To those saying flipping burgers or dunking fries deserves 15.00 per hour...

[JoeB131]

As I say every year this time of year... the problem with the modern right is that it watches It's a Wonderful Life and cheers for Mr. Potter.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Until the rich run out of money

like I said you suck at math

We're not burning the money, are we/

So let's look at that. We take the money from the rich and give it to working people. They are going to buy practical stuff. Stuff other people will get jobs to make or sell. You know, thousands of meals instead of one single dancing horsie.

In fact, our Food Stamp Program exists SOLELY to create agricultural jobs by keeping demand for food products up. that' why it exists.

Won't work.

WHo will be making all that "practical stuff"

You are going to pay people to sit on their asses all day and pay them more if they have more kids and you'll put those kids through college so they can get paid not to work

There is not enough money to do that. There never will be

here is the math

There are about 245 million adults in the country you want to give every one of them a basic income of what 25K a year?

That's 6 TRILLION dollars a year

 

[JoeB131]

Won't work.

WHo will be making all that "practical stuff"

You are going to pay people to sit on their asses all day and pay them more if they have more kids and you'll put those kids through college so they can get paid not to work

There is not enough money to do that. There never will be

here is the math

There are about 245 million adults in the country you want to give every one of them a basic income of what 25K a year?

That's 6 TRILLION dollars a year

Awesome. Our GDP is 17 Trillion. So we still have 11 Trillion to entice people to work with.

See how that works.

Oh, incidently, the Europeans already have stuff like this.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Won't work.

WHo will be making all that "practical stuff"

You are going to pay people to sit on their asses all day and pay them more if they have more kids and you'll put those kids through college so they can get paid not to work

There is not enough money to do that. There never will be

here is the math

There are about 245 million adults in the country you want to give every one of them a basic income of what 25K a year?

That's 6 TRILLION dollars a year

Awesome. Our GDP is 17 Trillion. So we still have 11 Trillion to entice people to work with.

See how that works.

Oh, incidently, the Europeans already have stuff like this.

You assume the GDP will stay the same or even rise when you start paying people not to work?

You not only suck at math you know nothing about people

 

[Skull Pilot]

As I say every year this time of year... the problem with the modern right is that it watches It's a Wonderful Life and cheers for Mr. Potter.

Never saw the movie.

So once again your point is meaningless

 

[JoeB131]

You assume the GDP will stay the same or even rise when you start paying people not to work?

You not only suck at math you know nothing about people

Actually, it probably will go up. What drives GDP Growth is consumer demand.

People have more money to spend on stuff, they create more consumer demand.

Or do you think it's just a coincidence that as the wealth has been concentrated in fewer hands, growth has shrunk or even receded.

 

[JoeB131]

Never saw the movie.

So once again your point is meaningless

well, you'd probably hate it. The selfish asshole who just wants to make money is hated by everyone, and the guy who spent his life trying to help people was universally loved.

Showing that to someone like you would be like showing a cross to a vampire.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You assume the GDP will stay the same or even rise when you start paying people not to work?

You not only suck at math you know nothing about people

Actually, it probably will go up. What drives GDP Growth is consumer demand.

People have more money to spend on stuff, they create more consumer demand.

Or do you think it's just a coincidence that as the wealth has been concentrated in fewer hands, growth has shrunk or even receded.

The government already eats up 40% of GDP and now you want that to rise to over 70% of GDP to pay people not to work

And you still think GDP will rise? Won't happen.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I have no plans to watch it ever so I guess you'll never know.

 

[JoeB131]

The government already eats up 40% of GDP and now you want that to rise to over 70% of GDP to pay people not to work

Well, it wouldn't be nearly that, but okay.

Most of that 40% of GDP is entitlements we are already paying.

And you still think GDP will rise? Won't happen.

Funny, it did after WWII, when we spent a shitload of money on entitlements and make-work programs.

I have no plans to watch it ever so I guess you'll never know.

Again, says a lot about you as a person, doesn't it?

 

[Skull Pilot]

The government already eats up 40% of GDP and now you want that to rise to over 70% of GDP to pay people not to work

Well, it wouldn't be nearly that, but okay.

Most of that 40% of GDP is entitlements we are already paying.

And you still think GDP will rise? Won't happen.

Funny, it did after WWII, when we spent a shitload of money on entitlements and make-work programs.

I have no plans to watch it ever so I guess you'll never know.

Again, says a lot about you as a person, doesn't it?

We paid people to work you want to pay people not to work

see the difference?

And we boomed after WWII in large part because most of the European manufacturing base was destroyed and demand for American goods skyrocketed

 

[Skull Pilot]

The government already eats up 40% of GDP and now you want that to rise to over 70% of GDP to pay people not to work

Well, it wouldn't be nearly that, but okay.

Most of that 40% of GDP is entitlements we are already paying.

And you still think GDP will rise? Won't happen.

Funny, it did after WWII, when we spent a shitload of money on entitlements and make-work programs.

I have no plans to watch it ever so I guess you'll never know.

Again, says a lot about you as a person, doesn't it?

We paid people to work you want to pay people not to work

see the difference?

And we boomed after WWII in large part because most of the European manufacturing base was destroyed and demand for American goods skyrocketed

and I really see no need to watch old black and white movies than were made before I was born.

 

[JoeB131]

We paid people to work you want to pay people not to work

see the difference?

And we boomed after WWII in large part because most of the European manufacturing base was destroyed and demand for American goods skyrocketed

Meh, Europe had a pretty decent manufacturing base after the war. I mean, Germany was kind of fucked, but they were back on line by 1950. The UK had a truly impressive manufacturing base.

Japan enjoyed a wonderful surge in manufacturing because when the Korean war started, they were producing most of the supplies we needed.

But the difference between then and now is that manufacturing was still a largely manual labor intensive effort. Now it's mostly automated. So we can't still practice 1950's economics. That just means the guy who owns the machines gets all the wealth.

 

[JoeB131]

and I really see no need to watch old black and white movies than were made before I was born.

Funny, the Bible was written before you were born,and your side (maybe not you personally) keep citing that as a guide for life.

Most of the Constitution was written before you were born, but man, you fucking cite that like it's holy fucking writ! What, want to keep crazies from getting guns? But, but, but, RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS!!!!

 

[Papageorgio]

Why is it the duty of an employer to furnish you with a living wage if you decide to have no children or 12? Is it not your own responsibility to live with in your means?

why should people's value only be based on their ability of the One Percent to make money off of them? Why not have a living wage for everyone, and just be done with it? You want to do business, provide a living wage.

Period. Done.

Or conversely, provide everyone with a basic income, and then if they want more, then WalMart or whoever can provide it.

You see, the real problem is the old model of "you work for a living' is really based on the system being able to produce job. That's simply not the case anymore. Time to do something different.

A living wage is different for everyone, so if you are single a living wage would be less than if you have a spouse with children. So, you would pay a single person would be paid less than a person with a family of five. What if both marriage partners want to work? Would you pay them less because they both work?

I think that would cause employers to layoff those with higher salaries or not hire people with larger families.

 

[Papageorgio]

It's not a question of morality.


A businessman goes into business to make money. But, if he does not pay his employees, then the taxpayer picks up the tab. That difference between what the employer pays his / her employees and that money it takes for them to sustain themselves comes at a cost to you and I.

The employer isn't responsible for the employees family. :SHRUG:

Case in point:

Georgia has something called Peachcare for children. It's like Medicare, only for the children of those people on limited incomes. Now, who do you suppose gets the lion's share of that money? Blacks? Whites? Maybe the children of those "illegal aliens?" No. The group that is the largest recipients of Peachcare is the children of Walmart employees. Who comes in second? That would be the children of Publix grocery chain.

Walmart chief Doug McMillon, who made $25.6 million last year. In 2006 alone, Walmart donated $272.9 MILLION DOLLARS to charities:

Wal-Mart keeps spot as top corporate charity

So, while Walmart is donating this to charity, virtually NONE of it is coming out of the pockets of the BILLIONAIRE Waltons. The Waltons donate less than 1 percent of their own money to charities:

Report: Walmart's Billionaire Waltons Give Almost None Of Own Cash To Foundation

So, Walmart takes this money out of their corporate profits and gets great PR and lots of positive advertising while their employees live below the poverty level. AND, adding insult to injury, while the BILLIONAIRE Waltons are donating less than 1 percent of their income to charities, the average middle class American donates 6 percent of their income.

So what.

So, here is the deal:

Walmart counters and says that they pay competitive wages. What they don't tell you is that they are the largest retail operation of their kind and they, more or less, get to set that competitive wage. That insulting wage comes at a cost to taxpayers who foot the cost for the difference between what people have to have to sustain themselves and what they get in wages.

Again, the employer is not responsible for the employees family. :SHRUG:

If a corporation does not pay people an adequate wage, they should pay more in taxes. What I put on the table is a quid pro quo solution. The employer gets to choose. In the instant example, Walmart has been convicted of knowingly hiring subcontractors that used undocumented foreigners. They pay insulting wages. By contrast, the children of the employees of Aldi Grocery stores DO NOT qualify for Peach Care because Aldi pays above poverty level wages. Aldi hires Americans. Aldi should get a tax break and Walmart should be paying higher taxes. Both companies keep to get running their businesses as they always have and life goes on.

A corporation should pay what the employee is willing to work for. The fewer employees available to the corporation the higher the corporation will pay or the better benefits they will offer. More available employees, the less the corporation needs to pay. The issue we have now is too many employees, not enough business needing employees.

The reason Walmart is so successful is that everyone shops there because of price and convenience and in reality most Americans don’t think it is an issue, otherwise Walmart would fail. We can choose who to support or not support. If you think Walmart is unfair, doesn’t pay employees a fair wage, then use your dollar to not shop there, go to Aldi’s and spend your dollars.

If you don’t like Walmart wages, don’t apply there go somewhere else to work, if there are no employees then you will Walmart start paying more as they need employees because no one will work there for lower pay.

Having government decide who is paying the correct wage is a form of socialism. Giving tax breaks to corporation is government forcing their idea of what is moral to pay.

Regardless, you pay a higher price. It just comes out in taxes.

Ok.

 

[JoeB131]

I think that would cause employers to layoff those with higher salaries or not hire people with larger families.

They do that now, stupid.

Hey, I've talked about the company that cured me of Republicanism. Here was the thing. I had seniority there over everyone else in the office but the managers. But a higher salary and lots of medical bills made me a ripe target. That company let go of all it's senior staff to hire these kids who'd work for a pittance.

This guy also fired two women who got pregnant while they were there.

And he wasn't even the worst person I ever had the bad luck to work for.

 

[Skull Pilot]

and I really see no need to watch old black and white movies than were made before I was born.

Funny, the Bible was written before you were born,and your side (maybe not you personally) keep citing that as a guide for life.

Most of the Constitution was written before you were born, but man, you fucking cite that like it's holy fucking writ! What, want to keep crazies from getting guns? But, but, but, RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS!!!!

I have never read the bible

I am not a religious person at all

and to quote Treebeard, "I am on nobody's side because nobody is on my side"



And you now have to quote where I said the adjudicated mentally ill should be able to own firearms. And good luck with that one

IMO no one who has ever been convicted of a crime should be able to own a firearm. That said people like me who will pass every background check you can think of should be able to own whatever and as many firearms as they want.

Anyone convicted of any crime while in possession of a firearm should get a minimum mandatory 25 year sentence with no parole. Those who commit a violent crime while in possession of a firearm should get life. But you don't want to punish the actual criminals

 

[Papageorgio]

I think that would cause employers to layoff those with higher salaries or not hire people with larger families.

They do that now, stupid.

Hey, I've talked about the company that cured me of Republicanism. Here was the thing. I had seniority there over everyone else in the office but the managers. But a higher salary and lots of medical bills made me a ripe target. That company let go of all it's senior staff to hire these kids who'd work for a pittance.

This guy also fired two women who got pregnant while they were there.

And he wasn't even the worst person I ever had the bad luck to work for.

So, you just want to change who they hire and who they don’t and who they layoff and who they don’t. You must be a single male, they could pay you less and because you have an outside income besides the job, they could even pay you less than a single male with no outside job.

I have opened, ran and sold many businesses so that would work for me. I work hard and give my employer 100%, he treats me fair and treats me well, he knows my value and if the government stepped in to lower my living wage, then I would walk away open up a consulting company and my current employer would hire me as a consultant, however I would no longer work exclusively for him. I’d hire no employees, I would hire an accountant and outsource my marketing.

 

[JoeB131]

So, you just want to change who they hire and who they don’t and who they layoff and who they don’t. You must be a single male, they could pay you less and because you have an outside income besides the job, they could even pay you less than a single male with no outside job.

Actually, quite the contrary... A lot of the ladies at two jobs back were Indian women working for a pittance, but their husbands ran 7-11's and they were just working for health insurance.

another company i worked for, same deal. they'd never get a single white male to work for what they were offering for those assembly jobs, but these ladies were happy with it.