Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's stunningly incorrect.We usually see eye to eye. I dont know why this is so hard for you though.Not any 5 yr old can do that.Staying sober? Doing what you're told?
Shit any 5 year old can do that
How about getting out of bed? How much are you going to pay a guy for that?
Hell, lots of 20 something year olds can't do that. Dont believe me?
And it's not my responsibility to make them do it is it?
Sorry but you
re barking up the wrong tree if you're looking for sympathy from me for people who have so little drive and common sense as not to know you have to get to work on time and not be drunk.
What I outlined are basic job skills Very basic. But lots of people just don't have them. Especially starting off. That's why they get paid min wage.
Sorry but waking up in the morning is not a job skill, neither is showing up on time and sober.
The only "skill" needed to show up on time is the ability to read a clock and most people learn that in grade school.
This is just like the obesity thread. Just as people know that eating better and exercising will result in weight loss they all know that showing up to work late and drunk will get them fired.
You have to budget time. You have to dress appropriately. I realize this seems pretty elemental. And it is. But it is surprising how many people actually cannot do this.
Have you ever hired for an entry level position?
Right, if you scare them, people with money won't try to use it to buy influence and politicians will become honest. What color is the sky in your world?
I didn't say they wouldn't try. But using disencentives could work if it is enforced. You are not going to get rid of all the corruption, but you have to start somewhere. Start locking up the corrupt corporate CEOs, for one. The corrupt politicians for another. And I don't mean in a Hilton Hotel jail cell, either. Put them in with the general prison population. If that doesn't scare them straight, nothing will.
So your plan is for politicians to pass laws that put themselves and the people buying them into an actual prison, not a white collar one. That's your plan. You didn't answer one question. What color is the sky in your world?
Yes I realize that in the corrupt political environment in which we find ourselves today, that's as likely to happen as to see pigs fly. It does take leadership, something we don't have. I said that that is what needs to happen. I didn't say it was going to be a reality anytime soon.
Well, we agree on that. Cutting taxes and spending is something that could be measured by an aware public. Accountability isn't. So just spending less would work if people got behind it.
LOL!No, you described the effects of inflation, the moving of high-paying jobs overseas...You said "Most Wal-Mart employees don't make as much as you think they should because the work they do does not warrant it." I addressed most of that in several posts.
You haven't said anything with regard to the fact that the work they do does not warrant more pay -- that is, a minimum wage job pays minimum wage because the work done doesn't wararnt more.
People earn what they job they have is worth paying.
Want more pay? Develop skills that an employer will pay you more to use.
Its up to YOU to get a better job; it's not the government's job to force companies to subsidize your lack of motivation, education, training or ability
It's an artificial standard set up to justify paying slave wages. It's bullshit. If you are an employer paying minimum wage to the bulk of your work force, and have a 15% profit margin, then it is clear that those employees have value in the company. The company, in fact, would not exist without them. The fact that so many high paying jobs have been lost means that many people are now relying utterly on these lower paying jobs, a huge proportion of the work force, in fact. And so, what has happened is that the corporations have pulled the rug from underneath the middle class in this country. Ordinary people are working hard than ever for less pay, and factoring in inflation, it means they are riding a sinking boat. Thank you Ronnie Raygun.
Yes. Wages ought to be set by benevolent bureaucrats who have the interests of workers in mind. Don't you know that by now?The open labor market sets an artificial standard?It's an artificial standard set up to justify paying slave wages.No, you described the effects of inflation, the moving of high-paying jobs overseas...You said "Most Wal-Mart employees don't make as much as you think they should because the work they do does not warrant it." I addressed most of that in several posts.
You haven't said anything with regard to the fact that the work they do does not warrant more pay -- that is, a minimum wage job pays minimum wage because the work done doesn't wararnt more.
People earn what they job they have is worth paying.
Want more pay? Develop skills that an employer will pay you more to use.
Its up to YOU to get a better job; it's not the government's job to force companies to subsidize your lack of motivation, education, training or ability
If the open labor market doesn't set a legitimate standard as to what pay a job is worth, what does?
The open labor market sets an artificial standard?It's an artificial standard set up to justify paying slave wages.No, you described the effects of inflation, the moving of high-paying jobs overseas...You said "Most Wal-Mart employees don't make as much as you think they should because the work they do does not warrant it." I addressed most of that in several posts.
You haven't said anything with regard to the fact that the work they do does not warrant more pay -- that is, a minimum wage job pays minimum wage because the work done doesn't wararnt more.
People earn what they job they have is worth paying.
Want more pay? Develop skills that an employer will pay you more to use.
Its up to YOU to get a better job; it's not the government's job to force companies to subsidize your lack of motivation, education, training or ability
If the open labor market doesn't set a legitimate standard as to what pay a job is worth, what does?
Wait. So if it isnt an open labor market, what is it?The open labor market sets an artificial standard?It's an artificial standard set up to justify paying slave wages.No, you described the effects of inflation, the moving of high-paying jobs overseas...You said "Most Wal-Mart employees don't make as much as you think they should because the work they do does not warrant it." I addressed most of that in several posts.
You haven't said anything with regard to the fact that the work they do does not warrant more pay -- that is, a minimum wage job pays minimum wage because the work done doesn't wararnt more.
People earn what they job they have is worth paying.
Want more pay? Develop skills that an employer will pay you more to use.
Its up to YOU to get a better job; it's not the government's job to force companies to subsidize your lack of motivation, education, training or ability
If the open labor market doesn't set a legitimate standard as to what pay a job is worth, what does?
It is not an open labor market. It hasn't been for quite a long time. The job market has left so many so far behind that, as we keep hearing from the right, many have simply given up on looking. That is not a sustainable situation. You cannot treat people as commodities. It is unethical, violates their human rights, their dignity, and puts them in the poor house. Moreover, it is a lousy business model. Happy, well paid workers are very good for the economy, and makes for a happier, mor productive nation.
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.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.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.
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.
Ok - so what?
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.
LOL!No, you described the effects of inflation, the moving of high-paying jobs overseas...You said "Most Wal-Mart employees don't make as much as you think they should because the work they do does not warrant it." I addressed most of that in several posts.
You haven't said anything with regard to the fact that the work they do does not warrant more pay -- that is, a minimum wage job pays minimum wage because the work done doesn't wararnt more.
People earn what they job they have is worth paying.
Want more pay? Develop skills that an employer will pay you more to use.
Its up to YOU to get a better job; it's not the government's job to force companies to subsidize your lack of motivation, education, training or ability
It's an artificial standard set up to justify paying slave wages. It's bullshit. If you are an employer paying minimum wage to the bulk of your work force, and have a 15% profit margin, then it is clear that those employees have value in the company. The company, in fact, would not exist without them. The fact that so many high paying jobs have been lost means that many people are now relying utterly on these lower paying jobs, a huge proportion of the work force, in fact. And so, what has happened is that the corporations have pulled the rug from underneath the middle class in this country. Ordinary people are working hard than ever for less pay, and factoring in inflation, it means they are riding a sinking boat. Thank you Ronnie Raygun.
Reagan has been out of office for 30 years yet it's his fault.
Obama has been in office for 6 years but nothing is his fault.
Thanks for revealing yourself as an ignorant buffoon.
Wait. So if it isnt an open labor market, what is it?The open labor market sets an artificial standard?It's an artificial standard set up to justify paying slave wages.No, you described the effects of inflation, the moving of high-paying jobs overseas...You said "Most Wal-Mart employees don't make as much as you think they should because the work they do does not warrant it." I addressed most of that in several posts.
You haven't said anything with regard to the fact that the work they do does not warrant more pay -- that is, a minimum wage job pays minimum wage because the work done doesn't wararnt more.
People earn what they job they have is worth paying.
Want more pay? Develop skills that an employer will pay you more to use.
Its up to YOU to get a better job; it's not the government's job to force companies to subsidize your lack of motivation, education, training or ability
If the open labor market doesn't set a legitimate standard as to what pay a job is worth, what does?
It is not an open labor market. It hasn't been for quite a long time. The job market has left so many so far behind that, as we keep hearing from the right, many have simply given up on looking. That is not a sustainable situation. You cannot treat people as commodities. It is unethical, violates their human rights, their dignity, and puts them in the poor house. Moreover, it is a lousy business model. Happy, well paid workers are very good for the economy, and makes for a happier, mor productive nation.
You are free to work wherever someone will hire you.It is not an open labor market.The open labor market sets an artificial standard?It's an artificial standard set up to justify paying slave wages.No, you described the effects of inflation, the moving of high-paying jobs overseas...You said "Most Wal-Mart employees don't make as much as you think they should because the work they do does not warrant it." I addressed most of that in several posts.
You haven't said anything with regard to the fact that the work they do does not warrant more pay -- that is, a minimum wage job pays minimum wage because the work done doesn't wararnt more.
People earn what they job they have is worth paying.
Want more pay? Develop skills that an employer will pay you more to use.
Its up to YOU to get a better job; it's not the government's job to force companies to subsidize your lack of motivation, education, training or ability
If the open labor market doesn't set a legitimate standard as to what pay a job is worth, what does?
Ah, I see. You were a stoner back in the day and miss those glory years.Thank you Ronnie Raygun.
The open labor market sets an artificial standard?It's an artificial standard set up to justify paying slave wages.No, you described the effects of inflation, the moving of high-paying jobs overseas...You said "Most Wal-Mart employees don't make as much as you think they should because the work they do does not warrant it." I addressed most of that in several posts.
You haven't said anything with regard to the fact that the work they do does not warrant more pay -- that is, a minimum wage job pays minimum wage because the work done doesn't wararnt more.
People earn what they job they have is worth paying.
Want more pay? Develop skills that an employer will pay you more to use.
Its up to YOU to get a better job; it's not the government's job to force companies to subsidize your lack of motivation, education, training or ability
If the open labor market doesn't set a legitimate standard as to what pay a job is worth, what does?
It is not an open labor market. It hasn't been for quite a long time. The job market has left so many so far behind that, as we keep hearing from the right, many have simply given up on looking. That is not a sustainable situation. You cannot treat people as commodities. It is unethical, violates their human rights, their dignity, and puts them in the poor house. Moreover, it is a lousy business model. Happy, well paid workers are very good for the economy, and makes for a happier, mor productive nation.
Democrats have controlled both Congress and trhe White House many times since Reagan left office.LOL!No, you described the effects of inflation, the moving of high-paying jobs overseas...You said "Most Wal-Mart employees don't make as much as you think they should because the work they do does not warrant it." I addressed most of that in several posts.
You haven't said anything with regard to the fact that the work they do does not warrant more pay -- that is, a minimum wage job pays minimum wage because the work done doesn't wararnt more.
People earn what they job they have is worth paying.
Want more pay? Develop skills that an employer will pay you more to use.
Its up to YOU to get a better job; it's not the government's job to force companies to subsidize your lack of motivation, education, training or ability
It's an artificial standard set up to justify paying slave wages. It's bullshit. If you are an employer paying minimum wage to the bulk of your work force, and have a 15% profit margin, then it is clear that those employees have value in the company. The company, in fact, would not exist without them. The fact that so many high paying jobs have been lost means that many people are now relying utterly on these lower paying jobs, a huge proportion of the work force, in fact. And so, what has happened is that the corporations have pulled the rug from underneath the middle class in this country. Ordinary people are working hard than ever for less pay, and factoring in inflation, it means they are riding a sinking boat. Thank you Ronnie Raygun.
Reagan has been out of office for 30 years yet it's his fault.
Obama has been in office for 6 years but nothing is his fault.
Thanks for revealing yourself as an ignorant buffoon.
His legacy is still alive and well with trickle down economics, dude. You know, that economic model highly praised by the right and their corporate lackeys that didn't actually trickle down anything.
Hegemony is not a labor market.Wait. So if it isnt an open labor market, what is it?The open labor market sets an artificial standard?It's an artificial standard set up to justify paying slave wages.No, you described the effects of inflation, the moving of high-paying jobs overseas...
You haven't said anything with regard to the fact that the work they do does not warrant more pay -- that is, a minimum wage job pays minimum wage because the work done doesn't wararnt more.
People earn what they job they have is worth paying.
Want more pay? Develop skills that an employer will pay you more to use.
Its up to YOU to get a better job; it's not the government's job to force companies to subsidize your lack of motivation, education, training or ability
If the open labor market doesn't set a legitimate standard as to what pay a job is worth, what does?
It is not an open labor market. It hasn't been for quite a long time. The job market has left so many so far behind that, as we keep hearing from the right, many have simply given up on looking. That is not a sustainable situation. You cannot treat people as commodities. It is unethical, violates their human rights, their dignity, and puts them in the poor house. Moreover, it is a lousy business model. Happy, well paid workers are very good for the economy, and makes for a happier, mor productive nation.
Hegemony, according to a recent Princeton study.
Are you kidding? He knows of Reagan only from onlne posts and Youtube videos. Hell, he probably doesnt remember Clinton.Ah, I see. You were a stoner back in the day and miss those glory years.Thank you Ronnie Raygun.
The evidence is to the contrary. Plus I started a business serving other businesses and lived it. It's actually supply side economics, libs didn't understand it so they named it trickle down. They need things simple and neat.His legacy is still alive and well with trickle down economics, dude. You know, that economic model highly praised by the right and their corporate lackeys that didn't actually trickle down anything.
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.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.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.
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.
Ok - so what?
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.
Let me assure you - I KNOW poverty. I came from poverty. I WAS poverty. I AM the American success story. I busted my ass in order to go from a house that didn't have running water until I was 14 to where I am now (three houses). You can't tell me it can't be done, because I am the living proof of your lie.
I know it doesn't feed your innate sense of elitism, but we get exactly what we deserve in this life - whether we want it or not. I know you NEED to look down on people - you NEED to have somebody to feel sorry for - you NEED to have somebody you can care for. It feeds your ego --- I recognize that.
It all got a little fuzzy during the Carter administration.Are you kidding? He knows of Reagan only from onlne posts and Youtube videos. Hell, he probably doesnt remember Clinton.
Ah, I see. You were a stoner back in the day and miss those glory years.Thank you Ronnie Raygun.
Bzzzzt wrong. See? You don't even understand the right. We say it isn't up to government (or you) to decide who rises up. We know people are different, some are go getters, some, not so much. Taking money from the go getter and giving it to Mr. Notsomuch doesn't help the economy and when the economy suffers, Mr. Notsomuch suffers right along with it like most everyone else.I didn't say it cannot be done. But each person's situation is different. The right wing elitist cry "what one man can do, another can do" is based on ignorance of the human condition. Not everyone is capable of "pulling themselves up by their bootstraps". Whether or not you believe it is irrelevant. It is a simple fact. There is no mold you can pour people into and have them all come out the same. It is a fantasy, a dangerous, costly one. And unnecessary.
So maybe you agree that some people are worth more than others.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.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.
Ok - so what?
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.
Let me assure you - I KNOW poverty. I came from poverty. I WAS poverty. I AM the American success story. I busted my ass in order to go from a house that didn't have running water until I was 14 to where I am now (three houses). You can't tell me it can't be done, because I am the living proof of your lie.
I know it doesn't feed your innate sense of elitism, but we get exactly what we deserve in this life - whether we want it or not. I know you NEED to look down on people - you NEED to have somebody to feel sorry for - you NEED to have somebody you can care for. It feeds your ego --- I recognize that.
I didn't say it cannot be done. But each person's situation is different. The right wing elitist cry "what one man can do, another can do" is based on ignorance of the human condition. Not everyone is capable of "pulling themselves up by their bootstraps". Whether or not you believe it is irrelevant. It is a simple fact. There is no mold you can pour people into and have them all come out the same. It is a fantasy, a dangerous, costly one. And unnecessary.
