Fast-food workers strike, seeking $15 wage, political muscle

[Ray From Cleveland]

When it comes to taxes, where did I say anything about the wealthier? YOU made the statement that if people are paid more they'll pay taxes. I stated that while it may be the case, it isn't necessarily the case all the time and gave an example of when it wouldn't apply. Where did I say anything about rich people and taxes? Please provide the quote.

You said the poor need to do more to get increases, while you are ok with the rich getting more for doing less. This isn't about taxes dummy.

I'm OK with anyone getting an increase as long as the one paying them is the one deciding the increase. When those not doing the paying or the government thinks it's their place to tell the one that is paying they have to do more, I have a problem, rich or poor. You think the government should mandate a $15/hour minimum wage. I don't. However, if a business owner doing the paying voluntarily decides to pay more, that's fine. It's his/her money.

You seem to be OK with the poor getting more for doing nothing. You support a $15/hour minimum wage yet have said nothing about what those making the current $7.25/hour have to do to get it other than demand it.

It is about taxes. You said about 5 responses back that if we pay people more they'll pay taxes. I said not necessarily. You then brought in pay.

So the rich can get raises for bad performance, but don't give those poor people raises.

Well yes if you increase wages more people will start paying taxes. Asking poor people on welfare to pay taxes would just be stupid.

One more time. If a CEO (rich person) gets a raise because those paying decide to give him/her one, fine. If a minimum wage worker gets a raise because those paying decide to give him/her one, fine. If the government mandates it, it's not fine. It's not the government's money.

I acknowledged that some would but I also showed how, unlike you blanket statement of if we pay them more they'll pay taxes, isn't necessarily true.

Those poor people on welfare don't mind demanding the rest of us that are forced to fund their welfare continue to pay or pay more so they can get it. Talk about inconsistent.

If they don't get raises from employer then they are subsidized by the government. I shouldn't be subsidizing corps workers.

Then contact your representative and tell them to stop subsidizing those people. If they don't get paid by the government, they will look for better paying jobs or work more hours.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ya know what it is especially ironic. Your avatar....About government protecting the shit out of the people....Yet you want government to take those batons to business owners to suit your cause.....So it is actually YOU swinging the baton...
Hey genius....Don't be surprise if one day the person you are beating grabs the baton and decides to hit back.

Poor McDonalds Millionaires. Must be rough. I hope they make it.

They'll do just fine. In fact, those McDonald millionaire are taking some of their money and investing it into automation. Some restaurants are virtually employee free. Think of how much they will save by having robots do the work former human employees used to do.

"Every action causes a reaction."
Ray from Cleveland

And unemploying people will make them virtually customer free. Can't unemploy your customer base.

Customers would love it because it would likely mean lower prices. After all, you don't have to pay machines; just keep them maintained and repaired.

Unemployed customers don't buy very much.

Neither do McDonald's workers.

 

[Brain357]

Yes you say that for the poor but then are ok with ceos getting paid more for worse performance. You aren't consistent.

A CEO getting paid a certain amount you don't like and showing that a minimum wage earner in the example I gave still wouldn't pay income taxes with over a 100% pay increase have nothing to do with each other.

Consistency doesn't figure in when the two things you compare can't really be compared.

You expect the poor to do more, but the rich can get more for doing less. That isn't consistent.

You need to learn the difference between creating money and earning money. In most cases, the wealthy don't earn money, they create wealth. Workers don't create wealth, they earn money.

Didn't I have to explain to you how ceos get ridiculous raises? You were in denial of the scam I believe.

And you watch too many television shows. CEO's are not people in a huge office with a putting green like you see in the movies.

CEO's like actors, musicians, sports figures are paid by their past performance. They don't get paid by the hour because they get paid by contract. If a CEO is renown for doubling the growth of a company, the company pays that CEO whatever it takes to make that profit.

If a CEO gets a job at a company and earns 5 million a year, it's likely because he or she brought in 10 million a year in new money. That's a smart business move on behalf of the company because if they didn't want to pay that CEO that kind of money, their competitors will.

No it is not like that.

CEO pay for performance: This graph shows why it's a sham.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Let's expect people to do something to earn that increase. See how that works?

As for you they will pay taxes, that isn't necessarily so. I doubt you would understand an explanation because the double or more digit numbers would involve you being able to count that high. A single parent with two kids making minimum wage ($7.25/hour or $15,080/year based on a 52 week/year x 40 hour/week schedule) could have their hourly wage more than doubled and that single parent still wouldn't pay income taxes. The actual hourly wage could be raised to $18.55 with no income taxes being paid. By the way, I can prove it. When I do, all I ask is you be man enough to admit it.

Yes you say that for the poor but then are ok with ceos getting paid more for worse performance. You aren't consistent.

A CEO getting paid a certain amount you don't like and showing that a minimum wage earner in the example I gave still wouldn't pay income taxes with over a 100% pay increase have nothing to do with each other.

Consistency doesn't figure in when the two things you compare can't really be compared.

You expect the poor to do more, but the rich can get more for doing less. That isn't consistent.

You need to learn the difference between creating money and earning money. In most cases, the wealthy don't earn money, they create wealth. Workers don't create wealth, they earn money.

He can not comprehend either they don't pay the skill and white collar workers how hard they work, they pay them to think.

Basically they pay them to do a job that not many others can do. A worker is only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job. Anybody can sweep floors and stock shelves. It takes a whole ten minutes of training. But those same workers cannot find an electrical problem that causes a blackout in part of a factory. For that you need somebody with training and experience which most people don't have. That's why an electrician is worth much more money than the guy packing orders.

 

[Conservative65]

Let's expect people to do something to earn that increase. See how that works?

As for you they will pay taxes, that isn't necessarily so. I doubt you would understand an explanation because the double or more digit numbers would involve you being able to count that high. A single parent with two kids making minimum wage ($7.25/hour or $15,080/year based on a 52 week/year x 40 hour/week schedule) could have their hourly wage more than doubled and that single parent still wouldn't pay income taxes. The actual hourly wage could be raised to $18.55 with no income taxes being paid. By the way, I can prove it. When I do, all I ask is you be man enough to admit it.

Yes you say that for the poor but then are ok with ceos getting paid more for worse performance. You aren't consistent.

A CEO getting paid a certain amount you don't like and showing that a minimum wage earner in the example I gave still wouldn't pay income taxes with over a 100% pay increase have nothing to do with each other.

Consistency doesn't figure in when the two things you compare can't really be compared.

You expect the poor to do more, but the rich can get more for doing less. That isn't consistent.

You need to learn the difference between creating money and earning money. In most cases, the wealthy don't earn money, they create wealth. Workers don't create wealth, they earn money.

Didn't I have to explain to you how ceos get ridiculous raises? You were in denial of the scam I believe.

Because some editorial/blog piece says it makes it fact?

You call a CEO getting a raise ridiculous yet don't mind a low skilled worker getting a ridiculous increase from $7.25 to $15/hour. That's over a 100% increase.

 

[Brain357]

You said the poor need to do more to get increases, while you are ok with the rich getting more for doing less. This isn't about taxes dummy.

I'm OK with anyone getting an increase as long as the one paying them is the one deciding the increase. When those not doing the paying or the government thinks it's their place to tell the one that is paying they have to do more, I have a problem, rich or poor. You think the government should mandate a $15/hour minimum wage. I don't. However, if a business owner doing the paying voluntarily decides to pay more, that's fine. It's his/her money.

You seem to be OK with the poor getting more for doing nothing. You support a $15/hour minimum wage yet have said nothing about what those making the current $7.25/hour have to do to get it other than demand it.

It is about taxes. You said about 5 responses back that if we pay people more they'll pay taxes. I said not necessarily. You then brought in pay.

So the rich can get raises for bad performance, but don't give those poor people raises.

Well yes if you increase wages more people will start paying taxes. Asking poor people on welfare to pay taxes would just be stupid.

One more time. If a CEO (rich person) gets a raise because those paying decide to give him/her one, fine. If a minimum wage worker gets a raise because those paying decide to give him/her one, fine. If the government mandates it, it's not fine. It's not the government's money.

I acknowledged that some would but I also showed how, unlike you blanket statement of if we pay them more they'll pay taxes, isn't necessarily true.

Those poor people on welfare don't mind demanding the rest of us that are forced to fund their welfare continue to pay or pay more so they can get it. Talk about inconsistent.

If they don't get raises from employer then they are subsidized by the government. I shouldn't be subsidizing corps workers.

Then contact your representative and tell them to stop subsidizing those people. If they don't get paid by the government, they will look for better paying jobs or work more hours.

Wages are stagnant, they are unlikely to find better paying.

 

[Conservative65]

A CEO getting paid a certain amount you don't like and showing that a minimum wage earner in the example I gave still wouldn't pay income taxes with over a 100% pay increase have nothing to do with each other.

Consistency doesn't figure in when the two things you compare can't really be compared.

You expect the poor to do more, but the rich can get more for doing less. That isn't consistent.

You need to learn the difference between creating money and earning money. In most cases, the wealthy don't earn money, they create wealth. Workers don't create wealth, they earn money.

Didn't I have to explain to you how ceos get ridiculous raises? You were in denial of the scam I believe.

And you watch too many television shows. CEO's are not people in a huge office with a putting green like you see in the movies.

CEO's like actors, musicians, sports figures are paid by their past performance. They don't get paid by the hour because they get paid by contract. If a CEO is renown for doubling the growth of a company, the company pays that CEO whatever it takes to make that profit.

If a CEO gets a job at a company and earns 5 million a year, it's likely because he or she brought in 10 million a year in new money. That's a smart business move on behalf of the company because if they didn't want to pay that CEO that kind of money, their competitors will.

No it is not like that.

CEO pay for performance: This graph shows why it's a sham.

Tell me how much business a minimum wage worker getting an over 100% increase is bringing in.

 

[Brain357]

Yes you say that for the poor but then are ok with ceos getting paid more for worse performance. You aren't consistent.

A CEO getting paid a certain amount you don't like and showing that a minimum wage earner in the example I gave still wouldn't pay income taxes with over a 100% pay increase have nothing to do with each other.

Consistency doesn't figure in when the two things you compare can't really be compared.

You expect the poor to do more, but the rich can get more for doing less. That isn't consistent.

You need to learn the difference between creating money and earning money. In most cases, the wealthy don't earn money, they create wealth. Workers don't create wealth, they earn money.

Didn't I have to explain to you how ceos get ridiculous raises? You were in denial of the scam I believe.

Because some editorial/blog piece says it makes it fact?

You call a CEO getting a raise ridiculous yet don't mind a low skilled worker getting a ridiculous increase from $7.25 to $15/hour. That's over a 100% increase.

That going from really poor to poor. Who cares the %?

 

[Conservative65]

I'm OK with anyone getting an increase as long as the one paying them is the one deciding the increase. When those not doing the paying or the government thinks it's their place to tell the one that is paying they have to do more, I have a problem, rich or poor. You think the government should mandate a $15/hour minimum wage. I don't. However, if a business owner doing the paying voluntarily decides to pay more, that's fine. It's his/her money.

You seem to be OK with the poor getting more for doing nothing. You support a $15/hour minimum wage yet have said nothing about what those making the current $7.25/hour have to do to get it other than demand it.

It is about taxes. You said about 5 responses back that if we pay people more they'll pay taxes. I said not necessarily. You then brought in pay.

So the rich can get raises for bad performance, but don't give those poor people raises.

Well yes if you increase wages more people will start paying taxes. Asking poor people on welfare to pay taxes would just be stupid.

One more time. If a CEO (rich person) gets a raise because those paying decide to give him/her one, fine. If a minimum wage worker gets a raise because those paying decide to give him/her one, fine. If the government mandates it, it's not fine. It's not the government's money.

I acknowledged that some would but I also showed how, unlike you blanket statement of if we pay them more they'll pay taxes, isn't necessarily true.

Those poor people on welfare don't mind demanding the rest of us that are forced to fund their welfare continue to pay or pay more so they can get it. Talk about inconsistent.

If they don't get raises from employer then they are subsidized by the government. I shouldn't be subsidizing corps workers.

Then contact your representative and tell them to stop subsidizing those people. If they don't get paid by the government, they will look for better paying jobs or work more hours.

Wages are stagnant, they are unlikely to find better paying.

Their skills are stagnant. If they improve their skills, they will make more unless you're willing to say someone offering a higher level skills will still make minimum wage.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A CEO getting paid a certain amount you don't like and showing that a minimum wage earner in the example I gave still wouldn't pay income taxes with over a 100% pay increase have nothing to do with each other.

Consistency doesn't figure in when the two things you compare can't really be compared.

You expect the poor to do more, but the rich can get more for doing less. That isn't consistent.

You need to learn the difference between creating money and earning money. In most cases, the wealthy don't earn money, they create wealth. Workers don't create wealth, they earn money.

Didn't I have to explain to you how ceos get ridiculous raises? You were in denial of the scam I believe.

And you watch too many television shows. CEO's are not people in a huge office with a putting green like you see in the movies.

CEO's like actors, musicians, sports figures are paid by their past performance. They don't get paid by the hour because they get paid by contract. If a CEO is renown for doubling the growth of a company, the company pays that CEO whatever it takes to make that profit.

If a CEO gets a job at a company and earns 5 million a year, it's likely because he or she brought in 10 million a year in new money. That's a smart business move on behalf of the company because if they didn't want to pay that CEO that kind of money, their competitors will.

No it is not like that.

CEO pay for performance: This graph shows why it's a sham.

Yes it is like that.

If a band makes it to the top selling out concerts and recordings, a recording company will pay them handsomely for their next album. If the album sucks and doesn't sell very well, their next contract will be for much less if the recording company decides to keep them at all. The band still makes the money that was contracted to them.

The same holds true of an actress. She may get 12 million dollars for one film, but if the movie sucks and not many go to see it, the actress still gets paid.

If you look at a business magazine like Crain's, you see pages and pages of CEO's taking new jobs because they lost their last one. Sure, they got paid very well even though they didn't do much for the company, but because of that, their next job may not be as generous with the pay. If they have a history of not producing, their pay scale gets lower and lower. Only those with good past performances make the big money.

 

[Conservative65]

A CEO getting paid a certain amount you don't like and showing that a minimum wage earner in the example I gave still wouldn't pay income taxes with over a 100% pay increase have nothing to do with each other.

Consistency doesn't figure in when the two things you compare can't really be compared.

You expect the poor to do more, but the rich can get more for doing less. That isn't consistent.

You need to learn the difference between creating money and earning money. In most cases, the wealthy don't earn money, they create wealth. Workers don't create wealth, they earn money.

Didn't I have to explain to you how ceos get ridiculous raises? You were in denial of the scam I believe.

Because some editorial/blog piece says it makes it fact?

You call a CEO getting a raise ridiculous yet don't mind a low skilled worker getting a ridiculous increase from $7.25 to $15/hour. That's over a 100% increase.

That going from really poor to poor. Who cares the %?

You do when it comes to CEOs. Suddenly, percentage doesn't matter when it's lower income.

Hate to break it to you but someone making $15/hour or $31,200/year isn't considered in poverty level until there are six people in the family. At that point, quit having kids if you can't support the ones you already have. If someone has kids they can't afford and rely on handouts to do it, why should the taxpayers continue to support them if they have more?

 

[Conservative65]

Yes you say that for the poor but then are ok with ceos getting paid more for worse performance. You aren't consistent.

A CEO getting paid a certain amount you don't like and showing that a minimum wage earner in the example I gave still wouldn't pay income taxes with over a 100% pay increase have nothing to do with each other.

Consistency doesn't figure in when the two things you compare can't really be compared.

You expect the poor to do more, but the rich can get more for doing less. That isn't consistent.

You need to learn the difference between creating money and earning money. In most cases, the wealthy don't earn money, they create wealth. Workers don't create wealth, they earn money.

He can not comprehend either they don't pay the skill and white collar workers how hard they work, they pay them to think.

Basically they pay them to do a job that not many others can do. A worker is only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job. Anybody can sweep floors and stock shelves. It takes a whole ten minutes of training. But those same workers cannot find an electrical problem that causes a blackout in part of a factory. For that you need somebody with training and experience which most people don't have. That's why an electrician is worth much more money than the guy packing orders.

I don't know if it takes that long. My daughters, as part of their responsibilities, do things like sweep and vacuum. I can't say that my wife or I ever had to show them how to do it. Apparently they're smart enough to figure out something that simple. Some aren't.

The way Shit for Brains talks, that person it sadly takes 10 minute to show how to use a broom would be able to do the job of a CEO.

 

[Slyhunter]

Well I own stocks in these companies so it is my business. Love how you have different standards for rich and poor. Very classy.

Don't you pay taxes?

Prove you own stock in them.

It's the same standard asshole. The company decides what they pay for both.

I pay too many taxes because low income, low skilled leeches get by with paying no income taxes.

Wanna talk about different standards for rich and poor. Do you support that low income people get by without paying income taxes and that the rich should pay even more?

Let those who have discretionary income pay the lions share of the taxes. Those who are barely surviving shouldn't.

So those who have made it should be required to offset the slack pieces of shit that haven't? I thought living in society meant we were supposed to contribute to society. I guess that only applies to those capable of making it society. If you can't, you should expect others to support you.

What is your alternative? Let them die?

Let those who think one person deserves another person's money support them. I call them bleeding hearts. They are the ones that say part of living in society involves paying things like income taxes yet support almost half that live in the society getting by without paying any. They are the ones that think it's OK to take the hard earned money of someone that actually did something to get it in order that it be handed to someone that did nothing. In fact, they consider those of us who want to keep more of what we actually earned greedy while thinking those who want it given to them as perfectly OK in doing so. They ask questions like you did of what is your alternative.

When they ask such questions, I provide them an alternative. That alternative doesn't involve the government being involved at all, something the bleeding hearts can't fathom happening. My response is that if they believe someone deserves something, write a check. If they think someone without healthcare coverage should have it, pay their premium. The government isn't needed for them to do that. All they have to do is pay it themselves. Most will reply with the "living in a society involves paying taxes". Once again, if so, shouldn't that apply to all living in society rather than just the group they think should pay. What they really mean is the ones they think have too much should pay and pay more so they can feel good about themselves because they supported the government forcing someone else to do something they believed should be done. I have had some say they would IF they could. In other words, they can't do what they think should be done so it's OK for them to demand someone they think has more than enough do it. I've had others say they would gladly pay more in taxes to fund programs they thought were a good idea to which I reply, if it's such a good idea, why do you need someone telling you to do more. Why wouldn't you just do it.

In short, my alternative is if you see a need you feel should be met, meet it yourself. I'll do the same. I can promise you I won't say a damn thing about who you choose to help or how much you should do if you promise me you won't do the same if I don't do it the way you think it should be done. Deal?

You'd bitch about all the carcasses cluttering up the street because trash detail doesn't pick up the bodies fast enough for your sensibilities.

 

[Slyhunter]

BTW my retirement problem is set. Once I'm no longer able to work I'm walking,crawling,whatever into a Walmart and getting me a deli sandwich and a coke, perhaps some coleslaw too. Then sit and eat while I wait for the cops to arrive to arrest me for shoplifting. Then when they do arrive, Bam body slam the bastard. I'll get 6 years paid vacation oooOOOO.

 

[Slyhunter]

Ya know what it is especially ironic. Your avatar....About government protecting the shit out of the people....Yet you want government to take those batons to business owners to suit your cause.....So it is actually YOU swinging the baton...
Hey genius....Don't be surprise if one day the person you are beating grabs the baton and decides to hit back.

Poor McDonalds Millionaires. Must be rough. I hope they make it.

They'll do just fine. In fact, those McDonald millionaire are taking some of their money and investing it into automation. Some restaurants are virtually employee free. Think of how much they will save by having robots do the work former human employees used to do.

"Every action causes a reaction."
Ray from Cleveland

And unemploying people will make them virtually customer free. Can't unemploy your customer base.

Customers would love it because it would likely mean lower prices. After all, you don't have to pay machines; just keep them maintained and repaired.

Unemployed customers don't buy very much.

They do know how to mug, or rob a bank though.

 

[Slyhunter]

So the rich can get raises for bad performance, but don't give those poor people raises.

Well yes if you increase wages more people will start paying taxes. Asking poor people on welfare to pay taxes would just be stupid.

One more time. If a CEO (rich person) gets a raise because those paying decide to give him/her one, fine. If a minimum wage worker gets a raise because those paying decide to give him/her one, fine. If the government mandates it, it's not fine. It's not the government's money.

I acknowledged that some would but I also showed how, unlike you blanket statement of if we pay them more they'll pay taxes, isn't necessarily true.

Those poor people on welfare don't mind demanding the rest of us that are forced to fund their welfare continue to pay or pay more so they can get it. Talk about inconsistent.

If they don't get raises from employer then they are subsidized by the government. I shouldn't be subsidizing corps workers.

Then contact your representative and tell them to stop subsidizing those people. If they don't get paid by the government, they will look for better paying jobs or work more hours.

Wages are stagnant, they are unlikely to find better paying.

Their skills are stagnant. If they improve their skills, they will make more unless you're willing to say someone offering a higher level skills will still make minimum wage.

With what are they supposed to improve their skills with? If they aren't making a living wage they damn sure ain't going to be going to college.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

One more time. If a CEO (rich person) gets a raise because those paying decide to give him/her one, fine. If a minimum wage worker gets a raise because those paying decide to give him/her one, fine. If the government mandates it, it's not fine. It's not the government's money.

I acknowledged that some would but I also showed how, unlike you blanket statement of if we pay them more they'll pay taxes, isn't necessarily true.

Those poor people on welfare don't mind demanding the rest of us that are forced to fund their welfare continue to pay or pay more so they can get it. Talk about inconsistent.

If they don't get raises from employer then they are subsidized by the government. I shouldn't be subsidizing corps workers.

Then contact your representative and tell them to stop subsidizing those people. If they don't get paid by the government, they will look for better paying jobs or work more hours.

Wages are stagnant, they are unlikely to find better paying.

Their skills are stagnant. If they improve their skills, they will make more unless you're willing to say someone offering a higher level skills will still make minimum wage.

With what are they supposed to improve their skills with? If they aren't making a living wage they damn sure ain't going to be going to college.

That's what they have college loans for. Plus you can work and still go to school.

 

[Slyhunter]

If they don't get raises from employer then they are subsidized by the government. I shouldn't be subsidizing corps workers.

Then contact your representative and tell them to stop subsidizing those people. If they don't get paid by the government, they will look for better paying jobs or work more hours.

Wages are stagnant, they are unlikely to find better paying.

Their skills are stagnant. If they improve their skills, they will make more unless you're willing to say someone offering a higher level skills will still make minimum wage.

With what are they supposed to improve their skills with? If they aren't making a living wage they damn sure ain't going to be going to college.

That's what they have college loans for. Plus you can work and still go to school.

$32,000 in loans later I got an AA degree now give me one of those damn jobs you keep talking about.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Then contact your representative and tell them to stop subsidizing those people. If they don't get paid by the government, they will look for better paying jobs or work more hours.

Wages are stagnant, they are unlikely to find better paying.

Their skills are stagnant. If they improve their skills, they will make more unless you're willing to say someone offering a higher level skills will still make minimum wage.

With what are they supposed to improve their skills with? If they aren't making a living wage they damn sure ain't going to be going to college.

That's what they have college loans for. Plus you can work and still go to school.

$32,000 in loans later I got an AA degree now give me one of those damn jobs you keep talking about.

Did you bother to look at the job opportunities out there before you decided on what you wanted to take up in college?

I made that mistake when I went to a trade school many years ago. After a few months, I asked my teacher what I would make if I got my FCC license (at the time) and he told me 16K. I asked how much I would make with an Associates degree, he said about 18K. Hell, I was making more than that at the job I currently had.

Back then, electronics was very popular. More technicians than work. Supply and Demand set the scale for a failed future as complicated as the training was. I dropped out.

 

[paulitician]

Good on em. Hopefully they'll get it, or something close. McDonalds has made $Billions off the blood, sweat, and tears of their slave workers. So it gets no sympathy from me. It's time for McDonalds to do some good for a change.

if you do not own a business, then you have no say in the matter.
For the last time. $15 per hour for unskilled. mostly teen aged workers is ABSURD...
These people who are "striking" for higher pay are attempting to take a short cut to higher earnings by enlisting the assistance of government because they are incapable of either showing initiative to learn new skills, learn new skills or go to school to learn new skills..So they believe that by "demanding" the money will just land in their lap.
That isn't the way the world works.
By joining their legions you are WORSE because you don't own a business or if you do, would not be willing to sacrifice your own livelihood to pay a min wage of $15 per hour..
One other thing. The min wage raise is not that simple. As the min wage is increased so do the wages of everyone else.
Wage levels always should be left to the marketplace to decide.
So you can stop your anti business owner diatribe. It's tired and pointless.

Like i said, $15 is peanuts in today's America. But there's room for compromise. And unless you're connected to McDonalds in some way, it's none of your business. It's between the employees and the employer. They're not asking for more money from Government. They're asking for it from their Employer.

There's nothing wrong with Private Sector Unions. In fact, Unions are probably the only thing that can save American Workers now. They need to be strong again. When they were strong, there was balance. Since they've fallen, Workers have suffered. We have to get the balance back.

It is peanuts. Way these clowns act you'd think we wanted to make everyone millionaires.

Slave Owners will not give up their slaves easily. It'll be a fight. Private Sector Unions need to make a big comeback. You can't enter the fight without em. We're living in an age of Corporatism. The Corps have all the power and control.

Strong Unions could provide some balance again. American Workers would be represented. There would be someone in their corner again. I definitely support Private Sector Unions.

Unions in the US can only do one thing: chase more jobs out of the country.

Yes, you greedy white Republican dudes love Outsourcing American Jobs. That's already been well-established. You do it whether there's Unions or not.