland
» RE: Low minimum vs high minimum
Posted by: Leman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vince78 on Jan 30, 2007 2:48 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have included some additions/modifications to excerpts I obtained from the previously mentioned ruling and from an October 1997 report on the costs and benefits of retail
activities at military bases by the U.S. Congressional Budget Office (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/1xx/doc158/retail.pdf) :
Based on annual sales, the Dept. of Defense operates the 10th largest supermarket chain in the nation. Congress appropriates almost $1 billion for commissaries each year. The appropriations pay for most of the stores' operating costs including the salaries of DECA's 18,000 employees who are members of the civil service.
In 1995, commissaries sold $5 billion in groceries, collected almost $300 million in surcharges, and spent about $1 billion in appropriated funds. More than 300 commissaries are run by the Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) It is projected that in April 2007, after construction is complete, San Diego will become home to the largest commissary in the world.
DECA managers are excused from the rules that safe-guard the behavior of most public agencies. The legislation that permits DECA to treat it's baggers as independent contractors has helped control the agency's need for appropriations. However, it has left 10,000+ workers who are in effect federal employees (people who work in commissaries, using commissary equipment, under the supervision of store managers) unprotected by minimum wage or workers compensation laws. There is no union available. At the 32nd Naval Station Commissary, San Diego CA, baggers are forced to pay $1/hr to work even though they are according to DECA, working for the patrons (8 million active duty personnel, retirees, DoD civilian overseas personnel, and affiliated family members) Thus, DECA implies it is solely the patrons responsibility to furnish a baggers income.
In the past, DECA has estimated that if it was responsible for paying baggers it would need to levy only a 2 percent service charge. See Robyn Chumley, "Shoppers Speak Out" Airman (Dec 1994, pg 47)
Although paying baggers directly might cost DECA an additional $100 million/year in appropriated funds, the current treatment of baggers (many of whom are members of minority groups) appears to be at odds with the governments efforts to set a high standard as an employee. See Ellen Sorokin, "Belvoir Baggers Unpaid, Sue U.S." The Fairfax Journal, December 13, 1996, pg 1
DoD's approach to estimating the benefits of commissaries overstates the financial savings that the patrons receive, neglects the difference between financial savings and patron's
actual benefits, and fails to account for the departments inability to target this non cash benefit effectively. At the same time, DoD understates the economic cost of commissaries by not taking into account forgone state and local taxes or the forgone return on capital.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: what now cartoons on Jan 30, 2007 9:00 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Then when I read that 28 senators voted on a bill they presented to get rid of the Minimum Wage entirely, and that the media had not even reported this disgusting greedy bill and it's votes, I hit the ceiling.
I had to do a cartoon on this topic since people will read a cartoon before they read an article.
to see the cartoon, "Minimal progress with the Minimum Wage" at my website;
www.whatnowtoons.com
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "Minimal progress with the Minimum Wage" ( a cartoon )
Posted by: richholland
» RE: "Minimal progress with the Minimum Wage" ( a cartoon )
Posted by: yellow
Vancouver's Games Will Be the Gayest Olympics Ever
Trial Begins for Activist Who Fought to Protect Federal Lands from Drilling -- Join the Protest
Starbucks' Cop-Out to Gun Nuts: Customers Served Coffee While Strapped




