Corporate welfare in action ....

[Ray From Cleveland]

IF corporate welfare created a living wage, we wouldn't need social welfare.



Alas, the greedy Ceos just pocket the money and leave their workers for the department of social serves to support. Shocker.

If not for the corporations providing low paying jobs, there wouldn't be any, and everyone would be on full benefits.

They are able spare a living wage. They don't want to and they don't care. The owners of Wal-Mart are making a killing and a high number of their employees don't make enough to make ends meet. They can pay people more, they don't. And it's not right.

If you understood anything about how business works, you would understand why they don't.

One of the key elements in business is investors. You attract investors by providing them with growth. The greater the growth, the more investors you get.

So you overpay all your workers, and then the growth of your company goes down. Your investors start dumping your stock and you have less money to invest in your business. Your former investors will buy the stock of your competitors, and then you are screwed.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

IF corporate welfare created a living wage, we wouldn't need social welfare.



Alas, the greedy Ceos just pocket the money and leave their workers for the department of social serves to support. Shocker.

An employer does all that, huh? I guess the worker is in no way responsible. After all, if your highest talent is stocking shelves, it should at least pay $22.00 an hour not because the work is worth it, but because it's the right thing to do. And as we know, people don't start businesses to make a profit, they start businesses as a social obligation.

Any American working 40 hours a week should be making a living wage. Period. If you think otherwise you're a POS.

People can't survive off 10 an hour in most places, living costs are too high!!

Then to solution is to make your labor more valuable, not forcing your employer to pay you more than your labor is worth.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Brain357]

IF corporate welfare created a living wage, we wouldn't need social welfare.



Alas, the greedy Ceos just pocket the money and leave their workers for the department of social serves to support. Shocker.

An employer does all that, huh? I guess the worker is in no way responsible. After all, if your highest talent is stocking shelves, it should at least pay $22.00 an hour not because the work is worth it, but because it's the right thing to do. And as we know, people don't start businesses to make a profit, they start businesses as a social obligation.

Any American working 40 hours a week should be making a living wage. Period. If you think otherwise you're a POS.

People can't survive off 10 an hour in most places, living costs are too high!!

Then to solution is to make your labor more valuable, not forcing your employer to pay you more than your labor is worth.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You are for gov picking winners and losers. Just increase min wage.

 

[danielpalos]

Any American working 40 hours a week should be making a living wage. ...

If they're not, how should they be punished? Is eliminatimg their jobs enough? Or do we need more stringent measures?

Let's try raising minimum wage...

I think if we raised minimum wage you would be shocked at the decrease of welfare..

When industries invest in automation to replace humans because human labor is too expensive, you will see an increase in welfare.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Compete or die, it is the Capital way, right wingers.

Socialism says, so what, let artificial persons do the hard work, so real persons can flourish.

 

[Aries]

Any American working 40 hours a week should be making a living wage. ...

If they're not, how should they be punished? Is eliminatimg their jobs enough? Or do we need more stringent measures?

Let's try raising minimum wage...

I think if we raised minimum wage you would be shocked at the decrease of welfare..

Ya think? Where would they work?

In our booming economy

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

IF corporate welfare created a living wage, we wouldn't need social welfare.



Alas, the greedy Ceos just pocket the money and leave their workers for the department of social serves to support. Shocker.

An employer does all that, huh? I guess the worker is in no way responsible. After all, if your highest talent is stocking shelves, it should at least pay $22.00 an hour not because the work is worth it, but because it's the right thing to do. And as we know, people don't start businesses to make a profit, they start businesses as a social obligation.

Any American working 40 hours a week should be making a living wage. Period. If you think otherwise you're a POS.

People can't survive off 10 an hour in most places, living costs are too high!!

Then to solution is to make your labor more valuable, not forcing your employer to pay you more than your labor is worth.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You are for gov picking winners and losers. Just increase min wage.

And who increases minimum wage? Talk about picking winners and losers.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Brain357]

IF corporate welfare created a living wage, we wouldn't need social welfare.



Alas, the greedy Ceos just pocket the money and leave their workers for the department of social serves to support. Shocker.

An employer does all that, huh? I guess the worker is in no way responsible. After all, if your highest talent is stocking shelves, it should at least pay $22.00 an hour not because the work is worth it, but because it's the right thing to do. And as we know, people don't start businesses to make a profit, they start businesses as a social obligation.

Any American working 40 hours a week should be making a living wage. Period. If you think otherwise you're a POS.

People can't survive off 10 an hour in most places, living costs are too high!!

Then to solution is to make your labor more valuable, not forcing your employer to pay you more than your labor is worth.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You are for gov picking winners and losers. Just increase min wage.

And who increases minimum wage? Talk about picking winners and losers.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The government which is why you should just increase min wage. You say the gov picks so well. Or are you free market for workers, but a socialist when big corps want to steal tax dollars?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Any American working 40 hours a week should be making a living wage. ...

If they're not, how should they be punished? Is eliminatimg their jobs enough? Or do we need more stringent measures?

Let's try raising minimum wage...

I think if we raised minimum wage you would be shocked at the decrease of welfare..

Ya think? Where would they work?

In our booming economy

When you raise the minimum to more than the work is worth, businesses cut hours and the number of employees, or leave the city/state altogether.

 

[Aries]

Any American working 40 hours a week should be making a living wage. ...

If they're not, how should they be punished? Is eliminatimg their jobs enough? Or do we need more stringent measures?

Let's try raising minimum wage...

I think if we raised minimum wage you would be shocked at the decrease of welfare..

Ya think? Where would they work?

In our booming economy

When you raise the minimum to more than the work is worth, businesses cut hours and the number of employees, or leave the city/state altogether.

You buy that?
You don't think Wal-Mart can afford to pay their cashiers 12 an hour instead of 10??? That's horse shit.

 

[Aries]

Any American working 40 hours a week should be making a living wage. ...

If they're not, how should they be punished? Is eliminatimg their jobs enough? Or do we need more stringent measures?

Let's try raising minimum wage...

I think if we raised minimum wage you would be shocked at the decrease of welfare..

Ya think? Where would they work?

In our booming economy

When you raise the minimum to more than the work is worth, businesses cut hours and the number of employees, or leave the city/state altogether.

Walton Family Members' Fortune Climbs $8.7 Billion After Strong Quarter For Wal-Mart

So the owners sit on billions and the workers can't put food on their table to feed their kids...... that is acceptable to you?

 

[Aries]

IF corporate welfare created a living wage, we wouldn't need social welfare.



Alas, the greedy Ceos just pocket the money and leave their workers for the department of social serves to support. Shocker.

An employer does all that, huh? I guess the worker is in no way responsible. After all, if your highest talent is stocking shelves, it should at least pay $22.00 an hour not because the work is worth it, but because it's the right thing to do. And as we know, people don't start businesses to make a profit, they start businesses as a social obligation.

Any American working 40 hours a week should be making a living wage. Period. If you think otherwise you're a POS.

People can't survive off 10 an hour in most places, living costs are too high!!

Then to solution is to make your labor more valuable, not forcing your employer to pay you more than your labor is worth.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The value of the labor should be adjusting in accordance to the cost of living. It's not.. And it won't without proper legislation. Why would employers pay more than necessary. Most won't.

The 1% is literally draining all of the countries money, and they have been for decades.wealth inequality is worse than I've seen in my lifetime. The middle class is shrinking and ill let you in on a little secret... They arent joining the billionaires, they're joining the impoverished.

But you guys just keep bashing the workers....
(That's what the TOP 1% needs us to do, point the finger at each other and not at them)

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

IF corporate welfare created a living wage, we wouldn't need social welfare.



Alas, the greedy Ceos just pocket the money and leave their workers for the department of social serves to support. Shocker.

An employer does all that, huh? I guess the worker is in no way responsible. After all, if your highest talent is stocking shelves, it should at least pay $22.00 an hour not because the work is worth it, but because it's the right thing to do. And as we know, people don't start businesses to make a profit, they start businesses as a social obligation.

Any American working 40 hours a week should be making a living wage. Period. If you think otherwise you're a POS.

People can't survive off 10 an hour in most places, living costs are too high!!

Then to solution is to make your labor more valuable, not forcing your employer to pay you more than your labor is worth.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The value of the labor should be adjusting in accordance to the cost of living. It's not.. And it won't without proper legislation. Why would employers pay more than necessary. Most won't.

The 1% is literally draining all of the countries money, and they have been for decades.wealth inequality is worse than I've seen in my lifetime. The middle class is shrinking and ill let you in on a little secret... They arent joining the billionaires, they're joining the impoverished.

But you guys just keep bashing the workers....
(That's what the TOP 1% needs us to do, point the finger at each other and not at them)

Nobody is bashing the worker, most of us are workers ourselves. But if you acquired no education, no skills, no trade in your life, that's an employers fault? That would be like seeing somebody jump in a lake who couldn't swim and blaming the water when he drowned.

Why would employers pay more than necessary? Well do you? When you get three estimates to have your car repaired, do you choose the highest estimate? How about remodeling your bathroom? How about with your lawn care company? Of course you don't, most people wouldn't . So why do you think there are different rules for employers?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Aries]

IF corporate welfare created a living wage, we wouldn't need social welfare.



Alas, the greedy Ceos just pocket the money and leave their workers for the department of social serves to support. Shocker.

If not for the corporations providing low paying jobs, there wouldn't be any, and everyone would be on full benefits.

They are able spare a living wage. They don't want to and they don't care. The owners of Wal-Mart are making a killing and a high number of their employees don't make enough to make ends meet. They can pay people more, they don't. And it's not right.

If you understood anything about how business works, you would understand why they don't.

One of the key elements in business is investors. You attract investors by providing them with growth. The greater the growth, the more investors you get.

So you overpay all your workers, and then the growth of your company goes down. Your investors start dumping your stock and you have less money to invest in your business. Your former investors will buy the stock of your competitors, and then you are screwed.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I have ran a business before and that explanation was trash. Paying a living wage isn't "overpaying" .... "underpaying" people brings us to people working 40 hours a week and still needing government assistance. Totally unacceptable to me.

I believe all civilized societies need some sort of safety net for our disabled, sick, mentally ill etc. But when people are working 40 hours a week, in the richest country in the world, and can't make rent THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

IF corporate welfare created a living wage, we wouldn't need social welfare.



Alas, the greedy Ceos just pocket the money and leave their workers for the department of social serves to support. Shocker.

If not for the corporations providing low paying jobs, there wouldn't be any, and everyone would be on full benefits.

They are able spare a living wage. They don't want to and they don't care. The owners of Wal-Mart are making a killing and a high number of their employees don't make enough to make ends meet. They can pay people more, they don't. And it's not right.

If you understood anything about how business works, you would understand why they don't.

One of the key elements in business is investors. You attract investors by providing them with growth. The greater the growth, the more investors you get.

So you overpay all your workers, and then the growth of your company goes down. Your investors start dumping your stock and you have less money to invest in your business. Your former investors will buy the stock of your competitors, and then you are screwed.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I have ran a business before and that explanation was trash. Paying a living wage isn't "overpaying" .... "underpaying" people brings us to people working 40 hours a week and still needing government assistance. Totally unacceptable to me.

I believe all civilized societies need some sort of safety net for our disabled, sick, mentally ill etc. But when people are working 40 hours a week, in the richest country in the world, and can't make rent THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG!

Correct, something is wrong. You need to work more than 40 hours a week. I've done it plenty of times. I've had two or three jobs at one time in the past. I still do it now when you consider I invested my money and am now a landlord.

The problem is not that there are not enough jobs, the problem is there are not enough people willing to do the jobs. They would rather sit home and talk on their Obama phone all day.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

If they're not, how should they be punished? Is eliminatimg their jobs enough? Or do we need more stringent measures?

Let's try raising minimum wage...

I think if we raised minimum wage you would be shocked at the decrease of welfare..

Ya think? Where would they work?

In our booming economy

When you raise the minimum to more than the work is worth, businesses cut hours and the number of employees, or leave the city/state altogether.

You buy that?
You don't think Wal-Mart can afford to pay their cashiers 12 an hour instead of 10??? That's horse shit.

If the work is only worth $10, why should they pay them $12?

 

[Aries]

IF corporate welfare created a living wage, we wouldn't need social welfare.



Alas, the greedy Ceos just pocket the money and leave their workers for the department of social serves to support. Shocker.

An employer does all that, huh? I guess the worker is in no way responsible. After all, if your highest talent is stocking shelves, it should at least pay $22.00 an hour not because the work is worth it, but because it's the right thing to do. And as we know, people don't start businesses to make a profit, they start businesses as a social obligation.

Any American working 40 hours a week should be making a living wage. Period. If you think otherwise you're a POS.

People can't survive off 10 an hour in most places, living costs are too high!!

Then to solution is to make your labor more valuable, not forcing your employer to pay you more than your labor is worth.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The value of the labor should be adjusting in accordance to the cost of living. It's not.. And it won't without proper legislation. Why would employers pay more than necessary. Most won't.

The 1% is literally draining all of the countries money, and they have been for decades.wealth inequality is worse than I've seen in my lifetime. The middle class is shrinking and ill let you in on a little secret... They arent joining the billionaires, they're joining the impoverished.

But you guys just keep bashing the workers....
(That's what the TOP 1% needs us to do, point the finger at each other and not at them)

Nobody is bashing the worker, most of us are workers ourselves. But if you acquired no education, no skills, no trade in your life, that's an employers fault? That would be like seeing somebody jump in a lake who couldn't swim and blaming the water when he drowned.

Why would employers pay more than necessary? Well do you? When you get three estimates to have your car repaired, do you choose the highest estimate? How about remodeling your bathroom? How about with your lawn care company? Of course you don't, most people wouldn't . So why do you think there are different rules for employers?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Not everyone can get an edu. (Especially now that it costs a small fortune) Not everyone has the ability physically or mentally to manage a job harder than minimum wage. We need workers to do minimum wage jobs. But we need to pay them enough to not need gov assistance to live.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

If they're not, how should they be punished? Is eliminatimg their jobs enough? Or do we need more stringent measures?

Let's try raising minimum wage...

I think if we raised minimum wage you would be shocked at the decrease of welfare..

Ya think? Where would they work?

In our booming economy

When you raise the minimum to more than the work is worth, businesses cut hours and the number of employees, or leave the city/state altogether.

Walton Family Members' Fortune Climbs $8.7 Billion After Strong Quarter For Wal-Mart

So the owners sit on billions and the workers can't put food on their table to feed their kids...... that is acceptable to you?

What is unacceptable to me is charity imposed by the government at gunpoint.

 

[Aries]

IF corporate welfare created a living wage, we wouldn't need social welfare.



Alas, the greedy Ceos just pocket the money and leave their workers for the department of social serves to support. Shocker.

If not for the corporations providing low paying jobs, there wouldn't be any, and everyone would be on full benefits.

They are able spare a living wage. They don't want to and they don't care. The owners of Wal-Mart are making a killing and a high number of their employees don't make enough to make ends meet. They can pay people more, they don't. And it's not right.

If you understood anything about how business works, you would understand why they don't.

One of the key elements in business is investors. You attract investors by providing them with growth. The greater the growth, the more investors you get.

So you overpay all your workers, and then the growth of your company goes down. Your investors start dumping your stock and you have less money to invest in your business. Your former investors will buy the stock of your competitors, and then you are screwed.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I have ran a business before and that explanation was trash. Paying a living wage isn't "overpaying" .... "underpaying" people brings us to people working 40 hours a week and still needing government assistance. Totally unacceptable to me.

I believe all civilized societies need some sort of safety net for our disabled, sick, mentally ill etc. But when people are working 40 hours a week, in the richest country in the world, and can't make rent THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG!

Correct, something is wrong. You need to work more than 40 hours a week. I've done it plenty of times. I've had two or three jobs at one time in the past. I still do it now when you consider I invested my money and am now a landlord.

The problem is not that there are not enough jobs, the problem is there are not enough people willing to do the jobs. They would rather sit home and talk on their Obama phone all day.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Let's try raising minimum wage...

I think if we raised minimum wage you would be shocked at the decrease of welfare..

Ya think? Where would they work?

In our booming economy

When you raise the minimum to more than the work is worth, businesses cut hours and the number of employees, or leave the city/state altogether.

You buy that?
You don't think Wal-Mart can afford to pay their cashiers 12 an hour instead of 10??? That's horse shit.

If the work is only worth $10, why should they pay them $12?

Because the groceries they buy are worth 60 and they pay 120. Because the place they rent is worth 500 and they're paying 800..

Pay has to be relative to living costs. They arent.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

An employer does all that, huh? I guess the worker is in no way responsible. After all, if your highest talent is stocking shelves, it should at least pay $22.00 an hour not because the work is worth it, but because it's the right thing to do. And as we know, people don't start businesses to make a profit, they start businesses as a social obligation.

Any American working 40 hours a week should be making a living wage. Period. If you think otherwise you're a POS.

People can't survive off 10 an hour in most places, living costs are too high!!

Then to solution is to make your labor more valuable, not forcing your employer to pay you more than your labor is worth.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The value of the labor should be adjusting in accordance to the cost of living. It's not.. And it won't without proper legislation. Why would employers pay more than necessary. Most won't.

The 1% is literally draining all of the countries money, and they have been for decades.wealth inequality is worse than I've seen in my lifetime. The middle class is shrinking and ill let you in on a little secret... They arent joining the billionaires, they're joining the impoverished.

But you guys just keep bashing the workers....
(That's what the TOP 1% needs us to do, point the finger at each other and not at them)

Nobody is bashing the worker, most of us are workers ourselves. But if you acquired no education, no skills, no trade in your life, that's an employers fault? That would be like seeing somebody jump in a lake who couldn't swim and blaming the water when he drowned.

Why would employers pay more than necessary? Well do you? When you get three estimates to have your car repaired, do you choose the highest estimate? How about remodeling your bathroom? How about with your lawn care company? Of course you don't, most people wouldn't . So why do you think there are different rules for employers?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Not everyone can get an edu. (Especially now that it costs a small fortune) Not everyone has the ability physically or mentally to manage a job harder than minimum wage. We need workers to do minimum wage jobs. But we need to pay them enough to not need gov assistance to live.

Then lower taxes comparative to the added expense.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

If not for the corporations providing low paying jobs, there wouldn't be any, and everyone would be on full benefits.

They are able spare a living wage. They don't want to and they don't care. The owners of Wal-Mart are making a killing and a high number of their employees don't make enough to make ends meet. They can pay people more, they don't. And it's not right.

If you understood anything about how business works, you would understand why they don't.

One of the key elements in business is investors. You attract investors by providing them with growth. The greater the growth, the more investors you get.

So you overpay all your workers, and then the growth of your company goes down. Your investors start dumping your stock and you have less money to invest in your business. Your former investors will buy the stock of your competitors, and then you are screwed.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I have ran a business before and that explanation was trash. Paying a living wage isn't "overpaying" .... "underpaying" people brings us to people working 40 hours a week and still needing government assistance. Totally unacceptable to me.

I believe all civilized societies need some sort of safety net for our disabled, sick, mentally ill etc. But when people are working 40 hours a week, in the richest country in the world, and can't make rent THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG!

Correct, something is wrong. You need to work more than 40 hours a week. I've done it plenty of times. I've had two or three jobs at one time in the past. I still do it now when you consider I invested my money and am now a landlord.

The problem is not that there are not enough jobs, the problem is there are not enough people willing to do the jobs. They would rather sit home and talk on their Obama phone all day.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Ya think? Where would they work?

In our booming economy

When you raise the minimum to more than the work is worth, businesses cut hours and the number of employees, or leave the city/state altogether.

You buy that?
You don't think Wal-Mart can afford to pay their cashiers 12 an hour instead of 10??? That's horse shit.

If the work is only worth $10, why should they pay them $12?

Because the groceries they buy are worth 60 and they pay 120. Because the place they rent is worth 500 and they're paying 800..

Pay has to be relative to living costs. They arent.

For the sake of argument, why must they?

 

[Aries]

Any American working 40 hours a week should be making a living wage. Period. If you think otherwise you're a POS.

People can't survive off 10 an hour in most places, living costs are too high!!

Then to solution is to make your labor more valuable, not forcing your employer to pay you more than your labor is worth.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The value of the labor should be adjusting in accordance to the cost of living. It's not.. And it won't without proper legislation. Why would employers pay more than necessary. Most won't.

The 1% is literally draining all of the countries money, and they have been for decades.wealth inequality is worse than I've seen in my lifetime. The middle class is shrinking and ill let you in on a little secret... They arent joining the billionaires, they're joining the impoverished.

But you guys just keep bashing the workers....
(That's what the TOP 1% needs us to do, point the finger at each other and not at them)

Nobody is bashing the worker, most of us are workers ourselves. But if you acquired no education, no skills, no trade in your life, that's an employers fault? That would be like seeing somebody jump in a lake who couldn't swim and blaming the water when he drowned.

Why would employers pay more than necessary? Well do you? When you get three estimates to have your car repaired, do you choose the highest estimate? How about remodeling your bathroom? How about with your lawn care company? Of course you don't, most people wouldn't . So why do you think there are different rules for employers?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Not everyone can get an edu. (Especially now that it costs a small fortune) Not everyone has the ability physically or mentally to manage a job harder than minimum wage. We need workers to do minimum wage jobs. But we need to pay them enough to not need gov assistance to live.

Then lower taxes comparative to the added expense.

If we want to be able to lower taxes on the working class... Why keep electing Republican scumbags who only lower taxes on the wealthiest citizens ?