Explain to us Libs, what is a living wage?

[Soggy in NOLA]

That market is being subsidized by the taxpayers. You can build and sell your product at a profit while you expect the taxpayer to pay for your workforce

That is the REAL welfare

My God.... the ignorance is mind bending.

That is the reality of our welfare programs. If taxpayers are footing the bill to support YOUR employees........YOU are making money off of the taxpayer

The taxpayers aren't supporting my employees.

 

[Truthmatters]

I ask a simple question and not one progressive has responded with a logical response. I f you do not know what a living wage is then why do you demand it?

You were answered.

Why are you lying?

 

[Bern80]

My God.... the ignorance is mind bending.

That is the reality of our welfare programs. If taxpayers are footing the bill to support YOUR employees........YOU are making money off of the taxpayer

The taxpayers aren't supporting my employees.

Well technically they are. The money you pay employess ultimately comes from taxpaying cosumers. I'm just curious who he thinks the money to pay employees is supposed to come from, if not the tax paying consumers..........

 

[Inthemiddle]

Trolling?
how does the simple question of what is a living wage tolling?
I keep hearing it, none of you Libs know what it is?
If I feel like I am trolling, ignore it

It's not the question, it's your approach. A title that says "Hey you libs" or "Hey you cons" or similar shows that you're starting off from a hostile mindset, and that your interest is less open minded discussion, and more about ideological bickering. I think that discussing what a "living wage" really means is a perfectly good topic. But I don't get the impression that you're willing to listen to well reasoned replies. You seem like you're more interested in high-fiving people who agree with you, no matter how unintellectual their approach may be at getting to their point, while blasting people who might offer thoughtful dissent.

 

[Truthmatters]

My God.... the ignorance is mind bending.

That is the reality of our welfare programs. If taxpayers are footing the bill to support YOUR employees........YOU are making money off of the taxpayer

The taxpayers aren't supporting my employees.

what do you pay an hour?

 

[Inthemiddle]

OWS demanded 20 dollars an hour AND that even those out of work be paid by " someone".

Actually, we've already established that the "list of demands" is not supported by the OWS movement, and was the "brain" child of a single fanatic.

 

[pgm]

The libs dont understand if they raise the min wage or have 15.00 an hour everything else raises and they will still be in the same position and just making more but also paying more for the goods.

For what it's worth, Australia pays people $15/hr minimum. They do pay more for goods, but not nearly twice as much.

Want to know what your living wage is in your county? Here is a site from Penn State that gives you that information.

Living Wage Calculator - Introduction to the Living Wage Calculator

The living wage (where I live) is $9.69/hr for one adult.

 

[Truthmatters]

The libs dont understand if they raise the min wage or have 15.00 an hour everything else raises and they will still be in the same position and just making more but also paying more for the goods.

who requessted 15 an hour?

Are you that stupid that you dont know a comparison when you see one. IT was an EXAMPLE> Can you say EXAMPLE. Oh forget it. Your not worth my time

You have never produced one convincing arguement on this site that I have ever seen.

You fail every time you try to present some argument.

And then you blame your failure on the person you can not answer.

Yeap typical right wing stance

 

[Conservative]

You have never produced one convincing arguement on this site that I have ever seen.

You fail every time you try to present some argument.

And then you blame your failure on the person you can not answer.

Yeap typical right wing stance

Do you consider taking something that does not belong to you, 'theft'?

 

[Bern80]

Trolling?
how does the simple question of what is a living wage tolling?
I keep hearing it, none of you Libs know what it is?
If I feel like I am trolling, ignore it

It's not the question, it's your approach. A title that says "Hey you libs" or "Hey you cons" or similar shows that you're starting off from a hostile mindset, and that your interest is less open minded discussion, and more about ideological bickering. I think that discussing what a "living wage" really means is a perfectly good topic. But I don't get the impression that you're willing to listen to well reasoned replies. You seem like you're more interested in high-fiving people who agree with you, no matter how unintellectual their approach may be at getting to their point, while blasting people who might offer thoughtful dissent.

It's trolling in the sense that the term is pretty simply defined. The term defines itself realy. It's who should provide it that the debate begins. Should you be responsible for providing for what you need or your employer?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's clear that judging by their posts and total economic illiteracy, most Progressive should never be allowed anywhere near "the Real World"

 

[Bern80]

The living wage (where I live) is $9.69/hr for one adult.

This hints at another important point. Not only is a living wage going to be different geogrpahically. It can be different between individuals. How many people should a living wage support? Just one? A single mother of two? Three? Four? Why should said person get to make more than me for the same work just because she needs more money? Does anyone see the incentives to mediocrity that come into place in a system like that? It's issues like this that show why supporting you or standard of living is not and should not be your employers concern.

 

[DiamondDave]

And as always... the wingers such as wrongwinger ignore the concepts put out in my posts on this subject... and continue with their blathering idiocy

 

[Bern80]

It's clear that judging by their posts and total economic illiteracy, most Progressive should never be allowed anywhere near "the Real World"

Oh I disagree there. I think they should be forced into being educated about it. Maybe if progressives learned how things work and how all these concepts like employee compensation and pofits and labor demand are interconnected we could actually 'progress' instead of spending our time arguing with people that are intellectually retarded.

 

[DiamondDave]

It's clear that judging by their posts and total economic illiteracy, most Progressive should never be allowed anywhere near "the Real World"

Oh I disagree there. I think they should be forced into being educated about it. Maybe if progressives learned how things work and how all these concepts like employee compensation and pofits and labor demand are interconnected we could actually 'progress' instead of spending our time arguing with people that are intellectually retarded.

Indeed...

 

[auditor0007]

If it takes 15.00 an hour to have a "living" wage, well I really dont have an issue with that except that really all your doing is raising the cost to build a widget, or grow a widget to a point in which the 8.00 an hour becomes 15.00 an hour it seems to me
What is a living wage?

Here is the whole issue with wages. A very large portion of our economy comes from consumer spending. The lowest income earners spend the greatest percentage of their incomes on products and services. The ability for consumers to spend, meaning they have money to spend, is what drives our economy. As spending power decreases among the middle class and underclass, so goes the economy. Rich people do buy goods and services, but they don't buy nearly as much as the rest of us do. If the top ten percent are earning approximately 45% of income, and the other 90% is earning the other 55%, do you really think that the top 10% is putting that money all back into the economy?

Increasing the wages of the lowest income earners will just put all that money right back into the economy. Everyone benefits. Of course it isn't quite so simple as just giving everyone a raise. However, when we look at the amount that the top income earners have increased their incomes by, we must ask ourselves what are they using that money for? Are they putting it back into the economy? With American businesses sitting on over $2 trillion in cash, the obvious answer is no. If that money was in the pockets of American workers, it would all be put right back into the economy creating substantial growth.

I am not saying that this is the solution, but just explaining that is how things actually work. Making it so is another story. The other problem that we have is that the baby boomers have reduced their spending considerably just due to the fact that they have everything they need. So we now have reduced spending on two fronts, the wealthy baby boomers and the rest of the populace that is just struggling to get by. But on the other end, we have the wealthy who continue to gain wealth while the rest of the country takes it up the ass.

Then with all of this happening, we have people like Herman Cain telling us we need to drastically reduce taxes on the wealthy, those who are already increasing their wealth, while increasing taxes on everyone else, those who are already losing any wealthy they may have. It really makes sane people scratch their heads.

 

[DiamondDave]

If it takes 15.00 an hour to have a "living" wage, well I really dont have an issue with that except that really all your doing is raising the cost to build a widget, or grow a widget to a point in which the 8.00 an hour becomes 15.00 an hour it seems to me
What is a living wage?

Here is the whole issue with wages. A very large portion of our economy comes from consumer spending. The lowest income earners spend the greatest percentage of their incomes on products and services. The ability for consumers to spend, meaning they have money to spend, is what drives our economy. As spending power decreases among the middle class and underclass, so goes the economy. Rich people do buy goods and services, but they don't buy nearly as much as the rest of us do. If the top ten percent are earning approximately 45% of income, and the other 90% is earning the other 55%, do you really think that the top 10% is putting that money all back into the economy?

Increasing the wages of the lowest income earners will just put all that money right back into the economy. Everyone benefits. Of course it isn't quite so simple as just giving everyone a raise. However, when we look at the amount that the top income earners have increased their incomes by, we must ask ourselves what are they using that money for? Are they putting it back into the economy? With American businesses sitting on over $2 trillion in cash, the obvious answer is no. If that money was in the pockets of American workers, it would all be put right back into the economy creating substantial growth.

I am not saying that this is the solution, but just explaining that is how things actually work. Making it so is another story. The other problem that we have is that the baby boomers have reduced their spending considerably just due to the fact that they have everything they need. So we now have reduced spending on two fronts, the wealthy baby boomers and the rest of the populace that is just struggling to get by. But on the other end, we have the wealthy who continue to gain wealth while the rest of the country takes it up the ass.

Then with all of this happening, we have people like Herman Cain telling us we need to drastically reduce taxes on the wealthy, those who are already increasing their wealth, while increasing taxes on everyone else, those who are already losing any wealthy they may have. It really makes sane people scratch their heads.

So you support guaranteeing a subjective 'fair' or 'living' wage over having people earn more because they advance, make better choices, etc... and unequal treatment by law under government

got it

 

[francoHFW]

the equivalent of the min wage in 1968, $10.50.

 

[auditor0007]

If it takes 15.00 an hour to have a "living" wage, well I really dont have an issue with that except that really all your doing is raising the cost to build a widget, or grow a widget to a point in which the 8.00 an hour becomes 15.00 an hour it seems to me
What is a living wage?

Here is the whole issue with wages. A very large portion of our economy comes from consumer spending. The lowest income earners spend the greatest percentage of their incomes on products and services. The ability for consumers to spend, meaning they have money to spend, is what drives our economy. As spending power decreases among the middle class and underclass, so goes the economy. Rich people do buy goods and services, but they don't buy nearly as much as the rest of us do. If the top ten percent are earning approximately 45% of income, and the other 90% is earning the other 55%, do you really think that the top 10% is putting that money all back into the economy?

Increasing the wages of the lowest income earners will just put all that money right back into the economy. Everyone benefits. Of course it isn't quite so simple as just giving everyone a raise. However, when we look at the amount that the top income earners have increased their incomes by, we must ask ourselves what are they using that money for? Are they putting it back into the economy? With American businesses sitting on over $2 trillion in cash, the obvious answer is no. If that money was in the pockets of American workers, it would all be put right back into the economy creating substantial growth.

I am not saying that this is the solution, but just explaining that is how things actually work. Making it so is another story. The other problem that we have is that the baby boomers have reduced their spending considerably just due to the fact that they have everything they need. So we now have reduced spending on two fronts, the wealthy baby boomers and the rest of the populace that is just struggling to get by. But on the other end, we have the wealthy who continue to gain wealth while the rest of the country takes it up the ass.

Then with all of this happening, we have people like Herman Cain telling us we need to drastically reduce taxes on the wealthy, those who are already increasing their wealth, while increasing taxes on everyone else, those who are already losing any wealthy they may have. It really makes sane people scratch their heads.

So you support guaranteeing a subjective 'fair' or 'living' wage over having people earn more because they advance, make better choices, etc... and unequal treatment by law under government

got it

Actually, I didn't say that. It isn't quite so simple as guaranteeing wages. I just stated that unless we find a way to increase wages for lower and middle income earners, our economy is not going to grow, and we will continue to see this economy stall, no matter who is in office. And cutting taxes further for the wealthy while increasing them on lower income earners certainly isn't going to make things better. If you think that doing so would, then you are bat shit crazy as a lot of others here.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Want to know what your living wage is in your county? Here is a site from Penn State that gives you that information.

Living Wage Calculator - Introduction to the Living Wage Calculator

Indiana :$7.57
Cali: $10.72