Explain to us Libs, what is a living wage?

[kwc57]

I left my birth place
Again you claimed you had a solution 600 post ago, I cannot find it

You left your birth place and...........

That is it
studied my trade
went and took some night classes
self taught my self with cadd and some data collection software
I am not the problem

So, that worked for you huh? Won't it work for all of those other people too?

 

[Foxfyre]

GWB and BHO gave the UAW 80 billion dollars of tax payers wealth, gave it to them
BHO by passed all BK laws and gave GM and Chrysler to the UAW, for pennies on the dollar

He along with the dem controlled congress has put into place a health care reform bill that has mandated as I understand it private industry has to either supply ins or be fined if they do not for the private citizen

BHO is as we speak giving forgiveness for collage loans and is using tax payers dollars to help people keep there homes/pay the mortgages

And your claiming what we are talking about is I am advocating this event will take control of labor?
The federal govt has mandated that Corporate tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 339 billion dollars in corporate income shall be in the form of a tax in the year of our lord 2009 that will be collected to GIVE $360 billion - Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending as it is posted
and again my idea is a Karl Marx direction?
that number for 2010 is close 600 billion
$571 billion (+58.6%) – Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending

I have found a place some time ago with this that we can agree to dis agree. I just provided for you in a 2 year period close to 1 trillion dollars in welfare and govt take-overs of private sector businesses and my idea of a living wage is the real issue here?

Okay

The fact that there are other issues--and you are right there are MANY other issues--but this thread is devoted to one: a living wage.

And trying to deflect away from legitimate observations about that by bringing in everything else just won't fly with me. I like to debate one issue at a time.

You can be 100% virtuous, correct, noble, and patriotic about every other issue in the world and still be wrong about the issue being discussed. And I am arguing my point of view that a government mandated or provided living wage is far more destructive and harmful than any benefit that might come from it.

This not about 1 issue, it is about deficits
it is about entitlement programs
It is about tax rates
It is about what you think is the govt going to far with Joe the plumber so Joe the Plumber and all of his employees who make a living wage can pitch in enough to cover that 600 billion dollars so those who do not make a living wage can get part of that 600 billion, actually its closer to 1.2 trillion if we kick in Medicare
cant you see that?
look how serious this issue really is, are we talking the less of 2 evils here?

No, those are all other important issues worthy of discussion and most are being discussed in depth on other threads.

This thread is devoted to one issue: whether there should or should not be a government mandated living wage. You seem to believe that there should. Several of us are arguing that point with you and giving our best analysis of why that is a very bad idea and why.

I think it is a wonderful topic and appreciate the opportunity to really explore it and discuss it in depth.

There are several folks arguing passionately in favor of it but not one has come up with a reason of why it makes good economic sense unless they ignore all the negatives associated with it. Several seem to think it is enough that it 'helps' some people, but they resent having it pointed out how it also hurts some people.

It is an important subject. Let's focus on it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

the ability to empathize, and be able to put yourself in other human being's shoes seems to be lacking, with many people today....

that's what i get out of this thread.....

one point that seems to be ignored is that us tax payers are subsiding businesses by paying for medicaid and food stamps for those business's 40 hour a week near minimum wage adult worker, who makes the business owner a profit he gets to keep....
something is wrong with that picture.....

but again, we the tax payer subsidizes the difference between the money the owner pays his full time, adult worker..... and a living wage.....


If we got rid of the safety nets, would businesses have to pay much much more for their own employees...would the market call for this and higher wages would just prevail?

seems like all the employers would have to pay more for their full time workers?

but would they? I dunno?

Sweetie...Now read this. Empathy does not stop the bills from having to be paid.
You people seem to forget that businesses have bills as do individuals.
Another item you people ignore is that while small businesses must produce paychecks every week or two weeks, the money expected by the business may not arrive for 3 months.
However, if empathy is your idea, go ahead and exercise your right to empathize.
Business is business. Employers are not charity organizations. Empathy is not part of the day to day operations of a business.
Here's the problem with social safety nets. Actually more than one.
First MOST of the dollars collected to fund welfare and other entitlements goes to administration and bureaucracy.
Second point. All of these entitlements are replete with fraud.
Third point..These programs were developed to give those people who needed help a way up and a way out. Poverty was supposed to end.
None of this happened. Instead, social safety nets have created a permanent underclass of people who now through generations, believe they are actually OWED a living off the taxpayer dole.
You take time out of your day to feel sorry for every person who receives public assistance. You then take the time to curse anyone who is opposed to the giveaways.
Question: So you have any federal tax liability? Do you work? Own a business?

 

[JRK]

The fact that there are other issues--and you are right there are MANY other issues--but this thread is devoted to one: a living wage.

And trying to deflect away from legitimate observations about that by bringing in everything else just won't fly with me. I like to debate one issue at a time.

You can be 100% virtuous, correct, noble, and patriotic about every other issue in the world and still be wrong about the issue being discussed. And I am arguing my point of view that a government mandated or provided living wage is far more destructive and harmful than any benefit that might come from it.

This not about 1 issue, it is about deficits
it is about entitlement programs
It is about tax rates
It is about what you think is the govt going to far with Joe the plumber so Joe the Plumber and all of his employees who make a living wage can pitch in enough to cover that 600 billion dollars so those who do not make a living wage can get part of that 600 billion, actually its closer to 1.2 trillion if we kick in Medicare
cant you see that?
look how serious this issue really is, are we talking the less of 2 evils here?

Oh my, moving the goalposts are we?

View attachment 15860

Every thing that is mentioned herein relates to the wages we pay people, everything

 

[JRK]

the ability to empathize, and be able to put yourself in other human being's shoes seems to be lacking, with many people today....

that's what i get out of this thread.....

one point that seems to be ignored is that us tax payers are subsiding businesses by paying for medicaid and food stamps for those business's 40 hour a week near minimum wage adult worker, who makes the business owner a profit he gets to keep....
something is wrong with that picture.....

but again, we the tax payer subsidizes the difference between the money the owner pays his full time, adult worker..... and a living wage.....


If we got rid of the safety nets, would businesses have to pay much much more for their own employees...would the market call for this and higher wages would just prevail?

seems like all the employers would have to pay more for their full time workers?

but would they? I dunno?

Sweetie...Now read this. Empathy does not stop the bills from having to be paid.
You people seem to forget that businesses have bills as do individuals.
Another item you people ignore is that while small businesses must produce paychecks every week or two weeks, the money expected by the business may not arrive for 3 months.
However, if empathy is your idea, go ahead and exercise your right to empathize.
Business is business. Employers are not charity organizations. Empathy is not part of the day to day operations of a business.
Here's the problem with social safety nets. Actually more than one.
First MOST of the dollars collected to fund welfare and other entitlements goes to administration and bureaucracy.
Second point. All of these entitlements are replete with fraud.
Third point..These programs were developed to give those people who needed help a way up and a way out. Poverty was supposed to end.
None of this happened. Instead, social safety nets have created a permanent underclass of people who now through generations, believe they are actually OWED a living off the taxpayer dole.
You take time out of your day to feel sorry for every person who receives public assistance. You then take the time to curse anyone who is opposed to the giveaways.
Question: So you have any federal tax liability? Do you work? Own a business?

sweetie its net 30, net 90 and your net chapter 7
This debate got way personal to some along time ago. The one thing that is being missed is that if we raise our pay the we would raise the cost of our service/product to pay for it, this is what is being done with the taxes the corporations and individuals are paying

Its about wealth destruction or creation, you choose which

 

[kwc57]

This not about 1 issue, it is about deficits
it is about entitlement programs
It is about tax rates
It is about what you think is the govt going to far with Joe the plumber so Joe the Plumber and all of his employees who make a living wage can pitch in enough to cover that 600 billion dollars so those who do not make a living wage can get part of that 600 billion, actually its closer to 1.2 trillion if we kick in Medicare
cant you see that?
look how serious this issue really is, are we talking the less of 2 evils here?

Oh my, moving the goalposts are we?

View attachment 15860

Every thing that is mentioned herein relates to the wages we pay people, everything

Sorry Ace, no dice. Like Foxy said, you started this thread about a living wage and a living wage only. When you keep getting your ass handed to you, you want to bring other elements into play and that is NOT what you started the thread about. If that is what you were thinking when you started the thread, keep in mind that we are not mind readers and have no way of knowing what you meant. What we do know is what you said and that is what is being discussed. What I find humerous is that the title of the thread is, "Explain to us Libs, what is a living wage?" and you end up being the one arguing for it and claiming you are conservative. If it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck........

 

[Bern80]

Oh my, moving the goalposts are we?

View attachment 15860

Every thing that is mentioned herein relates to the wages we pay people, everything

Sorry Ace, no dice. Like Foxy said, you started this thread about a living wage and a living wage only. When you keep getting your ass handed to you, you want to bring other elements into play and that is NOT what you started the thread about. If that is what you were thinking when you started the thread, keep in mind that we are not mind readers and have no way of knowing what you meant. What we do know is what you said and that is what is being discussed. What I find humerous is that the title of the thread is, "Explain to us Libs, what is a living wage?" and you end up being the one arguing for it and claiming you are conservative. If it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck........

It really is quite confusing. Maybe he forgot a comma?

 

[kwc57]

Every thing that is mentioned herein relates to the wages we pay people, everything

Sorry Ace, no dice. Like Foxy said, you started this thread about a living wage and a living wage only. When you keep getting your ass handed to you, you want to bring other elements into play and that is NOT what you started the thread about. If that is what you were thinking when you started the thread, keep in mind that we are not mind readers and have no way of knowing what you meant. What we do know is what you said and that is what is being discussed. What I find humerous is that the title of the thread is, "Explain to us Libs, what is a living wage?" and you end up being the one arguing for it and claiming you are conservative. If it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck........

It really is quite confusing. Maybe he forgot a comma?

For clarity's sake, here is the OP.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...s-libs-what-is-a-living-wage.html#post4286639

For those to lazy to click the link, here is what it says.

"If it takes 15.00 an hour to have a "living" wage, well I really dont have an issue with that except that really all your doing is raising the cost to build a widget, or grow a widget to a point in which the 8.00 an hour becomes 15.00 an hour it seems to me
What is a living wage?"

 

[Contumacious]

THATS GOING TO TRIGGER THE WELFARE WAGON

Interesting that someone who promoted wasting 800 BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBillion in Iraq is concerned about the welfare wagon.

.

 

[Bern80]

Sorry Ace, no dice. Like Foxy said, you started this thread about a living wage and a living wage only. When you keep getting your ass handed to you, you want to bring other elements into play and that is NOT what you started the thread about. If that is what you were thinking when you started the thread, keep in mind that we are not mind readers and have no way of knowing what you meant. What we do know is what you said and that is what is being discussed. What I find humerous is that the title of the thread is, "Explain to us Libs, what is a living wage?" and you end up being the one arguing for it and claiming you are conservative. If it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck........

It really is quite confusing. Maybe he forgot a comma?

For clarity's sake, here is the OP.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...s-libs-what-is-a-living-wage.html#post4286639

For those to lazy to click the link, here is what it says.

"If it takes 15.00 an hour to have a "living" wage, well I really dont have an issue with that except that really all your doing is raising the cost to build a widget, or grow a widget to a point in which the 8.00 an hour becomes 15.00 an hour it seems to me
What is a living wage?"

I was thinking mainly of the thread title.....

'explain to us Libs, what is a living wage?'

becomes vastly different if it were

'explain to us, Libs, what is a living wage?'

I'm thinking, JRK, maybe you meant to type the later, but the liberal in you made you type the former. Or your ability to coherently type complete, intelligible thoughts just sucks. Given trying to decipher your last few posts, I think that could be a possibility as well.

 

[Foxfyre]

It really is quite confusing. Maybe he forgot a comma?

For clarity's sake, here is the OP.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...s-libs-what-is-a-living-wage.html#post4286639

For those to lazy to click the link, here is what it says.

"If it takes 15.00 an hour to have a "living" wage, well I really dont have an issue with that except that really all your doing is raising the cost to build a widget, or grow a widget to a point in which the 8.00 an hour becomes 15.00 an hour it seems to me
What is a living wage?"

I was thinking mainly of the thread title.....

'explain to us libs, what is a living wage?'

becomes vastly different if it were

'explain to us, libs, what is a living wage?'

Yeah, and that really was the question that I too enlarged into something bigger. So apologies to JRK for that.

The answer however was expressed early on. If you have a roof, any roof, over your head, some semblance of clothes on your back, and enough food to ward off starvation, whatever you make is a living wage.

Now if you want more than that, however, we are talking about a different animal.

And the larger unexpressed important question remains: how does one best acquire a living wage and what, if anything, should the government's role be in that?

 

[kwc57]

It really is quite confusing. Maybe he forgot a comma?

For clarity's sake, here is the OP.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...s-libs-what-is-a-living-wage.html#post4286639

For those to lazy to click the link, here is what it says.

"If it takes 15.00 an hour to have a "living" wage, well I really dont have an issue with that except that really all your doing is raising the cost to build a widget, or grow a widget to a point in which the 8.00 an hour becomes 15.00 an hour it seems to me
What is a living wage?"

I was thinking mainly of the thread title.....

'explain to us Libs, what is a living wage?'

becomes vastly different if it were

'explain to us, Libs, what is a living wage?'

I'm thinking, JRK, maybe you meant to type the later, but the liberal in you made you type the former. Or your ability to coherently type complete, intelligible thoughts just sucks. Given trying to decipher your last few posts, I think that could be a possibility as well.

Ahhhh, so you're talking the difference between....."Look ahead, in the road" and "Look, a head in the road"?

 

[Bern80]

For clarity's sake, here is the OP.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...s-libs-what-is-a-living-wage.html#post4286639

For those to lazy to click the link, here is what it says.

"If it takes 15.00 an hour to have a "living" wage, well I really dont have an issue with that except that really all your doing is raising the cost to build a widget, or grow a widget to a point in which the 8.00 an hour becomes 15.00 an hour it seems to me
What is a living wage?"

I was thinking mainly of the thread title.....

'explain to us Libs, what is a living wage?'

becomes vastly different if it were

'explain to us, Libs, what is a living wage?'

I'm thinking, JRK, maybe you meant to type the later, but the liberal in you made you type the former. Or your ability to coherently type complete, intelligible thoughts just sucks. Given trying to decipher your last few posts, I think that could be a possibility as well.

Ahhhh, so you're talking the difference between....."Look ahead, in the road" and "Look, a head in the road"?

Exaclty. I think his liberal subconscious betrayed him.

 

[MoeSyzlak]

The answer however was expressed early on. If you have a roof, any roof, over your head, some semblance of clothes on your back, and enough food to ward off starvation, whatever you make is a living wage.

Why bother with a roof or clothes? The logical consequence of this definition is that anyone who is drawing breath is earning a living wage. Right?

 

[thereisnospoon]

the ability to empathize, and be able to put yourself in other human being's shoes seems to be lacking, with many people today....

that's what i get out of this thread.....

one point that seems to be ignored is that us tax payers are subsiding businesses by paying for medicaid and food stamps for those business's 40 hour a week near minimum wage adult worker, who makes the business owner a profit he gets to keep....
something is wrong with that picture.....

but again, we the tax payer subsidizes the difference between the money the owner pays his full time, adult worker..... and a living wage.....


If we got rid of the safety nets, would businesses have to pay much much more for their own employees...would the market call for this and higher wages would just prevail?

seems like all the employers would have to pay more for their full time workers?

but would they? I dunno?

Sweetie...Now read this. Empathy does not stop the bills from having to be paid.
You people seem to forget that businesses have bills as do individuals.
Another item you people ignore is that while small businesses must produce paychecks every week or two weeks, the money expected by the business may not arrive for 3 months.
However, if empathy is your idea, go ahead and exercise your right to empathize.
Business is business. Employers are not charity organizations. Empathy is not part of the day to day operations of a business.
Here's the problem with social safety nets. Actually more than one.
First MOST of the dollars collected to fund welfare and other entitlements goes to administration and bureaucracy.
Second point. All of these entitlements are replete with fraud.
Third point..These programs were developed to give those people who needed help a way up and a way out. Poverty was supposed to end.
None of this happened. Instead, social safety nets have created a permanent underclass of people who now through generations, believe they are actually OWED a living off the taxpayer dole.
You take time out of your day to feel sorry for every person who receives public assistance. You then take the time to curse anyone who is opposed to the giveaways.
Question: So you have any federal tax liability? Do you work? Own a business?

sweetie its net 30, net 90 and your net chapter 7
This debate got way personal to some along time ago. The one thing that is being missed is that if we raise our pay the we would raise the cost of our service/product to pay for it, this is what is being done with the taxes the corporations and individuals are paying

Its about wealth destruction or creation, you choose which

No kidding. I pointed that out early in the thread.

 

[Bern80]

Sweetie...Now read this. Empathy does not stop the bills from having to be paid.
You people seem to forget that businesses have bills as do individuals.
Another item you people ignore is that while small businesses must produce paychecks every week or two weeks, the money expected by the business may not arrive for 3 months.
However, if empathy is your idea, go ahead and exercise your right to empathize.
Business is business. Employers are not charity organizations. Empathy is not part of the day to day operations of a business.
Here's the problem with social safety nets. Actually more than one.
First MOST of the dollars collected to fund welfare and other entitlements goes to administration and bureaucracy.
Second point. All of these entitlements are replete with fraud.
Third point..These programs were developed to give those people who needed help a way up and a way out. Poverty was supposed to end.
None of this happened. Instead, social safety nets have created a permanent underclass of people who now through generations, believe they are actually OWED a living off the taxpayer dole.
You take time out of your day to feel sorry for every person who receives public assistance. You then take the time to curse anyone who is opposed to the giveaways.
Question: So you have any federal tax liability? Do you work? Own a business?

sweetie its net 30, net 90 and your net chapter 7
This debate got way personal to some along time ago. The one thing that is being missed is that if we raise our pay the we would raise the cost of our service/product to pay for it, this is what is being done with the taxes the corporations and individuals are paying

Its about wealth destruction or creation, you choose which

No kidding. I pointed that out early in the thread.

Good lord......Do you understand yet why some of us our so confused JRK? Now you admit that the costs of goods and services will go right up with the living wage increase and you're still advocating for it? The whole idea behind a living wage is so that people can afford the things they need to live on right? Yet here you are admitting that the cost of those things is going to go up as a result of the increase to a living wage that everyone is supposed to get. Everything costs relatively the same as it did in terms of individuals buying power as it did before you raised the wage.

It is about wealth creation. More specificallty WHO should create it. Should you create your own wealth or should it be just given to you because you 'need' it? You seem to fall into the later category

 

[JRK]

sweetie its net 30, net 90 and your net chapter 7
This debate got way personal to some along time ago. The one thing that is being missed is that if we raise our pay the we would raise the cost of our service/product to pay for it, this is what is being done with the taxes the corporations and individuals are paying

Its about wealth destruction or creation, you choose which

No kidding. I pointed that out early in the thread.

Good lord......Do you understand yet why some of us our so confused JRK? Now you admit that the costs of goods and services will go right up with the living wage increase and you're still advocating for it? The whole idea behind a living wage is so that people can afford the things they need to live on right? Yet here you are admitting that the cost of those things is going to go up as a result of the increase to a living wage that everyone is supposed to get. Everything costs relatively the same as it did in terms of individuals buying power as it did before you raised the wage.

It is about wealth creation. More specificallty WHO should create it. Should you create your own wealth or should it be just given to you because you 'need' it? You seem to fall into the later category

oh boy

of the 14 people who work in burger king
i estimate the bare composite rate would be 11.00 an hour
7 avg 14
7 avg 8 an hour

you change those who make 8 to 12, lets use 7 people
that mean the bare goes to
7 avg 14
7 avg 12
bare goes to 13 an hour
added cost per hour is 14 an hour

so without taking 2 minutes to do this exersize your claim is the 30 meals burger king sells in one hour would go up about 0.50 per meal would cause what exactly?

 

[Bern80]

No kidding. I pointed that out early in the thread.

Good lord......Do you understand yet why some of us our so confused JRK? Now you admit that the costs of goods and services will go right up with the living wage increase and you're still advocating for it? The whole idea behind a living wage is so that people can afford the things they need to live on right? Yet here you are admitting that the cost of those things is going to go up as a result of the increase to a living wage that everyone is supposed to get. Everything costs relatively the same as it did in terms of individuals buying power as it did before you raised the wage.

It is about wealth creation. More specificallty WHO should create it. Should you create your own wealth or should it be just given to you because you 'need' it? You seem to fall into the later category

oh boy

of the 14 people who work in burger king
i estimate the bare composite rate would be 11.00 an hour
7 avg 14
7 avg 8 an hour

you change those who make 8 to 12, lets use 7 people
that mean the bare goes to
7 avg 14
7 avg 12
bare goes to 13 an hour
added cost per hour is 14 an hour

so without taking 2 minutes to do this exersize your claim is the 30 meals burger king sells in one hour would go up about 0.50 per meal would cause what exactly?

Causes people to change their behavior. People react when their financial situation changes. The second problem with your faux 'exercise' is the assumption that it would only raise the cost of a meal .50 cents. For the umpteenth time it's going to be pretty hard to make your point that uses scenarios that aren't grounded in reality. Your division of labor wages there isn't very realistic. It isn't going to be split 50/50 between high and low. Your avg. fast food chain has probably 1-2 mangers. 3-4 supervisors and maybe a dozen employees. Your figures amount to a 16% increase in payroll expenses. You're looney tunes if you think a company is going to accept a 16% decrease in profitability. There going to make it up somewhere. They might charge 16% more on everything they sell. That means a $4 meal turns to probaly a $4.69. If you think no one is going to re-think their lunch purchases as a result, you're an idiot. That is invariably going to lead to fewer customers. Or they are going to have adverse effect on the very people you claim to want to help. Instead of paying 7 people 12 an hour to come out the same on payroll expense they may say we can live with 4 people at $12/hr. Are you seeing the unintended consequences yet of your idiotic benevolence? Your benevolence causes people to lose their jobs. Or perhaps they cut back on hours for people to make up the difference.

The point is in some form or other the system is going to react to the mandated change in wages. About the last thing any private business will accept is a loss in profitability. They will cut jobs, hours, raise prices, whatever they have to do to maintain the same profitability they had before your benevolent wage increase. And the sad part is because they react they way they do the hourly pay increase is going to be nullified by a loss in hours or a loss in jobs all together.

Your idea fails on every front JRK. It does't accomplish what you think it will logistically. It also fails morally as making your employer responsible for your basic needs is not that their moral responsibility.

 

[JRK]

Good lord......Do you understand yet why some of us our so confused JRK? Now you admit that the costs of goods and services will go right up with the living wage increase and you're still advocating for it? The whole idea behind a living wage is so that people can afford the things they need to live on right? Yet here you are admitting that the cost of those things is going to go up as a result of the increase to a living wage that everyone is supposed to get. Everything costs relatively the same as it did in terms of individuals buying power as it did before you raised the wage.

It is about wealth creation. More specificallty WHO should create it. Should you create your own wealth or should it be just given to you because you 'need' it? You seem to fall into the later category

oh boy

of the 14 people who work in burger king
i estimate the bare composite rate would be 11.00 an hour
7 avg 14
7 avg 8 an hour

you change those who make 8 to 12, lets use 7 people
that mean the bare goes to
7 avg 14
7 avg 12
bare goes to 13 an hour
added cost per hour is 14 an hour

so without taking 2 minutes to do this exersize your claim is the 30 meals burger king sells in one hour would go up about 0.50 per meal would cause what exactly?

Causes people to change their behavior. People react when their financial situation changes. The second problem with your faux 'exercise' is the assumption that it would only raise the cost of a meal .50 cents. For the umpteenth time it's going to be pretty hard to make your point that uses scenarios that aren't grounded in reality. Your division of labor wages there isn't very realistic. It isn't going to be split 50/50 between high and low. Your avg. fast food chain has probably 1-2 mangers. 3-4 supervisors and maybe a dozen employees. Your figures amount to a 16% increase in payroll expenses. You're looney tunes if you think a company is going to accept a 16% decrease in profitability. There going to make it up somewhere. They might charge 16% more on everything they sell. That means a $4 meal turns to probaly a $4.69. If you think no one is going to re-think their lunch purchases as a result, you're an idiot. That is invariably going to lead to fewer customers. Or they are going to have adverse effect on the very people you claim to want to help. Instead of paying 7 people 12 an hour to come out the same on payroll expense they may say we can live with 4 people at $12/hr. Are you seeing the unintended consequences yet of your idiotic benevolence? Your benevolence causes people to lose their jobs. Or perhaps they cut back on hours for people to make up the difference.

The point is in some form or other the system is going to react to the mandated change in wages. About the last thing any private business will accept is a loss in profitability. They will cut jobs, hours, raise prices, whatever they have to do to maintain the same profitability they had before your benevolent wage increase. And the sad part is because they react they way they do the hourly pay increase is going to be nullified by a loss in hours or a loss in jobs all together.

Your idea fails on every front JRK. It does't accomplish what you think it will logistically. It also fails morally as making your employer responsible for your basic needs is not that their moral responsibility.

why would it raise it a dime more?
idiotic? its the way business sets there price for there product or service
why would you cut hours back? you are clueless as to how business works, OT is the only cost that they would look at and that effects the bottom line
Your taking to a person who has estimated projects over 1 billion dollars
Okay, it is not the employers responsibility. Then it is not mine to provide the tax-funded hi-way they use to delivar there goods
It is not my place to provide the monies to defend this country to protect there wealth, all of it
You want me to go on?
As a conservative the govt has its place, the only reason we have welfare is because the govt allows business to us these items we pay for, WE PAY FOR IT ALL. When I estimate a job there is a line item for all taxes, it is added to the bottom line
In return for those services WE grant these business, Mandating a minimum amount of pay to use these TAX PAYER funded items is not some evil liberal idea
Where you are so un educated in this matter would take hours to explain

THE CONSUMER PAYS FOR IT ALL, in return the corporations should have enough oversight to pay a living wage
And what you miss most of all here is they do not care. They will do an exersize just like i just did, adjust there cost and move on

What you miss most of all is you think corporations pay taxes, PEOPLE PAY THOSE TAXES, corporations just collect them

We desperatly need a lower corporate tax and a real living wage in this country

You argument carries no water. You believe business owns it all and the wealth I supply the US govt

 

[Bern80]

why would it raise it a dime more?

Because most private businesses will not accept a loss in profitability. What they are losing in increased payroll expenses they have to make up for somewhere else. They charge more for the product, they cut back on hours, the have one person do the job that two people were doing or a combination of all of those things. But they have to maintain their profitablity. If they don't investors get discouraged in them and they lose even more money.

Your taking to a person who has estimated projects over 1 billion dollars

Have to call bullshit there. Whatever company is putting you in charge of billion dollar projects with the piss poor communication skills you have is in trouble.

Okay, it is not the employers responsibility. Then it is not mine to provide the tax-funded hi-way they use to delivar there goods
It is not my place to provide the monies to defend this country to protect there wealth, all of it
You want me to go on?

You don't use roads? You don't enjoy the benefits of being protected by our military? Why kind of moronic argument is that. Taxes are collected from everybody and are spent for the benefit of EVERYBODY. Not just businesses.

As a conservative the govt has its place, the only reason we have welfare is because the govt allows business to us these items we pay for, WE PAY FOR IT ALL. When I estimate a job there is a line item for all taxes, it is added to the bottom line

If that's your argument, then you really can't fix that can you. If as you say, business always pass costs on to customers there isn't much way to get them to pay for anything is there? It's not like you can add a tax on their tax. If they just pass on to customers than raising wages to a living wage is pointless as well. That'll just get pased on too. Fortuantely your premise is bullshit so we don't really have to worry about it.

In return for those services WE grant these business, Mandating a minimum amount of pay to use these TAX PAYER funded items is not some evil liberal idea
Where you are so un educated in this matter would take hours to explain

Yes it is. There is nothing more liberal than absolving people of personal responsibility which mandating a living wage does in fact do.

THE CONSUMER PAYS FOR IT ALL, in return the corporations should have enough oversight to pay a living wage
And what you miss most of all here is they do not care. They will do an exersize just like i just did, adjust there cost and move on

What you miss most of all is you think corporations pay taxes, PEOPLE PAY THOSE TAXES, corporations just collect them

We desperatly need a lower corporate tax and a real living wage in this country

You argument carries no water. You believe business owns it all and the wealth I supply the US govt

As you noted above one of a businesses many expenses are taxes. They, like all of their other costs, determine what they can charge for a good or service. If one or some of their costs go up, labor, taxes, whatever, something else has to give if they want to maintain the same profitability as they did before their increased expenses. It might be passsing the expense on to the customer, but that will only work for a while as their will reach a point where the more and more customers refuse to pay the increased costs. Even if just their payroll expense increases due to a living wage they can still make cuts out of just payroll, They can cut hours, they can eliminate positions, they can elimintate benefts. Your living wage pay increase is not going to occur in a vacuum. You can't increase wages and expect every other business variable to stay the same. That is lunacy. That is why, AT BEST, your living wage increase will accomplish nothing or actually put the peple you wanted to help in an even worse position.

Get it through your entitlement adled, whiny little brain. YOUR EMPLOYER DOES NOT OWE YOU YOUR BASIC NEEDS. You owe it to yourself to do what it takes to achieve that.