Getting specific on income/wealth inequality

[dblack]

Minimum wage, genius. Minimum wage. You've heard of it?

Yes. That's what I'm asking about. What do you propose to do if no one thinks that a person's labor is worth the minimum wage? Are they just not allowed to work in that case?

You are being obtuse. Is it fun for you?

No. I'm asking a question that apparently you've never considered. Something that seems so obvious to you that you've never even thought about it critically. What I'm suggesting is that you have no rational conception of what it means to say that someone's labor is 'worth' a certain amount. What it means is that someone is willing, and able, to pay that much for their services. If they aren't, it's not worth that much, no matter what you say, and no matter what the government decrees.

You should take a deep breath and actually think this through. What a minimum wage law is really saying, is that if someone can't convince an employer (or customer) that their labor is worth some arbitrary minimum amount, the state will not allow anyone to hire them for less. They simply have to be unemployed. Its sheer, irrational stupidity.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Obviously the reason we are taking about Bush is Because that is how our debate began.

Our discussion began on post #20 in this thread and it had nothing to do with Bush. You injected Bush into the discussion later on.

But hey, I understand how hard honesty is for you Obama supporters. I mean he lies so its typical his supporter would follow suit.

You asked me for proof about Obama's job growth verses Bush. I provided it. You then brought up the growing labor force.

You see how that works?

There is absolutely ZERO correlation between Obama's policies and job growth.
Any economic improvement is in spite of Obama. Not because of his policies.
That is a FACT...
You people are so clueless.
Your arguments fail when you ignore one cold hard fact. That is, the nation's economy is cyclical. It rises and falls on growth and corrections.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Yes. That's what I'm asking about. What do you propose to do if no one thinks that a person's labor is worth the minimum wage? Are they just not allowed to work in that case?

You are being obtuse. Is it fun for you?

No. I'm asking a question that apparently you've never considered. Something that seems so obvious to you, you've never even thought about it critically. What i'm suggesting is that you have no rational conception of what it means to say that someone's labor is 'worth' a certain amount. What it means is that someone is willing, and able, to pay that much for their services. If they aren't, it's not worth that much, no matter what you say, and no matter what the government decrees.

You should take a deep breath and actually think this through. What a minimum wage law is really saying, is that if someone can convince someone that their labor is worth some arbitrary minimum amount, the state will not allow anyone to hire them for less. They simply have to be unemployed. Its sheer irrational stupidity.

I have thought it through. Obviously.......and I mean that word as intended.....there are employers who do not believe that the job they have to offer is worth a living wage. I am telling you that I think that their opinion on that matter should be of no consequence. I am telling you that the minimum allowable wage should be set at a living wage. By law. If an employer does not wish to pay said wage, he can do the fucking job himself.

 

[gipper]

You are being obtuse. Is it fun for you?

No. I'm asking a question that apparently you've never considered. Something that seems so obvious to you, you've never even thought about it critically. What i'm suggesting is that you have no rational conception of what it means to say that someone's labor is 'worth' a certain amount. What it means is that someone is willing, and able, to pay that much for their services. If they aren't, it's not worth that much, no matter what you say, and no matter what the government decrees.

You should take a deep breath and actually think this through. What a minimum wage law is really saying, is that if someone can convince someone that their labor is worth some arbitrary minimum amount, the state will not allow anyone to hire them for less. They simply have to be unemployed. Its sheer irrational stupidity.

I have thought it through. Obviously.......and I mean that word as intended.....there are employers who do not believe that the job they have to offer is worth a living wage. I am telling you that I think that their opinion on that matter should be of no consequence. I am telling you that the minimum allowable wage should be set at a living wage. By law. If an employer does not wish to pay said wage, he can do the fucking job himself.

What is a living wage? Is it just another dumb nebulous phrase parroted by those on the left?

It is commonsense that if employers think the minimum wage is too high for the work involved, they will not pay it. They will find solutions using technology and automation. Thus rendering many young Americans unemployable.

Why is black teenage unemployment around 50%?

 

[asterism]

You are being obtuse. Is it fun for you?

No. I'm asking a question that apparently you've never considered. Something that seems so obvious to you, you've never even thought about it critically. What i'm suggesting is that you have no rational conception of what it means to say that someone's labor is 'worth' a certain amount. What it means is that someone is willing, and able, to pay that much for their services. If they aren't, it's not worth that much, no matter what you say, and no matter what the government decrees.

You should take a deep breath and actually think this through. What a minimum wage law is really saying, is that if someone can convince someone that their labor is worth some arbitrary minimum amount, the state will not allow anyone to hire them for less. They simply have to be unemployed. Its sheer irrational stupidity.

I have thought it through. Obviously.......and I mean that word as intended.....there are employers who do not believe that the job they have to offer is worth a living wage. I am telling you that I think that their opinion on that matter should be of no consequence. I am telling you that the minimum allowable wage should be set at a living wage. By law. If an employer does not wish to pay said wage, he can do the fucking job himself.

Or maybe the job just doesn't get done at all. Where does that leave the worker who can't do anything else?

 

[dblack]

You are being obtuse. Is it fun for you?

No. I'm asking a question that apparently you've never considered. Something that seems so obvious to you, you've never even thought about it critically. What i'm suggesting is that you have no rational conception of what it means to say that someone's labor is 'worth' a certain amount. What it means is that someone is willing, and able, to pay that much for their services. If they aren't, it's not worth that much, no matter what you say, and no matter what the government decrees.

You should take a deep breath and actually think this through. What a minimum wage law is really saying, is that if someone can convince someone that their labor is worth some arbitrary minimum amount, the state will not allow anyone to hire them for less. They simply have to be unemployed. Its sheer irrational stupidity.

I have thought it through. Obviously.......and I mean that word as intended.....there are employers who do not believe that the job they have to offer is worth a living wage. I am telling you that I think that their opinion on that matter should be of no consequence. I am telling you that the minimum allowable wage should be set at a living wage. By law. If an employer does not wish to pay said wage, he can do the fucking job himself.

Maybe an example in a different context would give you some insight. If the government decreed that all fast food meals would be worth a minimum of $12.00, would you continue buying the same burger and fries that used to cost $6.00 now that they cost twice as much? Or would you just eat out less - maybe quit buying fast food altogether? Would the government telling you that the burger and fries are now worth twice as much actually make them worth twice as much to you? Or would it just be a stupid inconvenience you had to work around?

 

[LoneLaugher]

No. I'm asking a question that apparently you've never considered. Something that seems so obvious to you, you've never even thought about it critically. What i'm suggesting is that you have no rational conception of what it means to say that someone's labor is 'worth' a certain amount. What it means is that someone is willing, and able, to pay that much for their services. If they aren't, it's not worth that much, no matter what you say, and no matter what the government decrees.

You should take a deep breath and actually think this through. What a minimum wage law is really saying, is that if someone can convince someone that their labor is worth some arbitrary minimum amount, the state will not allow anyone to hire them for less. They simply have to be unemployed. Its sheer irrational stupidity.

I have thought it through. Obviously.......and I mean that word as intended.....there are employers who do not believe that the job they have to offer is worth a living wage. I am telling you that I think that their opinion on that matter should be of no consequence. I am telling you that the minimum allowable wage should be set at a living wage. By law. If an employer does not wish to pay said wage, he can do the fucking job himself.

Maybe an example in a different context would give you some insight. If the government decreed that all fast food meals would be worth a minimum of $12.00, would continue buying the same burger and fries that used to cost $6.00 now that they cost twice as much? Or would you just eat out less - maybe quit buying fast food altogether? Would the government telling you that the burger and fries are now worth twice as much actually make them worth twice as much to you? Or would it just be a stupid inconvenience you had to work around?

Nope. Doesn't work. Try another analogy. Maybe my pea-sized lib brain will be able to understand.

 

[dblack]

I have thought it through. Obviously.......and I mean that word as intended.....there are employers who do not believe that the job they have to offer is worth a living wage. I am telling you that I think that their opinion on that matter should be of no consequence. I am telling you that the minimum allowable wage should be set at a living wage. By law. If an employer does not wish to pay said wage, he can do the fucking job himself.

Maybe an example in a different context would give you some insight. If the government decreed that all fast food meals would be worth a minimum of $12.00, would continue buying the same burger and fries that used to cost $6.00 now that they cost twice as much? Or would you just eat out less - maybe quit buying fast food altogether? Would the government telling you that the burger and fries are now worth twice as much actually make them worth twice as much to you? Or would it just be a stupid inconvenience you had to work around?

Nope. Doesn't work. Try another analogy. Maybe my pea-sized lib brain will be able to understand.

Maybe. Did you actually try to answer the question? Would you simply pay twice as much for the same thing? Or would you find a cheaper alternative, maybe cook your own dinner at home (the equivalent of the employer doing as you suggested and doing the job themselves)?

 

[pinqy]

Well, unemployment data isn't available for under 16, but for 16 to 19 years old, the UE rate is about 20%. The average for the last 30 years has been about 18% Over half of those unemployed teenagers want part time jobs.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Maybe an example in a different context would give you some insight. If the government decreed that all fast food meals would be worth a minimum of $12.00, would continue buying the same burger and fries that used to cost $6.00 now that they cost twice as much? Or would you just eat out less - maybe quit buying fast food altogether? Would the government telling you that the burger and fries are now worth twice as much actually make them worth twice as much to you? Or would it just be a stupid inconvenience you had to work around?

Nope. Doesn't work. Try another analogy. Maybe my pea-sized lib brain will be able to understand.

Maybe. Did you actually try to answer the question? Would you simply pay twice as much for the same thing? Or would you find a cheaper alternative, maybe cook your own dinner at home (the equivalent of the employer doing as you suggested and doing the job themselves)?

I know you think low skilled and manual labor providers are like so much hamburger meat.......but. I don't.

Let's see........

Suppose I had a car that ran on methane. My wife has just had her first labor pain and I need to get her to the midwife who lives across town. But......shit! My car is out of fuel. I need some methane....and fast!

I would, under such a circumstance, pay $12 for a burger. You see...I need that burger in order to get the job done.

Are you beginning to see how I feel about employees?

 

[dblack]

Nope. Doesn't work. Try another analogy. Maybe my pea-sized lib brain will be able to understand.

Maybe. Did you actually try to answer the question? Would you simply pay twice as much for the same thing? Or would you find a cheaper alternative, maybe cook your own dinner at home (the equivalent of the employer doing as you suggested and doing the job themselves)?

I know you think low skilled and manual labor providers are like so much hamburger meat.......but. I don't.

Let's see........

Suppose I had a car that ran on methane. My wife has just had her first labor pain and I need to get her to the midwife who lives across town. But......shit! My car is out of fuel. I need some methane....and fast!

I would, under such a circumstance, pay $12 for a burger. You see...I need that burger in order to get the job done.

Are you beginning to see how I feel about employees?

Uh.. yeah. I guess. They won't get a job unless an employer's wife is pregnant?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Maybe. Did you actually try to answer the question? Would you simply pay twice as much for the same thing? Or would you find a cheaper alternative, maybe cook your own dinner at home (the equivalent of the employer doing as you suggested and doing the job themselves)?

I know you think low skilled and manual labor providers are like so much hamburger meat.......but. I don't.

Let's see........

Suppose I had a car that ran on methane. My wife has just had her first labor pain and I need to get her to the midwife who lives across town. But......shit! My car is out of fuel. I need some methane....and fast!

I would, under such a circumstance, pay $12 for a burger. You see...I need that burger in order to get the job done.

Are you beginning to see how I feel about employees?

Uh.. yeah. I guess. They won't get a job unless an employer's wife is pregnant?

We're cooking with all burners now, ain't we!

 

[dblack]

I know you think low skilled and manual labor providers are like so much hamburger meat.......but. I don't.

Let's see........

Suppose I had a car that ran on methane. My wife has just had her first labor pain and I need to get her to the midwife who lives across town. But......shit! My car is out of fuel. I need some methane....and fast!

I would, under such a circumstance, pay $12 for a burger. You see...I need that burger in order to get the job done.

Are you beginning to see how I feel about employees?

Uh.. yeah. I guess. They won't get a job unless an employer's wife is pregnant?

We're cooking with all burners now, ain't we!

I 'spose so.

 

[Billy000]

Our discussion began on post #20 in this thread and it had nothing to do with Bush. You injected Bush into the discussion later on.

But hey, I understand how hard honesty is for you Obama supporters. I mean he lies so its typical his supporter would follow suit.

You asked me for proof about Obama's job growth verses Bush. I provided it. You then brought up the growing labor force.

You see how that works?

There is absolutely ZERO correlation between Obama's policies and job growth.
Any economic improvement is in spite of Obama. Not because of his policies.
That is a FACT...
You people are so clueless.
Your arguments fail when you ignore one cold hard fact. That is, the nation's economy is cyclical. It rises and falls on growth and corrections.

Not true. According to the CBO, Obama's stimulus created 2 million private jobs still existing today.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Silly nutters.

You work a job in America....the wealthiest nation in the world....you contribute to society....you do the right thing......you get paid enough to live on. It's a simple concept.

How big a house should the guy working the register be able to buy?
Can he buy a fast car too? Support 3 or 4 kids?
Coupla weeks in Florida every year?

 

[jasonnfree]

And how do you propose to do that? If the work someone does isn't worth a "living wage", what should be done about that?

All work is worth a living wage if you are the one doing it. Set the minimum wage at a living wage. At present, $12.50 per hour with upward adjustment for geographic location would work.

Cash register duty at Home Depot is not worth a living wage. If the minimum wage is raised automated checkout will be the norm instead of the exception.

A lot of jobs probably scheduled to be automated in the future. Some say, progress. Buggy whip makers didn't starve, they went to work building cars. Only thing I'm thinking is who gets the jobs building the automatic machines or robots? India or China? Back in the buggy whip plant layoff times, jobs weren't easily offshored like they are today. Just a thought to ponder maybe. Where do employees go when their job is automated. Retrain? Two things. Education and training is not affordable in this country like it once was. Also, not everybody is capable of doing jobs beyond routine labor, clean up, etc. Maybe time to think about a national minimum income like Tom Paine advocated?

 

[dblack]

All work is worth a living wage if you are the one doing it. Set the minimum wage at a living wage. At present, $12.50 per hour with upward adjustment for geographic location would work.

Cash register duty at Home Depot is not worth a living wage. If the minimum wage is raised automated checkout will be the norm instead of the exception.

A lot of jobs probably scheduled to be automated in the future. Some say, progress. Buggy whip makers didn't starve, they went to work building cars. Only thing I'm thinking is who gets the jobs building the automatic machines or robots? India or China? Back in the buggy whip plant layoff times, jobs weren't easily offshored like they are today. Just a thought to ponder maybe. Where do employees go when their job is automated. Retrain? Two things. Education and training is not affordable in this country like it once was. Also, not everybody is capable of doing jobs beyond routine labor, clean up, etc. Maybe time to think about a national minimum income like Tom Paine advocated?

Right. A safety net makes much more sense than delusional nonsense. It's hilarious. We want our socialism, but we want to pretend it's something else. We're indulging in the same kind of self-deception with health care.

 

[LoneLaugher]

There are people ( who make a living thinking about such things ) who suggest that the need for Americans to work anywhere near 40 hours per week may not exist in the coming years. Wouldn't it be something if a guy came home after a grueling three hour workday and was able to, with a straight face, lecture his teenager about having a great work ethic?

 

[jasonnfree]

Cash register duty at Home Depot is not worth a living wage. If the minimum wage is raised automated checkout will be the norm instead of the exception.

A lot of jobs probably scheduled to be automated in the future. Some say, progress. Buggy whip makers didn't starve, they went to work building cars. Only thing I'm thinking is who gets the jobs building the automatic machines or robots? India or China? Back in the buggy whip plant layoff times, jobs weren't easily offshored like they are today. Just a thought to ponder maybe. Where do employees go when their job is automated. Retrain? Two things. Education and training is not affordable in this country like it once was. Also, not everybody is capable of doing jobs beyond routine labor, clean up, etc. Maybe time to think about a national minimum income like Tom Paine advocated?

Right. A safety net makes much more sense than delusional nonsense. It's hilarious. We want our socialism, but we want to pretend it's something else. We're indulging in the same kind of self-deception with health care.

All advanced countries have some form of national health care except USA. So you think they're all self delusional? Anyway, we have corporate health care in this country unfortunately. Obama didn't deliver single payer like most people wanted. I was just posting in form of what if. Like national minimum income. What's wrong with it. We obviously have more people than jobs, some jobs not even paying enough for a person to sustain a decent life. If people at the subsistence level have money they spend it all on goods and services, which put people to work.

 

[jasonnfree]

You asked me for proof about Obama's job growth verses Bush. I provided it. You then brought up the growing labor force.

You see how that works?

There is absolutely ZERO correlation between Obama's policies and job growth.
Any economic improvement is in spite of Obama. Not because of his policies.
That is a FACT...
You people are so clueless.
Your arguments fail when you ignore one cold hard fact. That is, the nation's economy is cyclical. It rises and falls on growth and corrections.

Not true. According to the CBO, Obama's stimulus created 2 million private jobs still existing today.

Lies, lies, all lies. Stimulus never works say some of the world's greatest posters on the right end of the political spectrum.