Analyzing A Practical Minimum Wage

[HereWeGoAgain]

Pacifier? What??

Heh.. ok. It was just an insult. I thought you alluding to something related to the argument.

Anyway, the dynamic I've seen is that liberals encourage state dependency, and then conservatives use it as an excuse to control those on the dole. The push for drug testing welfare recipients is a good example. And you see it in the general disdain many conservatives have for those on public assistance.

You got it backwards. Dems want to keep people poor and dependent on the gov. They are the ones exploiting the poor...for votes.

 

[Iceweasel]

Heh.. ok. It was just an insult. I thought you alluding to something related to the argument.

Anyway, the dynamic I've seen is that liberals encourage state dependency, and then conservatives use it as an excuse to control those on the dole. The push for drug testing welfare recipients is a good example. And you see it in the general disdain many conservatives have for those on public assistance.

That's an over simplification. Conservatives don't typically disfavor helping those that truly need it, we are opposed to the great many able bodied types that take advantage and live off of others. Drug testing would be an excellent idea. Why should I pay for someone to laze around and get high? That's your example of conservatives controlling the needy?

 

[dblack]

Heh.. ok. It was just an insult. I thought you alluding to something related to the argument.

Anyway, the dynamic I've seen is that liberals encourage state dependency, and then conservatives use it as an excuse to control those on the dole. The push for drug testing welfare recipients is a good example. And you see it in the general disdain many conservatives have for those on public assistance.

That's an over simplification. Conservatives don't typically disfavor helping those that truly need it, we are opposed to the great many able bodied types that take advantage and live off of others. Drug testing would be an excellent idea. Why should I pay for someone to laze around and get high? That's your example of conservatives controlling the needy?

One of them, yeah. And it's a premise that troubles me in the face of socializing medicine. When our health care becomes the financial responsibility of the state, funded by taxpayers, will you use the same logic to dictate personal health habits? Why should you pay for someone to laze around and get fat?

 

[dblack]

Pacifier? What??

Heh.. ok. It was just an insult. I thought you alluding to something related to the argument.

Anyway, the dynamic I've seen is that liberals encourage state dependency, and then conservatives use it as an excuse to control those on the dole. The push for drug testing welfare recipients is a good example. And you see it in the general disdain many conservatives have for those on public assistance.

You got it backwards. Dems want to keep people poor and dependent on the gov. They are the ones exploiting the poor...for votes.

I don't deny that. I'm just pointing out that the tendency of many conservatives to blame the victims, rather than the ambitious politicians, isn't helpful.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Pacifier? What??

Heh.. ok. It was just an insult. I thought you alluding to something related to the argument.

Anyway, the dynamic I've seen is that liberals encourage state dependency, and then conservatives use it as an excuse to control those on the dole. The push for drug testing welfare recipients is a good example. And you see it in the general disdain many conservatives have for those on public assistance.

You got it backwards. Dems want to keep people poor and dependent on the gov. They are the ones exploiting the poor...for votes.

I don't deny that. I'm just pointing out that the tendency of many conservatives to blame the victims, rather than the ambitious politicians isn't helpful.

While that may be true to a certain extent,you cant be a victim unless you allow it.

 

[Iceweasel]

Heh.. ok. It was just an insult. I thought you alluding to something related to the argument.

Anyway, the dynamic I've seen is that liberals encourage state dependency, and then conservatives use it as an excuse to control those on the dole. The push for drug testing welfare recipients is a good example. And you see it in the general disdain many conservatives have for those on public assistance.

That's an over simplification. Conservatives don't typically disfavor helping those that truly need it, we are opposed to the great many able bodied types that take advantage and live off of others. Drug testing would be an excellent idea. Why should I pay for someone to laze around and get high? That's your example of conservatives controlling the needy?

One of them, yeah. And it's a premise that troubles me in the face of socializing medicine. When our health care becomes the financial responsibility of the state, funded by taxpayers, will you use the same logic to dictate personal health habits? Why should you pay for someone to laze around and get fat?

Conservatives didn't vote in obamacare. In fact, no Republicans did.

 

[Iceweasel]

I don't deny that. I'm just pointing out that the tendency of many conservatives to blame the victims, rather than the ambitious politicians, isn't helpful.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Conservatives have been harping about the nanny state making people into dependents for decades. Reagan did so quite often.

 

[dblack]

Heh.. ok. It was just an insult. I thought you alluding to something related to the argument.

Anyway, the dynamic I've seen is that liberals encourage state dependency, and then conservatives use it as an excuse to control those on the dole. The push for drug testing welfare recipients is a good example. And you see it in the general disdain many conservatives have for those on public assistance.

That's an over simplification. Conservatives don't typically disfavor helping those that truly need it, we are opposed to the great many able bodied types that take advantage and live off of others. Drug testing would be an excellent idea. Why should I pay for someone to laze around and get high? That's your example of conservatives controlling the needy?

One of them, yeah. And it's a premise that troubles me in the face of socializing medicine. When our health care becomes the financial responsibility of the state, funded by taxpayers, will you use the same logic to dictate personal health habits? Why should you pay for someone to laze around and get fat?

Conservatives didn't vote in obamacare. In fact, no Republicans did.

I know. But what about my question? If the Dems succeed in socializing health care, would apply the same logic? Would you then support laws requiring people to exercise and take better care of their health because "your tax dollars" are paying for it if they don't?

 

[Iceweasel]

I know. But what about my question? If the Dems succeed in socializing health care, would apply the same logic? Would you then support laws requiring people to exercise and take better care of their health because "your tax dollars" are paying for it if they don't?

Sure why not? Make them exercise in the courtyards before going to work at the collective. Freedom is so over rated.

 

[dblack]

I know. But what about my question? If the Dems succeed in socializing health care, would apply the same logic? Would you then support laws requiring people to exercise and take better care of their health because "your tax dollars" are paying for it if they don't?

Sure why not? Make them exercise in the courtyards before going to work at the collective. Freedom is so over rated.

I'm serious. What's different between that rationale and the one you offer for drug testing welfare recipients? If we do get socialized medicine, will you be ok with your tax dollars being spent on people who aren't taking good care of their health? (smokers, over-eaters, people who don't exercise, alcoholics, people who play dangerous sports)

 

[Iceweasel]

I know. But what about my question? If the Dems succeed in socializing health care, would apply the same logic? Would you then support laws requiring people to exercise and take better care of their health because "your tax dollars" are paying for it if they don't?

Sure why not? Make them exercise in the courtyards before going to work at the collective. Freedom is so over rated.

I'm serious. What's different between that rationale and the one you offer for drug testing welfare recipients? If we do get socialized medicine, will you be ok with your tax dollars being spent on people who aren't taking good care of their health? (smokers, over-eaters, people who don't exercise, alcoholics, people who play dangerous sports)

If it helps pricing go down I'm all for it. But paying dopers to get high enables their lifestyles. I'm not aware that anyone can live off of obamacare. It's worse than I thought.

 

[OnePercenter]

Minimum wage should not be set to allow someone the ability to afford average rent.

Also, minimum wage is not intended to allow someone to subsist all by themselves. Spouses, teens, and those working second jobs do not need a high minimum wage.

Sociopath rant......

Titty-baby tantrum.

Thank you for proving my post.

 

[OnePercenter]

Where do single people pay $1,000 a month rent?

My GF is only paying $750 mortgage for a 3 BR house in a very nice suburb of a major city.

Which major city? How much did she put down? You have a GF who is a homeowner? Why is she going out with you?

 

[dblack]

I know. But what about my question? If the Dems succeed in socializing health care, would apply the same logic? Would you then support laws requiring people to exercise and take better care of their health because "your tax dollars" are paying for it if they don't?

Sure why not? Make them exercise in the courtyards before going to work at the collective. Freedom is so over rated.

I'm serious. What's different between that rationale and the one you offer for drug testing welfare recipients? If we do get socialized medicine, will you be ok with your tax dollars being spent on people who aren't taking good care of their health? (smokers, over-eaters, people who don't exercise, alcoholics, people who play dangerous sports)

If it helps pricing go down I'm all for it.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Let's take a clear-cut example. Would you be okay with your tax dollars paying for the health care of AIDS victims who contracted the disease through irresponsible sex?

 

[OnePercenter]

Where is it written that one 40 hour a week job is supposed to pay all your expenses?

Notice this guy makes no mention of training, education or skills set that would allow your to EARN your keep.

How does he justify a HS dropout deserving $3,025 after taxes?

How much do you pay people that make all of your money for you?

 

[dblack]

Where is it written that one 40 hour a week job is supposed to pay all your expenses?

Notice this guy makes no mention of training, education or skills set that would allow your to EARN your keep.

How does he justify a HS dropout deserving $3,025 after taxes?

How much do you pay people that make all of your money for you?

How much do you pay for groceries?

 

[OnePercenter]

[
Not all teens need a living wage. Mine certainly don't. Not all spouses getting a second job need a living wage, one of my employees takes seasonal jobs at Christmas and in the summer and she makes $50K with company-paid health insurance working for us.

The problem with mandating that all jobs must pay a living wage is that it there are too many jobs that don't provide enough value to the business to justify that pay. Those jobs cease to exist when the minimum wage exceeds the value. That doesn't help those at the bottom at all.

Because all or part of their living expenses are subsidized by you?

What value do you set for an employee that makes you all of your money?

 

[Iceweasel]

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Let's take a clear-cut example. Would you be okay with your tax dollars paying for the health care of AIDS victims who contracted the disease through irresponsible sex?

How is that the same thing? But no, I wouldn't want to pay for their very expensive care.

 

[OnePercenter]

Sociopath? That's interesting. I've noticed a trend when disagreeing with someone who can't back up his claims, he tends to accuse the opposing party of a mental illness.

You make a huge profit off of lower paid workers, you just outsource them so you can claim something different. How much do the people cleaning your offices make? How much do your landscapers make? How much do the maintenance workers make?

It's not $49K plus benefits that's for sure, but since you pay vendors for those tasks you get to think you are somehow better.

Your lacking a sense of moral responsibility and/or social conscience cements my accusations of sociopath.

I don't outsource. You can't control quality control outsourcing.

There is only one office. The Husband and Wife team company that was hired to clean the office make far more than $23.50/hr.

I don't hire landscapers, the building owner does.

Maintenance of equipment is done by mobile services, Ford/Hertz.

The lowest paid employee makes $49K/yr plus employer paid benefits.

 

[Iceweasel]

You can't control quality control outsourcing.

Really? That's going to be major news to a whole bunch of people, including Ford.