The living wage

[haileydavey]

Let me explain a few things to the knuckle dragger's.

1.A living wage IS NOT minimum wage, and it is paid by the employer, not the government. It is fair wage for any area or family size in America, and sets the lowest wage paid, not the highest. An employer can reward workers for more work.

A living wage gives a worker his living, and that after all is why we work. Other luxuries such as cars, etc. are above the living wage.

2.When you have a living wage workers can buy more from the market. That means more production. That means more workers being hired.

3.A living wage will reduce taxes. When workers come off social programs like unemployment and welfare, your taxes will go down on paying for social programs they were on, as the burden is spread around.

4.The new workers taxes will lower the amount of taxes you have to pay.

5.It is a myth to think that the cost of items will go up to cover living wages. Living wages are set according to the local area living expenses. With more items being sold, employers would have no reason to raise wages.

6.A living wage will stop two people working in a household, and let one worker spend a 40 hour work week for his employer, giving him more time with his family.

7.Crime will go down as more moms stay home, and society has less latch key children to deal with. ie. less drug use, pregnancy, break ins & crime as parents monitor children.

8.Teenagers will not be in the workforce, rather home studying, hence raising America out of the low intellectual levels children face today.

9.Households that chose to have both spouses working or one spouse holding down two or more jobs, will be penalized with higher taxes, perhaps 75% on the additional jobs. This is to cover the costs of an unemployed person they are keeping from working and increased problems for society. ie. crime children, pregnancies, etc.

10.Workers can start employment with the basics they need to do the job in their area, shelter, food, clothes, utilities.

Living Wage Calculator - Introduction to the Living Wage Calculator

During the Cold War Americans liked comparing their broadly shared prosperity to the rank poverty of the 3rd world.

Indeed, America was proud of her great postwar middle class. Average citizens could afford to send their children to college. This was not the case in Russia or the 3rd world.

America derived its superiority not from its landed gentry, but from the fact that a man born without means was given an opportunity equal to those born in wealth. This was not the case in the 3rd world, which lacked upward mobility aka freedom.

Consider the poster child of postwar New Deal assistance: Ronald Reagan. His family was poor -- struggling, going nowhere, besieged. FDR's New Deal saved them. Jack Reagan, Ronnie's father, was given a GOVERNMENT JOB as part of the New Deal work program. This allowed them to lift young Ronnie out of poverty, so he could make something of himself.

FDR didn't believe the Reagan's were Welfare Queens. FDR believed they were real Americans. [too bad Ronnie didn't have this attitude when he became president]

FDR invested in something more precious than energy, big pharma, or Wall Street; he invested in the American People -- he invested in Ronald Reagan. He gave him a leg-up, so he could become productive and make something of himself.

FDR believed in the American people. He thought they were worth investing in. He trusted them.

When the New Right got rid of FDR's approach to the middle class, they unwittingly got rid of the middle class. The money never trickled down. America spent 30 years creating a narrow class of aristocrats who own government and media. We lost that shining city of the hill -- the very thing we used to point to when we claimed superiority over the 3rd world, which didn't have a middle class. We lost the very Government support which pulled Ronald Reagan out of poverty.

How ironic: if Reagan had been born during the age of Reagan (1980-2010), he would have never risen out of poverty. He would have been called a Welfare Queen.

The Republicans know not what they do.

Back then they WORKED for the government checks. It was not provided to them in exchange for nothing. It was not welfare but a government job. People were willing to work any job they could find. They did not consider it settling. No job was to menial like today. They would not turn down a job because they were to good to do it. Those days are long gone and now we have Welfare Queens and Kings who do not have to do those lowly jobs because they will receive a check anyway. I do not know how many times I have heard let the illegal aliens work they are just taking the jobs we do not want. Back in FDR's day they would have taken those jobs in a heartbeat.

 

[shintao]

Everything. You lefties would use the threat of government sanctions to force businesses to pay unrealistic and unaffordable wages.
This to achieve the concept of "equality of outcome". A concept incompatible with freedom.

LMAO! A fair living wage is "unrealistic & unfordable wages??" Maybe I would be missing something here, but why do you think a person works? And then you tell us a living wage is incompatible with freedom? Whose freedom?

Let me guess... you'd love to abolish wage slavery and have no alternative proposal...

I would never make the assumption that we can abolish the wage attached to work that is attached to survival. Maybe by the end of the century if we survive till then.

I had a millionaire friend who suggested a means to make work more compatable to us. He said we should all receive a million when we are born, and the object is to give it away before you die. An Example. You spy a women with a flat tire, and pull over and fix her tire. She thanks you, and you hand her a hundred dollars from your million dollars.

Some people chose to give their money away by working at the grocery store cashier. As she rings up the food, she hands the customer $145.27 for the food, and wishes her a good day. This women goes home, puts the groceries away, and hands he husband the money. He gives part of it to his boss on payday, and thanks him for the work.

So that seems a nice way to work yourself through the world.

 

[shintao]

Let me explain a few things to the knuckle dragger's.

1.A living wage IS NOT minimum wage, and it is paid by the employer, not the government. It is fair wage for any area or family size in America, and sets the lowest wage paid, not the highest. An employer can reward workers for more work. This is all good but you are leaving out entree level employees who do not have to support families. If a worker takes a lower level position to get their foot in the door are you saying they should make enough to take care of a family?

A living wage gives a worker his living, and that after all is why we work. Other luxuries such as cars, etc. are above the living wage].

2.When you have a living wage workers can buy more from the market. That means more production. That means more workers being hired.Can you explain this to me further? How does increasing a wage equate to more production? If your business is selling or providing your employees products or services how do you benefit by paying them more? Wouldn't that mean you were in essences paying yourself? Where is the profit coming from?

3.A living wage will reduce taxes. When workers come off social programs like unemployment and welfare, your taxes will go down on paying for social programs they were on, as the burden is spread around. Would you not actually be increasing welfare? When you pay people more for a job you as the employer make less? You luxuries will decrease making you less motivated to continue. Now you will have to cut costs to maintain you standard of living. Where is the first place most employers cut? PAYROLL which will mean higher unemployment.

4.The new workers taxes will lower the amount of taxes you have to pay.How do you have new workers? Is the government going to control business profit margins? Are they going to force big business to hire more people?

5.It is a myth to think that the cost of items will go up to cover living wages. Living wages are set according to the local area living expenses. With more items being sold, employers would have no reason to raise wages. Several of you big businesses are not supported by the local economy but delivered outside of the area. By raising the cost of employing someone then you in effect raise the cost to manufacture, deliver or service your product. If you are a good business person you will have to raise the cost of your product of service to compensate of reduce you work force.

6.A living wage will stop two people working in a household, and let one worker spend a 40 hour work week for his employer, giving him more time with his family.It will also decrease the work force.

7.Crime will go down as more moms stay home, and society has less latch key children to deal with. ie. less drug use, pregnancy, break ins & crime as parents monitor children. This may very well happen in a perfect world.

8.Teenagers will not be in the workforce, rather home studying, hence raising America out of the low intellectual levels children face today. The teenagers working are not a problem it is the ones staying home getting into trouble. We are the only nation who offers up higher education to everyone yet we still have all these problems.

9.Households that chose to have both spouses working or one spouse holding down two or more jobs, will be penalized with higher taxes, perhaps 75% on the additional jobs. This is to cover the costs of an unemployed person they are keeping from working and increased problems for society. ie. crime children, pregnancies, etc. That would go over real well. Who should be the one to work? The male like in the good ol' days. That seems very conservative or the female? It looks like you are taking away years of women's lib here.

10.Workers can start employment with the basics they need to do the job in their area, shelter, food, clothes, utilities. Wouldn't some utilities be consider a luxury? I know when studying science and health it was never mentioned as a basic need.

Living Wage Calculator - Introduction to the Living Wage Calculator

What you are failing to realize is that employers are not going to be willing to lower their standard of living to support someone's increased standard of living. You are taking away the motivation for most business minded people. When that happens big business will collectively take the trillions of extra dollars they have lying around, close up shop and retire.

You are looking at this from a perspective of someone who would benefit from this. This is overly simplified way of looking at it. While several people would benefit from this those who control the hiring and make the business decisions would not. You have not really provided a reason they should go along with this and they are the ones who will ultimately do the hiring and firing. I am sure that is hard for you to understand. Seeing as your idea makes total sense to you I doubt you will be able to see it from a different perspective.

I showed several ways the business benefits: Increased sales/production/profits, more workers paying taxes means less taxes paid by everybody (unemployed/welfare), including businesses, less employee turnover when worker lives in general area, lower business crime rates (lower insurance rates) when children are raised in home with parent present, more intelligent workers when parent in home to help educate their kids.

 

[shintao]

'Living wage': a pleasant-sounding yet meaningless catchphrase that allows you, like 'change' to project whatever the fuck Utopian pipedream you wish unto it.

Yeah, I have a feeling you just don't get it, and here we are on page 10.

 

[haileydavey]

Let me explain a few things to the knuckle dragger's.

1.A living wage IS NOT minimum wage, and it is paid by the employer, not the government. It is fair wage for any area or family size in America, and sets the lowest wage paid, not the highest. An employer can reward workers for more work. This is all good but you are leaving out entree level employees who do not have to support families. If a worker takes a lower level position to get their foot in the door are you saying they should make enough to take care of a family?

A living wage gives a worker his living, and that after all is why we work. Other luxuries such as cars, etc. are above the living wage].

2.When you have a living wage workers can buy more from the market. That means more production. That means more workers being hired.Can you explain this to me further? How does increasing a wage equate to more production? If your business is selling or providing your employees products or services how do you benefit by paying them more? Wouldn't that mean you were in essences paying yourself? Where is the profit coming from?

3.A living wage will reduce taxes. When workers come off social programs like unemployment and welfare, your taxes will go down on paying for social programs they were on, as the burden is spread around. Would you not actually be increasing welfare? When you pay people more for a job you as the employer make less? You luxuries will decrease making you less motivated to continue. Now you will have to cut costs to maintain you standard of living. Where is the first place most employers cut? PAYROLL which will mean higher unemployment.

4.The new workers taxes will lower the amount of taxes you have to pay.How do you have new workers? Is the government going to control business profit margins? Are they going to force big business to hire more people?

5.It is a myth to think that the cost of items will go up to cover living wages. Living wages are set according to the local area living expenses. With more items being sold, employers would have no reason to raise wages. Several of you big businesses are not supported by the local economy but delivered outside of the area. By raising the cost of employing someone then you in effect raise the cost to manufacture, deliver or service your product. If you are a good business person you will have to raise the cost of your product of service to compensate of reduce you work force.

6.A living wage will stop two people working in a household, and let one worker spend a 40 hour work week for his employer, giving him more time with his family.It will also decrease the work force.

7.Crime will go down as more moms stay home, and society has less latch key children to deal with. ie. less drug use, pregnancy, break ins & crime as parents monitor children. This may very well happen in a perfect world.

8.Teenagers will not be in the workforce, rather home studying, hence raising America out of the low intellectual levels children face today. The teenagers working are not a problem it is the ones staying home getting into trouble. We are the only nation who offers up higher education to everyone yet we still have all these problems.

9.Households that chose to have both spouses working or one spouse holding down two or more jobs, will be penalized with higher taxes, perhaps 75% on the additional jobs. This is to cover the costs of an unemployed person they are keeping from working and increased problems for society. ie. crime children, pregnancies, etc. That would go over real well. Who should be the one to work? The male like in the good ol' days. That seems very conservative or the female? It looks like you are taking away years of women's lib here.

10.Workers can start employment with the basics they need to do the job in their area, shelter, food, clothes, utilities. Wouldn't some utilities be consider a luxury? I know when studying science and health it was never mentioned as a basic need.

Living Wage Calculator - Introduction to the Living Wage Calculator

What you are failing to realize is that employers are not going to be willing to lower their standard of living to support someone's increased standard of living. You are taking away the motivation for most business minded people. When that happens big business will collectively take the trillions of extra dollars they have lying around, close up shop and retire.

You are looking at this from a perspective of someone who would benefit from this. This is overly simplified way of looking at it. While several people would benefit from this those who control the hiring and make the business decisions would not. You have not really provided a reason they should go along with this and they are the ones who will ultimately do the hiring and firing. I am sure that is hard for you to understand. Seeing as your idea makes total sense to you I doubt you will be able to see it from a different perspective.

I showed several ways the business benefits: Increased sales/production/profits, more workers paying taxes means less taxes paid by everybody (unemployed/welfare), including businesses, less employee turnover when worker lives in general area, lower business crime rates (lower insurance rates) when children are raised in home with parent present, more intelligent workers when parent in home to help educate their kids.

You did not show anything!!! You stated it as if it was already fact. Give a really life example. Also, the stay at home thing you want to keep mentioning, how does that work if both want to be the provider? Are you promoting divorce? That way you can avoid 75% taxes. You seem to want to go back to "Leave it to Beaver" times. You are also suggesting that a stay at home parent is the best solution to solve the woes of America. I have seen several stay at home parents on welfare. Their kids are not the most educated. Finally how do you decide who works? Do you have to marry someone without ambitions if you want to work? Your theories are so flawed yet you act as if you have solved something.

 

[editec]

People live on minimum wage now so your argument is full of shit. Further it is NOT the Federal Governments business what an employer pays his employees. Might be a States business if the people agree and vote for it in an amendment to their State Constitution.

No they don't.

People trying to live on minimum wage are candidates for most kinds of social welfare that I KNOW you hate (except for that social welfare which YOU get, of course)

Yeah that's right, they are now everybody's burden since their employers can get away with paying them less than it takes to survive in this society.

If you're okay with that, then you'd best get use to also sublimenting their incomes with social welfare.

This proves the old adage in economics that "There's no FREE Lunch"

 

[Two Thumbs]

Let me explain a few things to the knuckle dragger's.

1.A living wage IS NOT minimum wage, and it is paid by the employer, not the government. It is fair wage for any area or family size in America, and sets the lowest wage paid, not the highest. An employer can reward workers for more work.

A living wage gives a worker his living, and that after all is why we work. Other luxuries such as cars, etc. are above the living wage.

2.When you have a living wage workers can buy more from the market. That means more production. That means more workers being hired.

3.A living wage will reduce taxes. When workers come off social programs like unemployment and welfare, your taxes will go down on paying for social programs they were on, as the burden is spread around.

4.The new workers taxes will lower the amount of taxes you have to pay.

5.It is a myth to think that the cost of items will go up to cover living wages. Living wages are set according to the local area living expenses. With more items being sold, employers would have no reason to raise wages.

6.A living wage will stop two people working in a household, and let one worker spend a 40 hour work week for his employer, giving him more time with his family.

7.Crime will go down as more moms stay home, and society has less latch key children to deal with. ie. less drug use, pregnancy, break ins & crime as parents monitor children.

8.Teenagers will not be in the workforce, rather home studying, hence raising America out of the low intellectual levels children face today.

9.Households that chose to have both spouses working or one spouse holding down two or more jobs, will be penalized with higher taxes, perhaps 75% on the additional jobs. This is to cover the costs of an unemployed person they are keeping from working and increased problems for society. ie. crime children, pregnancies, etc.

10.Workers can start employment with the basics they need to do the job in their area, shelter, food, clothes, utilities.

Living Wage Calculator - Introduction to the Living Wage Calculator

During the Cold War Americans liked comparing their broadly shared prosperity to the rank poverty of the 3rd world.

Indeed, America was proud of her great postwar middle class. Average citizens could afford to send their children to college. This was not the case in Russia or the 3rd world where the wealthy accumulated most of the wealth and had easier access to education and health care.

America derived its superiority not from its landed gentry, but from the fact that a man born without means was given an opportunity equal to those born in wealth. This was not the case in the 3rd world, which lacked upward mobility aka freedom.

Consider the poster child of postwar New Deal assistance: Ronald Reagan. His family was poor -- struggling, going nowhere, besieged. FDR's New Deal saved them. Jack Reagan, Ronnie's father, was given a GOVERNMENT JOB as part of the New Deal work program. This allowed them to lift young Ronnie out of poverty, so he could make something of himself.

FDR didn't believe the Reagan's were Welfare Queens. FDR believed they were real Americans. [too bad Ronnie didn't have this attitude when he became president]

FDR invested in something more precious than energy, big pharma, or Wall Street; he invested in the American People -- he invested in Ronald Reagan. He gave him a leg-up, so he could become productive and make something of himself.

FDR believed in the American people. He thought they were worth investing in. He trusted them. [unlike Reagan who called the poor lazy]

When the New Right got rid of FDR's approach to the middle class, they unwittingly got rid of the middle class. Beneath Reagan's shadow, both parties would spend 30 years creating a narrow class of aristocrats. We sold that shining city on a hill to privatized vultures.

[when did the Right start to believe that 'assistance' equals 'handout' rather than 'investment' - investment in our greatest asset. FDR invested in American workers -- he invested in men like Ronald Reagan. He invested in a working class who, in turn, sent a generation of children to college. These children were not welfare queens -- to the contrary, they formed America's great postwar middle class, our most productive generation. Quite unlike todays fattened upper class who use their wealth not to create jobs but on corrupt derivative ponzi schemes.]

(Wow, just, wow)

How ironic: if Reagan had been born during the age of Reagan (1980-2010), he would have never risen out of poverty. He would have been called a Welfare Queen.

The Republicans know not what they do.

Since when is a government job welfare?

It's a job. Not sitting around making babies so you can get a bigger check.

How did you justify this idiocy in your mind? Please, I must know. How a government job is welfare.

 

[The Rabbi]

See what I mean folks? People are actually this stupid.

#1.

Hey genius. A federal mandate to dramatically increase wages would result in the failure of a large percentage of businesses. So right back to square one. The marketplace determines wages and that is that.
As previously stated, your idea has not a chance in hell of becoming reality. So just stop the bullshit.
How long have you been #2

I wonder how many plantations failed when slavery was outlawed?

Should we have kept slavery in place in the name of being 'friendly to business'?

Are you really comparing involuntary servitude to a labor arrangement freely agreed on by both parties???

 

[editec]

Let me explain a few things to the knuckle dragger's.

1.A living wage IS NOT minimum wage, and it is paid by the employer, not the government. It is fair wage for any area or family size in America, and sets the lowest wage paid, not the highest. An employer can reward workers for more work.

A living wage gives a worker his living, and that after all is why we work. Other luxuries such as cars, etc. are above the living wage.

2.When you have a living wage workers can buy more from the market. That means more production. That means more workers being hired.

3.A living wage will reduce taxes. When workers come off social programs like unemployment and welfare, your taxes will go down on paying for social programs they were on, as the burden is spread around.

4.The new workers taxes will lower the amount of taxes you have to pay.

5.It is a myth to think that the cost of items will go up to cover living wages. Living wages are set according to the local area living expenses. With more items being sold, employers would have no reason to raise wages.

6.A living wage will stop two people working in a household, and let one worker spend a 40 hour work week for his employer, giving him more time with his family.

7.Crime will go down as more moms stay home, and society has less latch key children to deal with. ie. less drug use, pregnancy, break ins & crime as parents monitor children.

8.Teenagers will not be in the workforce, rather home studying, hence raising America out of the low intellectual levels children face today.

9.Households that chose to have both spouses working or one spouse holding down two or more jobs, will be penalized with higher taxes, perhaps 75% on the additional jobs. This is to cover the costs of an unemployed person they are keeping from working and increased problems for society. ie. crime children, pregnancies, etc.

10.Workers can start employment with the basics they need to do the job in their area, shelter, food, clothes, utilities.

Living Wage Calculator - Introduction to the Living Wage Calculator

During the Cold War Americans liked comparing their broadly shared prosperity to the rank poverty of the 3rd world.

Indeed, America was proud of her great postwar middle class. Average citizens could afford to send their children to college. This was not the case in Russia or the 3rd world where the wealthy accumulated most of the wealth and had easier access to education and health care.

America derived its superiority not from its landed gentry, but from the fact that a man born without means was given an opportunity equal to those born in wealth. This was not the case in the 3rd world, which lacked upward mobility aka freedom.

Consider the poster child of postwar New Deal assistance: Ronald Reagan. His family was poor -- struggling, going nowhere, besieged. FDR's New Deal saved them. Jack Reagan, Ronnie's father, was given a GOVERNMENT JOB as part of the New Deal work program. This allowed them to lift young Ronnie out of poverty, so he could make something of himself.

FDR didn't believe the Reagan's were Welfare Queens. FDR believed they were real Americans. [too bad Ronnie didn't have this attitude when he became president]

FDR invested in something more precious than energy, big pharma, or Wall Street; he invested in the American People -- he invested in Ronald Reagan. He gave him a leg-up, so he could become productive and make something of himself.

FDR believed in the American people. He thought they were worth investing in. He trusted them. [unlike Reagan who called the poor lazy]

When the New Right got rid of FDR's approach to the middle class, they unwittingly got rid of the middle class. Beneath Reagan's shadow, both parties would spend 30 years creating a narrow class of aristocrats. We sold that shining city on a hill to privatized vultures.

[when did the Right start to believe that 'assistance' equals 'handout' rather than 'investment' - investment in our greatest asset. FDR invested in American workers -- he invested in men like Ronald Reagan. He invested in a working class who, in turn, sent a generation of children to college. These children were not welfare queens -- to the contrary, they formed America's great postwar middle class, our most productive generation. Quite unlike todays fattened upper class who use their wealth not to create jobs but on corrupt derivative ponzi schemes.]

(Wow, just, wow)

How ironic: if Reagan had been born during the age of Reagan (1980-2010), he would have never risen out of poverty. He would have been called a Welfare Queen.

The Republicans know not what they do.

Since when is a government job welfare?

Since the first government was founded, actually.


Consider the alternative.

A government which does NOT provide for the general welfare of its people.

Why would anybody sign onto that?

 

[Misty]

Employees are a pain in the ass. I'm all for robot labor.

Start your own business and stfu.

 

[The Rabbi]

Where is the living wage $10. an hour? Why wouldn't wages and employees go up if the business is selling more products and making more profits from consumers? Doesn't he want to stay competitive? Why is it capitalist can't think of what happens when a company pays a fair wage. As long as they are fucking the workers, they understand that.......... With the LW, and increased product sales and services, the owner will be hiring a salesmen here and and a CEO there. Or does the capitalist believe that the owner will lay off workers, not have enough products to sell, and close his doors?

Do you not understand that if the owner must pay more wages he must raise his prices, and therefore sell less?

You're assume profit margins are concrete and static. If they were, outsourcing wouldn't happen.

You just shot yourself in the foot. Outsourcing occurs precisely to save labor costs and increase potential profit margin. More likely though margin remains the same but prices are lowered, increasing volumes.
The living wage proposal would do the opposite.

 

[Two Thumbs]

People live on minimum wage now so your argument is full of shit. Further it is NOT the Federal Governments business what an employer pays his employees. Might be a States business if the people agree and vote for it in an amendment to their State Constitution.

No they don't.

People trying to live on minimum wage are candidates for most kinds of social welfare that I KNOW you hate (except for that social welfare which YOU get, of course)

Yeah that's right, they are now everybody's burden since their employers can get away with paying them less than it takes to survive in this society.

If you're okay with that, then you'd best get use to also sublimenting their incomes with social welfare.

This proves the old adage in economics that "There's no FREE Lunch"

I don't mind helping a working person, especially a working family. It's the non-workers, the people that refuse to work that I have issue with.

fyi, Military pay is a pittance compared to a Fed worker that sits at a desk all day.

 

[JBeukema]

Let me explain a few things to the knuckle dragger's.

1.A living wage IS NOT minimum wage, and it is paid by the employer, not the government. It is fair wage for any area or family size in America, and sets the lowest wage paid, not the highest. An employer can reward workers for more work.

A living wage gives a worker his living, and that after all is why we work. Other luxuries such as cars, etc. are above the living wage.

2.When you have a living wage workers can buy more from the market. That means more production. That means more workers being hired.

3.A living wage will reduce taxes. When workers come off social programs like unemployment and welfare, your taxes will go down on paying for social programs they were on, as the burden is spread around.

4.The new workers taxes will lower the amount of taxes you have to pay.

5.It is a myth to think that the cost of items will go up to cover living wages. Living wages are set according to the local area living expenses. With more items being sold, employers would have no reason to raise wages.

6.A living wage will stop two people working in a household, and let one worker spend a 40 hour work week for his employer, giving him more time with his family.

7.Crime will go down as more moms stay home, and society has less latch key children to deal with. ie. less drug use, pregnancy, break ins & crime as parents monitor children.

8.Teenagers will not be in the workforce, rather home studying, hence raising America out of the low intellectual levels children face today.

9.Households that chose to have both spouses working or one spouse holding down two or more jobs, will be penalized with higher taxes, perhaps 75% on the additional jobs. This is to cover the costs of an unemployed person they are keeping from working and increased problems for society. ie. crime children, pregnancies, etc.

10.Workers can start employment with the basics they need to do the job in their area, shelter, food, clothes, utilities.

Living Wage Calculator - Introduction to the Living Wage Calculator

During the Cold War Americans liked comparing their broadly shared prosperity to the rank poverty of the 3rd world.

Indeed, America was proud of her great postwar middle class. Average citizens could afford to send their children to college. This was not the case in Russia or the 3rd world.

America derived its superiority not from its landed gentry, but from the fact that a man born without means was given an opportunity equal to those born in wealth. This was not the case in the 3rd world, which lacked upward mobility aka freedom.

Consider the poster child of postwar New Deal assistance: Ronald Reagan. His family was poor -- struggling, going nowhere, besieged. FDR's New Deal saved them. Jack Reagan, Ronnie's father, was given a GOVERNMENT JOB as part of the New Deal work program. This allowed them to lift young Ronnie out of poverty, so he could make something of himself.

FDR didn't believe the Reagan's were Welfare Queens. FDR believed they were real Americans. [too bad Ronnie didn't have this attitude when he became president]

FDR invested in something more precious than energy, big pharma, or Wall Street; he invested in the American People -- he invested in Ronald Reagan. He gave him a leg-up, so he could become productive and make something of himself.

FDR believed in the American people. He thought they were worth investing in. He trusted them.

When the New Right got rid of FDR's approach to the middle class, they unwittingly got rid of the middle class. The money never trickled down. America spent 30 years creating a narrow class of aristocrats who own government and media. We lost that shining city of the hill -- the very thing we used to point to when we claimed superiority over the 3rd world, which didn't have a middle class. We lost the very Government support which pulled Ronald Reagan out of poverty.

How ironic: if Reagan had been born during the age of Reagan (1980-2010), he would have never risen out of poverty. He would have been called a Welfare Queen.

The Republicans know not what they do.

Back then they WORKED for the government checks. It was not provided to them in exchange for nothing. It was not welfare but a government job.

The Right always insists that the government can't create jobs

 

[The Rabbi]

The Right always insists that the government can't create jobs

Once again you lie, dissemble and perpetuate intellectual fraud. All in one sentence, which is pretty impressive.
The Right (whoever that is) does not maintain government cannot create jobs. Obviously they do. The claim is that these jobs are not beneficial to the economy, providing for the most part no economic value.

 

[JBeukema]

I had a millionaire friend who suggested a means to make work more compatable to us. He said we should all receive a million when we are born, and the object is to give it away before you die. An Example. You spy a women with a flat tire, and pull over and fix her tire. She thanks you, and you hand her a hundred dollars from your million dollars.

wow...

google: monetary inflation; currency devaluation

Monetary inflation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some people chose to give their money away by working at the grocery store cashier. As she rings up the food, she hands the customer $145.27 for the food, and wishes her a good day

Wow... there you have it folks: proof positive that shintao is either a troll or mentally incompetent.

Rainbows, cupcakes, unicorns- your world must be very colourful.

 

[JBeukema]

'Living wage': a pleasant-sounding yet meaningless catchphrase that allows you, like 'change' to project whatever the fuck Utopian pipedream you wish unto it.

Yeah, I have a feeling you just don't get it, and here we are on page 10.

You want to be paid for taking the grocer's food and you accuse others of not understanding the world?

 

[JBeukema]

Do you not understand that if the owner must pay more wages he must raise his prices, and therefore sell less?

You're assume profit margins are concrete and static. If they were, outsourcing wouldn't happen.

You just shot yourself in the foot. Outsourcing occurs precisely to save labor costs and increase potential profit margin. More likely though margin remains the same but prices are lowered, increasing volumes.

How much have the prices been falling in your local shoppe as more and more companies have outsourced?

Little, if at all. It's all about exploiting the world proletariat to maximize profit margin.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...on-of-the-proletariat-what-is-free-trade.html

 

[JBeukema]

The Right always insists that the government can't create jobs

Once again you lie, dissemble and perpetuate intellectual fraud. All in one sentence, which is pretty impressive.
The Right (whoever that is) does not maintain government cannot create jobs. Obviously they do. The claim is that these jobs are not beneficial to the economy, providing for the most part no economic value.

So... Ronnie's dad was a fucking parasitic teatsucker and his government scrip did nothing to help the grocer who sold pappa the food little Ronnie ate?

 

[editec]

People live on minimum wage now so your argument is full of shit. Further it is NOT the Federal Governments business what an employer pays his employees. Might be a States business if the people agree and vote for it in an amendment to their State Constitution.

No they don't.

People trying to live on minimum wage are candidates for most kinds of social welfare that I KNOW you hate (except for that social welfare which YOU get, of course)

Yeah that's right, they are now everybody's burden since their employers can get away with paying them less than it takes to survive in this society.

If you're okay with that, then you'd best get use to also sublimenting their incomes with social welfare.

This proves the old adage in economics that "There's no FREE Lunch"

I don't mind helping a working person, especially a working family. It's the non-workers, the people that refuse to work that I have issue with.

fyi, Military pay is a pittance compared to a Fed worker that sits at a desk all day.

Understandable.

Wouldn't it be nice if WORKING PEOPLE didn't need your help?

Wouldn't it be nice if we the citizens of this nation didn't have to pick up the slack so that the owners of corporations didn't have to pay a living wage?

That's all people are saying when they say they support the concept of a living wage.

 

[JBeukema]

No they don't.

People trying to live on minimum wage are candidates for most kinds of social welfare that I KNOW you hate (except for that social welfare which YOU get, of course)

Yeah that's right, they are now everybody's burden since their employers can get away with paying them less than it takes to survive in this society.

If you're okay with that, then you'd best get use to also sublimenting their incomes with social welfare.

This proves the old adage in economics that "There's no FREE Lunch"

I don't mind helping a working person, especially a working family. It's the non-workers, the people that refuse to work that I have issue with.

fyi, Military pay is a pittance compared to a Fed worker that sits at a desk all day.

Understandable.

Wouldn't it be nice if WORKING PEOPLE didn't need your help?

Wouldn't it be nice if we the citizens of this nation didn't have to pick up the slack so that the owners of corporations didn't have to pay a living wage?

That's all people are saying when they say they support the concept of a living wage.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/143956-minimum-wage-reform.html