Forum Post: Minimum Wage Pay
Posted 12 years ago on April 20, 2012, 8:54 p.m. EST by toonces
(-117)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
How much should the minimum wage be?
Public Forum
2 comments 3 weeks ago by gsw
1 comments 4 months ago by factsrfun
5 comments 1 year ago by agkaiser
6 comments 1 year ago by grapes
15 comments 1 year ago by gsw
12 comments 1 year ago by BrentWeirick81
30 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
48 comments 2 years ago by factsrfun
16 comments 2 years ago by factsrfun
2 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
2 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
8 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
7 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by grapes
6 comments 2 years ago by haightashbury98
51 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
5 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
14 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
7 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
6 comments 3 years ago by agkaiser
Still ashamed to tell us what bullshit you do for a living? We all want to hear about the "hard work" you do to "earn" your money.
Self employed. One horse rodeo, with a side of pizza delivery.
You know how full of shit you are, don't you?
I told you the truth, but now I know how full of shit you are.
Tell you what, you post your name and address and phone # and I will call to verify you are who you say you are. Send me a private message and I will send you the addy of my business website.
I will post for everyone to see if he actually sends me the info I asked for.
We're all anonymous here. Never asked for your website, just want to know about all the "hard work" you do that makes you superior to all the lazy "left wing scum." I'd also love to know the last book you read, and I bet your iPod is a laugh riot, and your DVD collection? I'd piss my pants.
You sir, just whipped up a big bowl of troll chow.
Why would you question something you are unwilling to verify?
Trying to make him take a look in the mirror and see the shitstain on his chin.
You are truly full of hate, and that is what will be your downfall. I hope you will find happiness before your time runs out. I will say a prayer for you.
You right wingers love to accuse the rest of us of "hate." You came to this forum to spew your hate, not the other way around. You clearly know that admitting what "hard work" you do would expose you to be a self-interested hypocrite or worse. I don't know you, why would I hate you? I hate your ideology, because it fuels evil. I just don't know if you're a dupe or complicit in evil, which is why I want to know what you do for your hard-earned money and what makes you hate people who struggle and haven't had it easy or haven't been lucky, etc. Where's your empathy? Why do you resent people who need help or those who want to help people? Your last resort was to play the victim, accuse me of hating you, and you're going to pray for me? Talk to your imaginary friend all you want, but keep me out of it.
Your replies are full of hate. The left is full of unhappiness.
You're full of shit. You have no response, no defense. How do you "earn" your money?
He probably has an ebay store or something stupid where he makes a lot of money.
Me too. Armi of one. :>)
Live long and prosper... I wish you the best of luck.
We should just let the market determine wages. However we should also create a Basic Income Guarantee for all, payed for by a progressive tax system with a top rate of 90% (top rate currently would be somewhere in the 500k to 1000k range) and the socialization of all land and natural resources. With that in place there is no need for a minimum wage, we will then simply let the market determine wages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee
Could you explain what exactly you mean by "socialization of all land"?
I have long taken issue with the very idea of 'private ownership' of land, as the earth is equally the 'property' of all of humanity. I am hardly the only one to come to this conclusion, I recently found some of Thomas Paine's thoughtful writings on this;
"Whether that state that is proudly, perhaps erroneously, called civilization, has most promoted or most injured the general happiness of man, is a question that may be strongly contested. On one side, the spectator is dazzled by splendid appearances; on the other, he is shocked by extremes of wretchedness; both of which it has erected. The most affluent and the most miserable of the human race are to be found in the countries that are called civilized. ... There could be no such thing at landed property originally. Man did not make the earth, and though he had a natural right to occupy it, he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity any part of it; neither did the Creator of the earth open a land-office, from whence the first title-deeds should issue. Whence then, arose the idea of landed property? I answer as before, that when cultivation began the idea of landed property began with it, from the impossibility or separating the improvement made by cultivation from the earth itself, upon which that improvement was made."
I suggest reading the whole pamphlet Agrarian Justice written in 1796.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/paine4.html
Anyway I gotta run just now,. I will return to elaborate.
That was a time of landed gentry, which had it's roots in the feudal systems. If you remove land ownership from individuals, who would have responsibility of living in a particular place? Who would decide who lives where? Who decides who farms what area? How does a person build a home if there is risk of removal from the land it sits on? Where does one decide to build a factory if there is no land ownership? There would be chaos, favoritism, etc. Socialism of the land will never happen here. Land and home ownership is something that people from everywhere else come here to achieve. And you can not impose religion as a reason that no one can claim ownership. How does one impose this axiom on a non- believer? You can not.
The main concept is that we all, each one of us, have just as much claim to the bounty of the earth, as any other. The only claim one can make to 'the land' is by improvements made through labor on the land. These claims however do not grant the land to the user in perpetuity, and not of the land itself, but only the improvements. I extent this concept beyond simple land ownership, to include all natural resources as well, as none of these are created by any individual or group and are therefor common property of the world.
If capitalist are claiming to own the bulk of the land and resources (as they are!), then they must, in a just society, provide compensation to the rest of us, for the use, or in the case of finite resources, the disposal of these resources.
This has nothing to do with religion? Where did you get that? (I am firmly anti-religious personally, terrible cults of anti logic IMHO) It is pure logic, and simple reasonable justice. Read the Paine outline (linked above) and see if you can poke a hole in it. I believe the basic concept to be very sound, and plan to use it to develop and further refined and modern proposal on the same lines.
Paine mentioned religion, not you. Sorry, Was not intended that way. As for land "rental" or by another name, what happens when the person dies, or leaves. Who assumes the improvements. As for natural resources, someone has to get them out of the ground, which requires large amounts of capital and risk. how can one make them compensate others for these resources with the cost required to get them? If you remove ownership, you are also proposing removing boundaries of countries, not sure how that would work. Also mentioned is the "capitalist owns most of the property and resources. Last time I checked, most ownership by corporations is held by the shareholders. I would like to see a actual number that shows as a percent, how only capitalist own most property. Everyone in my neighborhood owns thier house and property, does that make us capitalists?
Owning your own house does not make one a capitalist, however owning more than that and renting does. It is the profiting off others from the 'ownership' (control) that makes one a capitalist or more accurately a member of the middle class. It is interesting how the term 'middle class' has been misused, the word actually refers to those that own a small business or family farm, and therefore do not require capitalist to employ them, that makes them middle class. The current usage is taken to mean anyone who is above poverty and less than wealthy, however if these folks work for someone else, a capitalist or corporation, they are 'working class' not 'middle class'. Sorry for the aside. I just find this an interesting distinction, that has been selectively altered over time.
Personal property is fine, however when a capitalist 'owns' vast lands and/or resource claims, they are taking from the collective wealth of the planet for personal gain, and are therefor obligated to provide compensation to the rest of the community that they are profiting off of. There are any number of ways to implement the compensation for the usage, taxation, usage fees, estate tax, limiting ownership rights, and so forth and so on. I am less interested in the eventual implementation, as I am in the broader concept that is to me a simple obvious truth; personal ownership of the land and resourced of our planet need to be limited. We need to account for the externalities of all capitalist or for-profit enterprise, and this is currently not being done and our lawmakers move further away from this every day. We need to push this idea as it is a requirement of a functioning democracy.
The claim that capitalist invest or take a risk is a non-starter, as a socialist community can just as simply invest in resource extraction and benefit the whole community and do it fully democratically. Why should a capitalist keep a vast fortune for 'investing'? they are still profiting from the resources that they did not create and have zero justifiable claim to. A corporation is just an abstracted capitalist, a way of removing responsibility from individuals. When ever a corp. is caught in illegal activity the CEO resigns and the new one simple claims that was before my tenure and no one is ever held to account. Not sure how any of Paine's or my ideas "removing boundaries of countries" but I am all for that as well,. one world, one people, one.
Interesting explanation of distinction of working and middle class. I wil have to read more on that in order to discuss further. There are already taxes, etc for acquiring and mining resources, though I would say they are not high enough. I do find it difficult when you state that ownership should be limited. that again will come down to decision by some over others. I have problems with that. As for the risk of capital, if this was placed on the community, they would have terrible exposure that some may not want or wish to partake in. And if it does fail, then are others (other communties) then responsibible for their recovery? Risk needs to have consequences, both good and bad. While the one world is a nice idea, the human race is not capable of that. if you completely remove ownership of land, then logically there are no boundaries, local, county, state, or country.
So, you want to cap wages and determine a minimum. That is not a free market. Please explain why you are uncomfortable with someone who earns money yet are comfortable with giving away the power to confiscate property and give it to others. Money is bad, but you are fine with granting the POWER to determine an individuals lot in life to someone. Why is it power is okay, yet earned income is not?
When you take something, you take it away from everyone else. The greedy 0.1% claim to own the vast majority of land and resources, yet all people need land and resources to live. "Earned income" comes from work, not using the police-state to claim lordship over the resources and then charging fees for people to get the necessities of life. You act as though the 0.1% actually work to 'earn' this unjust arrangement, when you know damn well wealth is a form of power, and it is through manipulations of power that the 0.1% get and maintain this unjust, unfair, and now obviously destructive excessive power. There is no benefit to this arrangement, and only terrible downsides.
A Basic Income Guarantee is a simple mechanism to end poverty and limit the concentration of power. We are social animals, no one achieves a thing, without the rest of humanity and the natural resources of the world. No on has a "right" to claim any resources, taking them away from the rest of humanity. This Basic Income Guarantee type of social arrangement does not take anyone's freedom it vastly increases freedom for all. People will of course be free to pursue any endeavours they so choose, however they will be limited to a reasonable level of wealth and power that keep society well balanced and functioning for the benefit of all.
This includes actual free markets, not he current manipulated and speculated trading-casino monopoly that currently passes for a "free market". Why do you think there is no free market in this social system???
[Removed]
The people you claim "take" actually earn the money. They do not "take", people (other than government employees), actually make an item that others want and feel justified in trading the proceeds of their labor for the item the producer is selling. Government, on the other hand, just "takes" from the private sector. "Earned income credit" comes from the work of someone other than the person that receives the money.
As far as one person one possessions "taking" away from everyone else, please explain to me how this works. If the amount of money in the world is finite, and if the possession of an amount by a person reduces the amount of the finite amount of cash available to everyone else, how can the government (or the federal reserve) borrow non existent money into circulation?
Here are two ways to make wages more equitable:
Employees can strike periodically to find out what the market will bear. If too many are laid off the wages are too high. Immigration mainly increases the supply of low income earners, and decreases demand, further reducing wages and increasing unemployment in that sector. If you want higher wages for low income workers, limit immigration, then strike.
Another way is to tax high income earners and redistribute it to the low income workers. Something similar to the earned income credit that is already part of the tax code. If you work a certain length of time, you get back a proportional percentage from the taxes paid by the high income sector.
So in effect, the low income worker shares in all companies profits paid to the wealthy, whether they are CEO's or investors. A form of nationwide profit sharing.
This top down approach is more effective at evening out wages than the bottom up approach used in strikes that cost both sides lost wages, jobs, and productivity.
So, you are concerned about how much someone else earns, but are comfortable with giving someone the power to decide who gets what? Having too much money is bad, but the power to determine someones lot in life is desirable? Have you really considered what would be required for someone to redistribute wealth? Money bad, omnipotent power, good?
Because low wage earners tend to not stand up for fair wages, for a multitude of reasons, society has decided to increase their income by setting a minimum wage. Is that omnipotent power? No, it removes some of that power from the employer.
One of the reasons a low wage earner will not fight for a better wage is that they are so close to living on the street that they are afraid to make waves - Hence wage slave.
Yes, they are the most vulnerable. The threat of being fired or deported, especially in a bad economy. I wonder what they would be making if there were no minimum wage laws? $4 to $5 an hour?
Why include deportation in the discussion? If one is here illegally, then deportation is required result of that illegal entry. One can not argue for minimum wage for illegal workers, as they should not be here in the first place, nor able to be hired either by a company and skirt labor laws. That is another subject, but it does have impact to available labor and wage minimums.
I would argue for a minimum wage for all persons regardless of their race, or sex, or legal status. Their legal status is a separate issue from a persons right to be fairly compensated. Should a person breaking any law be paid less?
They are here because companies hire them. If the illegals are rightfully deported, then the companies that hire them should also be prosecuted.
Immigration, whether legal or illegal, increases low wage labor supply, lowers minimum wage, increases unemployment, but lowers prices. The upper and middle classes benefit, that is why it is tolerated.
Just enough that they could get something to eat before getting some sleep in a card board box somewhere.
There are reasons that people are at the bottom of the wage scale. Quite a few are there from the personal choices they have made and this is the result. Others are there through no fault of there own. But one can not lump them all together and call them wage slaves.
It is what it is - until there is a fundamental change in the system. People say don't like it? then go somewhere else - that little gem of advice does not work until there is a possibility that your new boss will not be the same as your old boss.
Also to even think of leaving current employment you need to have somewhere else to go to begin with - not much available in this seeking for work glutted market.
Wage slavery is real it is just not widely understood.
If there is a glutted labor market, then what is your proposal other than normal economic improvement to get the unemployment rate back to a normal 3-4%? A competitive labor market will always have low wage earners. (I may have hit the dislike by accident due to my large fingers)
The way to stimulate the economic market is to stop the hoarding of money. To balance wage parity as it exists. knock 1 or 2 or 300% off of the top end where it has migrated to due to years of greed, and place that money back in circulation where it belongs in payroll and maintenance and improvement and expansion. End the stupid minimum wage by transforming it into a minimum living wage that is tied to the real costs of living - food insurance rent utilities education health care etc. and an excess to place in a starting savings account something other than a retirement account.
The concept of the living wage could never be agreed to as no one would ever agree to what the number should be, what it should cover, how to calculate it, and how to adjust it. If you let the government calculate it, it will add another inefficient bureaucracy, and it will be entirely political. Person A, B, C, D would all want different amounts, especially after location is considered. And then you have added a savings account. Would that be another mandate? Most people don't even understand savings, and would spend the extra on other desired material things, which then creates more "want" instead of need.
How much should minimum wage be for our chinese workers?Or our mexican workers.We should not forget the ever expanding prison workers.Yes how much are these people worth?Is it ok to exploit people of the world so corporations can have profit?
I definitely would not be comfortable with using ethnicity to determine the wages a person makes. As far as prisoners, they are in prison for a reason and through their own choices, have limited their own paths to income (though, here in the United States, there are many examples of people who have spent time in prison and come out and been able to turn their lives around and earn extraordinary income). I think a far better way to determine a minimum wage would be to let the ability and motivation of the individual determine the wage to their employer.
When you are hard working need to refresh. I things party eve is the best refreshment item. During the dark days of Prohibition only the most elite, privileged and savvy individuals could drink the night away in hidden basement bars and clubs. Times have changed and this San Francisco best parties Noble is going to bring back those swanky basement bar days to San Francisco. http://www.sfnewyears.com/
minimum wage should be based on cost of living politicians get cost of living based pay military gets a % raise based on cost of living minimum wages people get shafted big time
30-hour workweek with livable earnings.
With a cap on profits the value of the consumer dollar would at least double, and than yes a 30 hour work week might be manageable.
Workers are currently competing with the technology that was supposed to liberate the human race. Greater productivity, less work to do, goods can't be distributed in our current scheme -- we don't need to work as much. Counter-intuitively,however, we are working more to make ends meet, competing when we should be collaborating. Capitalists going to continue to squeeze more and more from the worker -- work that is not necessary. Productivity is not the problem, it's distribution. Greater compensation for fewer hours, makes sense to me.
Yes I agree. With the technology and increase in production , we the worker should see shorter work weeks and earlier retirement.
And a national healthcare system.
How does a small business owner pay more for less time, without raising the price for this/her product? Also, if you owned a company and brought in technology to improve or increase output, would that mean you would decrease your workers hours and increase their pay at the same time? How would you do that, pay for the technology and remain competitive in a global market? You also stated that capitalist are squeezing the worker for more unnecessary work. Why would a business pay workers to do unnecessary work at all? The business would likely layoff employees instead. If you were running a business , what or how would you do in these real world scenarios?
Can I still work 60 hrs and make twice as much if I want?
No. There will be an authoritarian system in place to force you to live the good life.
What a maroon.
What is the number? Regardless of occupation? Livable wage for one is not a livable wage for another.
It should be the higer wage, for example if study a) determines $20 an hour, study b) determines $45 an hour, it should be $50 an hour (throw in an extra fin for the hell of it.
What difference does it make what the minimum wage is? Raise it and businesses either raise their prices or let workers go.
Tired old saw. Every time raising the minimum wage is discussed, that scare tactic is dusted off and brought out. Problem is, in the entire history of the minimum wage, it HAS NEVER HAPPENED. People weren't laid off, prices didn't go up. Never.
In fact, because consumer spending drives the economy, more demand was created by people at the bottom of the wage scale spending more. That led inventories to go down and profits to go up. And with inventory down and demand up, employment increased instead of decreased. (That also expanded the tax base, so infrastructure could be better funded, providing businesses with more efficient ways to deliver their products, translating into even higher profits.) That is what history, as opposed to histrionics, has shown.
I would agree as long as the increase in minimum wage is a reasonable one. Talking about going up $.25 is one thing, talking about raising it 25 or 30% in one jump is another.
I don't agree. There is no basis for that assertion. Adjusted for inflation and real cost of living adjustments, the original minimum wage would be at least $15.00 per hour in todays dollars.
If an increase in minimum wage had been tied to inflation the adjustments might have gone largely unfelt by business. On the other hand they could have increased inflation. Roosevelt tried to control inflation with wage controls, so there must be some economic justification for thinking increasing wages can result in an inflationary spiral. We can argue about an unprovable situation all day long without a resolution.
Yes, it may very well be unprovable, although I believe there has been some modeling demonstrating that it would have no adverse effect. But let's say there are no such plausible models. It was you, not me, who implied that anything above 25 cents was unreasonable. That, too, is an unprovable statement. And the evidence favors the other side. When the minimum wage was established, it represented a significant "jump" in industry wages in certain sectors in a time of severe economic contraction, yet there was no corresponding jump in consumer prices nor any suppressing effect on employment. Nor has there been any such correlation at any time the minimum wage has been bumped since then , despite the same warnings consistently broadcast by business that you are voicing now.
What's more, as Krugman shows, a little inflation right now would not be a bad thing. Currently the continuing danger to the economy and jobs is the possibility of deflation. Whatever you think of Krugman's analysis, there is no evidence to support a claim that real wage increases for the bottom earners will result in anything approaching an inflationary spiral. And there is compelling reason to believe it would have no such effect. Your assertion is conjecture.
I picked $.25 only as an example of a small change as opposed a large change of say doubling the current wage all at once. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply it as some limit. Changes in the federal minimum wage have always been small, the largest being the last three changes of $0.70 each.
There has to be a point at which a business will not hire, lay off, outsource, or raise prices in response to an increase in minimum wage. Another increase of 2 or 3% hardly seems significant. Raising it to $10 an hour (a 38% increase that sounds big, but still a small annual salary) is likely to cause business to react negatively. A "little" inflation may be a good thing for the economy, but that doesn't mean it's good for those earning minimum wage. The kind of change that will actually have meaning for the working poor is not likely to have any real or lasting effect for them under the way our economy actually works.
If the minimum wage were raised to what i should be, $15.00 per hour, a little inflation would not be an issue for the bottom wage earners. It is far more of an issue for those earning less than half of it. Right now working full time at the current minimum wage outs one in the category of near poverty. It is well below poverty in many regions. A living wage was the purpose of the minimum wage's inception. That goal must be maintained.
I am sure that there is a point at which some businesses will react negatively. Outsourcing has already occurred by those for whom the minimum wage is currently too high. Indeed, the $5.00 - $20.00 dollars a day they are paying for Chinese labor is considered too high by these people, and they are slowly but surely moving operations to places like Vietnam in which they can be even more exploitive. That's why the livable minimum wage alone is not a robust enough solution. It must be accompanied by tariffs on goods that are produced by low cost overseas labor, or other correctives to level the playing field.
Proper regulation and oversight - Yep I agree 100%. This will if nothing else will - help the leveling of working conditions everywhere if attended to properly which it never has to this point in time..
And it's those increase in profits that eventually led to the great recession. Money was sucked out of the economy but not recirculated causing jobloss and lowering consumer demand. It's all so clear why we need a cap on profits to stabilize money flow and prevent economic downturn.
It was not THOSE increase in profits that did it. It was the way those profits were made. They were never even partially redistributed to the workers. They were made largely on productivity gains, which include making things by using cheaper labor overseas.
Why not use government to reduce all prices to 1/10 the price now?
Nixon tried price freeze didn't work.
You can try to use government for whatever you want. It's never been very effective when it tries to manipulate and control the economy though. Lowering prices without consideration given to the costs a business faces isn't too likely to succeed, even if you could get support. No business makes a 90% profit or could afford to drop prices that much.
When Roosevelt set wage controls businesses started offering benefits to attract workers. Companies find a way around things, government can't react fast enough. For example when Nixon put in price controls, "new" cuts of meat were sold, that weren't covered under the price guidelines.
That is my point. It doesn't really matter what government orchestraates, it is never very effective in controlling the economy. The best thing it can do is leave well enough alone, and let the private sector take care of itself.
How much is the cost of living in your area?
[Removed]
Where in my area? The tax burden for one home can be fairly modest, yet an identical house next door can be much more significant. I have kept my cost of living, what I would consider, fairly reasonable, yet a home 5 miles from my home would be totally beyond my ability to afford. In order to answer your question accurately, you would have to provide a much more specific location for me to calculate the costs associated with living in the area.
That isn't what I asked.
In your opinion, why is there a minimum wage?
To keep people like you from fucking people at the bottom because you can.
Nice talk there chicky. I guess when you have no reasonable answer, the best thing to do is a personal attack. If you think I am at the top, your sights are not set too high. You will not have much trouble attaining my level of prosperity.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/wage-theft-a-growing-problem-for-low-wage-workers-/
toonces, if you were sincere at all then you would stop defending the 1% and start paying attention. You cannot have it both ways.
[Removed]
I am not defending the 1%. I defend individual freedom and am against an over reaching and oppressive government.
You most certainly are defending them. The only thing that you post are arguments defending the 1%. It is rather silly.
Chicky???? For real? Chicky??
Why don't you answer her question?
Please read her comment again. The form of speech she used would more correctly be classified as a statement rather than a question. First of all, there is no question mark at the terminus of the sentence. That is one clue that can be used to determine whether or not a sentence is a question or a statement. Secondly, even if she had incorrectly punctuated the sentence, the does not seem to be an interrogatory to respond to. I used both these clues to determine that there was no question posed and thus responded to her statement rather than answer an imaginary question.
Did you get lost? Here let me help you out.
[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (3866) 5 hours ago
How much is the cost of living in your area? ↥like ↧dislike reply permalink
This is the point at which you joined the conversation.
I asked her to be more specific. The costs associated with living in my area vary quite a bit depending where you live in my area and how long you have lived here.
Actually you dodged the question - yet again. Old tactic for an old troll.
How much does it cost to buy a pack of cigarettes in your area?
Don't know - Don't care.
Shift focus - another old troll tactic used by an old troll. Way to go toonces you are dated and in such a young movement.
There is a reason elders are respected in societies. It is because the youth haven't had the time to figure things out. The youths are dumbasses.
sosdd - toonces - SOSDD
Actually, you just got lost.
How much is the cost of loving in your area?
Was the question.
Not quite the same question but I do like the twist.
What is a cost of loving anyway?
Now that WallStreet and it's attendant corporations have profitized it.
It's getting higher every single day.
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2012/apr/08/the-cost-of-caregiving-loved-ones-dementia-takes/
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/2/prweb9165793.htm
I asked her to be more specific. The costs associated with living in my area vary quite a bit depending where you live in my area and how long you have lived here.
Then you should be able to see the silliness of your thread.
There is no one size fits all minimum, even in your specific area.
That's why the more accurate response is a living wage, and a "living wage", would never be static, as it would allow for economic mobility.
So, in other words, there will always be something to bitch about.
This is America. We do still have that right........for now.
Now, how about a comment on what I actually said?
I did finally answer your question.
Man, you are one angry psycho.
I vote for $5.50 in Madison. This will force GirlFriday into public housing.
You are such a twisted little bitch.
SMART, EDUCATED, twisted little bitch.
You are a legend in your own mind, hon.
Nobody else is buying your shit, but I'm sure your mommy loves you.
[demotivational posters]
https://www.google.com/search?q=demotivational+posters&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=RRE&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=XqGYT8r5DOWg2AX_qvWHBw&ved=0CFcQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=594
She does. Thank you!
Aren't you going to give up? Your credibility is in tatters.
Who the fuck are you?
Yet, the fact remains that the costs associated with living in my area vary from place to place.
That still isn't what I asked. Cost of living in one area dictates what the minimum wage is.
Say that someone has a job that pays$80K in California but the exact same job pays $40,000 in Iowa. Does this mean that the person in California is raking it in? Not really. The cost of living is much higher
Minimum wage is set higher. See, what I am saying? It doesn't have anything to do with your being thrifty.
Then why not dictate that the costs associated with living in an area be reduced? Why not tell gas companies that they will sell a gallon of gas in NYC for the same amount it sells for in Houston, TX. Why is the cost of living higher in CA than it is in IA? Or FL? If you are going to determine minimum wage, shouldn't it be the same all over? If you are comfortable with designing the compensation of people, why not design the economic structure of those who live there?
Better yet, why depend on economic theory at all? Because that is what economics is..........theories
So what happens if your theory about manipulating minimum wages using a person coordinates fail or has unintended consequences?
What theory was that again?
adjust to the consequence
Why not adjust to the situation as it is rather than supporting a system that is successful for 99% of the people?
an either/or in a multiple choice
You said the minimum wage depends on location. You said economics is theory. I asked what happened if the location theory about minimum wage failed or produced unintended consequences?
You mean like the same unintended consequences that not having a minimum wage at all would create?
Do you understand why there is a minimum wage?
I am telling you that economics is the softest theory that there is. It always has been and people should not treat it as a hard science.
Yes, because politicians wanted to buy the votes of people who considered themselves underpaid, or those who thought it was a good idea to have government compel businesses to pay a certain amount to someone regardless of their abilities or worth to a company.
Really? Are you for real? You cannot possibly be this ignorant.
Like as if the question of your post is so specific.
Fair enough. How much does OWS believe the minimum wage should be?
We want equal pay for every hour worked. And a cap on sales profits on all middlemen; including banks. ( there is a request for $135,000 minimum wage)
So, a doctor gets paid the same as a cashier? Why take the time and effort to become a doctor?
The minimum wage should be equal to the maximum wage !
For doing what?
The minimum wage should be $115,000 per year for full-time workers.
Since the only economic reason for paying one person more than another is to get people to work hard, the only fair way to allocate income is to limit differences to only what is necessary to get people to do difficult work and give their maximum effort.
If we determined that paying the top earners 4 times more than the bottom earners was enough incentive to motivate people to work hard, we would be able to pay every worker from $115k to $460k per year:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/1-replace-capitalism-with-democracy/#comment-662000
[Removed]
Why not pay the bottom $1.15 and the top $4.60? Why not pay the bottom $1.15 million and the top $4.6 million, or trillion? Why did you pick those numbers? Is a doctors training and ability to save a life only worth four times the amount of the pay of a night security guard? Are you comfortable with giving the power to determine someone's lot in life to someone else? Do you believe money is so important that you are willing to cede that power to government. Why is money bad, but the power to determine where money will go, good?
The numbers are based on math. It is based on dividing total income where top earners make 4 times more than bottom earners. Click on the link and you can see the calculations.
A doctor is worthless to a healthy person and if that healthy person was saved by a security guard who stopped a robber from attacking him, he would definitely think the security guard was worth more.
The question shouldn't be how much a person is worth. The question should be how much more do we need to pay someone to get them to do that job. I don't think you need to pay people any more than 4 times more in order to get them to become doctors.
If we paid doctors $460k, that would not cause a shortage of doctors.
"Are you comfortable with giving the power to determine someone's lot in life to someone else?"
No. You should be the one who determines what you want to do with your life, not somebody else.
"Do you believe money is so important that you are willing to cede that power to government."
I don't know what you mean. I do believe an economy that uses money must have a central bank in order to work and this is supported by a mountain of real world evidence.
"Why is money bad, but the power to determine where money will go, good?"
I don't think money is bad. I think everyone should have the power to spend their money any way they want.
Then why aren't they free to spend their money paying someone what they feel they are worth?
Consumers do not decide how income is allocated. People don't buy Yankees tickets because they want A-Rod to make $25 million, they do it because they think the ticket is worth the price.
Yankees fans would be just as willing to buy Yankees tickets if A-Rod was making $115k instead of $25 million.
There is only so much income to go around. So when you pay A-Rod $25 million, that means the rest of the labor force has to make $25 million less.
And if consumers had the choice between paying Ticket A where they earn $35k at their job so that A-Rod can earn $25 million at his or Ticket B where they earn $115k at their job and A-Rod earns $115k at his, they would all choose Ticket B.
No Yankees fan would be willing earn $85k less at their job so that A-Rod can make $25 million at his. If consumers did have a say over how income was allocated, nobody would ever earn $25 million per year.
um Arod would be playing in Japan if he only got to make 115k. If I owned a company, i'd simply shut it down after I made my 115k or 200k or whatever. Either that or move it out of the country.
And we would easily replace both you and arod with people who did not want to live in Japan or China without missing a beat.
A-Rod is making what the Yankees feel he is worth. He seems to be extremely capable of being able to hit a relatively small beige stitched ball a inordinate distance a significant amount of the time. People seem to like that.
The Yankees GM pays his salary, not consumers. Consumers have no direct say over how the Yankees allocate their revenue so they have no direct say over what A-Rod gets paid.
Of course they do, if they (The Consumers) stop going to games Alex would be playing somewhere else. Unless the yankees pay their players with money they win in the lotto, or find on the sidewalk, the ones who provide the money, by making a decision as to go to the games or not, are the ones who make it possible in this case, the consumers.
Remember the 80's when nobody used to go to yankees games?, Do you think with that attendance they were going to be able to pay all that loot?, Of course not! .The reason why they (The Yankees) are able to pay their players more than other teams, is because consumers buy their tickets for the games, plus all the other nonsense they sell at the stadium, like that delicious 9 dollar can of miller draft beer.
Unorganized consumers are not able to have an effect on the allocation of the nation's revenue by how they choose to spend their money.
The only way for them to have an impact is if they organize and decide collectively to change the way the nation's income is allocated.
Organizing the entire workforce is what I advocate as the way to change the way income is allocated:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/1-replace-capitalism-with-democracy/
We are on the same side, but I take it a step further, we can control not just the allocation of money, we can control all, true democracy means the people is in control of the government not the government in control of the people.
You see, there are many who think as we do right here, but a lot of people is being governed by fear first, rather than by common sense, it wouldn't take long to organize and make changes, but the people does not have the willingness to get off their asses and do it.
This can be dine with minimal effort, since what needs to be done is to master the meaning and power of saying the word "no" , that's it.
NO is the keyword we need to master. So far we have been conditioned to only say yes, we accept ( that is what yes means, acceptance or agreeing with something put in front of you ) everything the powers that be put forth, but when the people recognize they have the power to say NO (reject or disagree with what is presented in front of you ) then the side presenting it to you, has to either present something else, or go away empty handed.
That is how simple it is. A politician comes up with a bullshit law, get get no, and if he tries to pass it, then he himself gets told "NO" in the form of a recall election.
A corporation, such as coke for example, since I'm involved in a legal battle together with a group of other individuals, coke for example acts in a way which is detrimental to either consumers or its employees, then they get "no" in a form of boycott, until they either change their ways or are forced out of business.
That is how simple it is, people need to understand that, once we, the people know it, true democracy will take over. And we will all be in charge of our destiny, instead of these assholes we have controlling every aspect of our lives.
I apologize for my language today, I have too much anger in me, after seeing the maneuvering Coca Cola is doing to avoid accountability for their own action, and how they are being helped by the mainstream media in doing so.
To finish my analysis, mastering the power of NO will also dictate quality in products, even the value of each dollar. For example, a company decides to cut corner in order to make more profits while at the same time giving you a product of lesser quality, now that you are armed with the wisdom of the power of "no" we as a people reject that particular product and as a people indicate to that company that unless they produce products of superior quality and fair price, we will force them out of business by saying no to their products, once we do that, we have entered the era of real free market by redefining the meaning of free market to be the freedom of the people to choose the best product at the best price. Right now we do not have that referring, simply for lack of knowledge.
The bible says : my people are taking captive because they have no knowledge. This is true, we need to be educated on this.
First, we call it the paise of "NO" to identify it as an action, then we assign to it all it involves, then we teach it to others and that's all it takes. So we could start this right away, why wait another day to get going.
Here is what I propose to anybody who is serious about doing this after reading this post. First vote it up, so others can read it throughout the day, then send me a message so I can add you to the think tank website for further refining and discussions of ideas to introduce to this forum, and then we will be able to roll up our sleeves and go from being spectators on the sidelines, to being co-participants in a real world revolution, started right here in thus forum. All it takes is to put our thinking caps together, lay out a plan and follow through.
Are we ready, or do we continue to play "revolutionary" by talking and talking with no direct action behind our words?
I think Martin Luther King Jr called it "having a high pressure of creed and an anemia of deeds"
I'll be waiting.
God bless all
"it wouldn't take long to organize and make changes, but the people does not have the willingness to get off their asses and do it. "
That is because there is very little incentive for them to get off their asses. Most people correctly feel that they have little power to change society.
If you want people to be motivated to do something, they need an incentive.
One of the greatest motivating factors is income. If we had a fair economy, where income was allocated based on hard work, 97% of workers would get an increase in income, the average worker would be able to increase their income 400%, the minimum wage would be $115k, everyone would be wealthy, and there would be no poor or middle class as described in the link in my comment above.
I think something like that, being able to increase your income 400%, would motivate people to organize.
But there are few other issues, outside of money, that would motivate people to organize and get off their asses.
.
"This can be dine with minimal effort, since what needs to be done is to master the meaning and power of saying the word "no" , that's it."
The problem with that claim is that if people think they are the only one saying no, then they know that them saying no is going to have zero impact. Since saying no is pointless and they know it won't do anything, they don't bother going through the inconvenience of saying no.
Saying no only works when people are organized.
You lost me there... I'm trying to see where we disagree, and I can't find it. Are you saying I said unity is not needed? Are you saying I said education is not needed? What are you saying? If people are in control by knowing how to say no, they could control all, that is what I mean by total control. I think we are in agreement, but this post makes no sense to me, since you are preaching to the choir my friend. God bless.
Yes, I think we are in agreement!
The point that I was trying to make is that consumers (or workers) do not have any power when they act alone. Their power only comes when they act together.
The only way to change the way we allocate income is to organize all workers into a single union. And the only way to organize workers into a single union is to show them that by joining we will be able to raise the minimum wage to $115k or $230k per year depending on what you do and that they will get access to a 100% mortgage at 0% interest and eventually reduce the work week to 20 hours.
I agree that we have to come together as we both have stated before, however I do not agree on a minimun salary pf 230k per year. Allow me to explain "why?", maybe I'm just wrong, but who knows?
$230k per year at 20 hours a week comes to $230/hour as a minimum salary, the problem I see with this, is that someone is going to have to pay that salary to someone else, meaning the person paying it is going to have to be getting huge profits in order to be able to pay his workforce $230/hr, and then be able to get all the production done week in and week out, counting with only 20 hours of labor per employee a week.
For example, I drive a truck, since I move Hazmats, I have to do a pre-trip and post trip inspection daily, if I do a good job at it, that means 20-30 minutes checking every single thing in the truck thoroughly, times 2 that would be almost one hour, now I have 3 left, but let us say I have 31/4 hours left, I have to stop and fuel up that takes about 20 minutes, so let us say I did it quick and took me 15, now I'm left with three hours without making a single cent in profits to my employer, that means that where ever I go I have to be back in 3 hours, meaning I can only travel 1 1/2 hours and turn back, so if I leave NY City, I couldn't even get to South Jersey before I have to turn around and come back again.
Now, remember that the guy who sold me the fuel also has to make a profit so he can pay the guy pumping the fuel for me $230/hr, so how much would a gallong of fuel cost? knowing that it takes about 15-20 minutes to do it, he would, realistically only be able to pump 4 trucks in an hour....man what a mess.
Now let us see how I would do this.
Whenever I do my thinking, I try to follow the laws of nature and math, to see if it makes sense.
I understand that it is easier for a stone to go down than to go up, since gravity is pulling it, I also know that to build a house, a perfect foundation has to be laid, so that one can build up and not worry about it coming down.
Knowing this, I understand that it would be better to leave government out of telling people how much they ought to earn, and let the people deside how much they are willing to pay for things, that way, instead of worrying about salary, we control prices so the little money that we might have, can go longer.
At $230/hr considering the current minimum salary in NY I think it is $7.35 or somewhere in that neighborhood, so if at that salary, a gallon of milk is $3.00, once we bring the minimum up to $230/hr then taking into consideration that 1 gallon of milk=40.82% of 1hr of minimum salary, then the resulting price of 1 gallon of milk would be=$93.89.
Knowing that companies pass the cost down to consumers, then we understand that we would still be in the same boat, paying high prices for all commodities.
But if we instead unite and control everything, instead of having the government dictate a minimum salary, we could control prices so our money goes farther.
And in case a company is being unfair, we just put it our of business, but that takes unity.
Maybe my way of looking at things is erroneus, but I do think that letting the government dictate things, instead of us uniting and dictating to the government, would be a mistake, and at the end, politicians would be in charge instead of the people.
We can do it, education into what real unity is , is what is going to put us into the promised land, until people's eyes are open, we all will be wandering in the wilderness waiting for a Savior to lead us in the right path.
But I could just be an old goat who has no idea of what he is talking about.
God bless. BC
I don't advocate a system where politicians decide what we make. And you cannot raise the minimum wage to $115k or $230k in a capitalist system. You can only do it in a socialist system where you have democratic control over the allocation of income.
And the only way to pay those incomes without causing inflation is to limit the top income to $460k.
You can read the details of how that kind of system would work here:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/1-replace-capitalism-with-democracy/
Where does the Yankees GM get the money to pay A-Rod?
He gets it from revenue from consumers. But consumers do not say they are buying the ticket because they want to make $80k less at their job so that A-Rod can make $25 million at his. Consumers are only saying that they think the ticket is worth the price. They are not saying they approve of how income in this country is allocated.
If they didn't like it, they wouldn't go.
They do like Yankees games. That is why they buy tickets. That is the point I am making. Consumers do not spend money based on how the company they are buying from allocates their income. Nobody buys a Yankees ticket because they want a-rod to make $25 million. They do it because they want to see a baseball game.
You are delusional if you think people buying tickets is proof that they want to make $80k less so a-rod can make $25 million per year.
They would not pay to see you or me play.
I vote for A-rod to not make $25 million. He is grossly over valued. I wonder, if it were up to the public to decide his salary, whose theory would bear out to be correct?
You lose. A-Rod makes what he makes.
Really? Lol. I never would have guessed that A-rod makes what he makes. Despite the introduction of this fascinating little tidbit of information on your part, it remains unchanged that he is still overpaid and in no way dismisses the prior claim that people do not buy tickets for this reason. Do you have any more revelatory bombshells to drop on us? (Besides the obvious, I mean)
It is a government problem, not a CEO problem.
Is this more of your "A-Rod makes what he makes" insight into the world's problems?
I have no idea who arod is because I don't pay attention to basketball. I really care not what he makes other than he is worth what the owners pay him, if not, they would trade him.
Kobe is basketball. A-Rod is baseball. I do care what he makes, just the same as I care that I live in a country where CEO's get grotesque bonuses for wrecking the world economy. Just saying.
No they would not.
And your point has nothing to do with the fact that they also do not directly decide what A-Rod's salary is. And if they did have a direct say in how much he makes, they would never agree to make $80k less on average at their job so that A-Rod can make $25 million at his.
When you buy a ticket, you are only agreeing to the price of ticket. Nobody makes a purchase decision based on how they think the company will allocate the money they give them.
$15
...And in order to pay for $15 an hour per minimum wage employee, companies would have to have their prices skyrocket. ...Which will in turn cause fewer people to purchase goods, because they can't afford them. ...Which will lead to people getting laid off and/or companies out of business.
the market will charge what price they can get
No no no all that needs be done is reduce some of the fat at the top and spread it around at the bottom. Easy-peasy.
So take a variable amount of money from the wealthy to subsidize the minimum wage? ...So a company that is unable to pay it's employees (or run its business) because of a high minimum wage, should rely on receiving a check from the government to help pay their employees and stay afloat?
...And since there are variable numbers of people on minimum wage throughout the year (due to seasonal employment, market conditions, etc), the amount taxed from the wealthy would have to constantly vary as well. The only way I could see this actually working, is if we create another government organization (or at least an new section of the IRS) to regulate how much extra to tax the wealthy each year/quarter/month in order to have a large enough fund to subsidize the minimum wage. And of course, the government has always proven itself to be efficient, so I'm sure there would be low-overhead of running this new regulatory group.
...And since that suggestion would only help pay for employees, what about the families that aren't minimum wage, and have to pay extra since prices have skyrocketed?
...If I interpreted your vision incorrectly, please share how exactly you would implement your idea. Hopefully without using personal attacks on me ;)
You see the thing is I am not into personal attacks where they are not warranted. So far you have not given me a reason that warrants such a response in this your current comment.
So - The money already exists it does not need to be created. It just needs to be shared out fairly to all who are responsible for it's being earned. Instead of 90% of a company's revenue going to 1% of the company it needs readjustment to perhaps 20% going to the 1% and the other 70% being placed into the common employees pocket and reinvested in the company's maintenance and process improvement so that the company continues to grow but also improves it's operations as it does so and everyone profits as the company continues to grow and get better at what it does. Now if everyone is subject to paying an equal amount "comparatively" in an income to tax relation - then you have successfully spread the tax burden fairly to all citizens and you have broadened the tax base - and you have pumped money directly into recirculation in the economy rather than let it be hoarded in stagnant personal accounts of the very few.
Small business will remain small just like now with better opportunity to enhance growth because they will have a larger healthier market to supply to.
All things are relative nothing is removed from the system except waste.
They are confusing 2 different issues. Taxing the rich isnt going to help raise the minimum wage. Taxing the rich could yield more money for food stamps, but the minimum wage is a private business issue, not at all related to taxes.
[Removed]
Why so low?
I'm unemployed
Why? What do you do?
Enough.
Enough for what?
If you don't know by now, you haven't been paying attention.
If you cannot put it into words, then there is likely no answer that would work for you that is enough.
To ask this question for the umpteenth time in this forum alone, demonstrates your inability to research , or even keep up.........
To start another new thread over it shows a certain level of desperation.
Would you suggest a minimum wage of whatever ALEC wants?
Alec Baldwin is a tool of George Soros. I really don't care what he wants. if you cannot give an answer from your own opinion, you deserve to be a tool of others.
You do realize that it's you who is the puppet cat?
You could simply search the forum for many answers to you divisive question.
But you didn't. Now that's lazy.
There is no such thing as a divisive question. There are just questions that when honestly answered make the other person realize they are on the wrong side of the argument. Not realizing the truth makes you a useless idiot puppet cat. Now THAT is truly being lazy.
There is no OWS stated number given in any response on the forum. That is because there is no number that would be given as a final number to end the argument in perpetuity. That is because the goal of OWS is chaos and not to come to a solution.
Mooks, over here buddy. This thread has what the conversation needs.
Just like all rights, the amount the minimum wage should be depends on what other people have.
Minimum wage is not a "right". Rights that were granted by our creator are protected by the US Constitution, and they are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (possessions)
Yeah, exactly. I have a right to other peoples possessions if it affects my happiness.
You have a right to your possessions. Let's hope you are happy with what you have chosen to possess.
No, I'm just not happy with other people having stuff I don't have.
So, how do you intend to aquire those things you do not have?
Work hard and relentlessly, of course, until I have acquired the things I desire through mutually beneficial and consensual financial transactions between parties.
What did you think I meant, demanding the government take things away from other people and give them to me? Who do you think I am, a thief? Sheesh!
That is the American dream.
Well, it's all we have.
The minimum wage doesn't have to be the same for every job, but businesses should be forced to pay their employees a fair wage. We hear right wing scum complain about the people who don't pay any income tax but those people can't afford to pay income tax, that money is being diverted into the coffers of their greedsatiable employers. The people who can't afford health care, the people who need public assistance, it's all money being hoarded by the rich instead of fairly dispersed to the ones that do the work. I'd love to know what work you do, by the way. Think you'll be rich one day and then you'll get to feed off the poor?
How is this "fair wage" computed? Who computes the "fair wage"? What factors go into the computations of your "fair wage"?
You don't hear "right wing scum" complaining about people who don't pay income tax. You hear "right wing scum" complain about left wing scum who complain about "right wing scum" not paying their fair share in taxes when the left wing scum pays nothing or gets a check for more than they paid.
The people who can't afford to pay for health care voted for people who told them they would have government pay for their health care and that is when the price of medical services started to increase at a pace that was not able to be kept pace of. GHW Bush signed the HMO laws into effect and that is when health care costs started to skyrocket.
The rich can hoard money, there is an unlimited supply of money and the money one person has does not affect the money available to anyone else.
I told you what I do. I am waiting to see if you have the stones to contact me in person.
Thanks for proving what a fucking moron you are.
nanny nanny noo noo, stick your head in doo doo
"the money one person has does not affect the money available to anyone else" What an idiotic statement. Much of the money the wealth obsessed gluttons are hoarding is money that was not fairly paid out to the many employees who should have been fairly compensated with wages and benefits. That is why I called you a fucking moron. But for all I know you don't really believe any of the bullshit you spew.
Your hatred will consume you. I hope you can find happiness. I forgive you for your insults. Please try to enjoy life.
[Deleted]
What do you do for a living? And the same old rhetoric, "getting it from somebody else." I am talking about people who work for their money but are underpaid and have inadequate benefits so that the five Walton heirs can hoard 100 billion dollars. What did the Walton heirs do for that money? Yet they underpay their employees and the taxpayers pick up the slack. But you spew your bullshit rhetoric, it's what you want to believe, because you are probably complicit in the evil. What "hard work" do you do to "earn" your money?
[Deleted]
Your job should be obsolete by now. You think different, huh? "They think the pie must be "fairly" distributed. It never enters their mind that the pie gets bigger, and they can actually make their own new slice without getting it from somebody else." Real different, you're out there! How'd you come up with such original ideas? A lot of people work just as hard as youand get paid far, far less so greedbots can hoard obscene wealth. But you think different.
[Deleted]
No one asked for your advice, this forum was not created so you could come hear to share what you think is wisdom with the lazy and shiftless left, you obviously hold yourself in high regard but most of what you've written is way off. For example, pointing out that the American poor have more money than people in other countries is meaningless and a pathetic ploy by the right. It's all relative to what? We live in America, this is our reality. Your way around the moral dilemmas you have to ignore is to blame the victims. Your book recommendations are SHIT. And I wasn't talking about you hoarding money. The world doesn't revolve around you and your amazing ability to learn Mandarin in your car. Truly rich people don't hoard wealth? Because they own 8 houses and 20 cars? That's not hoarding? Because they "invest" it? They're "job creators," right? YOU DON'T GET IT.
[Deleted]
$700? How much firewood did you get for that?
Around $100/truckload is common where I live, delivered. I've sold it too in the past, but I realized a better way. Why should I swing a maul for several whole hours just to get $100 from someone else? Non-consensual trades are much better.
Can I cut green firewood for you for the rest of my life? Good golly.
May I ask what region you live in? I cannot fathom that price for green firewood. I have about two dump truck loads of slabs from my mill I will sell you for a tenth that price...
Wait, I forgot, I'm not going to work because you have more stuff than I do, so I'd rather just demand your things.
He didn't answer. But you have to admit, it was funny when he said the thing about "you and your amazing ability to learn mandarin in your car" ... lol
But it brings the point to mind about mutual trades. In order to get money, you have to help someone else. The system ultimately requires people to do helpful things for each other, or else they wouldn't have anything to spend on themselves.
I do want to know why he really cares about the airplanes someone else owns.
You right wing scum are great at ignoring the real point of an argument. As for Corium's comments below, there is no envy displayed in what I've written but that's the only response you greedbots ever have, accuse people of being lazy or jealous. Hoarding does not apply only to cash, geniuses. Somehow you manage to ignore the fact that buying 8 houses or 20 cars is hoarding wealth. But I understand, it's difficult for you kind of people to grasp broad concepts, that's why you still believe in the Bible, because you haven't read it and are unable to do the critical thinking involved in debunking the childish ramblings of cavemen. It's 2012 and the Republicans are busy fighting against contraception.
I've already answered your question. If anyone wanted your sage advice or to listen to you jack yourself off we'd go to the "Morons who think they're smart" board. This is the OWS board. You don't think cars and houses are wealth, because you're very intelligent. You don't care how people amass their fortunes, the means to the end is inconsequential in your tiny world, because you are very wise.
When did I say I believed in the Bible? That's pretty amazing that you can assume that... what else do you know about me?
I like your screen name. Guess how I know what it means? I study stuff for fun. I like knowledge. It, like yourself, has served me well. I don't want a handout from anyone. I work hard for what I have just like you do.
I doubt gluttony's problem is poverty. He (she?) seems to constantly attack without much thought put into answers. If the rest of their life is run in a similar fashion, the problem is likely social abilities rather than earning abilities.
No, I challenge you on your bullshit and you have no response or defense so you accuse me of hatred and attacking you. I hate your rhetoric, I attack your rhetoric.
Im pretty sure it is high enough, you dont get that much for flipping burgers.
Minimum wage is as high as it should be, you shouldn't get 15 or 20 bucks an hour flipping burgers.
There should not be a minimum wage.
I would tend to agree.
Minimum wage should be a living wage. This would be a formula based on geography and cost of living. It would pay a person enough money to pay for basic needs such as food, shelter, healthcare, transportation, and education. There is no magic number.
I meant that my mom would decide what I get paid.
So, in the economic picture you visualize, who determines what facts to use to determine what wage someone is compelled to make?
What didn't you understand by my response below?
It is so nice of you to waste your time talking to a twit like toonces. At least the good time and energy you spend is not wasted as others can see the information you present.
{:-])
Thanks, DKA. That's the point. LOL! It is exasperating, though.
I guess we will both be getting many lessons in patients as well as a deeper understanding of " What does not make you insane will make you stronger" ......... or was that what does not kill you............. oh whatever close enough in this case I think. (:-)
I asked who would determine what facts will be used to assign wages. Will I be the one who will assign the wage structure? Will it be the facts I determine to use?
Yes, toonces, we will use your facts regarding cost of living to set the living wage. Thank you. I look forward to that.
Who decides what the magic number is?
As I just said, geography and cost of living. I said there is no magic number. It is a formula.
Again, who determines the number? Who determines the formula?
Facts determine the number.
I would like to see evidence of a minimum wage that varies according to any pertinent and relevant facts. The spread of minimum wage, regardless of geography in the USA, is very minute and not boot-strapped to cost of living or anything else that appears anything other than arbitrary.
Probably so. That is why we need a real living wage based on geographical location and the actual cost of living in that place.
Flipside, if the minimum wage means I can easily cut it in Hawaii, Manhattan or Beverly Hills, why would I stay where I currently own real estate that I purchased because I could afford it and the costs of living here?
What overall effect would that have on real estate everywhere?
What overall effect would that have on production jobs everywhere?
What overall effect would that have on the cost of living, for those relying on the lower rungs of paying jobs, as opposed to the uber-wealthy?
If Minimum wage in the very expensive places was appropriately quadrupled that of minimum wage in Montgomery Alabama..... so that any could make it in either place.... don't you think there would be some serious unintended shifts occur?
Jobs pay more in Hawaii, Manhattan or Beverly Hills now, just not at the low paying end. The purpose of a living wage is to lift up people at the low end.
So, the bigger question is what overall effect would that have on humanity?
I'm confused now, I'm not aware that minimum wage was ever a living wage. Not in the USA anyhow.
Regardless if we are talking a minimum wage for youngsters or living wage for adults, do you find any of my questions meritorious and worthy of pondering?
My thinking is to "just do it" means screwing a lot of people that scratched out some tolerable subsistence with the badly broken system while unfairly giving an instant advantage to newbies?
I'm not talking about wealthy people at all............
A minimum wage is not a living wage. A living wage is a wage you can actually live on to provide for the basic necessities of life such as housing, food, transportation, healthcare, education, etc.
Your questions are worthy I just am not sure how they relate. Because the living wage is sort of a minimum wage in that it would be the lowest someone could earn. It doesn't mean they would be living high on the hog.
It is interesting what people do with what money they are able to obtain.
I just think it is important to determine how the world according to OWS will work before we decide to scrap the world as it is now and adopt a totally new system. I would definitely like my mom to decide the facts to use to determine the minimum wage I receive. That said, who determines what facts to use to calculate the number that will force people into a certain pay?
The freaking people we vote into office who are NOT bought and paid for by the wealthy and corporations. So, yes, your Mom would have a person truly representing her. Nice idea, right?
I've not seen but very few of these types actually elected, and then stay that way, upon getting the nicely furnished office, in my entire life.
I'm talking about once we get money out of politics, only then would this be possible.
As long as there is POLITICS in any government masquerading as "for and of the people", you will NEVER get money out of it..... at least not like it is there for the last 50 years..... only in the hands of the elected and chosen DC gang members.
Give this some serious thought and consider actual government for and of the people versus any color of politics injected into the same mechanism.
True to an extent, but government is a necessity. That sounds libertarian.
REMOVING POLITICS FROM GOVERNMENT for and of the people sounds libertarian to you?
I find your grasping and hurried assertion, in order to categorize me, very typical and beneath intelligent discourse.
Think about the real enemy, POLITICS and the myriads of means deployed to keep all remaining in their seats as if the DC gang were rock stars or NFL all-stars... and you would insult my intelligence by asserting POLITICS are necessary mechanisms of merely governing a nation per the wishes and best interests of it's people?
Seriously....... let's get real.
Um. Excuse me, but government is politics by definition.
So as you said, let's get real.
That's what I was thinking, shooz.
Not even close.........
OIC. In your world there are non political politicians.
That would make you a walking talking oxymoron.
Explain yourself then. I'm not getting where you are coming from.
Boy BW you have struck a nerve I see. The trolls are just voting you down left and right - you must be expressing good information and thoughts for the benefit of all good working people.
GOOD JOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I know. LOL !! Wouldn't want a living wage now. No, no, that might be too good for humanity.
Hell no....... I mean it might even save the economy in quick and healthy fashion. Who could possibly stand for that? {:-])
[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (5695) 1 minute ago
I know. LOL !! Wouldn't want a living wage now. No, no, that might be too good for humanity. ↥like ↧dislike permalink
Ponder the concept of an actual functioning Democratic Republic where the wishes and needs of the quorum majority were served, without any party divisiveness being paid blind allegiance by anyone.
Things don't have to be just one side or the other and to allow this to continue is sheer idiocy.
The offending Politics is the very means used by the elite to divide and enslave citizens, who clearly have NO VOICE in the governing of our nation.
When those elected vote along only their party lines, despite the wishes of their constituents, and it's acceptable because those people seemingly voted for the wrong party.... well that shit can only fly as long as people are completely ignorant as to how an actual democratic republic is supposed to work while remaining complacent about actually being responsible enough to demand that it works as rightfully intended.
Screw politics and dem this repub that lib whatever indy bla bla bla........
that's merely one more layer of keeping the DC gang from being culpable and way overly empowered over those who truly should have THE LAST WORD when it comes to THEIR GOVERNMENT.
I'm kinda with shooz on this one. How can you have a government without politics? The two go hand in hand. Now, we certainly don't have to have two party politics. We could open it up like they do in Europe and have a multi-party system.
Only one guy gave an actual answer.
Here is the answer I gave to shooz when he accused me of asking a divisive question....
"There is no such thing as a divisive question. There are just questions that when honestly answered make the other person realize they are on the wrong side of the argument. Not realizing the truth makes you a useless idiot puppet cat. Now THAT is truly being lazy.
There is no OWS stated number given in any response on the forum. That is because there is no number that would be given as a final number to end the argument in perpetuity. That is because the goal of OWS is chaos and not to come to a solution."
you're right about the goal of the backers of ows ( and obama) ..........civil, if not violent unrest,............just in time for obama to declare martial law and supend the november election.
If jobs couldnt be outsourced to low wage countries, raising the MW might work. However there are altetnatives and a high MW would be a job killer.
When all the jobs are outsourced, only the outsourcers will still have jobs.
$100 an hour. Is that enough?
Why so low?
$1000? $1,000,000?
Now we're talking. It is a good start, but shouldn't we really just print enough money to start everyone off as millionaires?
I don't think that is how it works. But hey, some people around here would be for it I'm sure.