Should all jobs be required to pay at least a living wage?

[SteadyMercury]

Any wage is a living wage. If you budget you can get by on the minimum. If you want more, you have to earn more by either getting another job, doing OT, or getting training in something that earns a higher pay.

Yup.

One of the dumbest things you'll ever see is people protesting that it is impossible to live on the wages they earn. Yet there they are, living.

 

[SteadyMercury]

S&P 500 hit 1500 today.

The wealthiest 2% of Americans have had no problem increasing wealth in the last four years, corporations are showing increased profits

For some reason, it is not trickling down with higher wages

A lot of middle class Americans have money invested in the stock market thru mutual funds, they get benefit from the rising stock market too.

Agreed on wages.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Any wage is a living wage. If you budget you can get by on the minimum. If you want more, you have to earn more by either getting another job, doing OT, or getting training in something that earns a higher pay.

Yup.

One of the dumbest things you'll ever see is people protesting that it is impossible to live on the wages they earn. Yet there they are, living.

I think a lot of it just being too lazy to plot and execute the next step up the ladder. The last thing they need is liberal Marxist baboons telling them they are part of the permanent working class, always will be, that America is not the land of opportunity, and the way to get ahead is through welfare entitlements and unions thuggery.

 

[rightwinger]

how could we with a liberal communist president who voted to the left of Bernie Sanders??

S&P 500 hit 1500 today.

The wealthiest 2% of Americans have had no problem increasing wealth in the last four years, corporations are showing increased profits

For some reason, it is not trickling down with higher wages

perhaps because we have a liberal communist president who is raising taxes and driving jobs off shore?? Capitalism works only when you have capitalism.

We have 15% unemployment thanks to idiotic liberalism and you're trying to blame it on capitalism!

See why we are positive a liberal will be 100% slow???

Capitalism works better under Democratic Presidents

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

S&P 500 hit 1500 today.

The wealthiest 2% of Americans have had no problem increasing wealth in the last four years, corporations are showing increased profits

For some reason, it is not trickling down with higher wages

perhaps because we have a liberal communist president who is raising taxes and driving jobs off shore?? Capitalism works only when you have capitalism.

We have 15% unemployment thanks to idiotic liberalism and you're trying to blame it on capitalism!

See why we are positive a liberal will be 100% slow???

Capitalism works better under Democratic Presidents

like FDR and Obama?????


See why we say slow???

 

[rightwinger]

perhaps because we have a liberal communist president who is raising taxes and driving jobs off shore?? Capitalism works only when you have capitalism.

We have 15% unemployment thanks to idiotic liberalism and you're trying to blame it on capitalism!

See why we are positive a liberal will be 100% slow???

Capitalism works better under Democratic Presidents

like FDR and Obama?????


See why we say slow???

Good examples...

Both were required to clean up after Republican policies trashed the economy

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Capitalism works better under Democratic Presidents

like FDR and Obama?????


See why we say slow???

Good examples...

Both were required to clean up after Republican policies trashed the economy

too stupid and perfectly liberal!

1)Hoover and Bush did nothing capitalist you fool!!!!

2) cleaning up after their liberal messes would take one year, not ten!!

see we are 1000% positive a liberal will be slow!!!!

 

[yidnar]

Living wage.

aren't they paying you enough at sub way ??

 

[rightwinger]

like FDR and Obama?????


See why we say slow???

Good examples...

Both were required to clean up after Republican policies trashed the economy

too stupid and perfectly liberal!

1)Hoover and Bush did nothing capitalist you fool!!!!

2) cleaning up after their liberal messes would take one year, not ten!!

see we are 1000% positive a liberal will be slow!!!!

Deregulation, deemphasizing enforcement of existing laws. Refusing to help and letting a crashing economy "self correct"
Libertarian dream
Crashed our economy twice

Good thing we have Democrats to clean up after them isn't it?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"
Libertarian dream
Crashed our economy twice

too stupid but perfectly lliberal!!!

If so when?????????????????????????????

 

[ReallyMeow]

You assume "the rich" pay no taxes.
They pay their share. They pay a part of YOUR share, too.

No I dont, they pay some, its not enough; as reflected by our deficit, if this trickle down economics stuff was legit, we wouldnt have a deficit.

 

[Unkotare]

You assume "the rich" pay no taxes.
They pay their share. They pay a part of YOUR share, too.

No I dont, they pay some, its not enough; as reflected by our deficit, if this trickle down economics stuff was legit, we wouldnt have a deficit.

******* liberals...


The damn government spending too much (and too wastefully) never occurred to you?

 

[ipaps]

This is very interesting. If a job doesn't pay your gas money to turn up at it, then why do you take the job? It would be logical that this would set a natural minimum wage pay. But it doesn't. Why do people take jobs that pay so little that they end up at a loss for taking that job, like they pay for the job and not the job for them? If you advertise a job that you open for applicants and you offer 1c/hour, you will still get applicants. Why?

Maybe because a job that don't pay well is still better then no job at all.

 

[ipaps]

Sorry, but I don't need to subsidize through higher prices anyone who chooses to spend their life banging away at a cash register at a job meant for teenagers simply because they have no ambition to go any further in their own life... Sorry, but it's not my problem to financially subsidize losers who want to make a kids job a career choice.

You do know that once upon a time, those cashier workers made a living wage don't you? In fact, they were considered very well paid. Come to think of it, most workers were paid decently way back when. It's only since the 70's and changes in corporate law that we've become a country of the rich and the poor.

Oh, we've been a country of rich and poor long before the 70's. It still doesn't change the fact that people should not have to subsidize lazy bums with no ambition.

Hmm, maybe replacing those cashier with automated machines and a guy who sit around reading newspaper unless there's a technical difficulty. Plus a powerful A.I. computer to answer all the questions and another tech guys sitting around that A.I. machine reading magazines.

 

[Oldstyle]

You assume "the rich" pay no taxes.
They pay their share. They pay a part of YOUR share, too.

No I dont, they pay some, its not enough; as reflected by our deficit, if this trickle down economics stuff was legit, we wouldnt have a deficit.

Trickle down economics doesn't exist, ReallyMeow...it's a negative term invented by critics of Supply Side economics...critics that know as little about the economics of business as you do. Money trickles upwards in a free market economy...with workers getting paid first and owners getting paid last, if at all.

If you took ALL of the income of the wealthy we would still have a massive deficit. What part of that don't you quite "grasp"? We have a terrible spending problem. If we don't get it under control it will take all of the income of the wealthy AND the middle class to pay off just the interest on the accumulated debt.

 

[Oldstyle]

You assume "the rich" pay no taxes.
They pay their share. They pay a part of YOUR share, too.

No I dont, they pay some, its not enough; as reflected by our deficit, if this trickle down economics stuff was legit, we wouldnt have a deficit.

******* liberals...


The damn government spending too much (and too wastefully) never occurred to you?

ReallyMeow has bought into the progressive con job that if we could only get the rich to pay a little more than we can fix this without cutting spending. You have to be either incredibly naive to buy into that or just incapable of simple math.

 

[ReallyMeow]

I "hate America" because my economic solutions are based in reality while yours are based strictly on ideology? People like you would be amusing if you weren't so dangerous. You're so worried that some wealthy person is going to be able to keep some of the money that they earned that you're willing to push fiscal policy that will keep millions of people who are not wealthy on unemployment. You're the person who hates America...because your "solution" would be a disaster for the country but you're so naive about economic policy that you can't see it.
If taking all of the income of wealthy Americans would fix the problem of our deficits then I'd reluctantly consider it but since it wouldn't even put a small dent in those deficits and would without question bring our economy to a grinding halt, why would ANYONE want to do something so asinine? That's reality and that's what you want to ignore.

Here we are in the reality that tax cuts for the rich dont produce additional revenue, that basic multiplication still applies. Conservatives have produced a 16 trillion dollar national debt in pursuit of this failed social experiment.
600 billion is hardly anything?
John Stossel: Tax The Rich? The Rich Don't Have Enough. Really. - Forbes
I would rather have a deficit of half a trillion than a trillion. As the economy recovers revenues will recover, and we get the double benefit of no longer needing to prop it up; not only does the budget become balanced but we are paying down the debt.

Obama's a conservative?
Well, he might appear that way to a radical Marxist like you.

+

16 billion? WHo has been president for the last 4 years? Which party has held Congress for the last 6 years? What was our debt rating when Obama took office? What is it now?

Republicans built the national debt, idiot. Everytime we had a red president, they ramped the deficit up, everytime there was a blue president, deficit reduction was their agenda and they succeeded at it. The deficit was nothing which bush came in and was 1.4t when he left- if you think obama can just turn off a 1.4t budgetary shortfall by flicking his wrist, you are a colossal idiot; and if you have a problem with a democrat being left a 1.4t mess, then you would have a problem with the republicans making that mess if you wernt a hypocrate. Republicans built the debt as part of their strategy to destroy America: Starve the beast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
incompetent or saboteurs, pick your poison. The way that republicans held our credit rating hostage, and shot the hostage, deliberately ruining our credit rating points to sabotage. You cannot be any more fiscally irresponsible than that.

Yes, they are.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...equality7.svg/600px-IncomeInequality7.svg.png
a four point one percent increase is THIRTY times a point three percent increase. FLAAAAAT

The only thing flat is the scan of your brain activity. You've shown you can't read a chart. You've shown you can't argue a point. All you can do is regurgitate incorrect information like it bolsters your case.

Tell me, how much smaller does the number need to be before you call it flat? .003 is flat.

Revenues have already recovered, dunce. They are at the highest level since 2007 and the deficit is higher than ever. It's the SPENDING, stupid.

Where in the **** are you getting your information? bush left the deficit at 1.4t, obama has lowered it to 1t so far and its on its way to 900b. revenue was 2.5t in 2008 and is 2.5t now, at least you got something right: good job obama. heres where you're missing the big picture though, 2.5t is only 15% of gdp, spitballing, another 3% of gdp would be another 500 billion dollars: you want a balanced budget or not? Tax the rich. Oh and obama has been making cuts to all those irresponsible spending expansions that BUSH made.

Employers are not charitable institutions

Employees are not charitable organizations, pay a reasonable salary, deadbeat.

neither is the government.

You sure piss a moan a whole lot about the govt doing something you say it doesnt do: double talk much?

When employers are forced by government mandate to pay more than an employee is worth, prices go up for all of us, including that employee. An intelligent person might even consider that employers who have been forced to pay more to their employees would result in LESS government spending to subsidize those workers. That is not what has happened, is it? Every time wages are forced up, even more "poor" go on the public dole.

Turns out the employee IS worth that much, dumbass, otherwise they wouldnt have been hired in the first place since nothing is a whole lot less than minimum wage. Prices go up only to maintain an inflated sense of entitlement on the part of employers. Who told you that a million dollars is a reasonable salary? TV? The **** do you even plan to do with that money?

Everyone should be paid based two things:

1. Paid what their job is worth

At the same time, however, all workers should be -

2. Paid a living wage.

That means enough to cover the rent, the bills, and to put food on the table. You can be poor, but you are still surviving.

What about the opportunities for people who don't need that much money? Should those just be outlawed?

WHOA, NOW RED ALERT, YOU JUST WENT FULL STALINIST COMMIE. Or rather you are holding the position that there is a subclass of americans which dont deserve the opportunity to save for the future. retirement, a business of their own, a home: you say they deserve nothing. The word you are looking for to apply to this class of people is slave and that emotion is hatred, and as such, you hate Americans.

Do you know anyone who only works minimum wage so they don't lose their medicaid? I do. I had one that worked for me and she wanted me to pay half her salary to her live-in fiance (they'll never get married) so she could keep her working poor single mom subsidies.

She works, and yet you hate her for it- maybe something is wrong with you?

Because most people are happy toiling away at minimum wage getting gov't handouts?

Another fail, Nutwinger.

Employers in high cost of living areas get away with paying wages that do not allow their employees to live in that area. The taxpayer makes up the difference by paying for housing and food while the employer pockets the profit he makes from low wages

Welfare is a benefit for low paying employers

Minimum wage laws actually lower the cost of discriminating against the racially less-preferred individuals. To understand, consider this nonracial example on the effects of such ‘price-setting.’
a. Consider filet mignon and chuck steak. For argument’s sake, and in reality, consumers prefer the former.
b. Now ask, then why does chuck steak sell at all? And, in fact, why is it that chuck steak outsells filet mignon?? It is less preferred…yet competes favorably with something more preferred??
c. The answer is in what economists call ‘compensating differences.’ In effect the chuck says to you: “I’m not as tender nor tasty, but not as expensive,either! I sell for $4/pound, and filet mignon sells for $9/pound.”
d. Chuck steak, in effect, offers to ‘pay’ you $5/pound for its ‘inferiority,’ a compensating difference.
e. What if filet mignon sellers wanted to raise their sales against the less-preferred competitor, but couldn’t get a law passed forbidding the sale of chuck, what should they aim to do?
f. Push for a law establishing a minimum steak-price, say, $9/pound for all steak.
g. Now…chuck steak says: I don’t look as nice, I’m not tender or tasty as filet mignon, and I sell for the same price….Buy me!
h. Prior to legislation, the cost of discriminating against chuck steak was $5/pound…Now?
Williams, "Race & Economics," chapter three.

Bad news guy, results are in and you're racist as ****. Your entire argument rests on the assumption that race makes workers intrinsically inferior.

1. The adolescent, the Marxist, and the Liberal dream of “fairness,” brought about by the state. Silly. This would mean usurping the society decision that the skilled worker is entitled to higher pay than the unskilled. This decision is never pronounced by any authority other than the free market. It was arrived at via the interaction of human beings perfectly capable of ordering their own affairs.

Higher? Fine, but a working person should not be in poverty. A person who has spent their life working should not find themselves living under a bridge when theyre too old to work.

2. Government cannot and will not correct itself- thus the necessity for elections. But society, convened as the free market, can and does correct itself…and quickly, ‘else the risk of impoverishment.

To the contrary, a market in a depression will only spiral further into recession without govt intervention. No one is hiring because demand is down, demand is down because everyone is either out of work or saving up for when they get booted because someone is willing to do the job for less, no one is investing because there is no demand for new business ventures, because those business ventures would only exist to SATE DEMAND.

3. If the Leftist is interested in a more ‘fair’ redistribution of wealth, let him vote for lower taxes, and then he can distribute his now larger share of his wealth to the lesser compensated folks.

In order to have a high income, you must use many American infrastructure services, which cost money, its not theft of wealth, you are purchasing a service in a manner so that the govt is only ever taking a slice of your profits. We have a deficit to balance, deal with it, you freeloading deadbeat.

You assume "the rich" pay no taxes.
They pay their share. They pay a part of YOUR share, too.

No I dont, they pay some, its not enough; as reflected by our deficit, if this trickle down economics stuff was legit, we wouldnt have a deficit.

Trickle down economics doesn't exist, ReallyMeow...it's a negative term invented by critics of Supply Side economics...critics that know as little about the economics of business as you do. Money trickles upwards in a free market economy...with workers getting paid first and owners getting paid last, if at all. If you took ALL of the income of the wealthy we would still have a massive deficit. What part of that don't you quite "grasp"? We have a terrible spending problem. If we don't get it under control it will take all of the income of the wealthy AND the middle class to pay off just the interest on the accumulated debt.

Addressed that in another thread, Ill take a 500 billion dollar deficit over a 1 trillion dollar deficit any day of the week, you must be the type of person that pays the minimum balance on their credit card, good luck with that.

If you're going to say we have a spending problem, articulate what precisely we are spending too much on. attacking ss/m.aid/m.care cost republicans the election, tanf has a work component so attacking welfare doesnt work anymore, and the military is a sacred cow to republicans so that pretty much eliminates everything.

 

[Noomi]

Everyone should be paid based two things:

1. Paid what their job is worth

At the same time, however, all workers should be -

2. Paid a living wage.

That means enough to cover the rent, the bills, and to put food on the table. You can be poor, but you are still surviving.

In this thread it's been repeatedly explained why that's not a good idea.

Yet you still cling to it.

Why?

I don't care why you think it isn't a good idea. Its about time y'all took care of your workers!

 

[Meathead]

I don't care why you think it isn't a good idea. Its about time y'all took care of your workers!

The young, old and infirm who are unable to work should be taken care of. Many think that able-bodied workers should take care of themselves and don't care why you think they should not.

 

[Two Thumbs]

S&P 500 hit 1500 today.

The wealthiest 2% of Americans have had no problem increasing wealth in the last four years, corporations are showing increased profits

For some reason, it is not trickling down with higher wages

perhaps because we have a liberal communist president who is raising taxes and driving jobs off shore?? Capitalism works only when you have capitalism.

We have 15% unemployment thanks to idiotic liberalism and you're trying to blame it on capitalism!

See why we are positive a liberal will be 100% slow???

Capitalism works better under Democratic Presidents

Then why from the start of Reagan to 08 did we have historical growth?

b/c a republican unleashed the free market.