Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I have stated 50 times this about adults, not teenagers. supplemental income is in the form of that same pay working part time, driving a school bus. No change
So we're back to the immorality of your argument. Two people working the same job should be paid different wages if one person needs the money more than the other according to what you're saying here. Think about what you're saying. A single adult goes to work at McDonald's and a teenager goes to work at McDonald's. You're claiming that the adult should get to make nearly TWICE what the teen makes simply because the adult needs the money?
Lib?
cuttting down taxes as well as how much the govt is involved in our lives is not a liberal idea
I have stated 50 times this about adults, not teenagers. supplemental income is in the form of that same pay working part time, driving a school bus. No change
So we're back to the immorality of your argument. Two people working the same job should be paid different wages if one person needs the money more than the other according to what you're saying here. Think about what you're saying. A single adult goes to work at McDonald's and a teenager goes to work at McDonald's. You're claiming that the adult should get to make nearly TWICE what the teen makes simply because the adult needs the money?
No..However the adult would be paid more if his/her value to the company as a worker is higher.
Look, young people who are working part time and still attending school will earn less doing similar work vs an adult. It is what it is. Why do you think fast food joints and convenience stores employ these youngsters?
JRK can be petty and insulting guys, but, in my observations here, that has only been when he has been personally attacked or accused by others. I think he is dead wrong about his version of what a 'living wage' is and how it should be provided, but he has at least been making a decent debate of it, something few 'libs' usually can do. For the most part, except for the mini food fights now and then, I have been enjoying the pros and cons of the discussion.
And JRK, you might object to being classified a 'lib' by me, but looking to government for a forced solution to what should be a private sector problem is just simply a modern American liberal concept.
The bottom line is, a conservative knows that whenever you give the government the right to tell you what you MUST pay your employees, you have handed over another piece of the unalienable rights our Founders put their very lives on the line to give us. When the government is given power to assign what 'rights' we will have, we have no rights, but only whims of government. What the government 'gives' us can be taken away at the slightest whim.
An income furnished by somebody else has never been and should not now be a 'right'. The proper way to see labor is as a commodity or cost of doing business as much as lights, heat, water, transportation, materials, supplies, etc. are part of the cost of doing business. As such labor will have a specific value for any employer and it is the employer who knows what that value is, not the government.
Get government out of it as much as possible and let the free market work, and we will again see American wages exceeding those of anywhere else in the world.
But the guy who is worthless on the job will still remain worthless just the same.
Lib?
cuttting down taxes as well as how much the govt is involved in our lives is not a liberal idea
I do not know where any of you live but in the south there are millions of people makin 375-425 a week or less that are far from lazy
What is it I have ever stated that this was some give away? We have that in the form of wellfare
Guys I am going to say this again, I do not know where you people live, I have worked from Oregan to Florida to Kentucky and there are millions of hard working people who deserve more than there getting
I have reaches a point with this that each of you have offered no real solutions, You keep making it about things its not
I have run out of things to say
Pay a hard working person a living wage
cut down on well fare
medicare
medicade
lower taxes
Thats not a give away.
WE PAY ALL TAXES,
My god yo people have no idea how much taking 20,000 a year out of my check is in my life neck deep now. I cannot grasp why you think those corporations we are paying there taxes for should be given it all?
What in gods name about this is being a lib?
BUSINESS COLLECTS WEALTH FROM YOU
WHO DEFEND THEM T
SO WE PAY TAXES SO THOSE WHO NEED WELFARE BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE A LIVING WAGE IN THIS COUNTRY, THAT IS NOT MY FAULT, WHY DO YOU WANT ME TO KEEP PAYING FOR IT?,
I have had enough of this
if you want to debate what the debate is about, I am all in, you keep making this about everything but whats about and offer NO RESOLUTIONS
Sir, I AM debating what the debate is about which, on this thread, is a living wage. You on one hand object to being called a 'lib' and say you are opposed to more government interference in our lives, but then keep insisting that you want the government to initiate a living wage which is purely a liberal concept.
I am telling you that you can't have it both ways. You are either a conservative when it comes to a living wage and know it is best for the free market to establish that, or you are a liberal when it comes to a living wage and want the government to dictate that.
I am also opposed to there BEING any welfare state at the federal level. That also comes from my conservative credentials.
But I am telling you, as have so many others, that a government mandated 'living wage' will NOT eliminate the welfare state but rather will most likely enlarge it. Business is not going to pay more for any job than it is worth to that business, and if the goverment requires the employer to pay more than he is willing to pay, the employer will not hire.
It will also shut out the most unemployable in our society as business will not hire the marginal employee at the same wage as he pays more productive workers. If he is required to, he won't hire the marginal employee.
Your intentions are okay. But the solution you see is deeply flawed.
Lib?
cuttting down taxes as well as how much the govt is involved in our lives is not a liberal idea
I do not know where any of you live but in the south there are millions of people makin 375-425 a week or less that are far from lazy
What is it I have ever stated that this was some give away? We have that in the form of wellfare
Guys I am going to say this again, I do not know where you people live, I have worked from Oregan to Florida to Kentucky and there are millions of hard working people who deserve more than there getting
I have reaches a point with this that each of you have offered no real solutions, You keep making it about things its not
I have run out of things to say
Pay a hard working person a living wage
cut down on well fare
medicare
medicade
lower taxes
Thats not a give away.
WE PAY ALL TAXES,
My god yo people have no idea how much taking 20,000 a year out of my check is in my life neck deep now. I cannot grasp why you think those corporations we are paying there taxes for should be given it all?
What in gods name about this is being a lib?
BUSINESS COLLECTS WEALTH FROM YOU
WHO DEFEND THEM T
SO WE PAY TAXES SO THOSE WHO NEED WELFARE BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE A LIVING WAGE IN THIS COUNTRY, THAT IS NOT MY FAULT, WHY DO YOU WANT ME TO KEEP PAYING FOR IT?,
I have had enough of this
if you want to debate what the debate is about, I am all in, you keep making this about everything but whats about and offer NO RESOLUTIONS
Sir, I AM debating what the debate is about which, on this thread, is a living wage. You on one hand object to being called a 'lib' and say you are opposed to more government interference in our lives, but then keep insisting that you want the government to initiate a living wage which is purely a liberal concept.
I am telling you that you can't have it both ways. You are either a conservative when it comes to a living wage and know it is best for the free market to establish that, or you are a liberal when it comes to a living wage and want the government to dictate that.
I am also opposed to there BEING any welfare state at the federal level. That also comes from my conservative credentials.
But I am telling you, as have so many others, that a government mandated 'living wage' will NOT eliminate the welfare state but rather will most likely enlarge it. Business is not going to pay more for any job than it is worth to that business, and if the goverment requires the employer to pay more than he is willing to pay, the employer will not hire.
It will also shut out the most unemployable in our society as business will not hire the marginal employee at the same wage as he pays more productive workers. If he is required to, he won't hire the marginal employee.
Your intentions are okay. But the solution you see is deeply flawed.
If a person shovels asphaly an a bacon davis job and gets 12.00 and hour and 8 for a non davis bacon, business keep bidding on the work either way.
Your feelings about it elraging it do not hold water. we need to remove the escape route those who work the system, this would do it.
If people hire on a davis bacon wage event, they will on a Burger king event.
Bare labor cost are not 1/2 of the cost it takes to have a person on a payroll. With minimum requirements on Obama care that are forth coming as well as workmans comp, these cost will add up well above 8.00 an hour in most cases
Look you have been respectful. I thank you for that. Business pay 8.00 an hour because thats all there mandated to pay
0.25 on the dollar is the avg on a corporate tax rate. we pay for that. If it was lowered to 0.15on the dollar in exchange for a 12.00 an hour, what would happen?
We collected 370 billion in corporate income tax in 2007, by cutting that by 40% in ex change for the higher minimum wage we add 150 (148) billion to the economy and that much money would go to the additional 4.00 per hour or close to 4 billion man-hours any corporation could pay that minimum wage without costing you and I another dime
or
20 million people for one year @ a 40 hour work week
Is that a free market solution or not and it would put another 150 billion dollars in our economy instaed of paying some-one to sit home and collect
Sir, I AM debating what the debate is about which, on this thread, is a living wage. You on one hand object to being called a 'lib' and say you are opposed to more government interference in our lives, but then keep insisting that you want the government to initiate a living wage which is purely a liberal concept.
I am telling you that you can't have it both ways. You are either a conservative when it comes to a living wage and know it is best for the free market to establish that, or you are a liberal when it comes to a living wage and want the government to dictate that.
I am also opposed to there BEING any welfare state at the federal level. That also comes from my conservative credentials.
But I am telling you, as have so many others, that a government mandated 'living wage' will NOT eliminate the welfare state but rather will most likely enlarge it. Business is not going to pay more for any job than it is worth to that business, and if the goverment requires the employer to pay more than he is willing to pay, the employer will not hire.
It will also shut out the most unemployable in our society as business will not hire the marginal employee at the same wage as he pays more productive workers. If he is required to, he won't hire the marginal employee.
Your intentions are okay. But the solution you see is deeply flawed.
If a person shovels asphaly an a bacon davis job and gets 12.00 and hour and 8 for a non davis bacon, business keep bidding on the work either way.
Your feelings about it elraging it do not hold water. we need to remove the escape route those who work the system, this would do it.
If people hire on a davis bacon wage event, they will on a Burger king event.
Bare labor cost are not 1/2 of the cost it takes to have a person on a payroll. With minimum requirements on Obama care that are forth coming as well as workmans comp, these cost will add up well above 8.00 an hour in most cases
Look you have been respectful. I thank you for that. Business pay 8.00 an hour because thats all there mandated to pay
0.25 on the dollar is the avg on a corporate tax rate. we pay for that. If it was lowered to 0.15on the dollar in exchange for a 12.00 an hour, what would happen?
We collected 370 billion in corporate income tax in 2007, by cutting that by 40% in ex change for the higher minimum wage we add 150 (148) billion to the economy and that much money would go to the additional 4.00 per hour or close to 4 billion man-hours any corporation could pay that minimum wage without costing you and I another dime
or
20 million people for one year @ a 40 hour work week
Is that a free market solution or not and it would put another 150 billion dollars in our economy instaed of paying some-one to sit home and collect
No, it is not. It requires a government mandate so by definition, no it is not a free market solution. If you haven't gotten it yet after this long, you're never going to. It is not the business community's responsibility to eliminate welfare. It's the responsibility of those on welfare to get themselves out. All you are doing is disincentivizing people to improve themselves. For the umpteenth time we get what you want. YOU'RE DOING IT THE WRONG WAY.
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?
Here is the whole issue with wages. A very large portion of our economy comes from consumer spending. The lowest income earners spend the greatest percentage of their incomes on products and services. The ability for consumers to spend, meaning they have money to spend, is what drives our economy. As spending power decreases among the middle class and underclass, so goes the economy. Rich people do buy goods and services, but they don't buy nearly as much as the rest of us do. If the top ten percent are earning approximately 45% of income, and the other 90% is earning the other 55%, do you really think that the top 10% is putting that money all back into the economy?
Increasing the wages of the lowest income earners will just put all that money right back into the economy. Everyone benefits. Of course it isn't quite so simple as just giving everyone a raise. However, when we look at the amount that the top income earners have increased their incomes by, we must ask ourselves what are they using that money for? Are they putting it back into the economy? With American businesses sitting on over $2 trillion in cash, the obvious answer is no. If that money was in the pockets of American workers, it would all be put right back into the economy creating substantial growth.
I am not saying that this is the solution, but just explaining that is how things actually work. Making it so is another story. The other problem that we have is that the baby boomers have reduced their spending considerably just due to the fact that they have everything they need. So we now have reduced spending on two fronts, the wealthy baby boomers and the rest of the populace that is just struggling to get by. But on the other end, we have the wealthy who continue to gain wealth while the rest of the country takes it up the ass.
Then with all of this happening, we have people like Herman Cain telling us we need to drastically reduce taxes on the wealthy, those who are already increasing their wealth, while increasing taxes on everyone else, those who are already losing any wealthy they may have. It really makes sane people scratch their heads.
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?
Here is the whole issue with wages. A very large portion of our economy comes from consumer spending. The lowest income earners spend the greatest percentage of their incomes on products and services. The ability for consumers to spend, meaning they have money to spend, is what drives our economy. As spending power decreases among the middle class and underclass, so goes the economy. Rich people do buy goods and services, but they don't buy nearly as much as the rest of us do. If the top ten percent are earning approximately 45% of income, and the other 90% is earning the other 55%, do you really think that the top 10% is putting that money all back into the economy?
Increasing the wages of the lowest income earners will just put all that money right back into the economy. Everyone benefits. Of course it isn't quite so simple as just giving everyone a raise. However, when we look at the amount that the top income earners have increased their incomes by, we must ask ourselves what are they using that money for? Are they putting it back into the economy? With American businesses sitting on over $2 trillion in cash, the obvious answer is no. If that money was in the pockets of American workers, it would all be put right back into the economy creating substantial growth.
I am not saying that this is the solution, but just explaining that is how things actually work. Making it so is another story. The other problem that we have is that the baby boomers have reduced their spending considerably just due to the fact that they have everything they need. So we now have reduced spending on two fronts, the wealthy baby boomers and the rest of the populace that is just struggling to get by. But on the other end, we have the wealthy who continue to gain wealth while the rest of the country takes it up the ass.
Then with all of this happening, we have people like Herman Cain telling us we need to drastically reduce taxes on the wealthy, those who are already increasing their wealth, while increasing taxes on everyone else, those who are already losing any wealthy they may have. It really makes sane people scratch their heads.
Increasing the wages of the lowest income earners will just put all that money right back into the economy. Everyone benefits
Obama should tax the rich and pay the bottom 50% of workers $30 an hour, to dig holes and fill them in.
Everybody benefits. Right?
Any flaws in this scenario?
Here is the whole issue with wages. A very large portion of our economy comes from consumer spending. The lowest income earners spend the greatest percentage of their incomes on products and services. The ability for consumers to spend, meaning they have money to spend, is what drives our economy. As spending power decreases among the middle class and underclass, so goes the economy. Rich people do buy goods and services, but they don't buy nearly as much as the rest of us do. If the top ten percent are earning approximately 45% of income, and the other 90% is earning the other 55%, do you really think that the top 10% is putting that money all back into the economy?
Increasing the wages of the lowest income earners will just put all that money right back into the economy. Everyone benefits. Of course it isn't quite so simple as just giving everyone a raise. However, when we look at the amount that the top income earners have increased their incomes by, we must ask ourselves what are they using that money for? Are they putting it back into the economy? With American businesses sitting on over $2 trillion in cash, the obvious answer is no. If that money was in the pockets of American workers, it would all be put right back into the economy creating substantial growth.
I am not saying that this is the solution, but just explaining that is how things actually work. Making it so is another story. The other problem that we have is that the baby boomers have reduced their spending considerably just due to the fact that they have everything they need. So we now have reduced spending on two fronts, the wealthy baby boomers and the rest of the populace that is just struggling to get by. But on the other end, we have the wealthy who continue to gain wealth while the rest of the country takes it up the ass.
Then with all of this happening, we have people like Herman Cain telling us we need to drastically reduce taxes on the wealthy, those who are already increasing their wealth, while increasing taxes on everyone else, those who are already losing any wealthy they may have. It really makes sane people scratch their heads.
Increasing the wages of the lowest income earners will just put all that money right back into the economy. Everyone benefits
Obama should tax the rich and pay the bottom 50% of workers $30 an hour, to dig holes and fill them in.
Everybody benefits. Right?
Any flaws in this scenario?
WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT BEING STUPID?
If you guys cannot talk about the subeject, why even show up?
Where is it in any thread I have wrote on this subject stated one word about rasing taxes?
I just wroye a thread about cutting taxes 40%
Where have I wrote one thread about giving money away?
digging holes and filling them?
People hiring is a choice, firinf is a choice. This thread had never once mandated corporations have to hire any-one at any price, thats there choice
Now they must pay a minumum of 7.75 an hour, but they dont have to hire any-one
at any cost
STILL $11/hour, the equivalent of 1968's. What do greedy myopic Pubs and silly dupes have against poor workers having a good life and providing demand? A-holes? Racists? MORONS? All of the above?
LOL!
Increasing the wages of the lowest income earners will just put all that money right back into the economy. Everyone benefits
Obama should tax the rich and pay the bottom 50% of workers $30 an hour, to dig holes and fill them in.
Everybody benefits. Right?
Any flaws in this scenario?
WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT BEING STUPID?
If you guys cannot talk about the subeject, why even show up?
The subject is idiots who think all we have to do to fix the economy is hand the lowest wage earners more money, because they'll spend it. Without requiring additional production, to fund the handouts.
Where is it in any thread I have wrote on this subject stated one word about rasing taxes?
I just wroye a thread about cutting taxes 40%
Where have I wrote one thread about giving money away?
digging holes and filling them?
People hiring is a choice, firinf is a choice. This thread had never once mandated corporations have to hire any-one at any price, thats there choice
Now they must pay a minumum of 7.75 an hour, but they dont have to hire any-one
at any cost
Geez, look at the clown I was responding to, it wasn't you.
Where is it in any thread I have wrote on this subject stated one word about rasing taxes?
I just wroye a thread about cutting taxes 40%
Where have I wrote one thread about giving money away?
digging holes and filling them?
People hiring is a choice, firinf is a choice. This thread had never once mandated corporations have to hire any-one at any price, thats there choice
Now they must pay a minumum of 7.75 an hour, but they dont have to hire any-one
at any cost
Geez, look at the clown I was responding to, it wasn't you.
Todd i am sorry, but your thread supported what he has been saying
its a give away
Ben 80 you made your point 200 threads ago. Your 100% pro corporation, people mean nothin
and all you want to do is pretend your a conservative. Your giving us a bad name, to be honest i think your a plant
CUTTING THE CORPORATE TAX RATE 40% IS A LIBERAL IDEA BERN?
STILL $11/hour, the equivalent of 1968's. What do greedy myopic Pubs and silly dupes have against poor workers having a good life and providing demand? A-holes? Racists? MORONS? All of the above?
LOL!
This is not real conservatives, they have no idea what this is about. you could save 100s of billions in wellfare cost doing this
and
Thinking a corporation has no place in resolving serious issues in this country is mind boggling. Corporations that have any siz to them do this any-way for the most part
It is dude in a place I will never undertsnad. the only people getting hurt in the way the system is right now is you and I, any-one who pays taxes and uses good from any corporation
200 threads ago there is a person who keeps spamming the same thing about corporations are good and people are bad
I offer a resolution to welfare cost by lowering the corporate tax rate and he has told me that is not a conservative fix
How do we get some-one like that to just go away? I mean really you have Jake who hates GWB so much, ignoring him is a wste of time
Bern, chill out okay? think about the problem as it is and not as you think it is
1) we pay ALL taxes
2) lowering the corporate tax rate is not an idea BHO is trying to pass on to us. Cutting it 40% I have shown allows enough money to up the minimum wage 4.00 an hour for 20 million people, it grows the economy and does not cost us 1 penny
Now explain to us why you think corporations get a free pass and the tax payer holds all the burden Bern or just stop
WE GOT IT 200 THREADS AGO DUDE
