400 Americans

[BluesLegend]

The Federal government has spent well over $30 TRILLION dollars in just the last 10 years yet the left tells us that's not enough. $30 trillion, just what is the net worth of the 400 I don't know but its nowhere near $30 trillion so if you took every penny they own then what?

Much of that money was spent on a bloated military fighting unnecessary confilcts that nearly destroyed our economy. In the mean time, earnings by ordinary Americans dwindled significantly, backrupting many while in that same ten years the 400 became even richer. By the way, the net worth of the 400 in question is $2.29 trillion dollars. That averages to about 5.7 billion each. Compare that to the wage of the average American at $44,888.16, and to the 46 million who live at or below the poverty line. If you believe this is not a disparity, I must ask if you are one of thr 400 and if not, who exactly you are defending and why?

No it wasn't, you fail at math and knowledge.

 

[orogenicman]

3.9% GDP is not bad. Better than at just about any time during the Bush administration.

Wait just a minute....You people are bitching and moaning about the wealthy being too wealthy. Now you've come up for air and now you're playing the "Obama the greatest job creator in history" card.
Which is it?

The Buffet family is one of the wealthiest families in the country, and yet they can't pay their people a living wage. You tell me why that is.

Sure - if you can tell me what a 'living wage' is, I'll be happy to tell you all about it.

A living wage is the minimum income necessary for a worker to meet their needs that are considered to be basic. This is not necessarily the same as subsistence, which refers to a biological minimum, though the two terms are commonly confused. These needs include shelter (housing) and other incidentals such as clothing, nutrition, transportation, and medical needs. Now, tell me why the richest family in America cannot pay their employees a living wage.

Can you tell me of an employer who doesn't pay a 'living wage', even using your definition?

Sure, McDonalds, Burger King, Wendys, Walmart, and hundreds of others.

Before you get all cranked up about McDonalds or Walmart, we need to agree that they, in fact, pay a 'living wage'. The average McDonald worker (excluding teenagers working part-time) make $10.88 per hour. For Walmart, it's $11.81 per hour. For the McDonalds' worker, that's about $22K/year - and for Walmart, that's an annual average salary of about $24K per year.

All at or below the poverty line.

Both of those meet the governmental definition of living wage.

No sir, they do not.

 

[orogenicman]

The Federal government has spent well over $30 TRILLION dollars in just the last 10 years yet the left tells us that's not enough. $30 trillion, just what is the net worth of the 400 I don't know but its nowhere near $30 trillion so if you took every penny they own then what?

Much of that money was spent on a bloated military fighting unnecessary confilcts that nearly destroyed our economy. In the mean time, earnings by ordinary Americans dwindled significantly, backrupting many while in that same ten years the 400 became even richer. By the way, the net worth of the 400 in question is $2.29 trillion dollars. That averages to about 5.7 billion each. Compare that to the wage of the average American at $44,888.16, and to the 46 million who live at or below the poverty line. If you believe this is not a disparity, I must ask if you are one of thr 400 and if not, who exactly you are defending and why?

No it wasn't, you fail at math and knowledge.

My math and knowledge are fine. And you didn't answer my question.

 

[Spare_change]

I think it's great that you and Rabbi can excuse any level of immorality by wrapping it in the veil of capitalism and then raising capitalism to the state of a law of nature which cannot be violated. I'll bet that makes moral decisions really simple, just the way you like 'em.

Until recently Americans have enjoyed an increasingly higher standard of living. That's dropped off and you liberal socialist idiots think capitalism is at fault. Or Reagan. Or Bush, or anything but an honest assessment of the situation. Hurting business doesn't help economies, it illogical. Economies don't sprout up through government soil, it comes from productivity.

Big businesses do better today because they have merged and gone global, averaging in those numbers with worker salaries misses the point, probably on purpose. Capitalism is what made this country great and for some bizarre reasons liberals think destroying it will improve the economy.

No, not the average liberal, they are too dim witted to understand, they simply repeat what they see from leftist sources, but those pulling the strings know exactly what they are doing and useful idiots have never been more receptive.

You said it yourself but are apparently too stupid to realize it. Productivity has increased something like 3 fold since the 70's yet the average wage has stagnated. Not the top wage though, that's skyrocketed. Could that have something to do with the top wage earners diverting that productivity increase into their own hands? I'm sure that point will be lost on you as well.

Ok - so what?

Wait just a minute....You people are bitching and moaning about the wealthy being too wealthy. Now you've come up for air and now you're playing the "Obama the greatest job creator in history" card.
Which is it?

The Buffet family is one of the wealthiest families in the country, and yet they can't pay their people a living wage. You tell me why that is.

Sure - if you can tell me what a 'living wage' is, I'll be happy to tell you all about it.

A living wage is the minimum income necessary for a worker to meet their needs that are considered to be basic. This is not necessarily the same as subsistence, which refers to a biological minimum, though the two terms are commonly confused. These needs include shelter (housing) and other incidentals such as clothing, nutrition, transportation, and medical needs. Now, tell me why the richest family in America cannot pay their employees a living wage.

Can you tell me of an employer who doesn't pay a 'living wage', even using your definition?

Sure, McDonalds, Burger King, Wendys, Walmart, and hundreds of others.

Before you get all cranked up about McDonalds or Walmart, we need to agree that they, in fact, pay a 'living wage'. The average McDonald worker (excluding teenagers working part-time) make $10.88 per hour. For Walmart, it's $11.81 per hour. For the McDonalds' worker, that's about $22K/year - and for Walmart, that's an annual average salary of about $24K per year.

All at or below the poverty line.

Both of those meet the governmental definition of living wage.

No sir, they do not.

DEFINITION of 'Living Wage'
A theoretical wage level that allows the earner to afford adequate shelter, food and the other necessities of life. The living wage should be substantial enough to ensure that no more than 30% of it needs to be spent on housing. The goal of the living wage is to allow employees to earn enough income for a satisfactory standard of living.
Living Wage Definition Investopedia


$22K x .3 = 6,600/12 = $550/month
$24K x .3 = 7200/12 = $600/month

Any other questions?

The sad truth is that most who live below the poverty line do so because of their own decisions.

 

[orogenicman]

I think it's great that you and Rabbi can excuse any level of immorality by wrapping it in the veil of capitalism and then raising capitalism to the state of a law of nature which cannot be violated. I'll bet that makes moral decisions really simple, just the way you like 'em.

Until recently Americans have enjoyed an increasingly higher standard of living. That's dropped off and you liberal socialist idiots think capitalism is at fault. Or Reagan. Or Bush, or anything but an honest assessment of the situation. Hurting business doesn't help economies, it illogical. Economies don't sprout up through government soil, it comes from productivity.

Big businesses do better today because they have merged and gone global, averaging in those numbers with worker salaries misses the point, probably on purpose. Capitalism is what made this country great and for some bizarre reasons liberals think destroying it will improve the economy.

No, not the average liberal, they are too dim witted to understand, they simply repeat what they see from leftist sources, but those pulling the strings know exactly what they are doing and useful idiots have never been more receptive.

You said it yourself but are apparently too stupid to realize it. Productivity has increased something like 3 fold since the 70's yet the average wage has stagnated. Not the top wage though, that's skyrocketed. Could that have something to do with the top wage earners diverting that productivity increase into their own hands? I'm sure that point will be lost on you as well.

Ok - so what?

The Buffet family is one of the wealthiest families in the country, and yet they can't pay their people a living wage. You tell me why that is.

Sure - if you can tell me what a 'living wage' is, I'll be happy to tell you all about it.

A living wage is the minimum income necessary for a worker to meet their needs that are considered to be basic. This is not necessarily the same as subsistence, which refers to a biological minimum, though the two terms are commonly confused. These needs include shelter (housing) and other incidentals such as clothing, nutrition, transportation, and medical needs. Now, tell me why the richest family in America cannot pay their employees a living wage.

Can you tell me of an employer who doesn't pay a 'living wage', even using your definition?

Sure, McDonalds, Burger King, Wendys, Walmart, and hundreds of others.

Before you get all cranked up about McDonalds or Walmart, we need to agree that they, in fact, pay a 'living wage'. The average McDonald worker (excluding teenagers working part-time) make $10.88 per hour. For Walmart, it's $11.81 per hour. For the McDonalds' worker, that's about $22K/year - and for Walmart, that's an annual average salary of about $24K per year.

All at or below the poverty line.

Both of those meet the governmental definition of living wage.

No sir, they do not.

DEFINITION of 'Living Wage'
A theoretical wage level that allows the earner to afford adequate shelter, food and the other necessities of life. The living wage should be substantial enough to ensure that no more than 30% of it needs to be spent on housing. The goal of the living wage is to allow employees to earn enough income for a satisfactory standard of living.
Living Wage Definition Investopedia


$22K x .3 = 6,600/12 = $550/month
$24K x .3 = 7200/12 = $600/month

Any other questions?

The sad truth is that most who live below the poverty line do so because of their own decisions.

That's a load of crap, and no doubt posted by someone who knows nothing of poverty or its causes. But hey, you greedy conservatives have always blamed the poor for their plight. Hopefully you will openly do so during the next election cycle.

 

[Politico]

Have more wealth than half the population of the United States.


Hey Mr. Reagan, when exactly is this trickle down thing going to kick in?

Hey Mr. Bush, since the "job creators" still have the Tax Cut you gave them in 2002 and 2004, why aren't they, you know, creating more jobs?

Perhaps you could explain why you're entitled to that which you haven't earned.

Why is it you posted yet another drive by thread and abandoned it nut? How about you answer the question?

 

[kaz]

What a bunch of meaningless babble. Government is government. You are the wench of the rich, you want that which they control to grow ever larger, increasing their own power.

What would you do to reduce the power Wall Street exerts over the US Government, drown the SEC in your bathtub?

I've answered that a thousand times. Make government smaller, there is therefore less for them to control. That is the only way. Government is made of people, people are corruptible. People with money will buy them You can't change that. So you make the amount that can be corrupted as small as possible.

If you grasp what I just said and grasp human nature. You will now convert to being a small government libertarian. It is irrefutable. Anything else will be self delusion.

 

[kaz]

So do you have an Obama job where you get a lower wage and your hours were cut ?

Retired History/French teacher, fool. Pubs just make life harder for the none rich...

Stopped reading here. There are Republicans all over the board, idiot. Want to argue with them? Do that. I'm not going to defend their stupid views, no interest.

 

[Iceweasel]

Retired History/French teacher, fool. Pubs just make life harder for the none rich...

Thank God you are retired but I imagine you did a lot of damage in the mean time. The farther left this country grows, the worse it is for the middle class and the economy in general. You're either a moron or a liar, maybe both.

 

[kaz]

Retired History/French teacher, fool. Pubs just make life harder for the none rich...

Thank God you are retired but I imagine you did a lot of damage in the mean time. The farther left this country grows, the worse it is for the middle class and the economy in general. You're either a moron or a liar, maybe both.

Franco: See, Moron? It wasn't hard to find a Republican to debate even in your dim fog of stupidity.

 

[M14 Shooter]

My bad. I stand corrected. My question still stands (corrected, of course). The Walton family is one of the wealthiest families in the U.S., and yet threy cannot pay their people a living wage. Why is that?

"Living wage". I love that term. Shorthand for "How much I think you need to live a decent life".
Most Wal-Mart employees don't make as much as you think they should because the work they do does not warrant it.

 

[georgephillip]

You get paid for what you contribute to the final product ... period. The comparison between 'productivity and median compensation' is an artificial measurement, contrived to create a false dichotomy, and create a strawman argument that, simply, doesn't hold water.

What payment should you expect when greedy capitalists outsource your middle class job to wage-slave states like China or "Right-to-Work states like Alabama? You apparently believe the rising percentage of income that's gone to capital instead of labor over the past thirty years represents an "artificial measurement" when, in fact, it's the logical outcome of capitalism's destruction of the workers in North America who made it rich in the first place.

 

[georgephillip]

Let me assure you --- you have NO idea what a 'planet of slums' looks like.

Prove it.

 

[Iceweasel]

Retired History/French teacher, fool. Pubs just make life harder for the none rich...

Thank God you are retired but I imagine you did a lot of damage in the mean time. The farther left this country grows, the worse it is for the middle class and the economy in general. You're either a moron or a liar, maybe both.

Franco: See, Moron? It wasn't hard to find a Republican to debate even in your dim fog of stupidity.

I'm not a Republican.

 

[Iceweasel]

You get paid for what you contribute to the final product ... period. The comparison between 'productivity and median compensation' is an artificial measurement, contrived to create a false dichotomy, and create a strawman argument that, simply, doesn't hold water.

What payment should you expect when greedy capitalists outsource your middle class job to wage-slave states like China or "Right-to-Work states like Alabama? You apparently believe the rising percentage of income that's gone to capital instead of labor over the past thirty years represents an "artificial measurement" when, in fact, it's the logical outcome of capitalism's destruction of the workers in North America who made it rich in the first place.

The swan song of the Marxists. The country has been steadily marching to the left, not right. You also refuse to accept reasons why corporations rake in bigger monies these days. You are stuck on stupid and only another stupid socialist cares what you have to say.

 

[kaz]

Retired History/French teacher, fool. Pubs just make life harder for the none rich...

Thank God you are retired but I imagine you did a lot of damage in the mean time. The farther left this country grows, the worse it is for the middle class and the economy in general. You're either a moron or a liar, maybe both.

Franco: See, Moron? It wasn't hard to find a Republican to debate even in your dim fog of stupidity.

I'm not a Republican.

Sorry, my bad. And great to hear! Finding Republicans on the board is pretty easy for the most minimally functional adult. Unfortunately, Franco is not minimally functioning or even close to it. He's in a jam now. How can he find a Republican?

Good luck in your quest, Franco. Godspeed.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And who decides what people "need"

I can give you a list a mile long of what people need and don't need but would that make it any more true than any other opinion?

There have been attempts to quantify fundamental human needs...
"Max-Neef classifies the fundamental human needs as:

• subsistence
• protection
• affection
• understanding
• participation
• leisure
• creation
• identity
• freedom"

Ultimately, "We the People" would decide which list of rights was true, but I suspect the vote would reveal marked class distinctions.

Fundamental human needs - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

That's funny.

How do you plan to legislate that people get affection, understanding, creativity, etc?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Simply explained by the fact that technological advances have allowed less skilled laborers to produce more.

You cannot think that a guy who runs an automatized machine is worth the same as a skilled craftsman who can make by hand what the machine makes

He might be.
The issue is unit labor cost. The skilled craftsman might be able to make only 5 widgets a day while the machine operator can crank out 1000. If they're comparable then the machine operator might be worth more money.

No the guys who make, program and keep the machine running are more important than the moron pushing a button.

You just moved the goalpost by saying "more important." That isnt the issue. You're comparing apples and orangutangs.
The issue is how much value the employee creates. Part of that calculus is how skilled he is. But not necessarily.

More important in this context means worth more money.

When any moron off the street can run a machine they aren't worth much.

It's not true that any moron off the street can run a machine. It takes an ability to show up on time, sober and ready to work It takes an ability to follow instructions. It takes an ability to work at a very boring task for 8 hours or more without giving up.
Those dont sound like difficult skills but you'd be surprised how many people cannot do them. This is why factory workers even jus machine operators tend to make pretty good money given their education levels etc.

They aren't skills at all.

 

[georgephillip]

I've answered that a thousand times. Make government smaller, there is therefore less for them to control. That is the only way. Government is made of people, people are corruptible. People with money will buy them You can't change that. So you make the amount that can be corrupted as small as possible.

You ducked my Wall Street question; here's another chance:
In the late 1980s the Savings and Loan Scandal resulted in the government prosecuting over 1000 Wall Street executives and sending hundreds of them to prison.

Contrast that with Obama's prosecution of 0 Wall Street executives for the much larger looting in 2007; which is the appropriate governmental response in your opinion, and what effect would drowning the SEC in your small government libertarian bathtub have on its outcome?

 

[georgephillip]

The country has been steadily marching to the left, not right

Since when?