Minimum wage and socialist fallicy

[Erand7899]

Nancy Pelosi, and numerous other Liberal/Socialist Democrats, repeatedly state that if a person works hard and plays by the rules, that person is entitled to earn a "living" wage. That begs the question of: What is a "living" wage? Is a living wage the same for a single person and a married person with four kids and a working spouse? Is a living wage the same for someone who lives in New York City, New York and someone who lives in Farmington, New Mexico?

The standard response is that a "living" wage is a wage that provides an adequate living for the hard worker, and/or his family. That begs the question of: What is adequate? Is a one bedroom, one bath, walkup, adequate housing? Are electricity, water, TV, computer, and X-box all necessities of life.

I believe we can all recognize that a living wage pretty much depends on the size of the family, number of income earners, and geographical area. So, now comes the hard part. If we guarantee everyone a living wage, does that mean that the burger flipper with two kids must necessarily be guaranteed a higher wage than his co-worker with no kids?

Who is the genius with the skills necessary to determine what is a "living" wage across such a wide spectrum of life?

 

[Edgetho]

Nancy Pelosi, and numerous other Liberal/Socialist Democrats, repeatedly state that if a person works hard and plays by the rules, that person is entitled to earn a "living" wage. That begs the question of: What is a "living" wage? Is a living wage the same for a single person and a married person with four kids and a working spouse? Is a living wage the same for someone who lives in New York City, New York and someone who lives in Farmington, New Mexico?

The standard response is that a "living" wage is a wage that provides an adequate living for the hard worker, and/or his family. That begs the question of: What is adequate? Is a one bedroom, one bath, walkup, adequate housing? Are electricity, water, TV, computer, and X-box all necessities of life.

I believe we can all recognize that a living wage pretty much depends on the size of the family, number of income earners, and geographical area. So, now comes the hard part. If we guarantee everyone a living wage, does that mean that the burger flipper with two kids must necessarily be guaranteed a higher wage than his co-worker with no kids?

Who is the genius with the skills necessary to determine what is a "living" wage across such a wide spectrum of life?

If you're a burger-flipper with two kids, you're doing it wrong.

A high minimum wage will preclude small businesses, especially Franchises, from hiring the teenager in High School so he or she can buy some clothes or have some 'mad money'.

Parents today are lucky enough to be able to afford kids without having to shell out an extra $100 a week for their kid so he or she can feel like they belong.

A high minimum wage will preclude the same people from hiring a recent High School graduate who can't go to College for one reason or another..... Either he/she doesn't have the grades, the money or the aptitude.

What are they supposed to do? Sit back and suck on it while their rich neighbors send their kids off to a resort called 'College' where they can get drunk for four years.

dimocrap scum are about the 'socialist elites' and the dependent class.

Period.

The in betweeners? They couldn't care less.

People better wise up

 

[Erand7899]

Nancy Pelosi, and numerous other Liberal/Socialist Democrats, repeatedly state that if a person works hard and plays by the rules, that person is entitled to earn a "living" wage. That begs the question of: What is a "living" wage? Is a living wage the same for a single person and a married person with four kids and a working spouse? Is a living wage the same for someone who lives in New York City, New York and someone who lives in Farmington, New Mexico?

The standard response is that a "living" wage is a wage that provides an adequate living for the hard worker, and/or his family. That begs the question of: What is adequate? Is a one bedroom, one bath, walkup, adequate housing? Are electricity, water, TV, computer, and X-box all necessities of life.

I believe we can all recognize that a living wage pretty much depends on the size of the family, number of income earners, and geographical area. So, now comes the hard part. If we guarantee everyone a living wage, does that mean that the burger flipper with two kids must necessarily be guaranteed a higher wage than his co-worker with no kids?

Who is the genius with the skills necessary to determine what is a "living" wage across such a wide spectrum of life?

If you're a burger-flipper with two kids, you're doing it wrong.

A high minimum wage will preclude small businesses, especially Franchises, from hiring the teenager in High School so he or she can buy some clothes or have some 'mad money'.

Parents today are lucky enough to be able to afford kids without having to shell out an extra $100 a week for their kid so he or she can feel like they belong.

A high minimum wage will preclude the same people from hiring a recent High School graduate who can't go to College for one reason or another..... Either he/she doesn't have the grades, the money or the aptitude.

What are they supposed to do? Sit back and suck on it while their rich neighbors send their kids off to a resort called 'College' where they can get drunk for four years.

dimocrap scum are about the 'socialist elites' and the dependent class.

Period.

The in betweeners? They couldn't care less.

People better wise up

Although, I pretty well agree with your response, the question that I pose is whether, or not, it is possible to define what a living wage actually is, or what even an adequate living really is?

Liberal/Socialists always use vague terms in their rhetoric. Terms that they, themselves, cannot define.

 

[Edgetho]

Nancy Pelosi, and numerous other Liberal/Socialist Democrats, repeatedly state that if a person works hard and plays by the rules, that person is entitled to earn a "living" wage. That begs the question of: What is a "living" wage? Is a living wage the same for a single person and a married person with four kids and a working spouse? Is a living wage the same for someone who lives in New York City, New York and someone who lives in Farmington, New Mexico?

The standard response is that a "living" wage is a wage that provides an adequate living for the hard worker, and/or his family. That begs the question of: What is adequate? Is a one bedroom, one bath, walkup, adequate housing? Are electricity, water, TV, computer, and X-box all necessities of life.

I believe we can all recognize that a living wage pretty much depends on the size of the family, number of income earners, and geographical area. So, now comes the hard part. If we guarantee everyone a living wage, does that mean that the burger flipper with two kids must necessarily be guaranteed a higher wage than his co-worker with no kids?

Who is the genius with the skills necessary to determine what is a "living" wage across such a wide spectrum of life?

If you're a burger-flipper with two kids, you're doing it wrong.

A high minimum wage will preclude small businesses, especially Franchises, from hiring the teenager in High School so he or she can buy some clothes or have some 'mad money'.

Parents today are lucky enough to be able to afford kids without having to shell out an extra $100 a week for their kid so he or she can feel like they belong.

A high minimum wage will preclude the same people from hiring a recent High School graduate who can't go to College for one reason or another..... Either he/she doesn't have the grades, the money or the aptitude.

What are they supposed to do? Sit back and suck on it while their rich neighbors send their kids off to a resort called 'College' where they can get drunk for four years.

dimocrap scum are about the 'socialist elites' and the dependent class.

Period.

The in betweeners? They couldn't care less.

People better wise up

Although, I pretty well agree with your response, the question that I pose is whether, or not, it is possible to define what a living wage actually is, or what even an adequate living really is?

Liberal/Socialists always use vague terms in their rhetoric. Terms that they, themselves, cannot define.

liberal scum are only good at bumper-sticker slogans and juke-box philosophy, not at defining anything tangible or creating anything useful.

They talk out their fucking asses and the stupid/uneducated masses act like they just heard the word of God Himself spoken.

Because... Well, because they're stupid.

It's why I'm here. Not to change anybody's mind. Not to educate. Not to philosophize or shill for the Republican Party, but to remind people (who too easily forget) how incredibly STUPID dimocraps and their voters are....

BREAKING: CBO Says Obama’s Minimum Wage Increase Would Cost 500,000 Americans Their Jobs…

But it plays well with Obama’s base, and that’s all that matters.

Feb 18 (Reuters) – Raising the U.S. federal minimum wage to $10.10, as President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress are proposing, could result in about 500,000 jobs being lost by late 2016, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated on Tuesday.

The non-partisan CBO also said that increasing the hourly wage could reduce U.S. budget deficits by a small amount for several years, but then increase them slightly in later years.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Living wage in NYC...what would that be?
$20...$25 per hour?

 

[gallantwarrior]

There's the problem, lack of definition. Empty rhetoric and "feel good" sound bytes, but nothing concrete when they are pressed. House, clothe, and feed themselves and their 'loved ones' is a pretty common response. What constitutes "adequate" necessities? Should they also have the car of their choosing? Oh, and no one can live these days with cable/satellite entertainment, the Internet, etc.
Oh, let's not forget, no one owes anyone else a living. Period.

 

[Erand7899]

There's the problem, lack of definition. Empty rhetoric and "feel good" sound bytes, but nothing concrete when they are pressed. House, clothe, and feed themselves and their 'loved ones' is a pretty common response. What constitutes "adequate" necessities? Should they also have the car of their choosing? Oh, and no one can live these days with cable/satellite entertainment, the Internet, etc.
Oh, let's not forget, no one owes anyone else a living. Period.

You are correct. Good communications requires that words mean the same to the listener as they mean to the speaker. Terms that have no real, definable meanings are used to elicit an emotional response rather than a rational response. And, since most people do not take the time to actually analyze what was said, that emotional response gives the speaker what he/she wants, which is agreement with the speaker.

And, that is why, when you actually pin a Liberal/Socialist down to the point where they actually have to attempt to rationalize their beliefs, they get nasty, noisy, and outraged. They will twist, spin, bully, obfuscate, and attempt to change the subject, in an effort to avoid being pinned down.

 

[KNB]

95% of financial gains to the richest 1% since Obama's been in office, and you mindless ***** keep saying that he's a Liberal Communist.

You don't know what liberal means and you don't know Socialist means, so just stop. Please stop. You make the world stupid. All of this back-and-forth circle-jerk bullshit that you right-wing primates keep repeating is just old and tired like the Republican voting base. We get it. You hate Obama. He's going to destroy America any second now. He's had five years so far and in that time, rich people have made 95% of the progress, so tell us all again how he's a Marxist Fascist who is taking all the money away from hard-working hedge fund managers and giving it to illegal immigrant drug users.

1% job creators aren't creating any jobs so where the fuck do you assholes expect everyone to work? Please learn something or just kill yourselves. Stop dragging humanity down to your level.

 

[Dutch]

If you're a burger-flipper with two kids, you're doing it wrong.

A high minimum wage will preclude small businesses, especially Franchises, from hiring the teenager in High School so he or she can buy some clothes or have some 'mad money'.

Parents today are lucky enough to be able to afford kids without having to shell out an extra $100 a week for their kid so he or she can feel like they belong.

A high minimum wage will preclude the same people from hiring a recent High School graduate who can't go to College for one reason or another..... Either he/she doesn't have the grades, the money or the aptitude.

What are they supposed to do? Sit back and suck on it while their rich neighbors send their kids off to a resort called 'College' where they can get drunk for four years.

dimocrap scum are about the 'socialist elites' and the dependent class.

Period.

The in betweeners? They couldn't care less.

People better wise up

Although, I pretty well agree with your response, the question that I pose is whether, or not, it is possible to define what a living wage actually is, or what even an adequate living really is?

Liberal/Socialists always use vague terms in their rhetoric. Terms that they, themselves, cannot define.

liberal scum are only good at bumper-sticker slogans and juke-box philosophy, not at defining anything tangible or creating anything useful.

They talk out their fucking asses and the stupid/uneducated masses act like they just heard the word of God Himself spoken.

Because... Well, because they're stupid.

It's why I'm here. Not to change anybody's mind. Not to educate. Not to philosophize or shill for the Republican Party, but to remind people (who too easily forget) how incredibly STUPID dimocraps and their voters are....BREAKING: CBO Says Obama’s Minimum Wage Increase Would Cost 500,000 Americans Their Jobs…

But it plays well with Obama’s base, and that’s all that matters.

Feb 18 (Reuters) – Raising the U.S. federal minimum wage to $10.10, as President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress are proposing, could result in about 500,000 jobs being lost by late 2016, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated on Tuesday.

The non-partisan CBO also said that increasing the hourly wage could reduce U.S. budget deficits by a small amount for several years, but then increase them slightly in later years.

I don't know about liberals but you are doing a bang up job convincing people that Conservatives like you have lost all semblance of reality.

 

[Erand7899]

95% of financial gains to the richest 1% since Obama's been in office, and you mindless ***** keep saying that he's a Liberal Communist.

You don't know what liberal means and you don't know Socialist means, so just stop. Please stop. You make the world stupid. All of this back-and-forth circle-jerk bullshit that you right-wing primates keep repeating is just old and tired like the Republican voting base. We get it. You hate Obama. He's going to destroy America any second now. He's had five years so far and in that time, rich people have made 95% of the progress, so tell us all again how he's a Marxist Fascist who is taking all the money away from hard-working hedge fund managers and giving it to illegal immigrant drug users.

1% job creators aren't creating any jobs so where the fuck do you assholes expect everyone to work? Please learn something or just kill yourselves. Stop dragging humanity down to your level.

You just became the poster child for my assertion. Your attempt to obfuscate and change the subject is noted. Also noted is your attempt to get nasty, and outraged. Thank you for your response.

 

[KNB]

95% of financial gains to the richest 1% since Obama's been in office, and you mindless ***** keep saying that he's a Liberal Communist.

You don't know what liberal means and you don't know Socialist means, so just stop. Please stop. You make the world stupid. All of this back-and-forth circle-jerk bullshit that you right-wing primates keep repeating is just old and tired like the Republican voting base. We get it. You hate Obama. He's going to destroy America any second now. He's had five years so far and in that time, rich people have made 95% of the progress, so tell us all again how he's a Marxist Fascist who is taking all the money away from hard-working hedge fund managers and giving it to illegal immigrant drug users.

1% job creators aren't creating any jobs so where the fuck do you assholes expect everyone to work? Please learn something or just kill yourselves. Stop dragging humanity down to your level.

You just became the poster child for my assertion. Your attempt to obfuscate and change the subject is noted. Also noted is your attempt to get nasty, and outraged. Thank you for your response.

What part of "the richest 1% made 95% of the financial gains during the economic recovery" makes Obama a Socialist? Any answer that you give other than, "Obama is not a Socialist," would be hilariously incorrect.

Obama is not a Liberal, and the richest people in America making 95% of the financial gains is not Socialism. Is 95% of the financial gains since 2009 still not enough to pay workers higher wages? What would be a fair and balanced portion of all financial gains in five years? 97%? 99%? Just how many trillions of dollars do the rich 1% job creators need before they can afford to create jobs so that wealth trickles down?

 

[Erand7899]

95% of financial gains to the richest 1% since Obama's been in office, and you mindless ***** keep saying that he's a Liberal Communist.

You don't know what liberal means and you don't know Socialist means, so just stop. Please stop. You make the world stupid. All of this back-and-forth circle-jerk bullshit that you right-wing primates keep repeating is just old and tired like the Republican voting base. We get it. You hate Obama. He's going to destroy America any second now. He's had five years so far and in that time, rich people have made 95% of the progress, so tell us all again how he's a Marxist Fascist who is taking all the money away from hard-working hedge fund managers and giving it to illegal immigrant drug users.

1% job creators aren't creating any jobs so where the fuck do you assholes expect everyone to work? Please learn something or just kill yourselves. Stop dragging humanity down to your level.

You just became the poster child for my assertion. Your attempt to obfuscate and change the subject is noted. Also noted is your attempt to get nasty, and outraged. Thank you for your response.

What part of "the richest 1% made 95% of the financial gains during the economic recovery" makes Obama a Socialist? Any answer that you give other than, "Obama is not a Socialist," would be hilariously incorrect.

Obama is not a Liberal, and the richest people in America making 95% of the financial gains is not Socialism. Is 95% of the financial gains since 2009 still not enough to pay workers higher wages? What would be a fair and balanced portion of all financial gains in five years? 97%? 99%? Just how many trillions of dollars do the rich 1% job creators need before they can afford to create jobs so that wealth trickles down?

Indeed, you have an argument, a very poor argument, but nevertheless an argument. The problem you have is that the question here is over the terms "a living wage", and "adequate", not whether Obama is a Liberal, a Socialist, or a Liberal/Socialist.

Can you define what is a living wage? Can you define what is adequate housing, adequate food, or adequate anything else that applies to human existance? Can you define what Nancy Pelosi says when she refers to everyone being entitled to a "living wage".

Is an income that provides a living wage for a single man, enough, or do we require a minimum wage that provides a living wage for a married couple with four children? Do you even have a rational idea of what a living wage is?

 

[tyroneweaver]

CBO minimum wage will cut jobs

CBO says minimum wage bill would cost jobs, boost income | TheHill

 

[KNB]

Yes, you fucking scrub, we can define a LIVING WAGE. A minimum wage that is adjusted for inflation.

If a wage is stagnant and inflation increases then the paycheck has less purchasing power. Combine that with 1% of the population making 95% of the financial gains, and you have a situation where millions of minimum-wage employees still don't get paid enough to be able to afford food each week.
5 facts about the minimum wage | Pew Research Center

 

[gallantwarrior]

There's the problem, lack of definition. Empty rhetoric and "feel good" sound bytes, but nothing concrete when they are pressed. House, clothe, and feed themselves and their 'loved ones' is a pretty common response. What constitutes "adequate" necessities? Should they also have the car of their choosing? Oh, and no one can live these days with cable/satellite entertainment, the Internet, etc.
Oh, let's not forget, no one owes anyone else a living. Period.

You are correct. Good communications requires that words mean the same to the listener as they mean to the speaker. Terms that have no real, definable meanings are used to elicit an emotional response rather than a rational response. And, since most people do not take the time to actually analyze what was said, that emotional response gives the speaker what he/she wants, which is agreement with the speaker.

And, that is why, when you actually pin a Liberal/Socialist down to the point where they actually have to attempt to rationalize their beliefs, they get nasty, noisy, and outraged. They will twist, spin, bully, obfuscate, and attempt to change the subject, in an effort to avoid being pinned down.

If someone disagrees with you, scream your talking point labels LOUDER.

 

[gallantwarrior]

95% of financial gains to the richest 1% since Obama's been in office, and you mindless ***** keep saying that he's a Liberal Communist.

You don't know what liberal means and you don't know Socialist means, so just stop. Please stop. You make the world stupid. All of this back-and-forth circle-jerk bullshit that you right-wing primates keep repeating is just old and tired like the Republican voting base. We get it. You hate Obama. He's going to destroy America any second now. He's had five years so far and in that time, rich people have made 95% of the progress, so tell us all again how he's a Marxist Fascist who is taking all the money away from hard-working hedge fund managers and giving it to illegal immigrant drug users.

1% job creators aren't creating any jobs so where the fuck do you assholes expect everyone to work? Please learn something or just kill yourselves. Stop dragging humanity down to your level.

You just became the poster child for my assertion. Your attempt to obfuscate and change the subject is noted. Also noted is your attempt to get nasty, and outraged. Thank you for your response.

My thought, exactly.

 

[gallantwarrior]

95% of financial gains to the richest 1% since Obama's been in office, and you mindless ***** keep saying that he's a Liberal Communist.

You don't know what liberal means and you don't know Socialist means, so just stop. Please stop. You make the world stupid. All of this back-and-forth circle-jerk bullshit that you right-wing primates keep repeating is just old and tired like the Republican voting base. We get it. You hate Obama. He's going to destroy America any second now. He's had five years so far and in that time, rich people have made 95% of the progress, so tell us all again how he's a Marxist Fascist who is taking all the money away from hard-working hedge fund managers and giving it to illegal immigrant drug users.

1% job creators aren't creating any jobs so where the fuck do you assholes expect everyone to work? Please learn something or just kill yourselves. Stop dragging humanity down to your level.

You just became the poster child for my assertion. Your attempt to obfuscate and change the subject is noted. Also noted is your attempt to get nasty, and outraged. Thank you for your response.

What part of "the richest 1% made 95% of the financial gains during the economic recovery" makes Obama a Socialist? Any answer that you give other than, "Obama is not a Socialist," would be hilariously incorrect.

Obama is not a Liberal, and the richest people in America making 95% of the financial gains is not Socialism. Is 95% of the financial gains since 2009 still not enough to pay workers higher wages? What would be a fair and balanced portion of all financial gains in five years? 97%? 99%? Just how many trillions of dollars do the rich 1% job creators need before they can afford to create jobs so that wealth trickles down?

Do you happen to have a citation supporting your contention, that 1% vs. 95% thing? No supporting, verifiable statistics, your "point" is nothing more than noise.

 

[gallantwarrior]

You just became the poster child for my assertion. Your attempt to obfuscate and change the subject is noted. Also noted is your attempt to get nasty, and outraged. Thank you for your response.

What part of "the richest 1% made 95% of the financial gains during the economic recovery" makes Obama a Socialist? Any answer that you give other than, "Obama is not a Socialist," would be hilariously incorrect.

Obama is not a Liberal, and the richest people in America making 95% of the financial gains is not Socialism. Is 95% of the financial gains since 2009 still not enough to pay workers higher wages? What would be a fair and balanced portion of all financial gains in five years? 97%? 99%? Just how many trillions of dollars do the rich 1% job creators need before they can afford to create jobs so that wealth trickles down?

Indeed, you have an argument, a very poor argument, but nevertheless an argument. The problem you have is that the question here is over the terms "a living wage", and "adequate", not whether Obama is a Liberal, a Socialist, or a Liberal/Socialist.

Can you define what is a living wage? Can you define what is adequate housing, adequate food, or adequate anything else that applies to human existance? Can you define what Nancy Pelosi says when she refers to everyone being entitled to a "living wage".

Is an income that provides a living wage for a single man, enough, or do we require a minimum wage that provides a living wage for a married couple with four children? Do you even have a rational idea of what a living wage is?

Proving once again, unable to respond rationally to the question, a lib will also resort to straw man arguments and diversion.

 

[Erand7899]

Yes, you fucking scrub, we can define a LIVING WAGE. A minimum wage that is adjusted for inflation.

If a wage is stagnant and inflation increases then the paycheck has less purchasing power. Combine that with 1% of the population making 95% of the financial gains, and you have a situation where millions of minimum-wage employees still don't get paid enough to be able to afford food each week.
5 facts about the minimum wage | Pew Research Center

Wow! At least, you tried. What if that minimum wage that is adjusted for inflation does not provide an adequate living for most people, or even some people, would that make your definition pure BS? If that minimum wage adjusted for inflation did not equate to the same standard of living in New York City, New York, as it did in Farmington, New Mexico, would that make your definition pure BS?

Actually, your definition is pure BS. Minimum wage, even adjusted for inflation, and living wage are completely separate terms, with separate meanings. They may, or may not, have any relationship to each other unless one can be correlated with the other at some reasonable and rational figure.

The idiotic idea that $10.10 an hour would correspond to a living wage for any family is so absurd as to be pure fiction.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Yes, you fucking scrub,

hey don't put me in your sexual fantasies