It would be Obama's and Hillary's fault so they'd resist learning anything from the experience/struggle.
It would be Obama's and Hillary's fault so they'd resist learning anything from the experience/struggle.I think we need a maximum wage of 1 cent an hour for Retardicans and Conservaterrorists. Lets see how you survive on that.
Of course you can't live on $7.70/hr. Nobody ever claimed it was a livable wage. Not all jobs are worth paying a livable wage. Some unskilled jobs are only worth $7.70/hr
You sound like a real level headed guy
It's only fair that someone treat you with the contempt you show to everyone else.
Where did I show contempt for someone else here?
People on non-livable wages don't deserve better, same as the millions losing healthcare. In fairness though, people dying off due to the "free market" is just the cost of doing business to total degenerates. What's funny is that all the heros of capitalism like Smith absolutely despised your sort, arguably more than I do.
It's not about what people deserve. It's what their skills are worth. That's out of my control. I don't set the worth of someone taking your tolls on the turnpike and the guy who surgically places your pacemaker.
What's hilarious is all the trouble liberals are having with this thread. Once I informed you that left wing icon FDR supported a $0.25 min wage, you don't know what to post. So you revert back to your degenerate talk.
BTW, who's this Smith you talk about?
It's not about what people deserve. It's what their skills are worth. That's out of my control. I don't set the worth of someone taking your tolls on the turnpike and the guy who surgically places your pacemaker.
What's hilarious is all the trouble liberals are having with this thread. Once I informed you that left wing icon FDR supported a $0.25 min wage, you don't know what to post. So you revert back to your degenerate talk.
BTW, who's this Smith you talk about?
No, normative economics systems are very much controlled by human hands, even those who can't figure out what that means in democratic societies.
First, it's simply a typical degen lie that we ever discussed min wage. Second, seem to me even someone as uneducated as you is aware of how inflation works
Adam Smith, founder of the basis of free market economics. Saying some people do not deserve a "livable wage" means they either die or have to use government handouts. That position is either diabolical or socialist. Strange stance to take especially considering we are talking about people that are working, not "freeloaders."
Did you miss my post where I stated that 25 cents=$4.18 today?
Cost of living was also lower then. Cost of food and housing especially has far outpaced inflation, to the point that this comparison is somewhere between dishonest and almost genocidal.
Sure, what's your point? That ignorant degens like you wouldn't have been whining from the very start there should be none? In the 50's-60's, the country's most economically prosperous rise for the middle class, the min wage rose to >$10 adjusted. And then sure enough the two trends fell in lockstep since then. Leave the knowing and thinking to people who have some capacity for it, it's your role to parrot the same talking points as race realists.
lol... really?Where did I show contempt for someone else here?
lol... really?
You made to 50+ without hearing of Adam smith, yea...he's the idiot.
Wow. That's some idiot. He should have known there were other possibilities than dying or use gov't handouts. There's living with someone else like a spouse, parent or a friend. There's working more than one job.
But if one does get gov't handouts that's not the employer's fault. Many not only want the employer to give this unskilled worker $15/hr, they also want the employer to give him health insurance. That makes it awfully pricey to do business
If the survival of your business is dependent on paying your employees so little they have to get government assistance to survive then you should be out of business. Its obvious your business isn't really viable if you depend on tax payer subsidies to be able to keep a labor force and turn a profit.
When a wal-mart employee works full time and still draws benefits its a effectively a transfer of wealth from the US taxpayer to Wal-Mart stockholders. Since those earnings should have been used to pay worker salaries instead of dividends.
Moving to single payer healthcare takes businesses out of the health insurance business. Think about that for a second.
I couldn't disagree more. Walmart has no agreement with an employee that all of his bills will be paid. Walmart's agreement is that you'll do XXX job and we'll pay you $X.XX per hour. There's no agreement to pay for your doctor visits, your rent, your kids...nothing. Those things are not part of the equation. If your salary is not enough to cover your bills then you'd better find a second job or a better job.
As for single payer, it depends on who pays. If the burden does not fall on employers then I think that'd be a great first step but if employers have to contribute greatly to it like social security then I would be against it.
You're too slow to get my point? I guess I have to hit you right between the eyes with it:
FDR signed a bill that legalized paying a wage that was by all accounts not "livable" and defended it afterwards showing that he was fully supportive of it.
If you want to pivot to years after his death that's fine but it has nothing to do with FDR
Social security isn't a huge burden for employers, its a cost of doing business and doesn't radically change from year to year like health insurance has for years (including pre-ACA). As such it is easy for a business to account for in their plans. Businesses prefer certainty, knowing how much they have to pay year over year would be better for them than the current system.
Prior to that, there was no minimum wage & people were working for even less'
By all accounts? Link us up.