Bush and wages in the gulf area

[Mavdog]

I'd love to see a bush supporter try to defend this action
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush lifts wage rules for Katrina
President signs executive order allowing contractors to pay below prevailing wage in affected areas.
September 11, 2005: 11:59 AM EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush issued an executive order Thursday allowing federal contractors rebuilding in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to pay below the prevailing wage.

In a notice to Congress, Bush said the hurricane had caused "a national emergency" that permits him to take such action under the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act in ravaged areas of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi.

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.

Bush's executive order suspends the requirements of the Davis-Bacon law for designated areas hit by the storm.

Bush's action came as the federal government moved to provide billions of dollars in aid, and drew rebukes from two of organized labor's biggest friends in Congress, Rep. George Miller of California and Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, both Democrats.

"The administration is using the devastation of Hurricane Katrina to cut the wages of people desperately trying to rebuild their lives and their communities," Miller said.

"President Bush should immediately realize the colossal mistake he has made in signing this order and rescind it and ensure that America puts its people back to work in the wake of Katrina at wages that will get them and their families back on their feet," Miller said.

"I regret the president's decision," said Kennedy.

"One of the things the American people are very concerned about is shabby work and that certainly is true about the families whose houses are going to be rebuilt and buildings that are going to be restored," Kennedy said.

[LRB]

And what exactly pray tell do you feel has paticular need of defending? That the federal government won't artificially inflate wages in order to minimize and delay the assistance to reconstruction of the damaged areas. Or maybe it's because now more people can be afforded jobs.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB
And what exactly pray tell do you feel has paticular need of defending?

oh, maybe the fact that the workers will not be paid the prevailing wage, but are at the mercy of whatever the federal contractors wish to pay. that will be enough to guarantee those workers will be below the established poverty line.

That the federal government won't artificially inflate wages in order to minimize and delay the assistance to reconstruction of the damaged areas.

??? no wages would be "inflated", no assistance would be "delay[ed]" if the rules remained in place. please try to make sense.

Or maybe it's because now more people can be afforded jobs.

again, please make sense, these will be jobs paid for by federal reconstruction monies. there will not be less workers employed. all this means is the workers will receive less money than they would recieve previously, and for their efforts they won't even be earning enough now to be considered above the poverty line.

bottom line the businesses getting the contracts will be able to increase their net at the expense of the workers.

[LRB]

oh, maybe the fact that the workers will not be paid the prevailing wage, but are at the mercy of whatever the federal contractors wish to pay. that will be enough to guarantee those workers will be below the established poverty line.

Isn't the prevailing wage set by supply and demand? So now all bush is doing is moving away from the socialist like legislation, and allowing good old American Supply and Demand determine the wage.

??? no wages would be "inflated", no assistance would be "delay[ed]" if the rules remained in place. please try to make sense.

If I have $100 per hour to do a job I can either hire 5 guys at $20 per hour or 8 guys at $12 per hour. If I can get 8 guys at the skill level I need, I should be able get the job done significantly quicker or get significantly more done than with only 5 guys doing the job. If I can't get the skill levels I need at $12 per hour, then I'll just have to pay more per hour until I get what I need. By golly that's how my job works. Back when there was more demand, I made more. Now that there is less I make less. I really don't see a problem with that. If I want more money then I learn a job skill that is in higher demand.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB
Isn't the prevailing wage set by supply and demand? So now all bush is doing is moving away from the socialist like legislation, and allowing good old American Supply and Demand determine the wage.

in a normal market yes the equilibrium would dictate a age, this is nothing like a normal market, if it were normal there wouldn't be the need for the rebuilding project would there?

If I have $100 per hour to do a job I can either hire 5 guys at $20 per hour or 8 guys at $12 per hour. If I can get 8 guys at the skill level I need, I should be able get the job done significantly quicker or get significantly more done than with only 5 guys doing the job. If I can't get the skill levels I need at $12 per hour, then I'll just have to pay more per hour until I get what I need. By golly that's how my job works. Back when there was more demand, I made more. Now that there is less I make less. I really don't see a problem with that. If I want more money then I learn a job skill that is in higher demand.

again, this is a massive public works project. the monies that have been appropriated ($60 Billion so far) allow for pretty mush unlimited hiring for anybody seeking a job.

this is nothing like a typical employer/employee marketplace. until the industry in the region is up and running, there aren't a ton of private enterprises to seek employment from.

the removal of wage rules, coupled with the return of the fat cat "no bid contracts", are going to do nothing but suppress the earnings of those seeking work and increase the net profit of the contractors.

[dude1394]

Good for dubya.. And I hope he strikes it down permanently. Davis-Bacon laws are just a sop to unions. Serve no purpose other than soaking taxpayers.

Local Davis-Bacon rates generally have been higher, the greater the percent of area building trades workers who are union members (Allen, 1983, pp. 717-25). Although union wage rates are not specifically required, former Secretary of Labor F. Ray Marshall and his coauthors stated: "In practice, these minima have been union rates and therefore have been useful to the building trades unions in preventing nonunion wage competition below these minima" (Marshall et al., 1976, p. 240). Indeed, 302 (57 percent) of 530 area wage determinations in effect in October 1976 were taken directly from collective bargaining agreements rather than based on wage surveys (General Accounting Office, 1979, p. 43). Thus, the usual effect of the Davis-Bacon Act has been to favor higher-paid labor and union members on federal construction projects by rendering illegal the employment of lower-wage — virtually always nonunion — labor. (Farrell Bloch, Public Service Research Foundation, "Employment Effects of the Davis-Bacon Act", 2001)

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Good for dubya.. And I hope he strikes it down permanently. Davis-Bacon laws are just a sop to unions. Serve no purpose other than soaking taxpayers.

interesting research from 1976 and 1979?
I wonder what the research would say about a right to work state such as LA......

the lack of employment opportunities coupled with this removal of wage protection will result in lower wages for the workers, wages that will not be sufficient to support a family.

despicable.

[dude1394]

Especially if the work is picking up trash for goodness sakes. Why would you need to pay union wages for guys to pick up debris, idiotic.

[FishForLunch]

How long before we hear the Feds paid 600 dollars for toilet bowl, we will just watch the assholes spends like there is no tommorow on New Orleans.

[FishForLunch]

I just hope for the sake of the Tax payers of this country the New Orleans re-build is not run by Unions.

[kg_veteran]

I'm trying to figure out what you're complaining about, Mavdog.

IF this move ONLY results in more net profits to contractors, I would agree that it doesn't make much sense. If, however, it results in getting more accomplished with fewer tax dollars (which is what it sounds like Bush intends), then I'm all for it. I'm already concerned about how they're going to pay for the reconstruction effort -- the less it costs the better.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
I'm trying to figure out what you're complaining about, Mavdog.

IF this move ONLY results in more net profits to contractors, I would agree that it doesn't make much sense. If, however, it results in getting more accomplished with fewer tax dollars (which is what it sounds like Bush intends), then I'm all for it. I'm already concerned about how they're going to pay for the reconstruction effort -- the less it costs the better.

And I might add the sooner that it gets done the sooner that tax monies will start flowing in from that region which would help with the paying for it factor. I think this will give the contractor more flexibility to get things done quickly with less redtape to deal with and the potential ability to hire more people for the same amount of money. And not all of the 60 billion is for labor. There are materials, fees, fuel, electricity, and many other things which must be purchased with that money. There no where close to being enough to provide unlimited employment at any wage. This is much more so, if the monies are not to be released at once but staggered over a period of time.

The bottom line is that this is a public works project with the main emphasis on getting the infrastructure back up in the area ravaged by Katrina, not to provide a permanent high standard of income for a few workers through artificially increased wages. This will only be a temporary solution until the infrastructure is repaired.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
I'm trying to figure out what you're complaining about, Mavdog.

IF this move ONLY results in more net profits to contractors, I would agree that it doesn't make much sense. If, however, it results in getting more accomplished with fewer tax dollars (which is what it sounds like Bush intends), then I'm all for it. I'm already concerned about how they're going to pay for the reconstruction effort -- the less it costs the better.

my compaint is the wages being paid to the workforce will be less than what would be typically paid, when the employers have so many workers that are seeking jobs, and these jobs are there for two purposes, a) to clean up the area and get it ready for redevelopment, and b) to provide the displaced workers the opportunity to work as their prior jobs aren't there yet, the act by Bush was not needed.

so the question is why was it done?

I too am concerned about the increaed costs, especially in light of the deficits the current budget was experiencing before the costs of this project where appropriated. I do not believe tho that the expenses of this project will be increased by the removal of the wage rule, as the contracts to these firms have already been awarded. I also don't feel that decreasing the wage that a displaced worker is to recieve for their work in rebuilding NOLA is wise when we're looking to get these people back on their feet.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
my compaint is the wages being paid to the workforce will be less than what would be typically paid

I guess I'd need some concrete examples of people who are getting paid less than what they would typically be paid. When we're talking about spending tax dollars, I think you should look at every angle to reduce cost.

I do not believe tho that the expenses of this project will be increased by the removal of the wage rule, as the contracts to these firms have already been awarded.

Really? Could you provide me a link to that information? I wasn't aware the contracts had already been awarded. They just passed the relief package the other day.

I also don't feel that decreasing the wage that a displaced worker is to recieve for their work in rebuilding NOLA is wise when we're looking to get these people back on their feet.

The purpose of the relief is to rebuild the area, not guarantee anybody a certain wage rate. I don't think costs should be inflated just to give workers a higher wage. Now, if contract amounts are already set (which I doubt) and the bids were based upon "prevailing rates," then I agree with you that it would be wrong to allow contractors to reduce the wages paid unless there is also a corresponding reduction in the contract amounts.

[Mavdog]

here's some of the contracts (no-bid BTW) already awarded:

"The Federal Emergency Management Agency has hired some of the nation's largest construction and engineering companies to provide emergency housing for people displaced by Hurricane Katrina."


link

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
here's some of the contracts (no-bid BTW) already awarded:

"The Federal Emergency Management Agency has hired some of the nation's largest construction and engineering companies to provide emergency housing for people displaced by Hurricane Katrina."


link

Don't see where it says that there was not a bidding process involved. But I do see where it specifies that at least one contract includes "provisions for cost-plus, time and materials". It gives precious little information about the details of the contracts, the process the the companies went through to get the contracts, and the amount of the contracts. These could have been regionally preferred vendor contracts which are bid upon on a yearly basis. But even a preferred vendor contract doesn't necessarily preclude dishing out work to another competing vendor to get a better price. I've worked as a contractor for government projects before under similar contracts to which I mention. Bottom line is that it looks like you're assuming a heck of a lot her on very sketchy facts. You could just as likely be wrong as right based upon the facts in evidence.

[kg_veteran]

Mavdog - A couple of thoughts:

1) Why take things to a personal level? Was there really a need to call LRB "ADD"? Don't be an ass, man.

2) Thanks for the links about the contracts being awarded, and it appears that some of them were no-bid. Re: your implication that there is something fraudulent or wrong about them being no-bid, however, I'd offer this comment from the article you linked:

Mr. Skinner (the aforementioned Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security) said he had no reason to believe there was anything wrong with the no-bid contracts, "but we're going to be looking at all of the contracting, the decision-making that was used to determine a sole-source contract."

"We want validation and we want documentation to show that it was rational to go one way or the other" in offering a no-bid contract, he said.

And you know what? I think that's great. I don't want government waste, nor do I want contracts going to companies that won't do the work as effectively and cost-efficiently as possible. But your implication that the contracts are no-bid and therefore corrupt is, so far, without any foundation.

3) Back to the issue of wages, I see nothing based on the stories you graciously linked which suggests that the contracts are fixed in price. In fact, the Post story suggests the opposite. There will be certain "fixed price task orders," but it appears quite certain that there will also be time plus materials and cost plus arrangements as well. Bottom line, my suspicion is that the federal contractors are going to have to answer for how much they're actually paying in wages when submitting their bills to the federal government.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
Mavdog - A couple of thoughts:

1) Why take things to a personal level? Was there really a need to call LRB "ADD"? Don't be an ass, man.

??? that's taking it to a personal level? what do you call the "idiot"s and the "stupid"s?
I try to keep it straightforward. dare I say more than most do.

2) Thanks for the links about the contracts being awarded, and it appears that some of them were no-bid. Re: your implication that there is something fraudulent or wrong about them being no-bid, however, I'd offer this comment from the article you linked:
---------------------------------
And you know what? I think that's great. I don't want government waste, nor do I want contracts going to companies that won't do the work as effectively and cost-efficiently as possible. But your implication that the contracts are no-bid and therefore corrupt is, so far, without any foundation.

we're in total agreement on the checks and balances of contracts.
I am fundamentally opposed to a contract award that is not bid upon. there is no reason for the provider to be efficient, the lack of competition is not good. all government contracts should be competitively bid.
If I said that they were corrupt, I should not have, although the article surprised me in mentioning there are reports of corruption already. no bid contracts have inherent ease for fraud/corruption.

3) Back to the issue of wages, I see nothing based on the stories you graciously linked which suggests that the contracts are fixed in price. In fact, the Post story suggests the opposite. There will be certain "fixed price task orders," but it appears quite certain that there will also be time plus materials and cost plus arrangements as well. Bottom line, my suspicion is that the federal contractors are going to have to answer for how much they're actually paying in wages when submitting their bills to the federal government.

that is the purpose of the executive order by bush, if the contractors submitted cost of labor expenses below the "prevailing wage" without the order they woiuld be violating the law. now that the order frees them, they can pay whatever they can employees to accept.

I don't see that this is a time to apply market principles to wages that are to be earned by these affected workers.

[LRB]

I am fundamentally opposed to a contract award that is not bid upon. there is no reason for the provider to be efficient, the lack of competition is not good. all government contracts should be competitively bid.
If I said that they were corrupt, I should not have, although the article surprised me in mentioning there are reports of corruption already. no bid contracts have inherent ease for fraud/corruption.

The alternatives aren't particularly appetizing though. One way is to delay help until a lengthy bidding but thorough process can be completed. However the process itself will cost money and the one way or another the winner will charge us for their time spent on bids, they have to in order to stay in business. I remeber being on a team of around 20 people and spending 3 months working 12+hour days during the week and lots of additional time on the weekends and we still didn't have the bidding process complete. And this was only for a human resources call center for a Fortune 500 company. Even then we still had lots of loopholes for contractors to abuse.

Another alternative is to hastely scramble together some spec to bid on including quality. Howver due to the massive size of the projects as well as the massive number of projects it will be virtually impossible not to leave hundreds or thousands of holes for low bidder contractors to win the bid and then give crap for quality. I've seen this happen often with bidded contracts.

IMO the best way is to award contracts immediately with firms with a proven reputation for quality and value per dollar spent. But don't give them the whole contract, rather just an agreement to go phase by phase with exit clauses it periodic inspections show quality not agreeable to the client. It would take the goverment assiging project managers to keep close tabs on the contractors and pull the plug if they find the contractors inflating prices or lower quality. The initial contract is not ironclad but has escape clauses. The contractor has an insentive to keep the client happy or lose the contract. I've worked under many such contracts as well as the 1st two cited and I can tell you it's always been the 3rd type that has provided the most value to the client when adequately managed by the client.

There is no such thing though as an agreement with no possibilty or ripping off the tax payer. We only can alter the possibility.

[kg_veteran]

I think we'd all agree that if contractors are getting paid by the government based upon an assumed wage amount for labor, that should be the amount they're actually expending in labor costs. I have no problem with that idea. In fact, that seems responsible to me. What I do have a problem with is telling contractors that they have to pay a certain wage rate when the work could be done less expensively (and therefore cost taxpayers less money) if such artificial wage inflation didn't take place.

[LRB]

I would definitely agree that KG. What makes sense is to pass any savings in Labor costs on to the taxpayers, put just to have the contractor pocket extra money does not make sense. I think the vast majority of government would consider this a mistake at the very least. I don't think it's unfair to ask the government for proof that this is not happening nor will happen. I do think that it's unfair just to assume that they've made the mistake without proof.

[Mavdog]

yes, the executive order removing the prevailing wage does allow for the costs of labor to be less. I'll even say that it will be less with the change by bush.

if the wage the worker is to receive now is (guess) $7/hr x 40 hrs = $280/wk x 52 (no vacation) = $14,560...think about that.

if the wage is "prevailing" of say $9/hr x 40 hrs = $360/wk x 52 wks = $18,720.

don't you think we can give the family the ~$4200?

did they need to have their income squeezed now?

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
yes, the executive order removing the prevailing wage does allow for the costs of labor to be less. I'll even say that it will be less with the change by bush.

if the wage the worker is to receive now is (guess) $7/hr x 40 hrs = $280/wk x 52 (no vacation) = $14,560...think about that.

if the wage is "prevailing" of say $9/hr x 40 hrs = $360/wk x 52 wks = $18,720.

don't you think we can give the family the ~$4200?

did they need to have their income squeezed now?

We have other programs to help familes with economic needs. It is best for this project to concentrate on one and only one objective: to rebuild the infrastructure as quickly and cost efficiently as possible so people can start supporting themselves instead of living off the government dole. If New Orleans isn't paying enough for them, let them go elsewhere or let another program make up the difference until the infrastructure is complete.

[dude1394]

Guess what... If the workers don't want to work for the wages offered, then they won't work. The bacon act is a straight sop to unions. There is no logical reason to pay more in wages than the people there will take. Period. We already have a minimum wage, anthing else is political pandering. Which is what the bacon act is.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Guess what... If the workers don't want to work for the wages offered, then they won't work. The bacon act is a straight sop to unions. There is no logical reason to pay more in wages than the people there will take. Period. We already have a minimum wage, anthing else is political pandering. Which is what the bacon act is.

Right because everyone knows bacon is portk. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[Mavdog]

how can it be a "sop to the unions" when LA is a right to work state? only 6.5% of the workers in LA belong to unions.

it has nothing to do with any union workers in LA.

[dude1394]

The bacon act is not isolated to LA MD. It was passed to artificially keep wages high so that jobs could go to union workers without competition from non-union workers. It is irrelevant whether there are/are not union workers in LA or not, that's what the law was passed for.

In this case all it does is cause the US taxpayers to pay more than market rate for LA repair. Only democrats who care more about their constituncies (unions iow) would gripe about this.

[Mavdog]

let me follow the logic you lay out.

the bacon act is keeping wages "high", even tho it only mandates that wages for fereral funded jobs be paid the "prevailing wage", which in LA is the wage paid to non-union workers as only 1 out of 16 workers belong to a union, and by law the worker has the right to not be a member of a union.

seems to me that your logic is pretty lame.

[dude1394]

Sigh....

Here are the pertinent part's of dubya's proclimation

1. Section 3142(a) of title 40, United States Code, provides that "every contract in excess of $2,000, to which the Federal Government or the District of Columbia is a party, for construction, alteration, or repair, including painting and decorating, of public buildings and public works of the Government or the District of Columbia that are located in a State or the District of Columbia and which requires or involves the employment of mechanics or laborers shall contain a provision stating the minimum wages to be paid various classes or laborers and mechanics."

2. Section 3142(b) of title 40, United States Code, provides that such "minimum wages shall be based on the wages the Secretary of Labor determines to be prevailing for the corresponding classes of laborers and mechanics employed on projects of a character similar to the contract work in the civil subdivision of the State in which the work is to be performed . . ."

3. Under various other related acts, the payment of wages is made dependent upon determinations by the Secretary of Labor under section 3142 of title 40, United States Code.

Here are the labor rate differences between, LA- no unions I guess is the "arguement" you are trying to make and others. I'm just picking common laborer.

LA - 8.33
DC- 9.17
TX - 6.00 (Dallas County)
MA - 16.50 (Nantucket)

bacon rates

----------------------

Now tell me again WHY we should spend $2.30 more for a laborer in LA than the adjoining state? Even if the rates WERE low, I see no reason the federal guvment should set them anyway. Again...it's a SOP to UNIONS and should be abolished completely.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Sigh....

Here are the pertinent part's of dubya's proclimation

Here are the labor rate differences between, LA- no unions I guess is the "arguement" you are trying to make and others. I'm just picking common laborer.

LA - 8.33
DC- 9.17
TX - 6.00 (Dallas County)
MA - 16.50 (Nantucket)

bacon rates

----------------------

Now tell me again WHY we should spend $2.30 more for a laborer in LA than the adjoining state?

the laborer should be faid what is a fair wage for each area, that is why the deterimination of what is the "prevailing wage" is done on a local basis. The idea behind Davis Bacon in the 1930's was to stop the importation of cheap labor, and the lowest bidder doing so with less skilled (inherently less quality) as well as to use local labor when available.

A better question back is why should we NOT pay the local worker a fair wage? Why would we use this tragedy to punish the local worker by depressing their wages?

we shouldn't. the potential to save money and also the potential of the contractor to reduce its expenses should NOT be done on the backs of the wage earner.

Even if the rates WERE low, I see no reason the federal guvment should set them anyway. Again...it's a SOP to UNIONS and should be abolished completely.

yeah, let the workers be squeezed in this time of economic distress in LA. [sarcasm]

as I've shown, with LA being a right to work state, the union angle you keep pounding falls on it face. there is no positive affect to unions, and unions in LA won't benefit from the Act, because people in LA don't belong to unions.

[LRB]

A better question back is why should we NOT pay the local worker a fair wage? Why would we use this tragedy to punish the local worker by depressing their wages?

You don't have to pay what the going rate was before Katrina, to be fair. What is inherently unfair about using the going rate is that we take an average to get the going rate, meaning some make more and some make less. Then we set that average as the minimum for our federal contracts which will probably result in the average being even higher than it was.

But that's besides the point. It's not the governments job to make sure everyone gets a good paying job. This project is about giving people the infrastruce so that business can return to the area and people can begin to support themselves. There's no reason to pay more than what people are of their own free will and choice are willing to work for. If they don't like then let them go somewhere else and work. I'd love to be able to go back and earn what I could have before the dot com bust, but it damn sure isn't the government's responsibility to see that I get it. Let them return to their feet on the free market economy and not on the taxpayers bill.

[dude1394]

[quote]
Originally posted by: Mavdog

Originally posted by: dude1394

the laborer should be faid what is a fair wage for each area, that is why the deterimination of what is the "prevailing wage" is done on a local basis. The idea behind Davis Bacon in the 1930's was to stop the importation of cheap labor, and the lowest bidder doing so with less skilled (inherently less quality) as well as to use local labor when available.

I.E. UNION LABOR!

And the prevailing wage is based on the prevailing union wages, not what it costs for a common laborer. These are governement rates, not real rates. And no one is "punishing" anyone, they are just getting paid what the market says they are worth, not what the union shops say they are worth.

as I've shown, with LA being a right to work state, the union angle you keep pounding falls on it face. there is no positive affect to unions, and unions in LA won't benefit from the Act, because people in LA don't belong to unions.

Yes there IS. With governement contracts being artificially high it enables union shops to compete at those high rates. Without that law, those unions would have to compete with companies with lower labor costs. In this case it would just artificially inflate labor costs.

[Drbio]

Mavdog- you keep it straightforward? Bwaa hahahahaha...that is so lame. Thanks for the serious laugh.


Remember folks, Mavdog never lets facts get in the way of his sKerryesque agenda.

[Murphy3]

It's times like this that I'm glad that I'm out of the construction business.... I cannot imagine how miserable it must be for everyone involved ...not only the people that were directly affected by losing loved ones, their homes, etc, but for the construction workers. I know that I'd probably be putting in 80+ hours a week if I were still working for the same company that I was working for....and that's on the financial side... The engineers and the laborers will probably be putting in more than that.

[kg_veteran]

Mavdog - I don't get how we're depressing the wages of local workers. If they don't go work for a contractor in the rebuilding process, who are they working for? For the ones you're talking about, it appears that the answer is: nobody. Whatever rate they get paid is substantially better than zero, and it appears from what I've read that they're also going to get housed for free and also possibly receive other government aid. Under that scenario, I think it's inaccurate to characterize their wages as depressed. You have to look at the entire "benefit package" of what they're receiving from the federal government. I suspect that not having to pay rent or a mortgage note more than makes up for any alleged "depression" of their wages.

[Drbio]

Yeah.....God forbid a potential worker could make a wage to feed their family. If you had it your way they would make nothing and the government would foot the bill or mandate that US companies do it.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Drbio
Yeah.....God forbid a potential worker could make a wage to feed their family. If you had it your way they would make nothing and the government would foot the bill or mandate that US companies do it.

exactly, under the Bush order reducing the wages, a worker will receive about half of what is currently the poverty line, which is what a family of four needs to feed, house and clothe itself.

if I had it my way the wage rules would not be undermined and the family would receive enough to feed itself.

if one supports the president it seems they don't care if a family has sufficient wages to feed themselves.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
exactly, under the Bush order reducing the wages, a worker will receive about half of what is currently the poverty line, which is what a family of four needs to feed, house and clothe itself.

Source, please.

Second, I think I've pointed out about 3 times now that these "displaced workers" you keep referring to are going to receive free federal housing until their homes are rebuilt, so it's inappropriate to compare wages to a poverty standard which includes housing expense when they won't have any.

if I had it my way the wage rules would not be undermined and the family would receive enough to feed itself.

What melodrama. I'd like to see some proof that ANY "displaced worker" won't be making enough money to feed his family.

if one supports the president it seems they don't care if a family has sufficient wages to feed themselves.

This isn't about supporting the President. It's about not wanting to add any more to the federal deficit and/or the taxpayer's burden than necessary. One would think you'd be in favor of that.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

Source, please.

Second, I think I've pointed out about 3 times now that these "displaced workers" you keep referring to are going to receive free federal housing until their homes are rebuilt, so it's inappropriate to compare wages to a poverty standard which includes housing expense when they won't have any.

ok, a bit of hyperbole, it would be about 70% of the poverty line.

Not all of the workers, only those who lost their homes, will be given free housing. many didn't lose the homes, just the businesses (especially tourism related) that aren't there anymore. Until the economy is somewhat restored the supply of jobs won't be there.

if I had it my way the wage rules would not be undermined and the family would receive enough to feed itself.

What melodrama. I'd like to see some proof that ANY "displaced worker" won't be making enough money to feed his family.[/quote]

if it is under the poverty line that by definition means they cannot afford to feed their family.

if one supports the president it seems they don't care if a family has sufficient wages to feed themselves.

This isn't about supporting the President. It's about not wanting to add any more to the federal deficit and/or the taxpayer's burden than necessary. One would think you'd be in favor of that.[/quote]

I am in favor of fiscal discipline, but not on the backs of these workers who have already lost so much.

If you wish to not "add any more to the federal deficit and/or the taxpayer's burden", where is your criticism of the past 4 budget proposals by Bush? I can't recall you writing any.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
ok, a bit of hyperbole, it would be about 70% of the poverty line.

I'd still like a source, please.

Not all of the workers, only those who lost their homes, will be given free housing. many didn't lose the homes, just the businesses (especially tourism related) that aren't there anymore. Until the economy is somewhat restored the supply of jobs won't be there.

That's a fair point about those that didn't lose their homes, but until I see what data you're basing your opinion about the poverty line on (hint: for starters, I don't think there's ANY way you can state with any certainty what workers will be paid AT THIS POINT), I don't think we can have an intelligent discussion about whether or not allowing the market to dictate wages pushes displaced workers below the poverty line.

I am in favor of fiscal discipline, but not on the backs of these workers who have already lost so much.

I'll say one more time: I don't see any proof that we're doing anything "on the backs of these workers." For starters, no one's FORCING THEM TO WORK. If they are able to go and find other work, then good for them. If not, then it seems to me that they clearly benefit FROM BEING EMPLOYED (as opposed to being unemployed).

This is not a full employment effort. It's a rebuilding effort.

If you wish to not "add any more to the federal deficit and/or the taxpayer's burden", where is your criticism of the past 4 budget proposals by Bush? I can't recall you writing any.

Nice attempt to change the subject. If you want to discuss the free spending of BOTH parties, I'll be happy to do so, but that's another issue entirely and has nothing to do with what we're discussing.