America doesn't have a jobs issue, WE HAVE A WAGE ISSUE.

[Broncho4]

When workers earn less and need to support their families I have no issue paying higher taxes so they can have a wage subsidy/welfare but making the business pay the additional cost in the form of higher wages falsely inflates the value of the employees job. If you flip burgers for a living thats not really all that valuable as most people can do that. If you can build an IP network from the ground up you are more valuable as less people can do that.

Again, I disagree. I believe that the availability of earned income credits, food stamps, MedicAid, and other assistance to low wage earners is actively assisting in the transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top 5% wage earners in America.

Let's use Walmart as an example. They are one of the most egregious examples of a wildly profitable corporation, which has used your strategy of taxpayer subsidies so effectively, that wages in the entire retail sector have been affected, throughout the nation. Their HR Department actively helps its employees apply for food stamps, MedicAid, and ensures their hours are kept low enough for the employees to qualify for earned income credits.

It is said that every taxpayer in America has contributed $2,500 to pay subsidize Walmart employees wages, whether or not they ever set foot in a Walmart store. If Walmart paid each of its employees $100 a week more in wages, their employees would not qualify for this assistance, and instead, would themselves become tax payers.

Walmart would still be a very profitable corporation, just not the 8th most profitable Corporation in America. For example, there was one year where Walmart made $26 Billion, making it the 2nd most profitable corporation in America that year. Had the corporation not received taxpayer subsidies and been required to pay its employees a living wage, they would still have earned $15 billion.

I don't think that the Walton Family members really need that additional $9 billion. But I am betting that every middle-class American tax payer could use a $2,500 break. And that's just ONE big corporation. It should also be noted that Walmart is also the largest retailer in Canada, and one of the most profitable, and yet it manages to pay its employees here $11 per hour.

Because Walmart is the largest retailer in America, other large retailers were forced to adopt similar strategies in order to remain competitive with Walmart. And thus, the wages of retail workers throughout America were suppressed.

You can substitute McDonalds for the fast food industry, and tell a similar story. Now add together all of the taxes the middle class taxpayers are paying which are improving the profits of some of the largest corporations in America, and their top executives, who are all making millions, and you can see how the current tax structure is transferring wealth from the middle class to the top.

Please, make these corporations pay their own damn employees!

Thank you for posting an informative post. Too often this site devolves into name calling and arguing.

 

[OnePercenter]

Providing jobs for millions of people, contributing hundreds of millions to charities and providing products at a price attractive to low and middle income people.

That is "unbridled" capitalism? How?

Paying your employees so little that they qualify for welfare while taking tens of billions in taxpayer subsidy funds.

s0n........when you have a government that is pursuing a trickle-up poverty economic policy, opportunities to move ahead reach the level of being ghey. Wiping out the middle class is the objective of any good progressive and I must say, the strategy is brilliant = eliminates a need for elections. Progressives think a magical world is everybody making $15/hour no matter if you stock the shelves or run the store......which of course is stoopid and which is why less than 20% of the population consider themselves a progressive.

s0n........when you have a government that is pursuing a trickle-up poverty economic policy, opportunities to move ahead reach the level of being ghey. Wiping out the middle class is the objective of any good progressive and I must say, the strategy is brilliant = eliminates a need for elections. Progressives think a magical world is everybody making $15/hour no matter if you stock the shelves or run the store......which of course is stoopid and which is why less than 20% of the population consider themselves a progressive.

wtf?

OK, I'll play.

My guess that trickle-up poverty has something to do with paying a living wage. Why Not?

Republican deregulation has hurt the middle class financially more than any 'progressive' plan.

Govt corruption is what hurts the middle class, and corruption swirls around all those garbage social policies. It goes beyond corruption to sheer evil intent.

Govt corruption is what hurts the middle class, and corruption swirls around all those garbage social policies. It goes beyond corruption to sheer evil intent.

Yes. Republican deregulation HAS hurt the middle class.

Because progressives punish the people when the people fight to remove restrictive regulations.

Because progressives punish the people when the people fight to remove restrictive regulations.

What restrictive regulations?

 

[OnePercenter]

Providing for the general welfare gives the feds the power to tax. I disagree the minimum should be raised. I think taxes should go up to provide more funds to people making less than what would give them adequate housing, food, etc.

I disagree strongly with this approach. Firstly, this is amounts to a wage subsidy to some of the largest most profitable companies in America. At present, every American taxpayer contributes about $2,500 to Walmart employees federal assistance.

Secondly, you have to pay federal employees to collect the tax, and still more federal employees to determine who should receive assistance, and still more employees to issue the checks and pay them.

It would be preferrable to have the employers raise the wages, cutting out the costs of collecting and redistributing the amount the poor are to receive. The wages paid by the employer are tax deductible, so the net cost to the employer is less than the employee is receiving. It's a win/win for everyone - the employee, the employer, and the taxpayers.

I agree it would be a wage subsidy. However, how do you rationalize paying people more than what they produce? Think about it for a minute. I own a company and I sell widgets that cost me $10 for raw material to build. I sell them at $20. Now I have to pay my employee that pushes the widgets down the assembly line $11. Why should i bother being in business?

I agree it would be a wage subsidy. However, how do you rationalize paying people more than what they produce? Think about it for a minute. I own a company and I sell widgets that cost me $10 for raw material to build. I sell them at $20. Now I have to pay my employee that pushes the widgets down the assembly line $11. Why should i bother being in business?

How many widgets do you sell?

Doesnt matter because this is per widget.

Doesnt matter because this is per widget.

How many widgets can be made per hour?

 

[Asclepias]

Providing for the general welfare gives the feds the power to tax. I disagree the minimum should be raised. I think taxes should go up to provide more funds to people making less than what would give them adequate housing, food, etc.

I disagree strongly with this approach. Firstly, this is amounts to a wage subsidy to some of the largest most profitable companies in America. At present, every American taxpayer contributes about $2,500 to Walmart employees federal assistance.

Secondly, you have to pay federal employees to collect the tax, and still more federal employees to determine who should receive assistance, and still more employees to issue the checks and pay them.

It would be preferrable to have the employers raise the wages, cutting out the costs of collecting and redistributing the amount the poor are to receive. The wages paid by the employer are tax deductible, so the net cost to the employer is less than the employee is receiving. It's a win/win for everyone - the employee, the employer, and the taxpayers.

I agree it would be a wage subsidy. However, how do you rationalize paying people more than what they produce? Think about it for a minute. I own a company and I sell widgets that cost me $10 for raw material to build. I sell them at $20. Now I have to pay my employee that pushes the widgets down the assembly line $11. Why should i bother being in business?

I agree it would be a wage subsidy. However, how do you rationalize paying people more than what they produce? Think about it for a minute. I own a company and I sell widgets that cost me $10 for raw material to build. I sell them at $20. Now I have to pay my employee that pushes the widgets down the assembly line $11. Why should i bother being in business?

How many widgets do you sell?

Doesnt matter because this is per widget.

Doesnt matter because this is per widget.

How many widgets can be made per hour?

Doesnt matter because this is per widget.

 

[OnePercenter]

To the OP ---> No. We do not have a wage issue. We have an opportunity issue.
It is NOT a lack of wages, it is a lack of opportunity for better paying jobs.

Bloviating double-talk. Better paying jobs are already here, employers won't fork over the cash.

Yes they do. High skilled worker make good money. Burger flippers do not.

Yes they do. High skilled worker make good money. Burger flippers do not.

Without 'burger flippers,' wouldn't the restaurant fail?

They will have burger flippers either way, forced wage increases or not. The wage increase will simply speed up automation.

They will have burger flippers either way, forced wage increases or not. The wage increase will simply speed up automation.

No it won't. Automation is stuck because of technology.

Technology is not stuck. Humans are stuck. The only reason everything isnt automated yet is because it has to be phased in. As the older generation (which needs human interaction) dies out look for more and more automation.

Technology is not stuck. Humans are stuck. The only reason everything isnt automated yet is because it has to be phased in. As the older generation (which needs human interaction) dies out look for more and more automation.

Technology is stuck because human's haven't figured out a way to advance it. Do you think for one minute if their was a burger flipping robot that someone, somewhere, wouldn't be using it?

 

[OnePercenter]

Wages can't go up artificially without a negative effect elsewhere. Liberals see everything backwards. They think wages are determined then companies make it work. Minimum wage is the attempt for government to control the economy. It isn't working.

The only way wages go up for everybody is when the economy does better. More money to go around, better pay to keep the help, etc. Liberal policies put the brakes on the economy and raising pay rates blindly can make some lose jobs, or businesses.

I agree but I am a liberal so that pretty much discredits parts of your post. Companies could make it work as long as they were making a profit. However, we know they wish to maximize their profits so they prefer to pay as little as possible.

Would you invest in a company that was just barely earning a profit? Of course not.

Workers are paid what they are worth to their employer. Why would you or I pay someone more than their value?

I wouldnt invest in any company. i only invest in myself.

Of course workers are paid at maximum what they are worth to their employers. Most of the time a lot less. No i wouldnt pay anyone more than their current value unless I wanted to keep them and groom them for more future value.

I wouldnt invest in any company. i only invest in myself.

Of course workers are paid at maximum what they are worth to their employers. Most of the time a lot less. No i wouldnt pay anyone more than their current value unless I wanted to keep them and groom them for more future value.

How much do you pay someone that makes you all of your monies?

I pay myself very handsomely.

I pay myself very handsomely.

Good for you!

 

[Asclepias]

Yes they do. High skilled worker make good money. Burger flippers do not.

Yes they do. High skilled worker make good money. Burger flippers do not.

Without 'burger flippers,' wouldn't the restaurant fail?

They will have burger flippers either way, forced wage increases or not. The wage increase will simply speed up automation.

They will have burger flippers either way, forced wage increases or not. The wage increase will simply speed up automation.

No it won't. Automation is stuck because of technology.

Technology is not stuck. Humans are stuck. The only reason everything isnt automated yet is because it has to be phased in. As the older generation (which needs human interaction) dies out look for more and more automation.

Technology is not stuck. Humans are stuck. The only reason everything isnt automated yet is because it has to be phased in. As the older generation (which needs human interaction) dies out look for more and more automation.

Technology is stuck because human's haven't figured out a way to advance it. Do you think for one minute if their was a burger flipping robot that someone, somewhere, wouldn't be using it?

Hamburger-making machine churns out custom burgers at industrial speeds

 

[OnePercenter]

What is with the weird walmat fixation among commies?

Attention....Walmart did not.create communism

Walmart is the poster child for unbridled capitalism.

Providing jobs for millions of people, contributing hundreds of millions to charities and providing products at a price attractive to low and middle income people.

That is "unbridled" capitalism? How?

Providing jobs for millions of people, contributing hundreds of millions to charities and providing products at a price attractive to low and middle income people.

That is "unbridled" capitalism? How?

Paying your employees so little that they qualify for welfare while taking tens of billions in taxpayer subsidy funds.

s0n........when you have a government that is pursuing a trickle-up poverty economic policy, opportunities to move ahead reach the level of being ghey. Wiping out the middle class is the objective of any good progressive and I must say, the strategy is brilliant = eliminates a need for elections. Progressives think a magical world is everybody making $15/hour no matter if you stock the shelves or run the store......which of course is stoopid and which is why less than 20% of the population consider themselves a progressive.

s0n........when you have a government that is pursuing a trickle-up poverty economic policy, opportunities to move ahead reach the level of being ghey. Wiping out the middle class is the objective of any good progressive and I must say, the strategy is brilliant = eliminates a need for elections. Progressives think a magical world is everybody making $15/hour no matter if you stock the shelves or run the store......which of course is stoopid and which is why less than 20% of the population consider themselves a progressive.

wtf?

OK, I'll play.

My guess that trickle-up poverty has something to do with paying a living wage. Why Not?

Republican deregulation has hurt the middle class financially more than any 'progressive' plan.

One thing I would be for is the government forcing a living wage based on a that specific companys profit margin. However just thinking about it I can see that would be a logistical nightmare.

One thing I would be for is the government forcing a living wage based on a that specific companys profit margin. However just thinking about it I can see that would be a logistical nightmare.

OK!


-Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2016 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.

-Companies with 600 employees or less, employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2015 price structure.

-Remove the FICA limit.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

-Make inversion illegal.

My plan would reduce small business costs for employees and taxes to 30%. That's a 15%-30% drop.

My plan would put BILLIONS into the economy daily.

My plan would put the $100 trillion plus currently owned by corporate America back into the economy.

My plan would end all welfare.

My plan would significantly increase social security and pension payments.

My plan would hold prices for 10 years, thus eliminating inflation.

 

[OnePercenter]

To the OP ---> No. We do not have a wage issue. We have an opportunity issue.
It is NOT a lack of wages, it is a lack of opportunity for better paying jobs.

Bloviating double-talk. Better paying jobs are already here, employers won't fork over the cash.

Yes they do. High skilled worker make good money. Burger flippers do not.

Yes they do. High skilled worker make good money. Burger flippers do not.

Without 'burger flippers,' wouldn't the restaurant fail?

They will have burger flippers either way, forced wage increases or not. The wage increase will simply speed up automation.

They will have burger flippers either way, forced wage increases or not. The wage increase will simply speed up automation.

No it won't. Automation is stuck because of technology.

The technology is freely available.

The technology is freely available.

Example?

 

[Asclepias]

Providing jobs for millions of people, contributing hundreds of millions to charities and providing products at a price attractive to low and middle income people.

That is "unbridled" capitalism? How?

Providing jobs for millions of people, contributing hundreds of millions to charities and providing products at a price attractive to low and middle income people.

That is "unbridled" capitalism? How?

Paying your employees so little that they qualify for welfare while taking tens of billions in taxpayer subsidy funds.

s0n........when you have a government that is pursuing a trickle-up poverty economic policy, opportunities to move ahead reach the level of being ghey. Wiping out the middle class is the objective of any good progressive and I must say, the strategy is brilliant = eliminates a need for elections. Progressives think a magical world is everybody making $15/hour no matter if you stock the shelves or run the store......which of course is stoopid and which is why less than 20% of the population consider themselves a progressive.

s0n........when you have a government that is pursuing a trickle-up poverty economic policy, opportunities to move ahead reach the level of being ghey. Wiping out the middle class is the objective of any good progressive and I must say, the strategy is brilliant = eliminates a need for elections. Progressives think a magical world is everybody making $15/hour no matter if you stock the shelves or run the store......which of course is stoopid and which is why less than 20% of the population consider themselves a progressive.

wtf?

OK, I'll play.

My guess that trickle-up poverty has something to do with paying a living wage. Why Not?

Republican deregulation has hurt the middle class financially more than any 'progressive' plan.

One thing I would be for is the government forcing a living wage based on a that specific companys profit margin. However just thinking about it I can see that would be a logistical nightmare.

One thing I would be for is the government forcing a living wage based on a that specific companys profit margin. However just thinking about it I can see that would be a logistical nightmare.

OK!


-Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2016 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.

-Companies with 600 employees or less, employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2015 price structure.

-Remove the FICA limit.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

-Make inversion illegal.

My plan would reduce small business costs for employees and taxes to 30%. That's a 15%-30% drop.

My plan would put BILLIONS into the economy daily.

My plan would put the $100 trillion plus currently owned by corporate America back into the economy.

My plan would end all welfare.

My plan would significantly increase social security and pension payments.

My plan would hold prices for 10 years, thus eliminating inflation.

If you ran for president you would be assassinated by the right.

 

[OnePercenter]

I agree it would be a wage subsidy. However, how do you rationalize paying people more than what they produce? Think about it for a minute. I own a company and I sell widgets that cost me $10 for raw material to build. I sell them at $20. Now I have to pay my employee that pushes the widgets down the assembly line $11. Why should i bother being in business?

You're asking the wrong question:

How much will the wage increase increase your production costs on a per unit basis? If the employee can process 60 widgets an hour, then the $3.00 per hour increase, adds 5 cents to the cost of your widget. You have the choice of adding the 5 cents to the price of your widgets, or absorbing it.

I get your point but human nature tells me there is no guarantee my employee will work faster and in fact he may actually get comfortable and slow down.

I get your point but human nature tells me there is no guarantee my employee will work faster and in fact he may actually get comfortable and slow down.

An employer can eliminate that problem by hiring correctly and placing employee retention programs.

 

[WillowTree]

Providing jobs for millions of people, contributing hundreds of millions to charities and providing products at a price attractive to low and middle income people.

That is "unbridled" capitalism? How?

Providing jobs for millions of people, contributing hundreds of millions to charities and providing products at a price attractive to low and middle income people.

That is "unbridled" capitalism? How?

Paying your employees so little that they qualify for welfare while taking tens of billions in taxpayer subsidy funds.

s0n........when you have a government that is pursuing a trickle-up poverty economic policy, opportunities to move ahead reach the level of being ghey. Wiping out the middle class is the objective of any good progressive and I must say, the strategy is brilliant = eliminates a need for elections. Progressives think a magical world is everybody making $15/hour no matter if you stock the shelves or run the store......which of course is stoopid and which is why less than 20% of the population consider themselves a progressive.

s0n........when you have a government that is pursuing a trickle-up poverty economic policy, opportunities to move ahead reach the level of being ghey. Wiping out the middle class is the objective of any good progressive and I must say, the strategy is brilliant = eliminates a need for elections. Progressives think a magical world is everybody making $15/hour no matter if you stock the shelves or run the store......which of course is stoopid and which is why less than 20% of the population consider themselves a progressive.

wtf?

OK, I'll play.

My guess that trickle-up poverty has something to do with paying a living wage. Why Not?

Republican deregulation has hurt the middle class financially more than any 'progressive' plan.

One thing I would be for is the government forcing a living wage based on a that specific companys profit margin. However just thinking about it I can see that would be a logistical nightmare.

One thing I would be for is the government forcing a living wage based on a that specific companys profit margin. However just thinking about it I can see that would be a logistical nightmare.

OK!


-Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2016 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.

-Companies with 600 employees or less, employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2015 price structure.

-Remove the FICA limit.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

-Make inversion illegal.

My plan would reduce small business costs for employees and taxes to 30%. That's a 15%-30% drop.

My plan would put BILLIONS into the economy daily.

My plan would put the $100 trillion plus currently owned by corporate America back into the economy.

My plan would end all welfare.

My plan would significantly increase social security and pension payments.

My plan would hold prices for 10 years, thus eliminating inflation.

You will whine the loudest when all the corporations leave and there are no jobs. Liberals are stupid people. You should figure out how to encourage business rather than punish it. FFS.

 

[Asclepias]

I agree it would be a wage subsidy. However, how do you rationalize paying people more than what they produce? Think about it for a minute. I own a company and I sell widgets that cost me $10 for raw material to build. I sell them at $20. Now I have to pay my employee that pushes the widgets down the assembly line $11. Why should i bother being in business?

You're asking the wrong question:

How much will the wage increase increase your production costs on a per unit basis? If the employee can process 60 widgets an hour, then the $3.00 per hour increase, adds 5 cents to the cost of your widget. You have the choice of adding the 5 cents to the price of your widgets, or absorbing it.

I get your point but human nature tells me there is no guarantee my employee will work faster and in fact he may actually get comfortable and slow down.

I get your point but human nature tells me there is no guarantee my employee will work faster and in fact he may actually get comfortable and slow down.

An employer can eliminate that problem by hiring correctly and placing employee retention programs.

That requires more cash outlay and its a pain in the ass.

 

[OnePercenter]

I disagree strongly with this approach. Firstly, this is amounts to a wage subsidy to some of the largest most profitable companies in America. At present, every American taxpayer contributes about $2,500 to Walmart employees federal assistance.

Secondly, you have to pay federal employees to collect the tax, and still more federal employees to determine who should receive assistance, and still more employees to issue the checks and pay them.

It would be preferrable to have the employers raise the wages, cutting out the costs of collecting and redistributing the amount the poor are to receive. The wages paid by the employer are tax deductible, so the net cost to the employer is less than the employee is receiving. It's a win/win for everyone - the employee, the employer, and the taxpayers.

I agree it would be a wage subsidy. However, how do you rationalize paying people more than what they produce? Think about it for a minute. I own a company and I sell widgets that cost me $10 for raw material to build. I sell them at $20. Now I have to pay my employee that pushes the widgets down the assembly line $11. Why should i bother being in business?

I agree it would be a wage subsidy. However, how do you rationalize paying people more than what they produce? Think about it for a minute. I own a company and I sell widgets that cost me $10 for raw material to build. I sell them at $20. Now I have to pay my employee that pushes the widgets down the assembly line $11. Why should i bother being in business?

How many widgets do you sell?

Doesnt matter because this is per widget.

Doesnt matter because this is per widget.

How many widgets can be made per hour?

Doesnt matter because this is per widget.

Doesnt matter because this is per widget.

Only one widget per hour can be manufactured?

 

[OnePercenter]

Yes they do. High skilled worker make good money. Burger flippers do not.

Without 'burger flippers,' wouldn't the restaurant fail?

They will have burger flippers either way, forced wage increases or not. The wage increase will simply speed up automation.

They will have burger flippers either way, forced wage increases or not. The wage increase will simply speed up automation.

No it won't. Automation is stuck because of technology.

Technology is not stuck. Humans are stuck. The only reason everything isnt automated yet is because it has to be phased in. As the older generation (which needs human interaction) dies out look for more and more automation.

Technology is not stuck. Humans are stuck. The only reason everything isnt automated yet is because it has to be phased in. As the older generation (which needs human interaction) dies out look for more and more automation.

Technology is stuck because human's haven't figured out a way to advance it. Do you think for one minute if their was a burger flipping robot that someone, somewhere, wouldn't be using it?

Hamburger-making machine churns out custom burgers at industrial speeds

Hamburger-making machine churns out custom burgers at industrial speeds

Fantastic! What restaurant is it installed?

 

[Asclepias]

I agree it would be a wage subsidy. However, how do you rationalize paying people more than what they produce? Think about it for a minute. I own a company and I sell widgets that cost me $10 for raw material to build. I sell them at $20. Now I have to pay my employee that pushes the widgets down the assembly line $11. Why should i bother being in business?

I agree it would be a wage subsidy. However, how do you rationalize paying people more than what they produce? Think about it for a minute. I own a company and I sell widgets that cost me $10 for raw material to build. I sell them at $20. Now I have to pay my employee that pushes the widgets down the assembly line $11. Why should i bother being in business?

How many widgets do you sell?

Doesnt matter because this is per widget.

Doesnt matter because this is per widget.

How many widgets can be made per hour?

Doesnt matter because this is per widget.

Doesnt matter because this is per widget.

Only one widget per hour can be manufactured?

In this hypothetical example yes. If you want to make it 10 widgets an hour go ahead. The numbers still come out the same.

 

[Asclepias]

They will have burger flippers either way, forced wage increases or not. The wage increase will simply speed up automation.

They will have burger flippers either way, forced wage increases or not. The wage increase will simply speed up automation.

No it won't. Automation is stuck because of technology.

Technology is not stuck. Humans are stuck. The only reason everything isnt automated yet is because it has to be phased in. As the older generation (which needs human interaction) dies out look for more and more automation.

Technology is not stuck. Humans are stuck. The only reason everything isnt automated yet is because it has to be phased in. As the older generation (which needs human interaction) dies out look for more and more automation.

Technology is stuck because human's haven't figured out a way to advance it. Do you think for one minute if their was a burger flipping robot that someone, somewhere, wouldn't be using it?

Hamburger-making machine churns out custom burgers at industrial speeds

"Hamburger-making machine churns out custom burgers at industrial speeds"

Fantastic! What restaurant is it installed?

I have no idea. I was answering your question.

"Do you think for one minute if their was a burger flipping robot that someone, somewhere, wouldn't be using it?"

 

[OnePercenter]

Providing jobs for millions of people, contributing hundreds of millions to charities and providing products at a price attractive to low and middle income people.

That is "unbridled" capitalism? How?

Paying your employees so little that they qualify for welfare while taking tens of billions in taxpayer subsidy funds.

s0n........when you have a government that is pursuing a trickle-up poverty economic policy, opportunities to move ahead reach the level of being ghey. Wiping out the middle class is the objective of any good progressive and I must say, the strategy is brilliant = eliminates a need for elections. Progressives think a magical world is everybody making $15/hour no matter if you stock the shelves or run the store......which of course is stoopid and which is why less than 20% of the population consider themselves a progressive.

s0n........when you have a government that is pursuing a trickle-up poverty economic policy, opportunities to move ahead reach the level of being ghey. Wiping out the middle class is the objective of any good progressive and I must say, the strategy is brilliant = eliminates a need for elections. Progressives think a magical world is everybody making $15/hour no matter if you stock the shelves or run the store......which of course is stoopid and which is why less than 20% of the population consider themselves a progressive.

wtf?

OK, I'll play.

My guess that trickle-up poverty has something to do with paying a living wage. Why Not?

Republican deregulation has hurt the middle class financially more than any 'progressive' plan.

One thing I would be for is the government forcing a living wage based on a that specific companys profit margin. However just thinking about it I can see that would be a logistical nightmare.

One thing I would be for is the government forcing a living wage based on a that specific companys profit margin. However just thinking about it I can see that would be a logistical nightmare.

OK!


-Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2016 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.

-Companies with 600 employees or less, employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2015 price structure.

-Remove the FICA limit.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

-Make inversion illegal.

My plan would reduce small business costs for employees and taxes to 30%. That's a 15%-30% drop.

My plan would put BILLIONS into the economy daily.

My plan would put the $100 trillion plus currently owned by corporate America back into the economy.

My plan would end all welfare.

My plan would significantly increase social security and pension payments.

My plan would hold prices for 10 years, thus eliminating inflation.

If you ran for president you would be assassinated by the right.

If you ran for president you would be assassinated by the right.

I have Sugar Babies so my elective potential wouldn't be realized.

 

[OnePercenter]

Providing jobs for millions of people, contributing hundreds of millions to charities and providing products at a price attractive to low and middle income people.

That is "unbridled" capitalism? How?

Paying your employees so little that they qualify for welfare while taking tens of billions in taxpayer subsidy funds.

s0n........when you have a government that is pursuing a trickle-up poverty economic policy, opportunities to move ahead reach the level of being ghey. Wiping out the middle class is the objective of any good progressive and I must say, the strategy is brilliant = eliminates a need for elections. Progressives think a magical world is everybody making $15/hour no matter if you stock the shelves or run the store......which of course is stoopid and which is why less than 20% of the population consider themselves a progressive.

s0n........when you have a government that is pursuing a trickle-up poverty economic policy, opportunities to move ahead reach the level of being ghey. Wiping out the middle class is the objective of any good progressive and I must say, the strategy is brilliant = eliminates a need for elections. Progressives think a magical world is everybody making $15/hour no matter if you stock the shelves or run the store......which of course is stoopid and which is why less than 20% of the population consider themselves a progressive.

wtf?

OK, I'll play.

My guess that trickle-up poverty has something to do with paying a living wage. Why Not?

Republican deregulation has hurt the middle class financially more than any 'progressive' plan.

One thing I would be for is the government forcing a living wage based on a that specific companys profit margin. However just thinking about it I can see that would be a logistical nightmare.

One thing I would be for is the government forcing a living wage based on a that specific companys profit margin. However just thinking about it I can see that would be a logistical nightmare.

OK!


-Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2016 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.

-Companies with 600 employees or less, employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2015 price structure.

-Remove the FICA limit.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

-Make inversion illegal.

My plan would reduce small business costs for employees and taxes to 30%. That's a 15%-30% drop.

My plan would put BILLIONS into the economy daily.

My plan would put the $100 trillion plus currently owned by corporate America back into the economy.

My plan would end all welfare.

My plan would significantly increase social security and pension payments.

My plan would hold prices for 10 years, thus eliminating inflation.

You will whine the loudest when all the corporations leave and there are no jobs. Liberals are stupid people. You should figure out how to encourage business rather than punish it. FFS.

You will whine the loudest when all the corporations leave and there are no jobs. Liberals are stupid people. You should figure out how to encourage business rather than punish it. FFS.

Why would businesses leave, I'm reducing business tax and increasing sales potential?

 

[OnePercenter]

I agree it would be a wage subsidy. However, how do you rationalize paying people more than what they produce? Think about it for a minute. I own a company and I sell widgets that cost me $10 for raw material to build. I sell them at $20. Now I have to pay my employee that pushes the widgets down the assembly line $11. Why should i bother being in business?

You're asking the wrong question:

How much will the wage increase increase your production costs on a per unit basis? If the employee can process 60 widgets an hour, then the $3.00 per hour increase, adds 5 cents to the cost of your widget. You have the choice of adding the 5 cents to the price of your widgets, or absorbing it.

I get your point but human nature tells me there is no guarantee my employee will work faster and in fact he may actually get comfortable and slow down.

I get your point but human nature tells me there is no guarantee my employee will work faster and in fact he may actually get comfortable and slow down.

An employer can eliminate that problem by hiring correctly and placing employee retention programs.

That requires more cash outlay and its a pain in the ass.

That requires more cash outlay and its a pain in the ass.

The 'Lazy Employer.'