Minimum wage

[PoliticalChic]

simply pleading incompetence in reading comprehension does nothing to inspire confidence in your sincerity.

when a person makes up his own definitions as you do it is impossible to have a meaningful discussion

The point is, a minimum wage should compete favorably with the cost of social services. That estimate is at fourteen dollars an hour, and is a rationale for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage. To privatize costs instead of relying on socializing costs via welfare.

You have to prove such a public policy does not promote the general welfare, regardless of what I call it. So, since what I call it is not very relevant, why not argue the point of the argument instead of quibbling over semantics or strings of words.

Solving simple poverty is a promotion of the general welfare and that form of capital gain, for labor; who should have recourse to unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

That's not the point at all because you have not proven that it needs to. To prove that you need to prove that everyone making less than 15 an hour actually receives government social services

We have thrown trillions at poverty so we have the richest poor people in the world right here in this country

Hence....absolutely no reason to get off the dole.


"Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty
New data compiled by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee shows that, last year, the United States spent over $60,000 to support welfare programs per each household that is in poverty. The calculations are based on data from the Census, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Research Services.
"According to the Census’s American Community Survey, the number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16,807,795," the Senate Budget Committee notes. "If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011."
This dollar figure is almost three times the amount the average household on poverty lives on per year. "If the spending on these programs were converted into cash, and distributed exclusively to the nation’s households below the poverty line, this cash amount would be over 2.5 times the federal poverty threshold for a family of four, which in 2011 was $22,350 (see table in this link)," the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee note.
Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty



You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.

WITH WELFARE IT MAKES SENSE TO WORK LESS,”
The chart is quite revealing. A one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year. If the family provider works only one week a month at minimum wage, he or she makes 92 percent as much as a provider grossing $60,000 a year.
http://granitegrok.com/wp-content/u..._With-welfare-it-makes-sense-to-work-less.pdf


From Emmerich:

You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.

There is no underemployment under capitalism, only underpayment.

With New Year just around the corner, are you planning on sprucing up that Styrofoam cup you wave around on the subway?

It's the least you could do.......

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's a simple question: How much do you pay an employee that makes you all of your money?

Not enough that you don't make anymore money, is the answer.

I can't pay you $15/hour to flip a burger, if the customer isn't willing to pay me enough to cover that wage, and make a profit.

That's the answer.

Minimum Wage laws....walter e. williams

1. While legislative bodies have the power to order wage increases, they have not as of yet found a way to order commensurate increases in worker productivity that make the worker’s output worth the higher wage.
2. Further, while Congress can legislate the wage at which labor transactions occur, it cannot require that the transaction actually be made, and the worker hired.

True capitalists don't complain about "moving goal posts" when they don't have enough gold. They have to simply have faith in Capitalism; and strive to gain more gold.

How would you know?

because, Only false Capitalists do that.

And....how would you know anything about capitalists and capitalism???

I mean, after all.....you are a dunce.

 

[danielpalos]

when a person makes up his own definitions as you do it is impossible to have a meaningful discussion

The point is, a minimum wage should compete favorably with the cost of social services. That estimate is at fourteen dollars an hour, and is a rationale for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage. To privatize costs instead of relying on socializing costs via welfare.

You have to prove such a public policy does not promote the general welfare, regardless of what I call it. So, since what I call it is not very relevant, why not argue the point of the argument instead of quibbling over semantics or strings of words.

Solving simple poverty is a promotion of the general welfare and that form of capital gain, for labor; who should have recourse to unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

That's not the point at all because you have not proven that it needs to. To prove that you need to prove that everyone making less than 15 an hour actually receives government social services

We have thrown trillions at poverty so we have the richest poor people in the world right here in this country

Hence....absolutely no reason to get off the dole.


"Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty
New data compiled by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee shows that, last year, the United States spent over $60,000 to support welfare programs per each household that is in poverty. The calculations are based on data from the Census, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Research Services.
"According to the Census’s American Community Survey, the number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16,807,795," the Senate Budget Committee notes. "If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011."
This dollar figure is almost three times the amount the average household on poverty lives on per year. "If the spending on these programs were converted into cash, and distributed exclusively to the nation’s households below the poverty line, this cash amount would be over 2.5 times the federal poverty threshold for a family of four, which in 2011 was $22,350 (see table in this link)," the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee note.
Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty



You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.

WITH WELFARE IT MAKES SENSE TO WORK LESS,”
The chart is quite revealing. A one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year. If the family provider works only one week a month at minimum wage, he or she makes 92 percent as much as a provider grossing $60,000 a year.
http://granitegrok.com/wp-content/u..._With-welfare-it-makes-sense-to-work-less.pdf


From Emmerich:

You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.

There is no underemployment under capitalism, only underpayment.

With New Year just around the corner, are you planning on sprucing up that Styrofoam cup you wave around on the subway?

It's the least you could do.......

not getting rich fast enough; you want me to waste my time, too?

 

[danielpalos]

Not enough that you don't make anymore money, is the answer.

I can't pay you $15/hour to flip a burger, if the customer isn't willing to pay me enough to cover that wage, and make a profit.

That's the answer.

Minimum Wage laws....walter e. williams

1. While legislative bodies have the power to order wage increases, they have not as of yet found a way to order commensurate increases in worker productivity that make the worker’s output worth the higher wage.
2. Further, while Congress can legislate the wage at which labor transactions occur, it cannot require that the transaction actually be made, and the worker hired.

True capitalists don't complain about "moving goal posts" when they don't have enough gold. They have to simply have faith in Capitalism; and strive to gain more gold.

How would you know?

because, Only false Capitalists do that.

And....how would you know anything about capitalists and capitalism???

I mean, after all.....you are a dunce.

I have a good argument, unlike your right wing fantasy, that doesn't even include, full body massage with happy ending.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The point is, a minimum wage should compete favorably with the cost of social services. That estimate is at fourteen dollars an hour, and is a rationale for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage. To privatize costs instead of relying on socializing costs via welfare.

You have to prove such a public policy does not promote the general welfare, regardless of what I call it. So, since what I call it is not very relevant, why not argue the point of the argument instead of quibbling over semantics or strings of words.

Solving simple poverty is a promotion of the general welfare and that form of capital gain, for labor; who should have recourse to unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

That's not the point at all because you have not proven that it needs to. To prove that you need to prove that everyone making less than 15 an hour actually receives government social services

We have thrown trillions at poverty so we have the richest poor people in the world right here in this country

Hence....absolutely no reason to get off the dole.


"Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty
New data compiled by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee shows that, last year, the United States spent over $60,000 to support welfare programs per each household that is in poverty. The calculations are based on data from the Census, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Research Services.
"According to the Census’s American Community Survey, the number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16,807,795," the Senate Budget Committee notes. "If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011."
This dollar figure is almost three times the amount the average household on poverty lives on per year. "If the spending on these programs were converted into cash, and distributed exclusively to the nation’s households below the poverty line, this cash amount would be over 2.5 times the federal poverty threshold for a family of four, which in 2011 was $22,350 (see table in this link)," the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee note.
Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty



You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.

WITH WELFARE IT MAKES SENSE TO WORK LESS,”
The chart is quite revealing. A one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year. If the family provider works only one week a month at minimum wage, he or she makes 92 percent as much as a provider grossing $60,000 a year.
http://granitegrok.com/wp-content/u..._With-welfare-it-makes-sense-to-work-less.pdf


From Emmerich:

You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.

There is no underemployment under capitalism, only underpayment.

With New Year just around the corner, are you planning on sprucing up that Styrofoam cup you wave around on the subway?

It's the least you could do.......

not getting rich fast enough; you want me to waste my time, too?

What are you babbling about????

Ever since I learned to spin straw into gold, my wealth is immeasurable.



Get out in the fields, peasant.

 

[Skull Pilot]

when a person makes up his own definitions as you do it is impossible to have a meaningful discussion

The point is, a minimum wage should compete favorably with the cost of social services. That estimate is at fourteen dollars an hour, and is a rationale for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage. To privatize costs instead of relying on socializing costs via welfare.

You have to prove such a public policy does not promote the general welfare, regardless of what I call it. So, since what I call it is not very relevant, why not argue the point of the argument instead of quibbling over semantics or strings of words.

Solving simple poverty is a promotion of the general welfare and that form of capital gain, for labor; who should have recourse to unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

That's not the point at all because you have not proven that it needs to. To prove that you need to prove that everyone making less than 15 an hour actually receives government social services

We have thrown trillions at poverty so we have the richest poor people in the world right here in this country

Hence....absolutely no reason to get off the dole.


"Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty
New data compiled by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee shows that, last year, the United States spent over $60,000 to support welfare programs per each household that is in poverty. The calculations are based on data from the Census, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Research Services.
"According to the Census’s American Community Survey, the number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16,807,795," the Senate Budget Committee notes. "If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011."
This dollar figure is almost three times the amount the average household on poverty lives on per year. "If the spending on these programs were converted into cash, and distributed exclusively to the nation’s households below the poverty line, this cash amount would be over 2.5 times the federal poverty threshold for a family of four, which in 2011 was $22,350 (see table in this link)," the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee note.
Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty



You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.

WITH WELFARE IT MAKES SENSE TO WORK LESS,”
The chart is quite revealing. A one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year. If the family provider works only one week a month at minimum wage, he or she makes 92 percent as much as a provider grossing $60,000 a year.
http://granitegrok.com/wp-content/u..._With-welfare-it-makes-sense-to-work-less.pdf


From Emmerich:

You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.

There is no underemployment under capitalism, only underpayment.

With New Year just around the corner, are you planning on sprucing up that Styrofoam cup you wave around on the subway?

It's the least you could do.......

a new cardboard sign might help too

 

[danielpalos]

That's not the point at all because you have not proven that it needs to. To prove that you need to prove that everyone making less than 15 an hour actually receives government social services

We have thrown trillions at poverty so we have the richest poor people in the world right here in this country

Hence....absolutely no reason to get off the dole.


"Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty
New data compiled by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee shows that, last year, the United States spent over $60,000 to support welfare programs per each household that is in poverty. The calculations are based on data from the Census, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Research Services.
"According to the Census’s American Community Survey, the number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16,807,795," the Senate Budget Committee notes. "If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011."
This dollar figure is almost three times the amount the average household on poverty lives on per year. "If the spending on these programs were converted into cash, and distributed exclusively to the nation’s households below the poverty line, this cash amount would be over 2.5 times the federal poverty threshold for a family of four, which in 2011 was $22,350 (see table in this link)," the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee note.
Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty



You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.

WITH WELFARE IT MAKES SENSE TO WORK LESS,”
The chart is quite revealing. A one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year. If the family provider works only one week a month at minimum wage, he or she makes 92 percent as much as a provider grossing $60,000 a year.
http://granitegrok.com/wp-content/u..._With-welfare-it-makes-sense-to-work-less.pdf


From Emmerich:

You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.

There is no underemployment under capitalism, only underpayment.

With New Year just around the corner, are you planning on sprucing up that Styrofoam cup you wave around on the subway?

It's the least you could do.......

not getting rich fast enough; you want me to waste my time, too?

What are you babbling about????

Ever since I learned to spin straw into gold, my wealth is immeasurable.

Get out in the fields, peasant.

i may need a "horrible boss" to get me there.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The point is, a minimum wage should compete favorably with the cost of social services. That estimate is at fourteen dollars an hour, and is a rationale for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage. To privatize costs instead of relying on socializing costs via welfare.

You have to prove such a public policy does not promote the general welfare, regardless of what I call it. So, since what I call it is not very relevant, why not argue the point of the argument instead of quibbling over semantics or strings of words.

Solving simple poverty is a promotion of the general welfare and that form of capital gain, for labor; who should have recourse to unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

That's not the point at all because you have not proven that it needs to. To prove that you need to prove that everyone making less than 15 an hour actually receives government social services

We have thrown trillions at poverty so we have the richest poor people in the world right here in this country

Hence....absolutely no reason to get off the dole.


"Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty
New data compiled by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee shows that, last year, the United States spent over $60,000 to support welfare programs per each household that is in poverty. The calculations are based on data from the Census, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Research Services.
"According to the Census’s American Community Survey, the number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16,807,795," the Senate Budget Committee notes. "If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011."
This dollar figure is almost three times the amount the average household on poverty lives on per year. "If the spending on these programs were converted into cash, and distributed exclusively to the nation’s households below the poverty line, this cash amount would be over 2.5 times the federal poverty threshold for a family of four, which in 2011 was $22,350 (see table in this link)," the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee note.
Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty



You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.

WITH WELFARE IT MAKES SENSE TO WORK LESS,”
The chart is quite revealing. A one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year. If the family provider works only one week a month at minimum wage, he or she makes 92 percent as much as a provider grossing $60,000 a year.
http://granitegrok.com/wp-content/u..._With-welfare-it-makes-sense-to-work-less.pdf


From Emmerich:

You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.

There is no underemployment under capitalism, only underpayment.

With New Year just around the corner, are you planning on sprucing up that Styrofoam cup you wave around on the subway?

It's the least you could do.......

a new cardboard sign might help too

Something akin to

"Will Work For Fashion Tips!"

 

[Dschrute3]

Seems too much like a Catch 22 Lose-Lose for poor folks. I support raising our Minimum Wage. It's long overdue. Our current Minimum Wage is an embarrassment compared to the rest of the world. The richest nation on earth can certainly do better. I hope Trump considers it.

No, idiot. It's a win-win. People without jobs can get jobs and work their way up, instead of being priced out of the market. People already working can command higher wages because companies are saving money on taxes.
It isnt brain surgery to understand basic econ, but it is beyond most libs.

Come on, calm down. I feel we can have some compromise. Lower the Corporate Tax Rate and raise the Minimum Wage. Rich folks get a little something, and poor folks get a little something. Hopefully Trump will be open to it. He has indicated in the past, that he would be willing to consider raising the Minimum Wage.

You're not getting it. When you raise the min wage, you hurt poor people. When you lower the corporate tax rate you help poor people. Why is this tough to understand?

No indication raising Minimum Wages dramatically effects economies. That's a myth pushed by greedy stingy rich folks. States that have raised their Minimum Wages have not collapsed. They're doing fine. We can't always be in it for the rich folks. We have to look out for our poor and vulnerable too. Hopefully Trump will consider my compromise.

It has been a disaster for those most likely to earn it, namely young blacks. Check the unemployment rate for them. It is a disaster.

Not a minimum Wage issue. There is no historical evidence showing raising Minimum Wages destroys economies. It doesn't happen. Our current Minimum Wage is embarrassing. We can definitely do better.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, idiot. It's a win-win. People without jobs can get jobs and work their way up, instead of being priced out of the market. People already working can command higher wages because companies are saving money on taxes.
It isnt brain surgery to understand basic econ, but it is beyond most libs.

Come on, calm down. I feel we can have some compromise. Lower the Corporate Tax Rate and raise the Minimum Wage. Rich folks get a little something, and poor folks get a little something. Hopefully Trump will be open to it. He has indicated in the past, that he would be willing to consider raising the Minimum Wage.

You're not getting it. When you raise the min wage, you hurt poor people. When you lower the corporate tax rate you help poor people. Why is this tough to understand?

No indication raising Minimum Wages dramatically effects economies. That's a myth pushed by greedy stingy rich folks. States that have raised their Minimum Wages have not collapsed. They're doing fine. We can't always be in it for the rich folks. We have to look out for our poor and vulnerable too. Hopefully Trump will consider my compromise.

It has been a disaster for those most likely to earn it, namely young blacks. Check the unemployment rate for them. It is a disaster.

Not a minimum Wage issue. There is no historical evidence showing raising Minimum Wages destroys economies. It doesn't happen. Our current Minimum Wage is embarrassing. We can definitely do better.

"Our current Minimum Wage is embarrassing. We can definitely do better."

Of course, you don't really believe that.

David Mamet writes in "The Secret Knowledge"...
1. The adolescent, the Marxist, and the Liberal dream of “fairness,” brought about by the state. Silly. This would mean usurping the society decision that the skilled worker is entitled to higher pay than the unskilled. This decision is never pronounced by any authority other than the free market. It was arrived at via the interaction of human beings perfectly capable of ordering their own affairs.

2. Government cannot and will not correct itself- thus the necessity for elections. But society, convened as the free market, can and does correct itself…and quickly, ‘else the risk of impoverishment.

3. If the Leftist is interested in a more ‘fair’ redistribution of wealth, let him vote for lower taxes, and then he can distribute his now larger share of his wealth to the lesser compensated folks.

4. Illustrative of reality is the fact that the Leftist refrains from paying above the stated price for goods and services…he wants, as everyone else does, competition between said services. Only then does he stand a chance of getting a “fair” price. In his own enterprise, he strives to improve quality or lower price…’else his potential customers will take their business to others. Unless he has the power of government!


Soooo.....when have you demanded to pay more than a posted price?

When?

 

[Dschrute3]

Come on, calm down. I feel we can have some compromise. Lower the Corporate Tax Rate and raise the Minimum Wage. Rich folks get a little something, and poor folks get a little something. Hopefully Trump will be open to it. He has indicated in the past, that he would be willing to consider raising the Minimum Wage.

You're not getting it. When you raise the min wage, you hurt poor people. When you lower the corporate tax rate you help poor people. Why is this tough to understand?

No indication raising Minimum Wages dramatically effects economies. That's a myth pushed by greedy stingy rich folks. States that have raised their Minimum Wages have not collapsed. They're doing fine. We can't always be in it for the rich folks. We have to look out for our poor and vulnerable too. Hopefully Trump will consider my compromise.

It has been a disaster for those most likely to earn it, namely young blacks. Check the unemployment rate for them. It is a disaster.

Not a minimum Wage issue. There is no historical evidence showing raising Minimum Wages destroys economies. It doesn't happen. Our current Minimum Wage is embarrassing. We can definitely do better.

"Our current Minimum Wage is embarrassing. We can definitely do better."

Of course, you don't really believe that.

David Mamet writes in "The Secret Knowledge"...
1. The adolescent, the Marxist, and the Liberal dream of “fairness,” brought about by the state. Silly. This would mean usurping the society decision that the skilled worker is entitled to higher pay than the unskilled. This decision is never pronounced by any authority other than the free market. It was arrived at via the interaction of human beings perfectly capable of ordering their own affairs.

2. Government cannot and will not correct itself- thus the necessity for elections. But society, convened as the free market, can and does correct itself…and quickly, ‘else the risk of impoverishment.

3. If the Leftist is interested in a more ‘fair’ redistribution of wealth, let him vote for lower taxes, and then he can distribute his now larger share of his wealth to the lesser compensated folks.

4. Illustrative of reality is the fact that the Leftist refrains from paying above the stated price for goods and services…he wants, as everyone else does, competition between said services. Only then does he stand a chance of getting a “fair” price. In his own enterprise, he strives to improve quality or lower price…’else his potential customers will take their business to others. Unless he has the power of government!


Soooo.....when have you demanded to pay more than a posted price?

When?

Let's have some compromise. Lower the Corporate Tax Rate and raise the Minimum Wage. Help some rich folks out, and help some poor folks out. I think it would be great if Trump does it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're not getting it. When you raise the min wage, you hurt poor people. When you lower the corporate tax rate you help poor people. Why is this tough to understand?

No indication raising Minimum Wages dramatically effects economies. That's a myth pushed by greedy stingy rich folks. States that have raised their Minimum Wages have not collapsed. They're doing fine. We can't always be in it for the rich folks. We have to look out for our poor and vulnerable too. Hopefully Trump will consider my compromise.

It has been a disaster for those most likely to earn it, namely young blacks. Check the unemployment rate for them. It is a disaster.

Not a minimum Wage issue. There is no historical evidence showing raising Minimum Wages destroys economies. It doesn't happen. Our current Minimum Wage is embarrassing. We can definitely do better.

"Our current Minimum Wage is embarrassing. We can definitely do better."

Of course, you don't really believe that.

David Mamet writes in "The Secret Knowledge"...
1. The adolescent, the Marxist, and the Liberal dream of “fairness,” brought about by the state. Silly. This would mean usurping the society decision that the skilled worker is entitled to higher pay than the unskilled. This decision is never pronounced by any authority other than the free market. It was arrived at via the interaction of human beings perfectly capable of ordering their own affairs.

2. Government cannot and will not correct itself- thus the necessity for elections. But society, convened as the free market, can and does correct itself…and quickly, ‘else the risk of impoverishment.

3. If the Leftist is interested in a more ‘fair’ redistribution of wealth, let him vote for lower taxes, and then he can distribute his now larger share of his wealth to the lesser compensated folks.

4. Illustrative of reality is the fact that the Leftist refrains from paying above the stated price for goods and services…he wants, as everyone else does, competition between said services. Only then does he stand a chance of getting a “fair” price. In his own enterprise, he strives to improve quality or lower price…’else his potential customers will take their business to others. Unless he has the power of government!


Soooo.....when have you demanded to pay more than a posted price?

When?

Let's have some compromise. Lower the Corporate Tax Rate and raise the Minimum Wage. Help some rich folks out, and help some poor folks out. I think it would be great if Trump does it.

1. First, of all, you must know that corporations don't pay taxes....they pass them on.
In effect, they collect government taxes.

2. There is no perennial group in the nation called 'the rich."
While the term brings to mind billionaires who laze around generation after generation, nothing could be further from the truth.

a. Most....almost all....millionaires are self made....unless your name is Kennedy.

b. Know who the 'Top 1% are"?


1. If the Occupy Wall Street protests are aiming to take down the "1 percent" of Americans who control the increasingly largest chunk of our nation's wealth, perhaps they need to redirect their efforts to somewhere other than Wall Street.
2. According to Nicole Lapin of CNN, financial services professionals make up just 14 percent of that top 1 percent of wage earners. Their average salary of $311,000 per year, while quite gaudy, falls just below the threshold needed to break into the highest-earning subset.
3. The biggest single group of professionals in the top one percent is actually doctors, who make up 16 percent of that subset.
4. Executives and managers outside of finance make up 31% of the total, but Lapin didn't break them down by industry.
5. David Carr of The New York Times would also like to offer up his bosses as targets for the mass uprising, pointing out in his column today that media executives are some of the worst offenders when it comes to CEOs who reap multi-million dollar bonuses and golden parachutes by slashing budgets and laying off rank-and-file workers. Go ahead and add them to the list.
6. So those who want to direct their anger at the winners in the income inequality sweepstakes might want to look beyond the lower of half of Manhattan. There's plenty of other folks closer to home that you might want to have a word with. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/10/where-does-top-1-really-work/44029/


7. Lawyers make up 9 percent. http://www.good.is/post/the-1-percent-are-not-all-wall-streeters-they-re-the-bosses/

8. To get into the “top 1%” of Americans you don’t need to be a billionaire or millionaire or half-millionaire. The minimum wage earners in that group make about $343k/year….The “top 1%” of wage earners earn 17% of the nation’s income. Who the Heck Are the "Top 1%"?!!



It's all about the free market and the correct lifestyle decisions.

Minimum wage laws defeat the purpose.
These are the rules to stay out of poverty:
1. Graduating from high school.

2. Waiting to get married until after 21 and do not have children till after being married.

3. Having a full-time job.

None require government mandates.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're not getting it. When you raise the min wage, you hurt poor people. When you lower the corporate tax rate you help poor people. Why is this tough to understand?

No indication raising Minimum Wages dramatically effects economies. That's a myth pushed by greedy stingy rich folks. States that have raised their Minimum Wages have not collapsed. They're doing fine. We can't always be in it for the rich folks. We have to look out for our poor and vulnerable too. Hopefully Trump will consider my compromise.

It has been a disaster for those most likely to earn it, namely young blacks. Check the unemployment rate for them. It is a disaster.

Not a minimum Wage issue. There is no historical evidence showing raising Minimum Wages destroys economies. It doesn't happen. Our current Minimum Wage is embarrassing. We can definitely do better.

"Our current Minimum Wage is embarrassing. We can definitely do better."

Of course, you don't really believe that.

David Mamet writes in "The Secret Knowledge"...
1. The adolescent, the Marxist, and the Liberal dream of “fairness,” brought about by the state. Silly. This would mean usurping the society decision that the skilled worker is entitled to higher pay than the unskilled. This decision is never pronounced by any authority other than the free market. It was arrived at via the interaction of human beings perfectly capable of ordering their own affairs.

2. Government cannot and will not correct itself- thus the necessity for elections. But society, convened as the free market, can and does correct itself…and quickly, ‘else the risk of impoverishment.

3. If the Leftist is interested in a more ‘fair’ redistribution of wealth, let him vote for lower taxes, and then he can distribute his now larger share of his wealth to the lesser compensated folks.

4. Illustrative of reality is the fact that the Leftist refrains from paying above the stated price for goods and services…he wants, as everyone else does, competition between said services. Only then does he stand a chance of getting a “fair” price. In his own enterprise, he strives to improve quality or lower price…’else his potential customers will take their business to others. Unless he has the power of government!


Soooo.....when have you demanded to pay more than a posted price?

When?

Let's have some compromise. Lower the Corporate Tax Rate and raise the Minimum Wage. Help some rich folks out, and help some poor folks out. I think it would be great if Trump does it.

Oh....and that compromise?
It's the Republican auspices of the Earned Income Tax Credits.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I definately understand why people get upset at cheap employers and want to pass these laws but I still think the free-market is better.

 

[danielpalos]

That's not the point at all because you have not proven that it needs to. To prove that you need to prove that everyone making less than 15 an hour actually receives government social services

We have thrown trillions at poverty so we have the richest poor people in the world right here in this country

Hence....absolutely no reason to get off the dole.


"Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty
New data compiled by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee shows that, last year, the United States spent over $60,000 to support welfare programs per each household that is in poverty. The calculations are based on data from the Census, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Research Services.
"According to the Census’s American Community Survey, the number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16,807,795," the Senate Budget Committee notes. "If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011."
This dollar figure is almost three times the amount the average household on poverty lives on per year. "If the spending on these programs were converted into cash, and distributed exclusively to the nation’s households below the poverty line, this cash amount would be over 2.5 times the federal poverty threshold for a family of four, which in 2011 was $22,350 (see table in this link)," the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee note.
Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty



You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.

WITH WELFARE IT MAKES SENSE TO WORK LESS,”
The chart is quite revealing. A one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year. If the family provider works only one week a month at minimum wage, he or she makes 92 percent as much as a provider grossing $60,000 a year.
http://granitegrok.com/wp-content/u..._With-welfare-it-makes-sense-to-work-less.pdf


From Emmerich:

You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.

There is no underemployment under capitalism, only underpayment.

With New Year just around the corner, are you planning on sprucing up that Styrofoam cup you wave around on the subway?

It's the least you could do.......

a new cardboard sign might help too

Something akin to

"Will Work For Fashion Tips!"

what about; will work for a horrible boss?

 

[danielpalos]

Come on, calm down. I feel we can have some compromise. Lower the Corporate Tax Rate and raise the Minimum Wage. Rich folks get a little something, and poor folks get a little something. Hopefully Trump will be open to it. He has indicated in the past, that he would be willing to consider raising the Minimum Wage.

You're not getting it. When you raise the min wage, you hurt poor people. When you lower the corporate tax rate you help poor people. Why is this tough to understand?

No indication raising Minimum Wages dramatically effects economies. That's a myth pushed by greedy stingy rich folks. States that have raised their Minimum Wages have not collapsed. They're doing fine. We can't always be in it for the rich folks. We have to look out for our poor and vulnerable too. Hopefully Trump will consider my compromise.

It has been a disaster for those most likely to earn it, namely young blacks. Check the unemployment rate for them. It is a disaster.

Not a minimum Wage issue. There is no historical evidence showing raising Minimum Wages destroys economies. It doesn't happen. Our current Minimum Wage is embarrassing. We can definitely do better.

"Our current Minimum Wage is embarrassing. We can definitely do better."

Of course, you don't really believe that.

David Mamet writes in "The Secret Knowledge"...
1. The adolescent, the Marxist, and the Liberal dream of “fairness,” brought about by the state. Silly. This would mean usurping the society decision that the skilled worker is entitled to higher pay than the unskilled. This decision is never pronounced by any authority other than the free market. It was arrived at via the interaction of human beings perfectly capable of ordering their own affairs.

2. Government cannot and will not correct itself- thus the necessity for elections. But society, convened as the free market, can and does correct itself…and quickly, ‘else the risk of impoverishment.

3. If the Leftist is interested in a more ‘fair’ redistribution of wealth, let him vote for lower taxes, and then he can distribute his now larger share of his wealth to the lesser compensated folks.

4. Illustrative of reality is the fact that the Leftist refrains from paying above the stated price for goods and services…he wants, as everyone else does, competition between said services. Only then does he stand a chance of getting a “fair” price. In his own enterprise, he strives to improve quality or lower price…’else his potential customers will take their business to others. Unless he has the power of government!


Soooo.....when have you demanded to pay more than a posted price?

When?

the reality is income redistribution happens; according to the right, the rich should be "harnessed"to make money for our Republic, they have the means and the practice.

 

[danielpalos]

No indication raising Minimum Wages dramatically effects economies. That's a myth pushed by greedy stingy rich folks. States that have raised their Minimum Wages have not collapsed. They're doing fine. We can't always be in it for the rich folks. We have to look out for our poor and vulnerable too. Hopefully Trump will consider my compromise.

It has been a disaster for those most likely to earn it, namely young blacks. Check the unemployment rate for them. It is a disaster.

Not a minimum Wage issue. There is no historical evidence showing raising Minimum Wages destroys economies. It doesn't happen. Our current Minimum Wage is embarrassing. We can definitely do better.

"Our current Minimum Wage is embarrassing. We can definitely do better."

Of course, you don't really believe that.

David Mamet writes in "The Secret Knowledge"...
1. The adolescent, the Marxist, and the Liberal dream of “fairness,” brought about by the state. Silly. This would mean usurping the society decision that the skilled worker is entitled to higher pay than the unskilled. This decision is never pronounced by any authority other than the free market. It was arrived at via the interaction of human beings perfectly capable of ordering their own affairs.

2. Government cannot and will not correct itself- thus the necessity for elections. But society, convened as the free market, can and does correct itself…and quickly, ‘else the risk of impoverishment.

3. If the Leftist is interested in a more ‘fair’ redistribution of wealth, let him vote for lower taxes, and then he can distribute his now larger share of his wealth to the lesser compensated folks.

4. Illustrative of reality is the fact that the Leftist refrains from paying above the stated price for goods and services…he wants, as everyone else does, competition between said services. Only then does he stand a chance of getting a “fair” price. In his own enterprise, he strives to improve quality or lower price…’else his potential customers will take their business to others. Unless he has the power of government!


Soooo.....when have you demanded to pay more than a posted price?

When?

Let's have some compromise. Lower the Corporate Tax Rate and raise the Minimum Wage. Help some rich folks out, and help some poor folks out. I think it would be great if Trump does it.

1. First, of all, you must know that corporations don't pay taxes....they pass them on.
In effect, they collect government taxes.

2. There is no perennial group in the nation called 'the rich."
While the term brings to mind billionaires who laze around generation after generation, nothing could be further from the truth.

a. Most....almost all....millionaires are self made....unless your name is Kennedy.

b. Know who the 'Top 1% are"?


1. If the Occupy Wall Street protests are aiming to take down the "1 percent" of Americans who control the increasingly largest chunk of our nation's wealth, perhaps they need to redirect their efforts to somewhere other than Wall Street.
2. According to Nicole Lapin of CNN, financial services professionals make up just 14 percent of that top 1 percent of wage earners. Their average salary of $311,000 per year, while quite gaudy, falls just below the threshold needed to break into the highest-earning subset.
3. The biggest single group of professionals in the top one percent is actually doctors, who make up 16 percent of that subset.
4. Executives and managers outside of finance make up 31% of the total, but Lapin didn't break them down by industry.
5. David Carr of The New York Times would also like to offer up his bosses as targets for the mass uprising, pointing out in his column today that media executives are some of the worst offenders when it comes to CEOs who reap multi-million dollar bonuses and golden parachutes by slashing budgets and laying off rank-and-file workers. Go ahead and add them to the list.
6. So those who want to direct their anger at the winners in the income inequality sweepstakes might want to look beyond the lower of half of Manhattan. There's plenty of other folks closer to home that you might want to have a word with. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/10/where-does-top-1-really-work/44029/


7. Lawyers make up 9 percent. http://www.good.is/post/the-1-percent-are-not-all-wall-streeters-they-re-the-bosses/

8. To get into the “top 1%” of Americans you don’t need to be a billionaire or millionaire or half-millionaire. The minimum wage earners in that group make about $343k/year….The “top 1%” of wage earners earn 17% of the nation’s income. Who the Heck Are the "Top 1%"?!!



It's all about the free market and the correct lifestyle decisions.

Minimum wage laws defeat the purpose.
These are the rules to stay out of poverty:
1. Graduating from high school.

2. Waiting to get married until after 21 and do not have children till after being married.

3. Having a full-time job.

None require government mandates.

in other words, bailouts for the rich, but make the poor work harder for less, so the rich can get richer faster.

just right wing "logic and reason".

 

[OnePercenter]

It's a simple question: How much do you pay an employee that makes you all of your money?

Not enough that you don't make anymore money, is the answer.

I can't pay you $15/hour to flip a burger, if the customer isn't willing to pay me enough to cover that wage, and make a profit.

That's the answer.

Look it up. The burger would cost 4.3% more.

 

[OnePercenter]

It's a simple question: How much do you pay an employee that makes you all of your money?

Not enough that you don't make anymore money, is the answer.

I can't pay you $15/hour to flip a burger, if the customer isn't willing to pay me enough to cover that wage, and make a profit.

That's the answer.

Minimum Wage laws....walter e. williams

1. While legislative bodies have the power to order wage increases, they have not as of yet found a way to order commensurate increases in worker productivity that make the worker’s output worth the higher wage.
2. Further, while Congress can legislate the wage at which labor transactions occur, it cannot require that the transaction actually be made, and the worker hired.

Double talk.

Employees make all the money for their employers.

Williams also stated that if you voted for Trump, you are an idiot.​

 

[Skull Pilot]

Hence....absolutely no reason to get off the dole.


"Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty
New data compiled by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee shows that, last year, the United States spent over $60,000 to support welfare programs per each household that is in poverty. The calculations are based on data from the Census, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Research Services.
"According to the Census’s American Community Survey, the number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16,807,795," the Senate Budget Committee notes. "If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011."
This dollar figure is almost three times the amount the average household on poverty lives on per year. "If the spending on these programs were converted into cash, and distributed exclusively to the nation’s households below the poverty line, this cash amount would be over 2.5 times the federal poverty threshold for a family of four, which in 2011 was $22,350 (see table in this link)," the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee note.
Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty



You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.

WITH WELFARE IT MAKES SENSE TO WORK LESS,”
The chart is quite revealing. A one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year. If the family provider works only one week a month at minimum wage, he or she makes 92 percent as much as a provider grossing $60,000 a year.
http://granitegrok.com/wp-content/u..._With-welfare-it-makes-sense-to-work-less.pdf


From Emmerich:

You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.

There is no underemployment under capitalism, only underpayment.

With New Year just around the corner, are you planning on sprucing up that Styrofoam cup you wave around on the subway?

It's the least you could do.......

a new cardboard sign might help too

Something akin to

"Will Work For Fashion Tips!"

what about; will work for a horrible boss?

well you'd be a horrible employee so I'm sure no good boss would hire you