Explain to us Libs, what is a living wage?

[Bern80]

So............there is no such thing as a living wage, then?

Is that the point some of you are trying to make?

Obviously it should be fairly simple to define an amount of money that is enough to take care of a person's basic needs. I don't think this debate has ever been about whether such a thing exists. The point of the debate or contention of the debate is who is responsible for providing it.

Bern in your mind that is what the debate is about. The federal govt set a minimum wage that does not allow for most on the bottom end to get out of poverty, get there own ins. simply live
in return they collect 400 billion from us each year to subsidize that minimum wage. Thats what this debate is about
do you want the private sector to re-invest in the private sector or the govt. They care, they have no choice

Who ever said the minimum wage was supposed to be enough to live on? Have you considered that maybe the government knows, just like the rest of us know, that there is a labor market out there that doesn't NEED a living wage?

 

[Bern80]

So............there is no such thing as a living wage, then?

Is that the point some of you are trying to make?

Obviously it should be fairly simple to define an amount of money that is enough to take care of a person's basic needs. I don't think this debate has ever been about whether such a thing exists. The point of the debate or contention of the debate is who is responsible for providing it.

Bern in your mind that is what the debate is about. The federal govt set a minimum wage that does not allow for most on the bottom end to get out of poverty, get there own ins. simply live
in return they collect 600 billion to 1 trillion from us each year to subsidize that minimum wage. Thats what this debate is about
do you want the private sector to re-invest in the private sector or the govt. They care, they have no choice

Here's a simple question; Do you or do not accept that there is more than one solution to reducing the number of people on welfare (thus reducing the tax burden to pay for them)?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

what does a job in N.D going to do for a faimly of 4 in Day Florida?
I propose to take money that the federal govt is collecting from the consumer, using it to increase the monies the consumer makes by EARNING IT, and some how it keeps popping up as a liberal idea.
15000 jobs in N.D. that have 100,000 fighting for them is going to fix the millions who are on well-fare

Think people, Think

I propose to take money that the federal govt is collecting from the consumer, using it to increase the monies the consumer makes by EARNING IT

How?

In the south there are millions who work hard every day and get paid 8-11 an hour, some places in the wext also

In 07 the corporate tax rate and te budget for wellfare was about the same
Cut the tax the consumer provides for welfare thru the corporations, use that wealth to up the minimum wage to at least 12.00, maybe 13.00 an hour

Millions show up and do the same job they did the day before, earn it, the corporation sees nothing but an increase in production (probably, in my opinion)
well-fare as well as cost for Medicare and medicade go down
the free market injects 150 billion in the economy, the consumer eliminates millions who are on give aways in trade for tax payers
it is a win-win-win-win

If a corporation saves $100,000 on the tax cut but loses $1,000,000 on your "living wage" mandate, then what?

 

[JRK]

I propose to take money that the federal govt is collecting from the consumer, using it to increase the monies the consumer makes by EARNING IT

How?

In the south there are millions who work hard every day and get paid 8-11 an hour, some places in the wext also

In 07 the corporate tax rate and te budget for wellfare was about the same
Cut the tax the consumer provides for welfare thru the corporations, use that wealth to up the minimum wage to at least 12.00, maybe 13.00 an hour

Millions show up and do the same job they did the day before, earn it, the corporation sees nothing but an increase in production (probably, in my opinion)
well-fare as well as cost for Medicare and medicade go down
the free market injects 150 billion in the economy, the consumer eliminates millions who are on give aways in trade for tax payers
it is a win-win-win-win

No it isn't. You keep ingoring some pretty basic well established economic realities of government mandated wage increases. Everytime one occurs, unemployment goes UP. So you get some people that maybe no longer need to be welfare because you made employers pay them more. But you've also created people that now need welfare because they don't have job at all.

And please, get this concept through your skull. COMPENSATION IS NOT, NOR HAS EVER BEEN, ABOUT HOW HARD A PERSON WORKS. So stop with the sob story about how hard all these people work for so little. I don't care if you work 80 hours a week. If WHAT you're doing for 80 hours a week is flipping burgers you're still gonna have tough time making ends meet.

You can quite ripping on me for the things I don't know because I'm so young. You oughta be far more concerned about how you reached the age you reached and still have no grasp of the basic economic concepts that will prevent your solution from actually working.

our talking apples and Oranges to support your debate. This is because of 2 reason

1) minimum wage foing from 12500 to 15000 a year does nothing
2) changing the corporate tax rate to offset that cost as I have stated 100 times

also your claim is not true
1st increase to minimum wage in 10 years - Jul. 23, 2007

UE really began 1 year later and was allot to do with the housing bubble. in fact 2007 the UE rate was below 5%

 

[kwc57]

I love it when people think they know what the "average" anything is.

I love it when trolls make single sentence posts that are totally irrelevant to the topic.

View attachment 15892

 

[Bern80]

our talking apples and Oranges to support your debate. This is because of 2 reason

1) minimum wage foing from 12500 to 15000 a year does nothing
2) changing the corporate tax rate to offset that cost as I have stated 100 times

also your claim is not true
1st increase to minimum wage in 10 years - Jul. 23, 2007

UE really began 1 year later and was allot to do with the housing bubble. in fact 2007 the UE rate was below 5%

Good god man. Could you at the very least attempt to communicate clearly? Apples and oranges what? You are proposing a solution to a problem: make employers pay a living wage to eliminate welfare. You have been told, time and time and time again now why that won't work. How exactly is that apples and oranges? One of those reasons is a fairly well known economic truth. Everytime the min wage goes up, unemployment also goes up within min wage jobs. That isn't going to a number measurable in unemployment stastics as a whole. This has happened every time and keep in mind the min wage has been increased by mere cents each time. You want to nearly double that wage and you are so naive as to believe you're NOT going to create some umemployment by doing that?

 

[JRK]

our talking apples and Oranges to support your debate. This is because of 2 reason

1) minimum wage foing from 12500 to 15000 a year does nothing
2) changing the corporate tax rate to offset that cost as I have stated 100 times

also your claim is not true
1st increase to minimum wage in 10 years - Jul. 23, 2007

UE really began 1 year later and was allot to do with the housing bubble. in fact 2007 the UE rate was below 5%

Good god man. Could you at the very least attempt to communicate clearly? Apples and oranges what? How the hell does the above giberish have anything to do with what we're discussing?

Bern I day trade stocks, with the issues we are having today I am very busy
We had 40 million jobs created from 84-2008
The minimum wage had very little to do with harming that or helping it
your talking a corporation taking on more cost, I am talking the corporation taking on less cost
your talking bigger govt, i am talking smaller
your talking entitlement
I am talking to earn

it is apples and oranges

 

[JRK]

our talking apples and Oranges to support your debate. This is because of 2 reason

1) minimum wage foing from 12500 to 15000 a year does nothing
2) changing the corporate tax rate to offset that cost as I have stated 100 times

also your claim is not true
1st increase to minimum wage in 10 years - Jul. 23, 2007

UE really began 1 year later and was allot to do with the housing bubble. in fact 2007 the UE rate was below 5%

Good god man. Could you at the very least attempt to communicate clearly? Apples and oranges what? How the hell does the above giberish have anything to do with what we're discussing?

Bern I day trade stocks, with the issues we are having today I am very busy
We had 40 million jobs created from 84-2008
The minimum wage had very little to do with harming that or helping it
your talking a corporation taking on more cost, I am talking the corporation taking on less cost
your talking bigger govt, I am talking smaller
your talking entitlement
I am talking to earn

it is apples and oranges

 

[Foxfyre]

If you're talking 'to earn' JRK, then why are you fighting us when we say people should earn the wages they get rather than having the government dictate what they will receive? Giving the government power to dictate wages is not a 'smaller government' concept.

And you day trade stocks? I thought you were running a billion dollar corporation or something like that. I know of no CEO of any business that has time to day trade stocks.

 

[Bern80]

our talking apples and Oranges to support your debate. This is because of 2 reason

1) minimum wage foing from 12500 to 15000 a year does nothing
2) changing the corporate tax rate to offset that cost as I have stated 100 times

also your claim is not true
1st increase to minimum wage in 10 years - Jul. 23, 2007

UE really began 1 year later and was allot to do with the housing bubble. in fact 2007 the UE rate was below 5%

Good god man. Could you at the very least attempt to communicate clearly? Apples and oranges what? How the hell does the above giberish have anything to do with what we're discussing?

Bern I day trade stocks, with the issues we are having today I am very busy
We had 40 million jobs created from 84-2008
The minimum wage had very little to do with harming that or helping it
your talking a corporation taking on more cost, I am talking the corporation taking on less cost
your talking bigger govt, i am talking smaller
your talking entitlement
I am talking to earn

it is apples and oranges

You're talking earn and I'm the one talking entitled? You really are off your fucking rocker. Which one of us again is the one arguing that a person is ENTITLED to a living wage?

If a living wage mandate is passed, a corporation is taking on more cost, not less. You're just crossing your fingers that will be offset by lower tax rates.

 

[JRK]

If you're talking 'to earn' JRK, then why are you fighting us when we say people should earn the wages they get rather than having the government dictate what they will receive? Giving the government power to dictate wages is not a 'smaller government' concept.

And you day trade stocks? I thought you were running a billion dollar corporation or something like that. I know of no CEO of any business that has time to day trade stocks.

CEO
who said that? I stated I have estimated work for billion dollar jobs, (with help, that I did not state). I have managed muti million dollar projects as an area manager and as a project manager

I have just been laid off in lieu of moving to Canada. Thanks to Obama's policies on fossil fuels as well as the new plants being built such as nuclear
the govt has that power all ready. We keep going over the same things. Your in denial that US govt takes 25% (avg) of a companies profit because they mandate a living wage that requires monies from that corporate tax to support those same people they have set there wage to low

 

[kwc57]

View attachment 15894

 

[Foxfyre]

If you're talking 'to earn' JRK, then why are you fighting us when we say people should earn the wages they get rather than having the government dictate what they will receive? Giving the government power to dictate wages is not a 'smaller government' concept.

And you day trade stocks? I thought you were running a billion dollar corporation or something like that. I know of no CEO of any business that has time to day trade stocks.

CEO
who said that? I stated I have estimated work for billion dollar jobs, (with help, that I did not state). I have managed muti million dollar projects as an area manager and as a project manager

I have just been laid off in lieu of moving to Canada. Thanks to Obama's policies on fossil fuels as well as the new plants being built such as nuclear
the govt has that power all ready. We keep going over the same things. Your in denial that US govt takes 25% (avg) of a companies profit because they mandate a living wage that requires monies from that corporate tax to support those same people they have set there wage to low

You either didn't read what I've posted or you have a severe reading dysfunction. I've certainly not denied that our government overtaxes corporations. In fact the USA imposes the second highest corporate tax in the world with Japan edging us out by a fraction. Japan's economy, even without consideration for the earthquake and tsunami, is also in the tank after decades of government manipulation.

So yes, I am supporting ALL candidates who propose to bring business taxes way down and make the lower rates as permanent as possible which would be an important part of getting this economy rolling again. If they get rid of all unnecessary regulation and mandates, that would complete that process.

I'm not buying for a minute, however, that the government over taxes corporations because people aren't making a living wage. Nor do I believe for a minute that our current government would even consider lowering corporate taxes if they raised the minimum wage to $12/hour. Why? Because they not only don't give a damn about the poor--they NEED the poor to be dependent on them and vote for them--but just as quickly as they raised the minimum wage thus increasing inflation, they would raise the poverty threshhold as they have always done in the past.

I won't question your motives. I only question your understanding of how government works and the unintended negative consequences of what you are proposing. You aren't offering any solution to the problem but simply making it far far worse than it is now.

 

[editec]

So............there is no such thing as a living wage, then?

Is that the point some of you are trying to make?

Obviously it should be fairly simple to define an amount of money that is enough to take care of a person's basic needs. I don't think this debate has ever been about whether such a thing exists. The point of the debate or contention of the debate is who is responsible for providing it.

Well, we know what life was like BEFORE we had minimum wage laws.

It was crap for most Americans.


And we know what happened when the minumim wages failed to keep up with the rate of inflation, too.

Life has gotten crappier for most Americans AND our governments appear to be going bankrupt, too.

Make of those coincidences what you will.

 

[Bern80]

So............there is no such thing as a living wage, then?

Is that the point some of you are trying to make?

Obviously it should be fairly simple to define an amount of money that is enough to take care of a person's basic needs. I don't think this debate has ever been about whether such a thing exists. The point of the debate or contention of the debate is who is responsible for providing it.

Well, we know what life was like BEFORE we had minimum wage laws.

It was crap for most Americans.


And we know what happened when the minumim wages failed to keep up with the rate of inflation, too.

Life has gotten crappier for most Americans AND our governments appear to be going bankrupt, too.

Make of those coincidences what you will.

They are exactly coinciedences. Nothing you state here is remotely accurate. You know what things were like before min wage laws were instituted? Do you know what fraction of the labor market consists of min wage jobs now? The only thing crap here ed, is your contention. Most Americans already make more than minimum wage, thus a minimum wage law didnt' effect them at all, thus things weren't crap for most american workers even before the min wage was instituted.

 

[Foxfyre]

Obviously it should be fairly simple to define an amount of money that is enough to take care of a person's basic needs. I don't think this debate has ever been about whether such a thing exists. The point of the debate or contention of the debate is who is responsible for providing it.

Well, we know what life was like BEFORE we had minimum wage laws.

It was crap for most Americans.


And we know what happened when the minumim wages failed to keep up with the rate of inflation, too.

Life has gotten crappier for most Americans AND our governments appear to be going bankrupt, too.

Make of those coincidences what you will.

They are exactly coinciedences. Nothing you state here is remotely accurate. You know what things were like before min wage laws were instituted? Do you know what fraction of the labor market consists of min wage jobs now? The only thing crap here ed, is your contention. Most Americans already make more than minimum wage, thus a minimum wage law didnt' effect them at all, thus things weren't crap for most american workers even before the min wage was instituted.

The thing some won't see is that the more government meddles in everything, the crappier it gets for more people. USA schools were the envy of the world and were educating kids as well as anybody was UNTIL government started meddling. Now we are waaaaaaay down on the totem pole re effectiveness of our education system compared to other developed countries and it continues to get worse the more the federal government meddles. Ditto the more government encourages more and more people to become more dependent on government.

Those who stay in school and manage to educate themselves despite a crappy education system, who stay away from illegal activities, who are willing to start at the very bottom and work up through the system to develop a work ethic, acquire marketable skills, and develop references do not have to work for anything close to minimum wage and are not leading crappy lives.

Those who don't bother to educate themselves, develop a work ethic, acquire marketable skills etc. and who have made themselves dependent on government do usually lead crappier lives than the rest of us.

And no amount of increase in the minimum wage will change that one whit.

 

[Bern80]

The thing some won't see is that the more government meddles in everything, the crappier it gets for more people. USA schools were the envy of the world and were educating kids as well as anybody was UNTIL government started meddling. Now we are waaaaaaay down on the totem pole re effectiveness of our education system compared to other developed countries and it continues to get worse the more the federal government meddles. Ditto the more government encourages more and more people to become more dependent on government.

When more government fails, to some the only answer seems to be, 'well that's because we didn't use enough government'.

 

[JRK]

Good god man. Could you at the very least attempt to communicate clearly? Apples and oranges what? How the hell does the above giberish have anything to do with what we're discussing?

Bern I day trade stocks, with the issues we are having today I am very busy
We had 40 million jobs created from 84-2008
The minimum wage had very little to do with harming that or helping it
your talking a corporation taking on more cost, I am talking the corporation taking on less cost
your talking bigger govt, i am talking smaller
your talking entitlement
I am talking to earn

it is apples and oranges

You're talking earn and I'm the one talking entitled? You really are off your fucking rocker. Which one of us again is the one arguing that a person is ENTITLED to a living wage?

If a living wage mandate is passed, a corporation is taking on more cost, not less. You're just crossing your fingers that will be offset by lower tax rates.

crossing my fingres?
cossing my fingers?

to start with we have a minimum wage now, its the reason there is a problem as it is below the level the govt sets for that person to pay any income tax as well as it allows that person to get govt benifits, my plan fixes both in most cases

company makes 100,000 in profit, pays 25,000 in tax on avg
my plan they pay about 15,000
thats a savings of 10,000 in taxes

Now let me explain to you how this works
120 a week extra cost in wages
52 weeks means that company has enough money to go from 8.00 an hour to 12 for 2 people
or
4 people from 10-12 an hour

A company that makes 100,000 in profit a year is very small. Bern this were you give your self away every time as to how little you understand how business works, there is no guessing in this bud
lets do this. for every employee a company has that it can produce evidence that it had 20 employees that went from 8 to 12 an hour it would get dollar for dollar a tax break? DO you relize GWB proposed this in 06? (not my eaxct idea, but the same in general)
Bush said at a Wednesday news conference that any pay hike should be accompanied by tax and regulatory relief for small businesses, potentially a tough sell for Democrats, who are about to reassume control of the House and Senate.
Bush links minimum wage to tax break - USATODAY.com

Still think this a lib fix?

 

[Bern80]

Bern I day trade stocks, with the issues we are having today I am very busy
We had 40 million jobs created from 84-2008
The minimum wage had very little to do with harming that or helping it
your talking a corporation taking on more cost, I am talking the corporation taking on less cost
your talking bigger govt, i am talking smaller
your talking entitlement
I am talking to earn

it is apples and oranges

You're talking earn and I'm the one talking entitled? You really are off your fucking rocker. Which one of us again is the one arguing that a person is ENTITLED to a living wage?

If a living wage mandate is passed, a corporation is taking on more cost, not less. You're just crossing your fingers that will be offset by lower tax rates.

crossing my fingres?
cossing my fingers?

to start with we have a minimum wage now, its the reason there is a problem as it is below the level the govt sets for that person to pay any income tax as well as it allows that person to get govt benifits, my plan fixes both in most cases

company makes 100,000 in profit, pays 25,000 in tax on avg
my plan they pay about 15,000
thats a savings of 10,000 in taxes

Now let me explain to you how this works
120 a week extra cost in wages
52 weeks means that company has enough money to go from 8.00 an hour to 12 for 2 people
or
4 people from 10-12 an hour

A company that makes 100,000 in profit a year is very small. Bern this were you give your self away every time as to how little you understand how business works, there is no guessing in this bud
lets do this. for every employee a company has that it can produce evidence that it had 20 employees that went from 8 to 12 an hour it would get dollar for dollar a tax break? DO you relize GWB proposed this in 06? (not my eaxct idea, but the same in general)
Bush said at a Wednesday news conference that any pay hike should be accompanied by tax and regulatory relief for small businesses, potentially a tough sell for Democrats, who are about to reassume control of the House and Senate.
Bush links minimum wage to tax break - USATODAY.com

Still think this a lib fix?

Of course it's liberal. Using government to tell a private business not only what they have to pay people, but that it is a business' responsibility to care of their employees needs is as liberal a concept as it gets. That is an entitlement and it is YOU arguing for said entitlement, not me.

 

[JRK]

You're talking earn and I'm the one talking entitled? You really are off your fucking rocker. Which one of us again is the one arguing that a person is ENTITLED to a living wage?

If a living wage mandate is passed, a corporation is taking on more cost, not less. You're just crossing your fingers that will be offset by lower tax rates.

crossing my fingres?
cossing my fingers?

to start with we have a minimum wage now, its the reason there is a problem as it is below the level the govt sets for that person to pay any income tax as well as it allows that person to get govt benifits, my plan fixes both in most cases

company makes 100,000 in profit, pays 25,000 in tax on avg
my plan they pay about 15,000
thats a savings of 10,000 in taxes

Now let me explain to you how this works
120 a week extra cost in wages
52 weeks means that company has enough money to go from 8.00 an hour to 12 for 2 people
or
4 people from 10-12 an hour

A company that makes 100,000 in profit a year is very small. Bern this were you give your self away every time as to how little you understand how business works, there is no guessing in this bud
lets do this. for every employee a company has that it can produce evidence that it had 20 employees that went from 8 to 12 an hour it would get dollar for dollar a tax break? DO you relize GWB proposed this in 06? (not my eaxct idea, but the same in general)
Bush said at a Wednesday news conference that any pay hike should be accompanied by tax and regulatory relief for small businesses, potentially a tough sell for Democrats, who are about to reassume control of the House and Senate.
Bush links minimum wage to tax break - USATODAY.com

Still think this a lib fix?

Of course it's liberal. Using government to tell a private business not only what they have to pay people, but that it is a business' responsibility to care of their employees needs is as liberal a concept as it gets. That is an entitlement and it is YOU arguing for said entitlement, not me.

Bern we are going to keep it the way it is just for you. when well-fare cost hit 1 trillion and Obama rasies corporate tax rates just for you so we can pay for it.
Keep telling yourslef it is a liberal idea, Okay?

actually well-fare cost in all relaity has hit the 1 trillion mark, lets go for 2