Who works for minimum wage?

[Not2BSubjugated]

I do want to make sure that I understand what you are saying before I make any more of my smart ass comments.

Do you think that going on strike or belonging to a union is immoral?

It depends on why you're doing it. If it's because you have a truly abusive employer, that's one thing. If it's because you want or need more pay, benefits, whatever for no more effort on your part, then yes, I believe that's wrong because providing what you need or want simply isn't your employer's responsibility

And, if YOU ran a business, would you pay your workers the least amount of money that you possibly could. Regardless of how successful your business was?

Of course I would. I just don't think that would be the peanuts you think it would. What I would need to pay to actually get someone to work for me would be dependent on similar, in demand skill sets are going for. If choose to pay less when there are reasonable opportunities for more close by, then I'm not going to have many employees. Not good ones any way. And wouldn't you, as a job seeker, try to get paid as much as you could? Why is the job seeker in the moral right for getting as much as they can out of an employer while the employer is morally wrong for trying to pay as little as they can? The more you get out of your employer the less there is left for them to take home for themselves, just like the less they try to pay the less there is for you to take home. Both sides are doing the exact same thing.

Interesting replies. I think that you have an unusual take on unions and the reason working people have a need for unions and the benefits unions give employees. I've never belonged to a union, my Dad did. Plus I lived in a UAW city for many years. Till all the GM jobs went south.

Don't know what you do for a living but if you were union represented, you would probably be making more than 15 bucks an hour. If you are skilled labor. Would that be a good thing?

But I don't think you appreciate what Henry Ford understood. If you don't pay people enough money to make a decent living then you don't have the consumers that a consumer economy like our really needs.

Increased paychecks for hourly working people will stimulate the economy much faster than CEO's and other executives getting an extra few million in bonus money for slashing payroll. IMO.

I'll give you this, I don't see anything morally wrong with unionizing. If the market you're in will bear it, more power to you. Get that money.

From what I understand of Henry Ford, though, his philosophy was as much about being able to streamline his production so that his product was cheap enough for the working man to buy as it was about paying people more so they'd buy his product. Seriously, think that one through: "If I give the workers in the factory more money, I can trade them my product to get a percentage of it back!" That's not sound math. 6 year old could tell you that. Choosing, all by yourself, to overpay your employees (pay them significantly more than the going average for people in similar positions) has its advantages. More people will apply and you'll have a larger pool of potential candidates to choose from, giving you better odds of coming upon some truly valuable workers. However, if you honestly believe that arbitrarily giving your workers enough to make sure they can afford your product is going to increase your profit margin, I don't even know how to begin to help you.

 

[zeke]

It depends on why you're doing it. If it's because you have a truly abusive employer, that's one thing. If it's because you want or need more pay, benefits, whatever for no more effort on your part, then yes, I believe that's wrong because providing what you need or want simply isn't your employer's responsibility



Of course I would. I just don't think that would be the peanuts you think it would. What I would need to pay to actually get someone to work for me would be dependent on similar, in demand skill sets are going for. If choose to pay less when there are reasonable opportunities for more close by, then I'm not going to have many employees. Not good ones any way. And wouldn't you, as a job seeker, try to get paid as much as you could? Why is the job seeker in the moral right for getting as much as they can out of an employer while the employer is morally wrong for trying to pay as little as they can? The more you get out of your employer the less there is left for them to take home for themselves, just like the less they try to pay the less there is for you to take home. Both sides are doing the exact same thing.

Interesting replies. I think that you have an unusual take on unions and the reason working people have a need for unions and the benefits unions give employees. I've never belonged to a union, my Dad did. Plus I lived in a UAW city for many years. Till all the GM jobs went south.

Don't know what you do for a living but if you were union represented, you would probably be making more than 15 bucks an hour. If you are skilled labor. Would that be a good thing?

But I don't think you appreciate what Henry Ford understood. If you don't pay people enough money to make a decent living then you don't have the consumers that a consumer economy like our really needs.

Increased paychecks for hourly working people will stimulate the economy much faster than CEO's and other executives getting an extra few million in bonus money for slashing payroll. IMO.

I'll give you this, I don't see anything morally wrong with unionizing. If the market you're in will bear it, more power to you. Get that money.

From what I understand of Henry Ford, though, his philosophy was as much about being able to streamline his production so that his product was cheap enough for the working man to buy as it was about paying people more so they'd buy his product. Seriously, think that one through: "If I give the workers in the factory more money, I can trade them my product to get a percentage of it back!" That's not sound math. 6 year old could tell you that. Choosing, all by yourself, to overpay your employees (pay them significantly more than the going average for people in similar positions) has its advantages. More people will apply and you'll have a larger pool of potential candidates to choose from, giving you better odds of coming upon some truly valuable workers. However, if you honestly believe that arbitrarily giving your workers enough to make sure they can afford your product is going to increase your profit margin, I don't even know how to begin to help you.

Help me? LMAO. Feel free to point out where I asked for your help.

Ole Henry was told that he would absolutely ruin his company when he gave his employees a raise. Didn't happen.

Now ole Henry wasn't just giving out money. But he had such high turnover that he felt he had to do something. When he announced his pay increase, Ford had tens of thousands of job applicants. And Ford didn't stop there. There new hires were educated and taught English by Ford Motor Co people.. If they couldn't learn, they were let go.

Now how you get to the idea that paying your employees enough to afford the item that they help make, thereby increasing sales and profit, is somehow not desirable for the company. Well I gotta hear that logic. GM once had tens of thousands of employees in the USA, and they bought a new GM car or truck every couple years or so. You think that didn't help GM?

I would guess that your position is that we should pay hourly wage workers the least amount possible and force overseas suppliers and manufacturing to sell their goods at a price our low pay employees can afford. IE Walmart and such.

That may work for a while. As long as no one minds a declining standard of living.

Henry Ford was a populist. He hated plutocrats. I am siding with Henry on the idea that paying an employee enough money to live and prosper is a good thing.

You seem to like those plutocrats.

 

[Bern80]

Interesting replies. I think that you have an unusual take on unions and the reason working people have a need for unions and the benefits unions give employees. I've never belonged to a union, my Dad did. Plus I lived in a UAW city for many years. Till all the GM jobs went south.

Don't know what you do for a living but if you were union represented, you would probably be making more than 15 bucks an hour. If you are skilled labor. Would that be a good thing?

But I don't think you appreciate what Henry Ford understood. If you don't pay people enough money to make a decent living then you don't have the consumers that a consumer economy like our really needs.

Increased paychecks for hourly working people will stimulate the economy much faster than CEO's and other executives getting an extra few million in bonus money for slashing payroll. IMO.

I'll give you this, I don't see anything morally wrong with unionizing. If the market you're in will bear it, more power to you. Get that money.

From what I understand of Henry Ford, though, his philosophy was as much about being able to streamline his production so that his product was cheap enough for the working man to buy as it was about paying people more so they'd buy his product. Seriously, think that one through: "If I give the workers in the factory more money, I can trade them my product to get a percentage of it back!" That's not sound math. 6 year old could tell you that. Choosing, all by yourself, to overpay your employees (pay them significantly more than the going average for people in similar positions) has its advantages. More people will apply and you'll have a larger pool of potential candidates to choose from, giving you better odds of coming upon some truly valuable workers. However, if you honestly believe that arbitrarily giving your workers enough to make sure they can afford your product is going to increase your profit margin, I don't even know how to begin to help you.

Help me? LMAO. Feel free to point out where I asked for your help.

Ole Henry was told that he would absolutely ruin his company when he gave his employees a raise. Didn't happen.

Now ole Henry wasn't just giving out money. But he had such high turnover that he felt he had to do something. When he announced his pay increase, Ford had tens of thousands of job applicants. And Ford didn't stop there. There new hires were educated and taught English by Ford Motor Co people.. If they couldn't learn, they were let go.

Now how you get to the idea that paying your employees enough to afford the item that they help make, thereby increasing sales and profit, is somehow not desirable for the company. Well I gotta hear that logic. GM once had tens of thousands of employees in the USA, and they bought a new GM car or truck every couple years or so. You think that didn't help GM?

I would guess that your position is that we should pay hourly wage workers the least amount possible and force overseas suppliers and manufacturing to sell their goods at a price our low pay employees can afford. IE Walmart and such.

That may work for a while. As long as no one minds a declining standard of living.

Henry Ford was a populist. He hated plutocrats. I am siding with Henry on the idea that paying an employee enough money to live and prosper is a good thing.

You seem to like those plutocrats.

Shifting the responsibility of what you can and should do for yourself onto someone else is NEVER a good thing.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Interesting replies. I think that you have an unusual take on unions and the reason working people have a need for unions and the benefits unions give employees. I've never belonged to a union, my Dad did. Plus I lived in a UAW city for many years. Till all the GM jobs went south.

Don't know what you do for a living but if you were union represented, you would probably be making more than 15 bucks an hour. If you are skilled labor. Would that be a good thing?

But I don't think you appreciate what Henry Ford understood. If you don't pay people enough money to make a decent living then you don't have the consumers that a consumer economy like our really needs.

Increased paychecks for hourly working people will stimulate the economy much faster than CEO's and other executives getting an extra few million in bonus money for slashing payroll. IMO.

I'll give you this, I don't see anything morally wrong with unionizing. If the market you're in will bear it, more power to you. Get that money.

From what I understand of Henry Ford, though, his philosophy was as much about being able to streamline his production so that his product was cheap enough for the working man to buy as it was about paying people more so they'd buy his product. Seriously, think that one through: "If I give the workers in the factory more money, I can trade them my product to get a percentage of it back!" That's not sound math. 6 year old could tell you that. Choosing, all by yourself, to overpay your employees (pay them significantly more than the going average for people in similar positions) has its advantages. More people will apply and you'll have a larger pool of potential candidates to choose from, giving you better odds of coming upon some truly valuable workers. However, if you honestly believe that arbitrarily giving your workers enough to make sure they can afford your product is going to increase your profit margin, I don't even know how to begin to help you.

Help me? LMAO. Feel free to point out where I asked for your help.

Ole Henry was told that he would absolutely ruin his company when he gave his employees a raise. Didn't happen.

Now ole Henry wasn't just giving out money. But he had such high turnover that he felt he had to do something. When he announced his pay increase, Ford had tens of thousands of job applicants. And Ford didn't stop there. There new hires were educated and taught English by Ford Motor Co people.. If they couldn't learn, they were let go.

Now how you get to the idea that paying your employees enough to afford the item that they help make, thereby increasing sales and profit, is somehow not desirable for the company. Well I gotta hear that logic. GM once had tens of thousands of employees in the USA, and they bought a new GM car or truck every couple years or so. You think that didn't help GM?

I would guess that your position is that we should pay hourly wage workers the least amount possible and force overseas suppliers and manufacturing to sell their goods at a price our low pay employees can afford. IE Walmart and such.

That may work for a while. As long as no one minds a declining standard of living.

Henry Ford was a populist. He hated plutocrats. I am siding with Henry on the idea that paying an employee enough money to live and prosper is a good thing.

You seem to like those plutocrats.

And you seem to like to misrepresent opposing positions. I don't believe "we" should pay hourly workers anything, or that "we" should dictate the price at which someone sells their own property. I believe that those contracts are, respectively, between employer and employee or producer and consumer.

You have to keep in mind that labor costs are only a portion of a company's expenses, first off. Severely underpaying their work force wouldn't save most companies enough money to be worth the inherent problems that come with not keeping up with competitive wages: shitty workers, poor employee retention, etc. That's where average pay scales come into play. It's all supply and demand. Any company worth a damn will pay workers in any given position as little as they can while still remaining close enough to the going rate on workers in said position to reasonably expect that people capable of filling the position will apply.

Now back to Henry Ford. Even in your little explanation, you've touched on the actual advantages of raising his workers' wages, yet you cling to the idea that the reason it helped his success was because those workers used some of that extra pay to buy his product. All that money was an investment he made to improve his labor force. Halt the rollover rate. Get better people to apply. Educating your workers means you have smarter workers, and if you're getting rid of the ones who can't hack the education you've also got a nice QC system going there.

And yes, your employees buying your product helps you. Anybody buying your product helps you. The idea that giving people the money to buy your product and then selling them that product to get some of that money back expands your profits, however, is simply ignorant. What you're essentially saying is that handing someone money so that they can trade it back to you for something you made benefits you. You could've skipped a step and just gave your product away. This seems like a really retardedly simple thing to approach like a flow chart, but you don't seem to get it, so here goes:

If giving someone money so they can trade it to you for something you made is profitable, and giving someone money so they can trade it to you for something you made is the same as simply giving them what you made, then a company looking to profit needs look no further than giving away their products to their employees, no? Or is there some magical multiplying effect that happens if the money changes hands back and forth? If I give you ten bucks, and you trade it back to me for a bowl of soup I made, will that ten bucks become more than ten bucks? Or should I just stop being a dumbass and give you the soup?

And to clarify, you never asked for help. When you asserted that giving shit away yields direct material profits, however, I became aware of your need for help without you mentioning it.

 

[FA_Q2]

In all fairness I can't say I've observed all of those to be true. There are two there that typically are present though and drive me nuts. Smoking and smart phones. If you aren't willing to sacrifice those things to get yourself better off or are spending money on what are essentially luxuries you simply can't afford, stop complaining.

Almost universally the difference with poor and middle class/weathy people is fundamentally how they view the world. You find that the poor do not look at things in that manner at all. I have a few good examples.

I met a woman at the store selling cell phones. My wife and I became pretty quick friends as we have had similar experiences with our children and illness. A few months later, she was having a rough time with her finances and we offered to help her and her daughter out. Essentially, we set her up at our home with rent, utility and board for the low price of nothing. We paid all her base essential expenses minus her car and insurance for six months so that she could save for first, last and deposit on a new apartment and get some side cash. Theoretically, she should have had a pretty extensive savings right away as even at minimum wages (which she was making more than) but for some reason when ended up with exactly what she started with – nothing.

It was never, and will never be, a matter of what she makes. She creates chaos unwittingly to force herself back to square one. I would never have believed it if I did not see it firsthand. To help her out, we went over her finances after the first month to find where her money had gone because she simply did not see what was happening. We purchase for ourselves gourmet coffee beans. I drink coffee VERY rarely so there is no reason to not have the best when I do. She felt the need to go to Starbucks daily at a monthly cost of around 300 dollars. She also felt the need to buy food that was ‘conveniently’ wrapped. Kraft singles mac and cheese, shrink wrapped apples and the like. Also a very expensive habit. She continued that habit even though we provided all the equivalent in fresh fruit and boxed goods. The claim was that she did not have ‘time’ to cook as well though why she had no time is beyond me – there was nothing else that she needed to take care of. Smoking was another vice that was costing her quite a bit.

After tabulating all this, do you know how many habits she changed? Zero.

It was her life and she had rights to do whatever she wanted but I was clear – we gave her six months and that is what she got. Currently, she is right where we left her (though living off someone else atm) and all I have to say is that will never change. The job, the pay or even her situation is utterly meaningless – she creates the strife and conditions that ensure where she is herself. The sad reality is that most people that are in that situation are there for the exact same reason.

And you use her situation to what, paint most with a broad brush maybe ? Hmm, are you suggesting we use her situation as an excuse to beware of the big bad wolf maybe, you know the one for whom lurks around every corner now, just waiting to take everyone to the cleaners anymore ? We are smart enough to know who is in need and can be helped, and who has a history of what you just told in your story, so what it all comes down to is we all need to do the hard work of separating, and then helping the right people, while dealing with the wrong people in ways that somehow get them on the right track, and if they won't get on the right track, then let their family kick in and deal with it, but the government doesn't need to hold these kinds of people up, nor should anyone else for that matter.

They will learn or be hungry, and I bet they will learn then.

No, I used her situation to illustrate the fundamental causes of poverty and that they are NOT a matter of earnings as most of the left here wish to demand. I also use her situation to back the quoted assertion that hinted much of the problem lies in the complete lack of reason and personal responsibility that many minimum wage earners use their money. That is something that raising minimum wage does nothing about and likely exacerbated the underlying problems – not solves them.

You also seem to be way off on what I support here. I am against most government intervention in general so I would have to agree on the last portion of your post but I don’t understand why it is in response to my post.

 

[Spoonman]

Minimum Wage Workers Largely Live In The South, Are Women (GRAPHIC)

Before someone attacks the source, note where the info came from stated at the bottom of the graphic.

Also note that the graphic is larger (easier to read) at the link.

that all depends. are we talking before or after taxes? because let's face it, unless you are the 1%, a politician, in the pocket of a politician, a corporation, pretty much every american makes minimum wage after the government takes their share.

 

[beagle9]

It depends on why you're doing it. If it's because you have a truly abusive employer, that's one thing. If it's because you want or need more pay, benefits, whatever for no more effort on your part, then yes, I believe that's wrong because providing what you need or want simply isn't your employer's responsibility



Of course I would. I just don't think that would be the peanuts you think it would. What I would need to pay to actually get someone to work for me would be dependent on similar, in demand skill sets are going for. If choose to pay less when there are reasonable opportunities for more close by, then I'm not going to have many employees. Not good ones any way. And wouldn't you, as a job seeker, try to get paid as much as you could? Why is the job seeker in the moral right for getting as much as they can out of an employer while the employer is morally wrong for trying to pay as little as they can? The more you get out of your employer the less there is left for them to take home for themselves, just like the less they try to pay the less there is for you to take home. Both sides are doing the exact same thing.

It's all about balancing, and about what has happened to the middle class as well as the youth in this nation, because the balance is broken, and continues to be broken until someone speaks out about it all in these ways. Hec things are so broken now, just look what is going on in the Presidency. Tell me this nation isn't screwed up right now, and I might just tell you a lie as well if you say that it isn't.

I agree, but you have to step back and quit blaming just one side. This is not the fault of evil corporations. A lot of it falls on the shoulders of the middle class and poor themselves. They aren't adapting to the changing economy. We're still sending kids to expensive colleges telling them to 'follow their dreams' as if getting a degree, any degree, is enough to insure financial stability after college. As I said before if your bemoaning the pay of an individual or poor person the very first thing you should be advising those people is to determine first what they are doing to contribute to the problem. What choices contributed to the sitation? How do they handle money? What are they doing to improve the situation? If you don't address those things first nothing you do externally to fix the problem is going to help them.

Of course persepctive is based on experience. I have always worked for large companies that treat their employees fairly and in fact pretty well. And the reason I believe a lot of the blame falls on the individuals in the poor and middle class is because it is observable every single day. From a temp that's gonna make about $10/hr came in to work for us, baby on the way (not married to the mother), and decides a wise expenditure at this juncture would be to finance and Jaguar and a couple flat screen TVs (already had a perfectly good working one by the way). To another friend of mine who has no job at all, a kid to support, getting a degree with few job prospects, but somehow how has enough money for a pack a week of cigarettes and a smart phone. That's just the tip of the ice berg and if you really start observing the people you know I think you would see the same types of bad decisions.

Yes these people are out there always of course, but the problem goes far beyond what these people have been doing all by their lonesome, because it is a two way street always upon making bad decisions in business, and in life, by anyone and at anytime in which could just affect maybe one or maybe two, and/or even hundreds yet all depending. The owners and management staffs can also contribute to these same problems by their bad business, bad ethics, greed or attitudes in which they have in life just as well. We must get balance in it all, where the bad becomes weaker in society, and the good becomes stronger once again in our society.

 

[Bern80]

It's all about balancing, and about what has happened to the middle class as well as the youth in this nation, because the balance is broken, and continues to be broken until someone speaks out about it all in these ways. Hec things are so broken now, just look what is going on in the Presidency. Tell me this nation isn't screwed up right now, and I might just tell you a lie as well if you say that it isn't.

I agree, but you have to step back and quit blaming just one side. This is not the fault of evil corporations. A lot of it falls on the shoulders of the middle class and poor themselves. They aren't adapting to the changing economy. We're still sending kids to expensive colleges telling them to 'follow their dreams' as if getting a degree, any degree, is enough to insure financial stability after college. As I said before if your bemoaning the pay of an individual or poor person the very first thing you should be advising those people is to determine first what they are doing to contribute to the problem. What choices contributed to the sitation? How do they handle money? What are they doing to improve the situation? If you don't address those things first nothing you do externally to fix the problem is going to help them.

Of course persepctive is based on experience. I have always worked for large companies that treat their employees fairly and in fact pretty well. And the reason I believe a lot of the blame falls on the individuals in the poor and middle class is because it is observable every single day. From a temp that's gonna make about $10/hr came in to work for us, baby on the way (not married to the mother), and decides a wise expenditure at this juncture would be to finance and Jaguar and a couple flat screen TVs (already had a perfectly good working one by the way). To another friend of mine who has no job at all, a kid to support, getting a degree with few job prospects, but somehow how has enough money for a pack a week of cigarettes and a smart phone. That's just the tip of the ice berg and if you really start observing the people you know I think you would see the same types of bad decisions.

Yes these people are out there always of course, but the problem goes far beyond what these people have been doing all by their lonesome, because it is a two way street always upon making bad decisions in business, and in life, by anyone and at anytime in which could just affect maybe one or maybe two, and/or even hundreds yet all depending. The owners and management staffs can also contribute to these same problems by their bad business, bad ethics, greed or attitudes in which they have in life just as well. We must get balance in it all, where the bad becomes weaker in society, and the good becomes stronger once again in our society.

That's somewhat true. However, the market has a means of correcting for that. Contrary to what some may think there is actually incentive built into the free market for labor to treat employees well. The tables start turning as an individuals skills increase in the individuals favor. Will there always be some bad businesses out there? Sure. But they don't last long because, again the market has a built in mechanism to correct for it. Bad press, competition that treats employees better, etc. The problems with individuals and their choices are the ones that seem harder to correct because we have policies in place that actual enable that bad behavior. The people on this threads and the politicians that are advocating for things like a living wage or exacerbating the problem on the individual side. It's just another reason for a person to not self improve.

 

[Viktor]

The Negative Effects of Minimum Wage Laws | Downsizing the Federal Government

 

[antique4xpu]

You lefties just can't STAY out of PEOPLE'S lives...

now you nosy busy bodies think you have a right to know what others are payed and wail how YOU DON'T think that is enough and throw a temper tantrum on how YOU THINK companies should pay MORE...and I'd bet NONE of own or run a business

you people are tiring and annoying, as you believe this is showing YOU ONLY CARE when all it shows is you can't keep your nose out peoples lives
please go get and run own lives...stay the hell OUT of the rest of ours

but let people talk about abortion we get from you, stay out of our bedroom, our uterus and VAGINAS..

i have owned a business for over 20 years ......... i am a liberal man of 61 ....... i am neither greedy or selfish ..... nor am i a republican

i see republicans as people who are against womens rights
want no legal abortion options
and want religion both taught in school and involved in government
they favor the death penalty
and think everyone should own a weapon ...........

sounds more like islamic or sharia law to me

 

[Immanuel]

You lefties just can't STAY out of PEOPLE'S lives...

now you nosy busy bodies think you have a right to know what others are payed and wail how YOU DON'T think that is enough and throw a temper tantrum on how YOU THINK companies should pay MORE...and I'd bet NONE of own or run a business

you people are tiring and annoying, as you believe this is showing YOU ONLY CARE when all it shows is you can't keep your nose out peoples lives
please go get and run own lives...stay the hell OUT of the rest of ours

but let people talk about abortion we get from you, stay out of our bedroom, our uterus and VAGINAS..

i have owned a business for over 20 years ......... i am a liberal man of 61 ....... i am neither greedy or selfish ..... nor am i a republican

i see republicans as people who are against womens rights
want no legal abortion options
and want religion both taught in school and involved in government
they favor the death penalty
and think everyone should own a weapon ...........

sounds more like islamic or sharia law to me

Are you sure you can see at all? It sounds to me as if you have been blinded by your own intolerance and hatred and a lot of liberal Democratic BS.

It is a shame, but this happens on both sides of the political spectrum.

Immie

 

[PrometheusBound]

Pay should also be determined by the value of the work the customer would have to do himself. So, if a group of yuppies are producing $1,000 an hour but would have to spend an hour cleaning their office, then the janitorial staff is saving the company $1,000 minus what they are being paid.

 

[antique4xpu]

You lefties just can't STAY out of PEOPLE'S lives...

now you nosy busy bodies think you have a right to know what others are payed and wail how YOU DON'T think that is enough and throw a temper tantrum on how YOU THINK companies should pay MORE...and I'd bet NONE of own or run a business

you people are tiring and annoying, as you believe this is showing YOU ONLY CARE when all it shows is you can't keep your nose out peoples lives
please go get and run own lives...stay the hell OUT of the rest of ours

but let people talk about abortion we get from you, stay out of our bedroom, our uterus and VAGINAS..

i have owned a business for over 20 years ......... i am a liberal man of 61 ....... i am neither greedy or selfish ..... nor am i a republican

i see republicans as people who are against womens rights
want no legal abortion options
and want religion both taught in school and involved in government
they favor the death penalty
and think everyone should own a weapon ...........

sounds more like islamic or sharia law to me

Are you sure you can see at all? It sounds to me as if you have been blinded by your own intolerance and hatred and a lot of liberal Democratic BS.

It is a shame, but this happens on both sides of the political spectrum.

Immie

i do not hate anyone ....... i know republiclowns never understand that

i only wish we could provide more care and a better education for all children ......

then there would be no more republicons to mess things up around the world

 

[expat_panama]

Pay should also be determined by the value of the work the customer would have to do...

Lots of people think they know how other people's prices should be set, but the way prices are set is when some seller agrees to part with a good/service for the amount of money some buyer is offering.

Diversity is here to stay, and that means everyone's labor is different. This includes the prices different workers can demand for their time. There's nothing the state can do about it. Sure, government hacks can raise the minimum wage and pretend they're raising people's wages, but they're not. No law can make someones labor suddenly worth more than what others are willing to pay. The only thing minimum wage laws do is forbid the hiring of low value labor.