Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Raising the minimum wage to a living wage isn't the government supporting them...it's actually taking away the government support of corporations like Walmart who have many of their workers on welfare. If you can't afford to pay your employee a living wage (ie enough for an apartment, transportation, health, utilities and clothes) then you shouldn't be operating a business in the first place.
In the richest country in the world there is no excuse for a working person to be homeless.
what does living in any country have to do with how much a private co. pays their employees?.....20 years ago when i was making 20 bucks an hour there were people making minimum wage which was probably 3/3.50 an hour.....the difference....the minimum wage earners were the kids just getting out of high school,first job people.....a guy on TV yesterday claims he has been a bagger at Vons for 17 years,and makes like 11.00 bucks an hour and cant feed his family.....and he is 37 years old.....minimum wage wages,are for your first job .....not something you stay at for 30 years....
That 17 year bagger is a perfect example of someone who epitomizes what a liberal is.
They have absolutely no motivation to educate themselves, move up, make more money and set a good example for their family.
That 17 year bagger is a perfect example of someone who epitomizes what a liberal is.
If that were true, the most impoverished states wouldn't be the red states.
They have absolutely no motivation to educate themselves, move up, make more money and set a good example for their family.
So I guess all the right wing spew about the "liberal elite" is a fabrication.
Raising the minimum wage to a living wage isn't the government supporting them...it's actually taking away the government support of corporations like Walmart who have many of their workers on welfare. If you can't afford to pay your employee a living wage (ie enough for an apartment, transportation, health, utilities and clothes) then you shouldn't be operating a business in the first place.
In the richest country in the world there is no excuse for a working person to be homeless.
what does living in any country have to do with how much a private co. pays their employees?.....20 years ago when i was making 20 bucks an hour there were people making minimum wage which was probably 3/3.50 an hour.....the difference....the minimum wage earners were the kids just getting out of high school,first job people.....a guy on TV yesterday claims he has been a bagger at Vons for 17 years,and makes like 11.00 bucks an hour and cant feed his family.....and he is 37 years old.....minimum wage wages,are for your first job .....not something you stay at for 30 years....
wealth is not a zero sum game. Just because one person makes a billion does not mean that someone else or a collective of someone elses loses a billion.
Then tell me exactly how much wealth there is. if wealth is finite it is countable. then prove that by me getting a 10,000 dollar a year raise took that same amount out of some one else's pocket.Actually, that is exactly what it means. Wealth is a finite resource, like oil - there is only so much out there. And what is the point of going to school, getting a job and working your ass off if you can't even make enough to live on, for the cost of living going up 100 fold ever year. While not getting raises or bonuses, working a 60 hour work week when everyone else in your office is laid off (jobs went to India!), knowing your employer will fire your ass at any moment when he realizes some inexperienced "warm body" will do your work for $10 an hour.
Oh and lets not mention the off-shore tax shelters and shell companies nor the fact that most large corporations pay no taxes due to the past corporatist policies.
So money not earned in this country should be taxed? And the whole corporate tax argument is a red herring. Corporations disperse their earnings and the people who receive those earnings are taxed. So raising corporate taxes will just reduce the amount of profit dispersion thereby reducing the amount of tax collected on those monies. A wash.
Oh, but I only make 43k a year and I don't deserve a tax break even though my rate of payment when all is said and done is 40%. You think a millionaire pays 40% of their income? Hell no, they don't. Not even close. Yes, they are stealing money from us.
So just because someone earns more than you, or rather that you choose to earn what you do and someone chooses to earn more they should be penalized for being able to earn more than you?
And you only take home 40% of your pay because the government, not some rich guy is taking your money.
When I said the top 10% of our nation owns more wealth than the bottom 90% combined, it's actually the top 1%. That's ONE.
FDL News Desk » Goldman Sachs Vice-Chair: People Must “Tolerate the Inequality”
I can’t speak for Britain, but here in America we have been tolerating the inequality for quite a while. In America, the richest 1% hold more wealth than the bottom 90% combined and are making the largest share of national income since right before the stock market crash in 1928. Executives receive one-third of all compensation in the US. Over the last five years, executives received a 48% increase while wages for everyone else were flat. The gap between the rich and the poor tripled between 1979 and 2006. And this trend has continued even during the current recession.
<<<
I think it's passed time for the rest of us to stop putting up with our wealth being stolen from us while the super wealthy get even richer at our expense and the expense of our children. No country can long survive with the majority of it's wealth in the hands of a few. When are we, as Americans going to realize that and actually do something about it?
The results have been examined. We pay our CEOs more than any other nation on earth. We pay them no matter what the results.
But we put the blame for the failure of the system on the fellow working on the factory floor, in spite of the fact that the level of wages in real money terms has been about level for the last 30 years.
The fellow assembling the car does not make the decision as to the quality of the car, that is done by the upper management.
The rot is exactly where I said it was. No accountability for the people making the decisions, no reward for those actually doing the work.
We Don't pay CEOs anything. privately held businesses pay their CEOs.
No money is taken from you to pay a CEO's salary.
And if you don't like that a CEO gets paid a high salary, you don't have to work for that company or buy that company's products or purchase stock in that company do you?
Like hell the money is not taken from me and every other worker to pay the obscene salaries of the CEOs. Were not these leeches taking huge amounts for incompetance, my wages would be higher. And the stockholders would recieve a higher return.
Only an idiot would defend a system that has created the economic situation that we see today.
We Don't pay CEOs anything. privately held businesses pay their CEOs.
No money is taken from you to pay a CEO's salary.
And if you don't like that a CEO gets paid a high salary, you don't have to work for that company or buy that company's products or purchase stock in that company do you?
Like hell the money is not taken from me and every other worker to pay the obscene salaries of the CEOs. Were not these leeches taking huge amounts for incompetance, my wages would be higher. And the stockholders would recieve a higher return.
Only an idiot would defend a system that has created the economic situation that we see today.
So tell me exactly how much more you would be paid if a CEO of a big company that has absolutely nothing to do with your line of work or the company you work for were fired.
After all if he is stealing money from you then you should be able to tell me how much.
And if stockholders don't like the return they are getting they can buy stock in a different company. Imagine that.
And don't forget that the government had a lot to do with the current situation but you are ready to give those incompetent assholes a pass and not only that you're all for them taking more of our money to waste rather than letting us make our own spending decisions.
who's the idiot?
every company has only so much money, that is allotted for payroll expenses...a certain percentage of their business goes towards paying their employees, their workers, that still keeps them profitable.
When a corporation or company is planning their Business...with a projected plan for the following year, and for the corporation that I worked for, we planned the following 5 years of expected business/sales along with estimated future expnses...payroll expense along with all other expenses, including what you estimate in Mark downs, is in the calculation in order for us to project our expected profit margin and profit dollars....
so, every company has a projected figure of what they can spend on their employee's salaries with the estimated projected sales.... This IS NOT DONE HAPHAZARDLY as some may think that are not in business or working for a corporation.
So, for those of you who keep asking how does the CEO steal from the worker?
If the company estimates that their sales will be 100 million and their payroll expense is estimated at 15% of their sales, then they can use 15 million of their sales for Payroll of everyone.
using an example of this company having 1000 employees....
If the corporation paid the CEO $5 million in salary and used the other 10 million to pay the other 999 employees, they on average would be getting paid $10, 010 dollars a year as salary while the one guy at the top took $5 million for his work.
MONEY IS LIMITED when it comes to payroll...it is NOT an unlimited supply.
So, when the ceo decides for himself, with the help of his board of Directors that he will pay himself the $5 million first, and then the rest is left for the other 999 employees, and when he says that he is worth 500 TIMES MORE than the 999 other workers individually....THAT is a sign of GREED and that is STEALING from the WORKERS that produced the 100 million in sales for the company.
It would have been more appropriate to pay himself $1.4 million a year in salary and let the 13.6 million left go towards the workers, giving the employees on average 36% more in pay, bringing them to $13,600 a year as salary average for the 999 employees verses $10,010 on average for the employees.
This makes no SHAREHOLDER any less profitable....the owners of the company no less profitable.
X amount is spent on payroll...whether the ceo is given 500 times the employee avg salary or given just 100 times the avg employee salary....the workers are the ones that take the hit after the CEO takes his fair share or more than his fair share of the payroll allotment based on projected sales.
Like hell the money is not taken from me and every other worker to pay the obscene salaries of the CEOs. Were not these leeches taking huge amounts for incompetance, my wages would be higher. And the stockholders would recieve a higher return.
Only an idiot would defend a system that has created the economic situation that we see today.
So tell me exactly how much more you would be paid if a CEO of a big company that has absolutely nothing to do with your line of work or the company you work for were fired.
After all if he is stealing money from you then you should be able to tell me how much.
And if stockholders don't like the return they are getting they can buy stock in a different company. Imagine that.
And don't forget that the government had a lot to do with the current situation but you are ready to give those incompetent assholes a pass and not only that you're all for them taking more of our money to waste rather than letting us make our own spending decisions.
who's the idiot?
i gave you an example earlier how it could work...?
every company has only so much money, that is allotted for payroll expenses...a certain percentage of their business goes towards paying their employees, their workers, that still keeps them profitable.
When a corporation or company is planning their Business...with a projected plan for the following year, and for the corporation that I worked for, we planned the following 5 years of expected business/sales along with estimated future expnses...payroll expense along with all other expenses, including what you estimate in Mark downs, is in the calculation in order for us to project our expected profit margin and profit dollars....
so, every company has a projected figure of what they can spend on their employee's salaries with the estimated projected sales.... This IS NOT DONE HAPHAZARDLY as some may think that are not in business or working for a corporation.
So, for those of you who keep asking how does the CEO steal from the worker?
If the company estimates that their sales will be 100 million and their payroll expense is estimated at 15% of their sales, then they can use 15 million of their sales for Payroll of everyone.
using an example of this company having 1000 employees....
If the corporation paid the CEO $5 million in salary and used the other 10 million to pay the other 999 employees, they on average would be getting paid $10, 010 dollars a year as salary while the one guy at the top took $5 million for his work.
MONEY IS LIMITED when it comes to payroll...it is NOT an unlimited supply.
So, when the ceo decides for himself, with the help of his board of Directors that he will pay himself the $5 million first, and then the rest is left for the other 999 employees, and when he says that he is worth 500 TIMES MORE than the 999 other workers individually....THAT is a sign of GREED and that is STEALING from the WORKERS that produced the 100 million in sales for the company.
It would have been more appropriate to pay himself $1.4 million a year in salary and let the 13.6 million left go towards the workers, giving the employees on average 36% more in pay, bringing them to $13,600 a year as salary average for the 999 employees verses $10,010 on average for the employees.
This makes no SHAREHOLDER any less profitable....the owners of the company no less profitable.
X amount is spent on payroll...whether the ceo is given 500 times the employee avg salary or given just 100 times the avg employee salary....the workers are the ones that take the hit after the CEO takes his fair share or more than his fair share of the payroll allotment based on projected sales.
So tell me exactly how much more you would be paid if a CEO of a big company that has absolutely nothing to do with your line of work or the company you work for were fired.
After all if he is stealing money from you then you should be able to tell me how much.
And if stockholders don't like the return they are getting they can buy stock in a different company. Imagine that.
And don't forget that the government had a lot to do with the current situation but you are ready to give those incompetent assholes a pass and not only that you're all for them taking more of our money to waste rather than letting us make our own spending decisions.
who's the idiot?
i gave you an example earlier how it could work...?
that example could work for an employee of a company it fails however when one argues that all people, even those that do not work for a company with a highly paid CEO claim that they are having money stolen from them by CEOs.
And your argument is not proof of theft. it is merely proof that companies have the right to set their own pay scales.
Obviously you have a reading comprehension problem...rectify that issue!!
The top 20% have nearly 90% of the nations wealth as of 2004. Your fucked up 1928 bullshit is a little dated so not only were you wrng before...you are STILL WRONG!!!
Wealth Distribution
*
Notice how the libs just skip right over this.
Not at all. This is a basic rot in the framework of the Capitalistic economy. When good work ethics, when improving skills, no longer pays, there is no reason to have or do either. When you have people that are actually driving previously healthy companies into the ground, and getting multi-million dollar bonuses for their efforts, what incentative is there for acountability on the factory floor?
This rot will destroy this nation if it is not stopped.
What is the "rot" that you cite? For decades, due to the state of the world, the USA was dominant economically. Even with the re-emerganence of some European powers and Japan.
Now comes Korea and China and India and they are providing better value. Why? They can produce more EFFICIENTLY than the USA can produce. You call this cheap labor. It is really efficiency. If you can buy one of two choices of absolutely equal quality but one is significantly less expensive, the less expensive one is a better value and therefore should be your choice.
For decades, the USA provided the better value. It no longer does this.
No big conspiracy. No big mystery. American products are often more expensive than the competition and often lower quality. Higher expense with lower quality equals bad value.
When there is bad value in an American car, what is the solution? Start a campaign talking about quality being job 1, and how it is UN-American to buy a foreign car.
When there is bad value in a Korean car, what is the solution? First, lower the price, then offer a 100,000 mile bumper to bumper warrenty that covers everything from an engine failing to a driver that runs out of gas.
The Americans say that there must be something wrong with the buyer and the Koreans say there must be something wrong with the car.
American know how has become American impudence. If American products were the best value products, they would outsell all others. They don't. They aren't.
At some point, no matter how beautiful the theory, the results must be examined.
The results have been examined. We pay our CEOs more than any other nation on earth. We pay them no matter what the results.
But we put the blame for the failure of the system on the fellow working on the factory floor, in spite of the fact that the level of wages in real money terms has been about level for the last 30 years.
The fellow assembling the car does not make the decision as to the quality of the car, that is done by the upper management.
The rot is exactly where I said it was. No accountability for the people making the decisions, no reward for those actually doing the work.
When I said the top 10% of our nation owns more wealth than the bottom 90% combined, it's actually the top 1%. That's ONE.
FDL News Desk » Goldman Sachs Vice-Chair: People Must Tolerate the Inequality
I cant speak for Britain, but here in America we have been tolerating the inequality for quite a while. In America, the richest 1% hold more wealth than the bottom 90% combined and are making the largest share of national income since right before the stock market crash in 1928. Executives receive one-third of all compensation in the US. Over the last five years, executives received a 48% increase while wages for everyone else were flat. The gap between the rich and the poor tripled between 1979 and 2006. And this trend has continued even during the current recession.
<<<
I think it's passed time for the rest of us to stop putting up with our wealth being stolen from us while the super wealthy get even richer at our expense and the expense of our children. No country can long survive with the majority of it's wealth in the hands of a few. When are we, as Americans going to realize that and actually do something about it?
who gives a shit, are you fucking envious? get off your ass and fucking create somehting everybody wants and stop your god-damned crying.
What do the mega-rich do with their money? They couldn't possibly spend it all.
Invest it into companies, of course. Companies = Jobs
Oh really?
Ya sure they didn't get insanely rich by moving companies OUT of the country?
And what is the purpose of an economic system? Is it to deliver immense wealth to 1% of a population? Or is it to make our (this is not located in a particular area) lives generally more pleasant?
