The Ant and the Grasshopper

[bripat9643]

The point of the story is the grasshopper is not sickly. The grasshopper is able to work, refuses to work and just wants to be feed and housed without doing anything.

The point of the story is that pointing out the least fortunate in society as the scapegoat for working class struggles is a red herring when you have a small percentage monopolizing the majority of available wealth[/QUOTE]

That's pure horseshit. The overwhelming bulk of consumer products are consumed by the middle class. How many televisions can one rich man buy?

The government currently takes almost half my income to provide useless ticks with free housing, food stamps and cable television. They are the reason I am struggling. We would all be several times richer if it wasn't for government sucking the life out of us.

 

[boilermaker55]

Should a "living wage" include money for flat screens, cell phones, tattoos, piercings, manicures and pedicures?

What the fuck does this mean! Your statement is so fucking stupid it has to be called only that and that only.
With the stupid ass statement why do CEO's need shower curtains that are worth $1million dollars. Or spend $100, 000's of dollars on pets.
You are so dumb.

Who said a CEO 'needs' these things? Who said everything a low income person or a welfare person obtains or demands is a 'need'??

The fact is though... what you earn is based on your skills, abilities, decisions, efforts, etc.... and quite frankly, slinging fries is a skill every person has but running a corporation from the top is a skill that is rare...

You are a fucking idiot, calling others dumb... priceless

Apparently you are the Fucking Idiot and that is priceless.
Read the comment that was first posted. If you can without your biased opinion.
Then read what you said, if you are able too without being stupid.

 

[rightwinger]

The point of the story is the grasshopper is not sickly. The grasshopper is able to work, refuses to work and just wants to be feed and housed without doing anything.

The point of the story is that pointing out the least fortunate in society as the scapegoat for working class struggles is a red herring when you have a small percentage monopolizing the majority of available wealth

That's pure horseshit. The overwhelming bulk of consumer products are consumed by the middle class. How many televisions can one rich man buy?

The government currently takes almost half my income to provide useless ticks with free housing, food stamps and cable television. They are the reason I am struggling. We would all be several times richer if it wasn't for government sucking the life out of us.[/QUOTE]

You think the wealthiest Americans have their money in TVs and consumer goods?

The middle class consumes.......the wealthy hoard

 

[bripat9643]

That's pure horseshit. The overwhelming bulk of consumer products are consumed by the middle class. How many televisions can one rich man buy?

The government currently takes almost half my income to provide useless ticks with free housing, food stamps and cable television. They are the reason I am struggling. We would all be several times richer if it wasn't for government sucking the life out of us.

You think the wealthiest Americans have their money in TVs and consumer goods?

The middle class consumes.......the wealthy hoard

You mean they hide all their money under their beds? What form does this "hoarding" take?

You truly are a moron, rightwinger.

Either the rich spend their money, or the put it in the bank or they invest it.

If they put it in the bank, the bank loans it out to companies to expand their production or the loan it out to consumers for car loans and mortages. In all cases, what the rich do with their money creates jobs.

There is no upside when the government takes money from the rich to give to useless parasites.

None.

 

[UpAndAbout]

The point of the story is the grasshopper is not sickly. The grasshopper is able to work, refuses to work and just wants to be feed and housed without doing anything.

The point of the story is that pointing out the least fortunate in society as the scapegoat for working class struggles is a red herring when you have a small percentage monopolizing the majority of available wealth

That's pure horseshit. The overwhelming bulk of consumer products are consumed by the middle class. How many televisions can one rich man buy?

The government currently takes almost half my income to provide useless ticks with free housing, food stamps and cable television. They are the reason I am struggling. We would all be several times richer if it wasn't for government sucking the life out of us.

You think the wealthiest Americans have their money in TVs and consumer goods?

The middle class consumes.......the wealthy hoard[/QUOTE]

Ahhh, so THAT'S how they do it! good to know. I'm going to start hoarding then.

 

[bripat9643]

Employers who pay less than a living wage expect the taxpayers to make up the difference to pay for food, housing and medical care for their employees

What is this "difference" that needs to be made up? People earning minimum wage are almost always teenagers. They don't have to pay for food, clothing or a mortgage.

Employers pay you what your services are worth. Whether you can live on it is your problem. If your skills don't bring in enough cash, then you need to improve your skills, not try to get government to extort money from employers.

The "living wage" argument is nothing but a cheap sleazy scam.

 

[UpAndAbout]

Employers who pay less than a living wage expect the taxpayers to make up the difference to pay for food, housing and medical care for their employees

What is this "difference" that needs to be made up? People earning minimum wage are almost always teenagers. They don't have pay for food, clothing or a mortgage.

The "living wage" argument is nothing but a cheap sleazy scam.

No kidding. If they'd graduate high school and get some training, they wouldn't be stuck with minimum wage. And if they think the taxpayers are going to pick up the tab for the food and housing they can't afford, they certainly NEED that free birth control I was talking about.

 

[bripat9643]

No kidding. If they'd graduate high school and get some training, they wouldn't be stuck with minimum wage. And if they think the taxpayers are going to pick up the tab for the food and housing they can't afford, they certainly NEED that free birth control I was talking about.

Their parents are the ones who needed to take birth control.

 

[rightwinger]

Employers who pay less than a living wage expect the taxpayers to make up the difference to pay for food, housing and medical care for their employees

What is this "difference" that needs to be made up? People earning minimum wage are almost always teenagers. They don't have to pay for food, clothing or a mortgage.

Employers pay you what your services are worth. Whether you can live on it is your problem. If your skills don't bring in enough cash, then you need to improve your skills, not try to get government to extort money from employers.

The "living wage" argument is nothing but a cheap sleazy scam.

If an employer pays $10 an hour, that's $20,000 a year. If you are trying to raise a family in a high cost of living area, that will not pay for rent, food, transportation, medical bills , utilities.

Nobody can afford to work for that employer at $10 an hour under those conditions. They can with government assistance

In effect, the taxpayer is making up the difference for low wages

 

[UpAndAbout]

Employers who pay less than a living wage expect the taxpayers to make up the difference to pay for food, housing and medical care for their employees

What is this "difference" that needs to be made up? People earning minimum wage are almost always teenagers. They don't have to pay for food, clothing or a mortgage.

Employers pay you what your services are worth. Whether you can live on it is your problem. If your skills don't bring in enough cash, then you need to improve your skills, not try to get government to extort money from employers.

The "living wage" argument is nothing but a cheap sleazy scam.

If an employer pays $10 an hour, that's $20,000 a year. If you are trying to raise a family in a high cost of living area, that will not pay for rent, food, transportation, medical bills , utilities.

Nobody can afford to work for that employer at $10 an hour under those conditions. They can with government assistance

In effect, the taxpayer is making up the difference for low wages

If all I could earn was $10.00 an hour, I would not have kids. OR I would work another job. My mother raised my sister and i in the 1950s, yes the 1950s, working 3 jobs! No government assistance whatsoever. we survived.She invested, bought a house, bought property, did very well.

And so you won't accuse me of quoting some conservative paper, here is from Huffington Post. Walmart DOES offer tuitition assistance for its employees. So, see? there is no excuse to stay mired in that $10.00/hour job.

Wal-Mart Launches Employee College Plan

and: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/06...college-credit-tuition-assistance-to-workers/

 

[UpAndAbout]

No kidding. If they'd graduate high school and get some training, they wouldn't be stuck with minimum wage. And if they think the taxpayers are going to pick up the tab for the food and housing they can't afford, they certainly NEED that free birth control I was talking about.

Their parents are the ones who needed to take birth control.

Yes, that's true.

 

[rightwinger]

What is this "difference" that needs to be made up? People earning minimum wage are almost always teenagers. They don't have to pay for food, clothing or a mortgage.

Employers pay you what your services are worth. Whether you can live on it is your problem. If your skills don't bring in enough cash, then you need to improve your skills, not try to get government to extort money from employers.

The "living wage" argument is nothing but a cheap sleazy scam.

If an employer pays $10 an hour, that's $20,000 a year. If you are trying to raise a family in a high cost of living area, that will not pay for rent, food, transportation, medical bills , utilities.

Nobody can afford to work for that employer at $10 an hour under those conditions. They can with government assistance

In effect, the taxpayer is making up the difference for low wages

If all I could earn was $10.00 an hour, I would not have kids. OR I would work another job. My mother raised my sister and i in the 1950s, yes the 1950s, working 3 jobs! No government assistance whatsoever. we survived.She invested, bought a house, bought property, did very well.

And so you won't accuse me of quoting some conservative paper, here is from Huffington Post. Walmart DOES offer tuitition assistance for its employees. So, see? there is no excuse to stay mired in that $10.00/hour job.

Wal-Mart Launches Employee College Plan

and: Walmart offering college credit, tuition assistance to workers - DailyFinance

It doesn't exempt the employer

His rate of pay does not cover what it costs to live in his area. The only way he can get employees at $10 an hour is to have the government subsidize his employees

 

[UpAndAbout]

If an employer pays $10 an hour, that's $20,000 a year. If you are trying to raise a family in a high cost of living area, that will not pay for rent, food, transportation, medical bills , utilities.

Nobody can afford to work for that employer at $10 an hour under those conditions. They can with government assistance

In effect, the taxpayer is making up the difference for low wages

If all I could earn was $10.00 an hour, I would not have kids. OR I would work another job. My mother raised my sister and i in the 1950s, yes the 1950s, working 3 jobs! No government assistance whatsoever. we survived.She invested, bought a house, bought property, did very well.

And so you won't accuse me of quoting some conservative paper, here is from Huffington Post. Walmart DOES offer tuitition assistance for its employees. So, see? there is no excuse to stay mired in that $10.00/hour job.

Wal-Mart Launches Employee College Plan

and: Walmart offering college credit, tuition assistance to workers - DailyFinance

It doesn't exempt the employer

His rate of pay does not cover what it costs to live in his area. The only way he can get employees at $10 an hour is to have the government subsidize his employees

My husband started working at our local fair grounds, it was moonlighting, just something fun he wanted to do. Started out at minimum wage. WE never got any government assistance. I don't know what you are talking about. If we supposed to be getting it and didn't, well, gosh darn dang, I'm gonna check 'er out!!

 

[bripat9643]

If an employer pays $10 an hour, that's $20,000 a year. If you are trying to raise a family in a high cost of living area, that will not pay for rent, food, transportation, medical bills , utilities.

If you only make $10 an hour and you got married and had kids, then you are an irresponsible idiot and your children should be taken away from you.

Nobody can afford to work for that employer at $10 an hour under those conditions. They can with government assistance

Those conditions are entirely self-made. The employer is not responsible for your stupid decisions. He pays you what your skills are worth. acquiring skills that bring in more than $10/hour is your responsibility.

In effect, the taxpayer is making up the difference for low wages

No, the taxpayes pay the freight for morons who think they are entitled to procreate when they can't even get a decent job.

 

[bripat9643]

It doesn't exempt the employer

His rate of pay does not cover what it costs to live in his area. The only way he can get employees at $10 an hour is to have the government subsidize his employees

That's obviously not true if he's paying $10/hour.

 

[rightwinger]

It doesn't exempt the employer

His rate of pay does not cover what it costs to live in his area. The only way he can get employees at $10 an hour is to have the government subsidize his employees

That's obviously not true if he's paying $10/hour.

It is true

The only way he can get employees to accept $10 an hour is because their other expenses are being picked up by the taxpayer.

In effect, the employer is getting welfare

 

[rightwinger]

If all I could earn was $10.00 an hour, I would not have kids. OR I would work another job. My mother raised my sister and i in the 1950s, yes the 1950s, working 3 jobs! No government assistance whatsoever. we survived.She invested, bought a house, bought property, did very well.

And so you won't accuse me of quoting some conservative paper, here is from Huffington Post. Walmart DOES offer tuitition assistance for its employees. So, see? there is no excuse to stay mired in that $10.00/hour job.

Wal-Mart Launches Employee College Plan

and: Walmart offering college credit, tuition assistance to workers - DailyFinance

It doesn't exempt the employer

His rate of pay does not cover what it costs to live in his area. The only way he can get employees at $10 an hour is to have the government subsidize his employees

My husband started working at our local fair grounds, it was moonlighting, just something fun he wanted to do. Started out at minimum wage. WE never got any government assistance. I don't know what you are talking about. If we supposed to be getting it and didn't, well, gosh darn dang, I'm gonna check 'er out!!

That shows that minimum wage was sufficient to live in your area.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Now let's look at the REAL story...

The ants work hard in the withering heat, all summer long
The fat cat ant screams at them that they are lazy and better work harder

At the end of the season, the fat cat ant keeps 90% of what they produce and leaves the other ants to fight over the remaining ten percent
When some of the ants complain that they work so hard and have so little to show for it, the fat cat ant points out one ant who is sickly and can't work as hard as the others...
That is the reason you have so little......he does not work as hard as you and still gets a share!
So the ants turn on the sickly ant and force him from the group. Yet they are still struggling to get by on their meager share

One of the ants is smart and cries out....."The reason we have so little is because the fat cat ant takes 90% of what we produce"
The fat cat ant gets nervous and calls out....."That ant is a SOCIALIST.......he wants a redistribution of wealth!"
The other ants don't really know what a socialist is, but they know it must be bad so they drive the "socialist" ant from the group

Now that all of the ants are afraid to speak out about how little they receive for their labor, the fat cat ant says......"You will now share 5% of the profit, if you don't like it we will get some Chinese ants to do your job"

In the end........they send their jobs to China anyway

You don't know much about ants, do you? The "fat cat" ant is called the queen...no, not gay...and she is revered, honored and served by the other ants because without her, they would all die off. In some ways, ants are quite liberal, since everything they do, they do for the good of all the other ants.
Your analogy is a FAIL!

 

[gallantwarrior]

"We stand for a living wage. Wages are subnormal if they fail to provide a living for those who devote their time and energy to industrial occupations. The monetary equivalent of a living wage varies according to local conditions, but must include enough to secure the elements of a normal standard of living--a standard high enough to make morality possible, to provide for education and recreation, to care for immature members of the family, to maintain the family during periods of sickness, and to permit a reasonable saving for old age."


Theodore Roosevelt "got" what it means to make a living wage. He also understood that if your employees don't make enough for a decent living, their morality is in danger.

Perhaps if the Grasshopper had seen HIS income go up some 185 times since 1979, he would not have to worry about making ends meet? I mean that's what happened in the US, right? Rich people have seen their share of the pie grow while middle income and the poor saw their shrink. How is the grasshopper supposed to prepare when his ability to generate income goes to his overlords?


Tell you what...let's pretend the grasshoppers overlords hadn't engaged in a tax based income redistribution scheme....it appears that the grasshoppers would have made about a quarter of a million dollars more over the last 35 years.

So complaining that the grasshopper isn't living up to his end of the bargain, isn't exactly true, is it? At least in comparison to his overlords who's income has grown both amply and steadily.

Should a "living wage" include money for flat screens, cell phones, tattoos, piercings, manicures and pedicures?

Of course, you couldn't call it living without all the perks!

 

[gallantwarrior]

Should a "living wage" include money for flat screens, cell phones, tattoos, piercings, manicures and pedicures?

What the fuck does this mean! Your statement is so fucking stupid it has to be called only that and that only.
With the stupid ass statement why do CEO's need shower curtains that are worth $1million dollars. Or spend $100, 000's of dollars on pets.
You are so dumb.[/QUOTE]

What would consider necessary to live? What would be the basics you would consider to be minimal for "living"?