Does AOC know $15 minimum wage in states like Mississippi will put people out of work?

[rightwinger]

Sure it does
Our society has decided we don’t want to be like the slums of Calcutta

I’ll take helping the poor over corporate greed any day

So if a person decides he wants to sit home all day then we need to pay for them to?

Would you rather have people banging on your front door begging for handouts?
Rather have sick people laying at the hospital door begging for treatment?

I have no sympathy for the lazy, the poor, yes, the mentally ill, yes, widows, yes, orphans, yes. The lazy? None whatsoever.

We take care of those in need, not those that are lazy. Plus we currently don't have people banging on the doors for handouts nor do we have people at hospitals begging for treatment.

We are talking broadly about using tax money for social welfare
In the absence of support, they have few other options

I was speaking to Daniel about universal pay, which I am against and you chimed in. So we are on a different subjects.

OK

I oppose universal pay

 

[rightwinger]

Yeah they ain't gonna pay those illegals fifteen an hour when they can pay them less than eight now them capitalist must live in big mansions and fly jet planes.
Keeping wages low and cost of living high is how the robber barons make their living.

How about we just offer them a trip all expenses paid, back to their home country? They are here illegally! Then they can worry about the minimum wage in their shithole!

You mean jail employers (like tRump) that hire illegals?

This is just another example why you are either mentally challenged or too stupid to breathe on your own. Trump never hired an illegal. If he did, prove it! People who work for him may have done so, but if your gardener gets a DUI, we don't throw your ass in jail, do we?

Here ya go!

Making President Trump’s Bed: A Housekeeper Without Papers

I assume you didn't bother to read your own link beyond the headline, since if you had, you'd see that the housekeeper in question A) works for one of Trump's businesses, not
Trump personally, and it's very doubtful that he hires the housekeeping staff himself, and B) she admits herself that she got hired with phony papers.

So thanks for "proving" nothing more than that you kneejerk to blaming Trump for everything, just because you think being elected against your clearly-expressed wishes is some sort of crime.

Trump is the boss

 

[Cecilie1200]

Nobody claims people work minimum wage their whole life
But those forced to accept a $7.25 wage are being exploited by employers whether it is three months or ten years

What is the impact on minimum wage workers?
Less money to pay for college, lower ability to help a struggling family, need to accept public assistance, assumption of more debt

All so an employer can make more profit

So you're suggesting those "forced" to accept minimum wage have gone to college, have a family and "accept" public assistance? WTF, are they all liberals?

Many college students fill minimum wage jobs.....I did at $2.10 an hour
But that $2.10 an hour paid for a years tuition by just working summers

$7.25 an hour does not do that today

So the real problem is College is too expensive. And you were expecting less expensive once the government got involved with student loans?

Where did people in this country ever come by the ass-backward notion that the more "important" and "essential" something was, the less it should cost you?

College? Sure, make it outlandishly expensive, then make it free....that ought to add value.

Basically. We seem to do that with everything nowadays: "It's too important to be for-profit!" No, important is why you should be willing to pay to have it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

View attachment 264072

A Heritage Foundation analysis from 2016 estimated that a $15 federal minimum wage would wipe out 7 million jobs. Hardest hit would be workers, businesses, and economies in areas with low costs of living. (like Mississippi where cost of living is 87% of USA standard.
Mississippi cost of living is 87.8% Mississippi Cost of Living

Liberal activists demand a “living wage,” but the truth is that only a tiny handful of hourly wage workers make the minimum wage or less (4 percent), according to the Employment Policies Institute. On the contrary, a whopping 44 percent of hourly workers currently earn at or below the proposed $15 minimum wage.

Now consider what the $15 minimum wage would do.

For a restaurant that employs 10 minimum wage workers, a $15 minimum wage hike would cost them about $170,000 per year. If the restaurant currently earns profit margins of 5 percent, it would have to increase sales by $3.5 million per year, or an extra $67,000 every week.

But that is not realistic. The likely scenario is that they’ll either have to cut working hours or fire some workers altogether. Either way, most people are worse off than before.

Lawmakers Are Pushing a $15 Minimum Wage. Here Are 3 Disastrous Consequences That Would Result.
Robotic waiters...

View attachment 264073

More proof that this, and a billion other things, should be a state issue, not federal.

FedZilla tries to do too much for too many.

.

 

[captkaos]

Yeah they ain't gonna pay those illegals fifteen an hour when they can pay them less than eight now them capitalist must live in big mansions and fly jet planes.
Keeping wages low and cost of living high is how the robber barons make their living.

As the economy gets better, wages go up......as we are now seeing...... putting people out of work because of left wing policies is the way left wingers get rich and accumulate power......making people poor is the bread and butter of left wing democrats.

The rich are not playing politics they influence politics to keep wages low by hiring the illegals and the visa workers...Corporations donate to both sides of the political isle to get what they want. Your stupid partisan dichotomy plays right into their hands because they can exploit the masses with issues made to split us apart.
Apple is a trillion dollar company someone had to work for very low wages to make that happen. When will you people stop supporting these companies that exploit workers in poor nations and leave US citizens with less jobs?
There should be no mansions or billionaires while the majority suffer without.

Have you ever gone to school? Do you have a job? Who pays your bills? Do you pay your neighbors bills when they can't afford them because they got laid off because the Company they "Used" to work for had to reduce labor costs due to the higher minimum wage! When you start doing that you can complain, until then go get a job and quit whining !

I am a retired contractor and you are the Einstein of Economics 101...Eat my shorts man..

As a "contractor " I'm sure you know to get the best value for your money on the material and labor required to finish the job so that you're able to make a profit, unless of course you worked for free! I was a Fraud investigator for an insurance Company. We investigated claims of shoddy workmanship/work not performed and over billing by "contractors", ????? building, plumbing , electrical , HVAC, Masonry, . Did you sub out work? What kind of jobs did you "contract". Just being inquisitive ! I can understand why you retired from that line of work quality control is tough and can cost you big if a Sub or IC screws you .

 

[danielpalos]

lol. nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. it is termed and styled, unemployment compensation.

No, what you want certainly is not unemployment compensation. It is welfare.

you simply appeal to emotion instead of reason. it is merely a correction for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment; there is no reason for the Poor bear that onus.

I appeal to logic and reason. Unemployment Compensation means something specific, insurance that employers purchase so laid off employees have income while they're looking for another job. You're trying to give it a completely different meaning.

dear, Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. it is natural for capitalism to be that inefficient. correcting for that inefficiency promotes the general welfare, it really is that simple.

Translation to English: in any free economy, there will be those who refuse to work, even when jobs are available to them. Your solution is to pretend they're working and pay them as if they were.

why do you care if they are Poor as a result? requiring a work ethic is national socialism.

 

[danielpalos]

History will look at the election of Donald J Trump and ask WTF?

How could the population be suckered in by the false promises and taunts of a snake oil salesman

Looks like you've been watching CNN. Trump made promises - has kept them as we all benefit

government solves all problems for the right wing while they allege to be for capitalism.

 

[Papageorgio]

No, what you want certainly is not unemployment compensation. It is welfare.

you simply appeal to emotion instead of reason. it is merely a correction for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment; there is no reason for the Poor bear that onus.

I appeal to logic and reason. Unemployment Compensation means something specific, insurance that employers purchase so laid off employees have income while they're looking for another job. You're trying to give it a completely different meaning.

dear, Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. it is natural for capitalism to be that inefficient. correcting for that inefficiency promotes the general welfare, it really is that simple.

Translation to English: in any free economy, there will be those who refuse to work, even when jobs are available to them. Your solution is to pretend they're working and pay them as if they were.

why do you care if they are Poor as a result? requiring a work ethic is national socialism.

Paying the lazy for not working IS socialism.

 

[danielpalos]

because compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency, better promotes the general welfare.

It promotes dependence on government and allows them to control more of our economy.

in what way? the dependence in this case, is equal protection of the law. we have an entitlement to that form of dependence on Government.

There is no guaranteed employment clause, the founding fathers never set out for pay without work solution. Back then the United States didn’t even have unemployment.

We are not entitled, nowhere in the Constitution does it say we must support those unwilling to work.

Different world back then

Doesn’t mean we should yearn for the days of Oliver Twist

Not yearning for the good old days, where in the Constitution does it say that a working man should pay for the lazy man?

equal protection of the law.

 

[danielpalos]

in what way? the dependence in this case, is equal protection of the law. we have an entitlement to that form of dependence on Government.

There is no guaranteed employment clause, the founding fathers never set out for pay without work solution. Back then the United States didn’t even have unemployment.

We are not entitled, nowhere in the Constitution does it say we must support those unwilling to work.

Different world back then

Doesn’t mean we should yearn for the days of Oliver Twist

Not yearning for the good old days, where in the Constitution does it say that a working man should pay for the lazy man?

16th Amendment

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Well pass the law and I will quit my job, between my pension, SSI, I could use an extra $2000 a month.

One thousand is already on the table.

 

[danielpalos]

in what way? the dependence in this case, is equal protection of the law. we have an entitlement to that form of dependence on Government.

There is no guaranteed employment clause, the founding fathers never set out for pay without work solution. Back then the United States didn’t even have unemployment.

We are not entitled, nowhere in the Constitution does it say we must support those unwilling to work.

Different world back then

Doesn’t mean we should yearn for the days of Oliver Twist

Not yearning for the good old days, where in the Constitution does it say that a working man should pay for the lazy man?

16th Amendment

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

That doesn't say that the taxes should be used for redistribution from productive people to lazy ones, bub.

lousy right wing management? promoting the general welfare implies a positive multiplier effect.

 

[Papageorgio]

It promotes dependence on government and allows them to control more of our economy.

in what way? the dependence in this case, is equal protection of the law. we have an entitlement to that form of dependence on Government.

There is no guaranteed employment clause, the founding fathers never set out for pay without work solution. Back then the United States didn’t even have unemployment.

We are not entitled, nowhere in the Constitution does it say we must support those unwilling to work.

Different world back then

Doesn’t mean we should yearn for the days of Oliver Twist

Not yearning for the good old days, where in the Constitution does it say that a working man should pay for the lazy man?

equal protection of the law.

That is not what that means and we have explained it to you over and over. That is the flaw in your argument and I bet if you went before a judge with that argument, they'd laugh you out of court.

The person has equal protection to make sure his or her rights are equally protected as would another's rights would. There is no right to work in the United States. If you choose not to work that is your decision and not capitalism's.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no guaranteed employment clause, the founding fathers never set out for pay without work solution. Back then the United States didn’t even have unemployment.

We are not entitled, nowhere in the Constitution does it say we must support those unwilling to work.

Different world back then

Doesn’t mean we should yearn for the days of Oliver Twist

Not yearning for the good old days, where in the Constitution does it say that a working man should pay for the lazy man?

16th Amendment

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

That doesn't say that the taxes should be used for redistribution from productive people to lazy ones, bub.

It sure doesn't. In particular, the Article 1, Section 8 says the taxes should be used for the general welfare. They were opposed to using to taxation to reward specific interests.

the right wing only complains about the Poor.

Where Is The Outrage Over Corporate Welfare?

 

[OnePercenter]

Why open a dialog when they are like you and AOC with room temperature IQs at best? Why do you deflect every statement when it blows your whole concept of how the world works?

I believe that the American Worker needs a raise. You can either agree or continue your Putin-communist manifesto.

LOL ... agree with a socialist half-wit like you or be a Putin-commie?

I tell ya, if you 'tards didn't have stupidity you'd have nothing at all.

You hate the American Worker......Got it! Commie!

 

[Slyhunter]

Different world back then

Doesn’t mean we should yearn for the days of Oliver Twist

Not yearning for the good old days, where in the Constitution does it say that a working man should pay for the lazy man?

16th Amendment

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

That doesn't say that the taxes should be used for redistribution from productive people to lazy ones, bub.

It sure doesn't. In particular, the Article 1, Section 8 says the taxes should be used for the general welfare. They were opposed to using to taxation to reward specific interests.

the right wing only complains about the Poor.

Where Is The Outrage Over Corporate Welfare?

You mean like GM, Amazon, and Facebook?

 

[Papageorgio]

There is no guaranteed employment clause, the founding fathers never set out for pay without work solution. Back then the United States didn’t even have unemployment.

We are not entitled, nowhere in the Constitution does it say we must support those unwilling to work.

Different world back then

Doesn’t mean we should yearn for the days of Oliver Twist

Not yearning for the good old days, where in the Constitution does it say that a working man should pay for the lazy man?

16th Amendment

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Well pass the law and I will quit my job, between my pension, SSI, I could use an extra $2000 a month.

One thousand is already on the table.

$2422 X 2 so my wife and I can make $58128 without doing a damn thing.

 

[OnePercenter]

Yeah they ain't gonna pay those illegals fifteen an hour when they can pay them less than eight now them capitalist must live in big mansions and fly jet planes.
Keeping wages low and cost of living high is how the robber barons make their living.

How about we just offer them a trip all expenses paid, back to their home country? They are here illegally! Then they can worry about the minimum wage in their shithole!

You mean jail employers (like tRump) that hire illegals?

This is just another example why you are either mentally challenged or too stupid to breathe on your own. Trump never hired an illegal. If he did, prove it! People who work for him may have done so, but if your gardener gets a DUI, we don't throw your ass in jail, do we?

Here ya go!

Making President Trump’s Bed: A Housekeeper Without Papers

You simply cannot fucking read! She does not work for Trump dumbass!

Who is/was her employer?

 

[danielpalos]

16th Amendment

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

That doesn't say that the taxes should be used for redistribution from productive people to lazy ones, bub.

It sure doesn't. In particular, the Article 1, Section 8 says the taxes should be used for the general welfare. They were opposed to using to taxation to reward specific interests.

Helping poor people, disaster relief, investments in infrastructure all help our nation as a whole and support the general welfare

Oh, you're being coy again! Of course it's all the tax policies deliberately formulated to redistribute income that we're talking about - and you know it. Were you just going for a joke?

Are farm subsidies a redistribution of wealth?

simply financing Government is redistribution of wealth on an Institutional basis.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

 

[danielpalos]

in what way? the dependence in this case, is equal protection of the law. we have an entitlement to that form of dependence on Government.

There is no guaranteed employment clause, the founding fathers never set out for pay without work solution. Back then the United States didn’t even have unemployment.

We are not entitled, nowhere in the Constitution does it say we must support those unwilling to work.

Different world back then

Doesn’t mean we should yearn for the days of Oliver Twist

Not yearning for the good old days, where in the Constitution does it say that a working man should pay for the lazy man?

equal protection of the law.

That is not what that means and we have explained it to you over and over. That is the flaw in your argument and I bet if you went before a judge with that argument, they'd laugh you out of court.

The person has equal protection to make sure his or her rights are equally protected as would another's rights would. There is no right to work in the United States. If you choose not to work that is your decision and not capitalism's.

you only have right wing bigotry, not a valid argument. you have an inferior argument due to your appeals to ignorance.

at-will means at-will.

 

[danielpalos]

Not yearning for the good old days, where in the Constitution does it say that a working man should pay for the lazy man?

16th Amendment

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

That doesn't say that the taxes should be used for redistribution from productive people to lazy ones, bub.

It sure doesn't. In particular, the Article 1, Section 8 says the taxes should be used for the general welfare. They were opposed to using to taxation to reward specific interests.

Helping poor people, disaster relief, investments in infrastructure all help our nation as a whole and support the general welfare

I'm all for helping the poor, I object to helping those that make a choice not to work and expect others to pay for their choices. That has nothing to do with "general Welfare".

it must simply Because we subscribe to Capitalism and not Socialism.