If you put in 8 hours/day every week, should you receive a wage you can live upon?

[shortylickens]

Sure. Let's undo Reagan's illegal alien amnesty as well. Deal?

DEAL!


:awe:

 

[cubby1223]

OK, so let's undo all of Reagan-Bush trickle down policies.

To break down your argument, it basically goes, "Republicans during the 1980's did not implement an economic policy that worked as intended, therefore you must be wrong and I must be right."

Fucking waste you are. Have fun continually begging for a high paying unskilled job, while I continue to provide for others from my skilled labor.

 

[1prophet]

Business doesnt exist for the sake of citizens, are you insane? Is it really your opinion businesses are created for no other reason than to give some poor schmuck a job??

Actually businesses exist for the sake of the owners, and prudent owners acknowledge and understand the benefits of a government to protect them and citizens that can afford to purchase their goods and services,

but most today are like the farmers that helped create the dustbowl in the 1920's-1930's by slashing, burning, and depleted the land and then moving on to the next fertile area,

it caught up to them and it will catch up to the businesses that practice the same milk the cow dry mentality and then move on to the next cow in the name of profit only.

 

[Texashiker]

and prudent owners acknowledge and understand the benefits of a government to protect them

It is not governments job to protect business.

 

[Moonbeam]

That's an unusual amount of vitriol. Someone must have struck a nerve with our resident nut-bag.

Oh no. I was very kind. If you want some real spite get to know how you directly feel about yourself instead of projecting it on me.

 

[feralkid]

It is not governments job to protect business.

Really?

When Ike spoke of a military industrial complex, what do you think he was worried about?

 

[Texashiker]

When Ike spoke of a military industrial complex, what do you think he was worried about?

Another world war?

 

[Specop 007]

Actually businesses exist for the sake of the owners, and prudent owners acknowledge and understand the benefits of a government to protect them and citizens that can afford to purchase their goods and services,

but most today are like the farmers that helped create the dustbowl in the 1920's-1930's by slashing, burning, and depleted the land and then moving on to the next fertile area,

it caught up to them and it will catch up to the businesses that practice the same milk the cow dry mentality and then move on to the next cow in the name of profit only.

Yes, business exists for the sake of the owners that I will agree with. However they certainly dont need the government to protect them. Theres plenty of businesses that exist in countries with laughable levels of government (Look to Africa). The business will often times simply take the matter into its own hands. Which is why some business also builds private roads or private power grids or whatever else is required to make the business an ongoing interest.

To assume business NEEDS the government to fill that role isnt really being honest to the discussion.

 

[Moonbeam]

Now the brain defective have diverted the thread into business rights etc. instead of the fact their ain't enough jobs to employ all the people who want to work. They just can't face the fact that the market doesn't work because when the supply of workers is high workers are worthless. The brain defective worship of the market is destroying people's lives and the collective horseshit worshipers are responsible for preventing any change.

 

[Texashiker]

Now the brain defective have diverted the thread into business rights etc. instead of the fact their ain't enough jobs to employ all the people who want to work.

I respectfully disagree.

There are enough jobs, just people do not want to do those jobs for the wages the company offers.

Would you be willing to pick strawberries for less than minimum wage?

 

[cubby1223]

Now the brain defective have diverted the thread into business rights etc. instead of the fact their ain't enough jobs to employ all the people who want to work. They just can't face the fact that the market doesn't work because when the supply of workers is high workers are worthless. The brain defective worship of the market is destroying people's lives and the collective horseshit worshipers are responsible for preventing any change.

You really do love your negative attention. You're an attention whore, and your "brain defect" line of posting is giving you the attention you crave. Congrats.

Conservatives recognize that there is not enough flowing money in the world to pay high salaries for everyone in the world. That's why people who are in the working class must focus on skilled labor to put themselves in a position to earn good money and not to be replaced by one of the masses.

It's that simple.

Propose your alternative to putting people back to work in high paying jobs. And remember your solution must exist in the realm of reality. You cannot propose a solution that depends on you being supreme dictator of the universe. And you cannot be like senseamp who argues solutions that require time travel to implement. You have your podium. Fucking use it for something productive, or just continue being the attention whore you have been.

 

[feralkid]

Another world war?

Nope, try google.

 

[Texashiker]

Nope, try google.

No.

Why don't you explain it to me.

 

[BigDH01]

I would think most liberals would favor a low minimum wage with a worker made whole through government programs. Increased minimum wage will result in price increases which will be regressive in nature. Government programs will largely be funded through taxation which, for labor anyway, are progressive in nature.

Personally, I'd like to eliminate minimum wage in favor of a mincome, but any mincome that scales based on number of children only works if you forcibly limit the number of children someone has.

Also, we should take steps to equalize labor and capital factor mobility on the international markets. That is quite unfair to labor. Ultimately though, if you want more people to live luxuriously, you need to make them more valuable. Increasing automation has reduced any individual's marginal value and increasing the minimum wage won't solve that problem, indeed, it will hasten solutions that make unskilled labor unnecessary. That solution will require ideas that address the fact that labor might be the first resource to reach post-scarcity status.

 

[Vic]

I'm sure that there's already been 200 posts to this effect, but the phrase "a wage you can live upon" is too subjective.
My position is that if an FTE can qualify for and receives public assistance, then the employer should be penalized.

 

[cubby1223]

I'm sure that there's already been 200 posts to this effect, but the phrase "a wage you can live upon" is too subjective.
My position is that if an FTE can qualify for and receives public assistance, then the employer should be penalized.

That position is assuming the employer is generating enough revenue from bargain-demanding consumers to afford paying the employee a government mandated minimum.

Plus, the government already does set a minimum. You're advocating redundant legislation. Not only that, this forces employers to factor in many new conditions into the hiring process that they cannot legally do anything about. You're setting one minimum wage if the person is single, a different minimum wage if the person is a dependent of someone else for tax purposes, a different minimum wage depending on how many children they have, whether they are receiving alimony, if they have investment savings, different minimum wage depending on the rent they pay each month...

There are reasons why employers are more receptive to foreign labor as each year goes by. Running a business in the U.S. is becoming increasingly complicated to the point where you have to generate large revenues and be very efficient at it, in order to have enough extra cash to afford lawyers to interpret and handle all the legal matters the government lays on the business. There are reasons why large corporations continue to grow their dominance over small businesses and startups.

Right there, government legislations on businesses shift money away from the low-level unskilled workers and give it to the skilled lawyers. Want to reverse this trend? Simplify government legislation.

 

[Vic]

If an FTE employee can qualify for public assistance, then an employer can use that as a negotiating tool during recruiting. In other words, the prospective employee who is willing to supplement his income with public assistance has an advantage over the employee who is not so inclined, as they will settle for a lower wage. And the employer is able to externalize a portion of their labor costs. This upsets the labor market and should be strongly discouraged.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Yeah we do have to do something about all those min wage people who don't have a roof over their head and don't eat.

I've been driving around trying to find what street corner they're all hanging out starving to death on... but oddly I couldn't find them. They've either already died of starvation... or are indoors somewhere or something.

The working homeless? Apparently you've been going to the wrong street corners.

try church parking lots for example

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/01/prweb11455362.htm

And

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/n...-job-or-2-doesnt-mean-having-a-home.html?_r=0

http://www.amny.com/urbanite-1.812039/the-new-homeless-working-but-without-housing-1.2891798

 

[sandorski]

We dont "allow" business to exist. Did Compaq ask your permission to form? Did Intel decide to start its entire business for you? Of course not. Did the local hardware store get your permission to buy a building and stock it?

The idea business exists for the sake of citizens is some misaligned Socialist "We are the world" theory. Its not entirely wrong. If everyone on the planet died, certainly business would stop. But business doesnt exist "for the sake of" people.

Yes, as does every Business.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I never said force corporations to pay higher wages.

What I am saying is remove all taxpayer funded aid such as food stamps, section 8 housing,Medicaid etc...

Then taxpayers will no longer be funding out of thier pockets low wage jobs for private for profit corporations.

Then the free market will have to decide how to compensate employees without the assistance of taxpayers out of public funds.

The driving force behind the development of a 'social safety net' throughout the modern world was the fact that the 'free market' determination of the value of workers (and potential workers) pretty much sucked for a rather large percentage of those workers and their families.

Good grief! Doesn't anyone read the occasional history book any more?

 

[Matt1970]

Oh no. I was very kind. If you want some real spite get to know how you directly feel about yourself instead of projecting it on me.

Back to that again huh? Are you missing all but chapter one of you psychology book?

 

[Lithium381]

Thats more a problem for the Democrats who seem to think they can fix any problem with just "a bit more legislation". The fact is its quite the opposite. You see Democrats tend to view the economy as something which fundamentally would no work without interference. As if its a broken idea which only works through government control and interference.

Its precisely the opposite. The economy is perfectly capable of continuing on without and government interference. It has for centuries. The problem in fact is the government trying to "fix" the economy which actually makes things worse. Check the views of SBO's on the economy. Check the polls of people as to whether they would start a SBO in this climate. It isnt the economy thats the problem. Its the constant interference by the government thats essentially breaking the system.

Why WOULDNT a business want to offshore with the government we have? Why WOULDNT money leave the country with the government we have?

And such is the problem with statism.

 

[Lithium381]

I'm sure that there's already been 200 posts to this effect, but the phrase "a wage you can live upon" is too subjective.
My position is that if an FTE can qualify for and receives public assistance, then the employer should be penalized.

as a single individual or the poster "child" of the liberals of a single mom with two kids?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Seems like reality undermines liberalism.

If you have an ideology that worships individual choice, and says there is no right or wrong choice only "options"... it would seem that such an ideology relies upon people being able to make good decisions for themselves.

What you are saying is that those people least able to afford making bad choices are the ones most likely to make them. And in fact reality bares this out. As poor people are far more likely to pop out a couple of bastard kids, which changes surviving off low-skill jobs from relatively easy to nearly impossible.

Seems like the easiest way to fight poverty is to bring back values.

This constant fighting against straw men must be ever so wearing on you. I don't know where you find the strength to keep up the good fight. The strain of maintaining constant vigilance and having to spend so much time here fighting to ensure that, no matter how absurd, no straw man shall go unfought must be incredible.

A tip of the hat to you.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Then you would prefer we euthanize those who have no jobs. Keeping them alive is already costing me my liberty by government theft of my income in the form of taxes. I am simply proposing that we get something back for the investment we are already making. If we cut them off we will have to kill them because they will kill us trying to get something to eat, no?

My apologies if all the complications you sweep under the rug are too much for you to deal with.

And in death they could be useful. Soylent Green?