Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Don't work for minimum wage all your life assholes. Try getting some skills and work experience.
Liberals will always be a problem.....Don't work for minimum wage all your life assholes. Try getting some skills and work experience.
What about people with problems where getting a better job isn't an option?
People with concentration problems, people with mental problems, people with learning difficulties, the list is endless.
Not everyone that works a menial job is paying the rent. He's a kid hoping to build a resume, maybe save a few bucks. He's a student living with a bunch of roommates. Maybe it's an retired lady that wants to get out of the house and engage with people. It's also the simple man, uneducated and perhaps slow, but is fully capable of sweeping the floors.
Your minimum wage laws PREVENT those people from working at all.
Shame on you.
Sure, however there are those that are. In the UK there is a different minimum wage for those within certain years (like 16-18, then 18 to 20 something).
No, minimum wage DOES NOT prevent people from working. More people were working AFTER minimum wage in the UK than before. Shame on you for making up bullshit lies. This is why I demand evidence from people, too many people just make shit up.
What evidence do you have to support this? Are you sure the minimum wage was not accompanied by a decrease in welfare benefits, forcing people who were living off the government, into the work force?
Well, firstly unemployment didn't rise.
United Kingdom Unemployment Rate | 1971-2016 | Data | Chart | Calendar
As you can see unemployment was dropping from a recession in the early 1990, then unemployment dropped for the next 9 years more or less.
Benefit spending ROSE under Labour
As you can see the minimum wage came in soon after Labour got into power in 1997, welfare payments then increased from about 2000 onwards once they'd go what they wanted in place. So for the next 7 years of rising employment and rising welfare and the minimum wage rose throughout this time.
Benefit spending isn't entirely relevant to the discussion.
In the 1990s, the Republicans pushed welfare reform until it was passed. This forced millions of people off of food stamps and welfare, and into the work force. Unemployment unsurprisingly fell.
If you force people to work, they will work. So even if benefits increase over all, if you force people off welfare and food stamps, they may still collect subsidized housing, and other benefits, while still reducing unemployment.
Government benefits may go up or down, and not have a direct effect on unemployment.
Secondly, the minimum wage in this case, was not all that effective, for a number of reasons.
For one, the minimum wage is very low. When it was introduced, it was only £3.60, which is barely $4.25. In other words, in a country with a higher cost of living than the US, they had a lower minimum wage than the US.
However more importantly, the minimum wage has barely kept pace with inflation. £3.60 in 1999 converts to about £6 today. It was only this very year, that they bumped up the UK minimum wage from £6.70 to £7.20. It's it just barely ahead of inflation.
But likely the absolute most important aspect, is that every time the minimum wage gets high enough that it may actually affect employment, they introduce a new lower minimum wage.
From the beginning there was a lower minimum wage of just £3 an hour.
Then they introduced a lower 16-17 year old wage of £3, below the 18-21 wage of £3.20, which was below the top minimum wage of £4.50.
Then they added an apprenticeship wage that started out at £2.50.
And by the way, the new "living wage" they introduced this year, is only £7.20, which is about $8.80 an hour, and only applies to people over 25. Quite frankly I don't know anyone over 25, that is earning less than $8.80 an hour. I myself, have no degrees, no skills, no certification, nothing. I earn $12/hour.
And you think that proves the minimum wage doesn't ruin employment?
Do you see the problem? The specific people that would be most affected by a minimum wage, are exempt from the minimum wage.
Yeah if you exempt all the 16 to 17s, the 18 to 21, and all the apprenticeship laborers from the minimum wage.... if you exempt all the people who are the most likely to be earning minimum wage, from the minimum wage laws....... yeah it won't harm employment!
And if you wish to put in place a "living wage" like the UK, which is barely eight and half dollars an hour, knock yourself out. That won't hurt employment either.
But if you put in place a real massive minimum wage hike, like $15 an hour in Seattle, then yeah, that's going to kill jobs. And it does. And the proof is documented.
So, benefit spending isn't relevant to this discussion, so why did you bring it up then?
Yes, I agree, people should be forced to work if they can. But we're not talking about forcing people to work, we're talking about when they do work that they earn a livable wage.
Well minimum wage in the US wasn't exactly high at that time. It was about 5 bucks at the time, which was ridiculous even for then. At the time it was about 2/3 so, 3.60 would have been about the equivalent of about $5. However considering that people were earning 2.50 an hour in the UK, a hike of 1 pound an hour was actually quite a rise at the time. It was done sensibly, not simply just a "this is what we think they should get", they increased it over time.
Barely ahead of inflation is neither here nor there. The issue is whether it is a livable wage or not. UK house prices are actually quite high. In London this would definitely not be livable, elsewhere it might be.
What is the Living Wage? Living Wage Foundation
This page says the living wage is 8.45 an hour and 9.75 in London, hardly surprising that the minimum wage is lower than this, and that the Tories have been in for 6 years.
UK minimum wage is hardly $8 an hour. The currency has lost a lot of weight recently, like 10% on the Euro and more on the dollar, so it was more like $9 or $10 and hour, however the British people have fucked themselves over.
However the argument was that a minimum wage would cause problems. Has it? Not, it hasn't.
Sure, however there are those that are. In the UK there is a different minimum wage for those within certain years (like 16-18, then 18 to 20 something).
No, minimum wage DOES NOT prevent people from working. More people were working AFTER minimum wage in the UK than before. Shame on you for making up bullshit lies. This is why I demand evidence from people, too many people just make shit up.
What evidence do you have to support this? Are you sure the minimum wage was not accompanied by a decrease in welfare benefits, forcing people who were living off the government, into the work force?
Well, firstly unemployment didn't rise.
United Kingdom Unemployment Rate | 1971-2016 | Data | Chart | Calendar
As you can see unemployment was dropping from a recession in the early 1990, then unemployment dropped for the next 9 years more or less.
Benefit spending ROSE under Labour
As you can see the minimum wage came in soon after Labour got into power in 1997, welfare payments then increased from about 2000 onwards once they'd go what they wanted in place. So for the next 7 years of rising employment and rising welfare and the minimum wage rose throughout this time.
Benefit spending isn't entirely relevant to the discussion.
In the 1990s, the Republicans pushed welfare reform until it was passed. This forced millions of people off of food stamps and welfare, and into the work force. Unemployment unsurprisingly fell.
If you force people to work, they will work. So even if benefits increase over all, if you force people off welfare and food stamps, they may still collect subsidized housing, and other benefits, while still reducing unemployment.
Government benefits may go up or down, and not have a direct effect on unemployment.
Secondly, the minimum wage in this case, was not all that effective, for a number of reasons.
For one, the minimum wage is very low. When it was introduced, it was only £3.60, which is barely $4.25. In other words, in a country with a higher cost of living than the US, they had a lower minimum wage than the US.
However more importantly, the minimum wage has barely kept pace with inflation. £3.60 in 1999 converts to about £6 today. It was only this very year, that they bumped up the UK minimum wage from £6.70 to £7.20. It's it just barely ahead of inflation.
But likely the absolute most important aspect, is that every time the minimum wage gets high enough that it may actually affect employment, they introduce a new lower minimum wage.
From the beginning there was a lower minimum wage of just £3 an hour.
Then they introduced a lower 16-17 year old wage of £3, below the 18-21 wage of £3.20, which was below the top minimum wage of £4.50.
Then they added an apprenticeship wage that started out at £2.50.
And by the way, the new "living wage" they introduced this year, is only £7.20, which is about $8.80 an hour, and only applies to people over 25. Quite frankly I don't know anyone over 25, that is earning less than $8.80 an hour. I myself, have no degrees, no skills, no certification, nothing. I earn $12/hour.
And you think that proves the minimum wage doesn't ruin employment?
Do you see the problem? The specific people that would be most affected by a minimum wage, are exempt from the minimum wage.
Yeah if you exempt all the 16 to 17s, the 18 to 21, and all the apprenticeship laborers from the minimum wage.... if you exempt all the people who are the most likely to be earning minimum wage, from the minimum wage laws....... yeah it won't harm employment!
And if you wish to put in place a "living wage" like the UK, which is barely eight and half dollars an hour, knock yourself out. That won't hurt employment either.
But if you put in place a real massive minimum wage hike, like $15 an hour in Seattle, then yeah, that's going to kill jobs. And it does. And the proof is documented.
So, benefit spending isn't relevant to this discussion, so why did you bring it up then?
Yes, I agree, people should be forced to work if they can. But we're not talking about forcing people to work, we're talking about when they do work that they earn a livable wage.
Well minimum wage in the US wasn't exactly high at that time. It was about 5 bucks at the time, which was ridiculous even for then. At the time it was about 2/3 so, 3.60 would have been about the equivalent of about $5. However considering that people were earning 2.50 an hour in the UK, a hike of 1 pound an hour was actually quite a rise at the time. It was done sensibly, not simply just a "this is what we think they should get", they increased it over time.
Barely ahead of inflation is neither here nor there. The issue is whether it is a livable wage or not. UK house prices are actually quite high. In London this would definitely not be livable, elsewhere it might be.
What is the Living Wage? Living Wage Foundation
This page says the living wage is 8.45 an hour and 9.75 in London, hardly surprising that the minimum wage is lower than this, and that the Tories have been in for 6 years.
UK minimum wage is hardly $8 an hour. The currency has lost a lot of weight recently, like 10% on the Euro and more on the dollar, so it was more like $9 or $10 and hour, however the British people have fucked themselves over.
However the argument was that a minimum wage would cause problems. Has it? Not, it hasn't.
To clarify, I said kicked them off welfare benefits. Not benefit spending. Those are not the same. There is benefit spending that doesn't harm specifically employment. And there is some that does.
I was asking if they rolled back welfare... not "benefit spending". Those are not the same.
Again, in the 1990s, we passed welfare reform. Benefit spending increased over all in the 1990s. But... welfare and food stamps were changed in a way that forced people to work.
For example. If you have 10 people on food stamps, and you dish out $20 per person, that's $200, and 10 people not working.
If you change the system so 8 of those people do not qualify, but the two that do get $110 in food stamps, that means benefits went up to $220, from $200.... but unemployment was reduced to 2 from 10.
"Benefit spending" doesn't mean much. I was asking if the UK might have done something like what we did in the 1990s, which reduced welfare and food stamp rolls dramatically, and thus reduced unemployment. Just pointing out that in raw numbers, benefits went up, doesn't indicate anything.
I said the UK minimum wage was $8.80. You pointed to a page that said $8.40. Then you said it's hardly $8 an hour. No one said it was $8 an hour.
NO, it's not $9 or $10 an hour.
And no £3.60 was not about $5. It was more like $4.25 an hour. And actually, it was less than that because taxes in the UK are much higher than here. So not only was the wage significantly lower than the US minimum wage, but you kept less of it.
No one who works consistently, is earning the minimum wage anyway. Those that don't, are not going to have a living wage, no matter what you make the 'living wage'.
You keep talking like "if they work a full time job, can they afford a house in London". If they work a full time job, and do so consistently over time, they are already earning far above the minimum wage to begin with.
tell you what since you seem to think everyone making less than 15 an hour gets some kind of government welfare why don't you put a link to that?care to cite your statistics.why do you assume low skill workers will receive social servicessocial services pays the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour.I don't feel bad for people who never aspire to do more than put french fries and burgers in paper bags for a living it's their choice to be unskiiled
a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage competes favorably, for rational choice theory purposes.
most don't
why does the right complain about the cost of social services.
IOW you want to be paid for sitting on your ass at mommy's houseA more efficient economy, what a concept. It is why we need unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed.
The fight for $15 is the fight for automation!
you get 12 years of free education once your'e an adult you're on your ownit's not the government's responsibility to get people skills. never was never will beclearly if you can't make more than MW you need to attain the skills that will garner more pay in the marketplace
Again, the problem is that there will always be minimum wage workers, and people should be able to afford accommodation, food etc, right? We're not talking about having the latest smart phone here, we're talking about a roof over your head, something everyone who is working should be able to afford with 1/3 of their wage.
If your skills don't allow you to earn what you need to support yourself then you have 2 options, work more hours or attain skills that will merit a higher pay
Where is it written that one 40 hour a week job has to be enough to pay all your bills?
Firstly, the US isn't doing enough to get people the skills that they need. Secondly the rich want people to be poor so they can work these minimum wage jobs and make others rich. Again, we're a society, shouldn't we at least make sure that people can afford a fucking roof over their head if they are actually being productive and actually making other people rich?
What kind of a selfish world do we live in where we say to people that 40 or even 50 hours isn't even enough to get a roof over their head, no matter what kind of work they're doing. The right moans and bitches that people don't work, then when they do work they couldn't give a fuck about whether it's actually worth their while to do so.
it's YOUR responsibility to improve yourself
And this is the attitude that is sending the US downhill, and fast, other countries are going far beyond the US, because they're societies.
How come you're expected to die for your country, but your country isn't expected to educate you?
Liberals will always be a problem.....Don't work for minimum wage all your life assholes. Try getting some skills and work experience.
What about people with problems where getting a better job isn't an option?
People with concentration problems, people with mental problems, people with learning difficulties, the list is endless.
it's up to you to find out what skills will bring the best price in the marketplace and then get the training you need to perform those skillsclearly if you can't make more than MW you need to attain the skills that will garner more pay in the marketplace
Again, the problem is that there will always be minimum wage workers, and people should be able to afford accommodation, food etc, right? We're not talking about having the latest smart phone here, we're talking about a roof over your head, something everyone who is working should be able to afford with 1/3 of their wage.
If your skills don't allow you to earn what you need to support yourself then you have 2 options, work more hours or attain skills that will merit a higher pay
Where is it written that one 40 hour a week job has to be enough to pay all your bills?
Firstly, the US isn't doing enough to get people the skills that they need. Secondly the rich want people to be poor so they can work these minimum wage jobs and make others rich. Again, we're a society, shouldn't we at least make sure that people can afford a fucking roof over their head if they are actually being productive and actually making other people rich?
What kind of a selfish world do we live in where we say to people that 40 or even 50 hours isn't even enough to get a roof over their head, no matter what kind of work they're doing. The right moans and bitches that people don't work, then when they do work they couldn't give a fuck about whether it's actually worth their while to do so.Firstly, the US isn't doing enough to get people the skills that they need.
Its up to the US to get people trained?
I always thought that was MY job.
What kind of a selfish world do we live in where we say to people that 40 or even 50 hours isn't even enough to get a roof over their head, no matter what kind of work they're doing
The real world.
You should visit sometime
The problem is a country needs certain skills. Look at Germany, they set out to be a high tech manufacturer, seeing, rightly, that if you stick to the cheap stuff, that countries like China, Taiwan, Vietnam will be able to come along with low skilled and much cheaper workers and take over your jobs. The US is trying to get back jobs that it shouldn't have, and because it hasn't gone out there to get higher tech jobs, many of these are being done abroad too or require foreign workers to do them. This is a problem.
Some countries are deciding how they want their society to be, and they decided they want their society to be strong. You lot have decided you want low paid manufacturing jobs. I don't get it.
you get 12 years of free education once your'e an adult you're on your ownit's not the government's responsibility to get people skills. never was never will beAgain, the problem is that there will always be minimum wage workers, and people should be able to afford accommodation, food etc, right? We're not talking about having the latest smart phone here, we're talking about a roof over your head, something everyone who is working should be able to afford with 1/3 of their wage.
If your skills don't allow you to earn what you need to support yourself then you have 2 options, work more hours or attain skills that will merit a higher pay
Where is it written that one 40 hour a week job has to be enough to pay all your bills?
Firstly, the US isn't doing enough to get people the skills that they need. Secondly the rich want people to be poor so they can work these minimum wage jobs and make others rich. Again, we're a society, shouldn't we at least make sure that people can afford a fucking roof over their head if they are actually being productive and actually making other people rich?
What kind of a selfish world do we live in where we say to people that 40 or even 50 hours isn't even enough to get a roof over their head, no matter what kind of work they're doing. The right moans and bitches that people don't work, then when they do work they couldn't give a fuck about whether it's actually worth their while to do so.
it's YOUR responsibility to improve yourself
And this is the attitude that is sending the US downhill, and fast, other countries are going far beyond the US, because they're societies.
How come you're expected to die for your country, but your country isn't expected to educate you?
or you could actually join our volunteer military and get all kinds of education and training
it's up to you to find out what skills will bring the best price in the marketplace and then get the training you need to perform those skillsAgain, the problem is that there will always be minimum wage workers, and people should be able to afford accommodation, food etc, right? We're not talking about having the latest smart phone here, we're talking about a roof over your head, something everyone who is working should be able to afford with 1/3 of their wage.
If your skills don't allow you to earn what you need to support yourself then you have 2 options, work more hours or attain skills that will merit a higher pay
Where is it written that one 40 hour a week job has to be enough to pay all your bills?
Firstly, the US isn't doing enough to get people the skills that they need. Secondly the rich want people to be poor so they can work these minimum wage jobs and make others rich. Again, we're a society, shouldn't we at least make sure that people can afford a fucking roof over their head if they are actually being productive and actually making other people rich?
What kind of a selfish world do we live in where we say to people that 40 or even 50 hours isn't even enough to get a roof over their head, no matter what kind of work they're doing. The right moans and bitches that people don't work, then when they do work they couldn't give a fuck about whether it's actually worth their while to do so.Firstly, the US isn't doing enough to get people the skills that they need.
Its up to the US to get people trained?
I always thought that was MY job.
What kind of a selfish world do we live in where we say to people that 40 or even 50 hours isn't even enough to get a roof over their head, no matter what kind of work they're doing
The real world.
You should visit sometime
The problem is a country needs certain skills. Look at Germany, they set out to be a high tech manufacturer, seeing, rightly, that if you stick to the cheap stuff, that countries like China, Taiwan, Vietnam will be able to come along with low skilled and much cheaper workers and take over your jobs. The US is trying to get back jobs that it shouldn't have, and because it hasn't gone out there to get higher tech jobs, many of these are being done abroad too or require foreign workers to do them. This is a problem.
Some countries are deciding how they want their society to be, and they decided they want their society to be strong. You lot have decided you want low paid manufacturing jobs. I don't get it.
A society is strong when people have the freedom to be and do what they want
Do you want to live in a country where you are told that you have to be a plumber because the country needs plumbers or would you rather make your own choices
The individual always trumps society
it's up to you to find out what skills will bring the best price in the marketplace and then get the training you need to perform those skillsIf your skills don't allow you to earn what you need to support yourself then you have 2 options, work more hours or attain skills that will merit a higher pay
Where is it written that one 40 hour a week job has to be enough to pay all your bills?
Firstly, the US isn't doing enough to get people the skills that they need. Secondly the rich want people to be poor so they can work these minimum wage jobs and make others rich. Again, we're a society, shouldn't we at least make sure that people can afford a fucking roof over their head if they are actually being productive and actually making other people rich?
What kind of a selfish world do we live in where we say to people that 40 or even 50 hours isn't even enough to get a roof over their head, no matter what kind of work they're doing. The right moans and bitches that people don't work, then when they do work they couldn't give a fuck about whether it's actually worth their while to do so.Firstly, the US isn't doing enough to get people the skills that they need.
Its up to the US to get people trained?
I always thought that was MY job.
What kind of a selfish world do we live in where we say to people that 40 or even 50 hours isn't even enough to get a roof over their head, no matter what kind of work they're doing
The real world.
You should visit sometime
The problem is a country needs certain skills. Look at Germany, they set out to be a high tech manufacturer, seeing, rightly, that if you stick to the cheap stuff, that countries like China, Taiwan, Vietnam will be able to come along with low skilled and much cheaper workers and take over your jobs. The US is trying to get back jobs that it shouldn't have, and because it hasn't gone out there to get higher tech jobs, many of these are being done abroad too or require foreign workers to do them. This is a problem.
Some countries are deciding how they want their society to be, and they decided they want their society to be strong. You lot have decided you want low paid manufacturing jobs. I don't get it.
A society is strong when people have the freedom to be and do what they want
Do you want to live in a country where you are told that you have to be a plumber because the country needs plumbers or would you rather make your own choices
The individual always trumps society
Right, so a kid at the age of 12 decides what skills he needs, but the school he goes to doesn't provide those skills, then what?
A society is strong when people get to choose, but too much choice doesn't make society stronger, you still need people to do certain things. Is society strong when people get conscripted? Sure, but they don't have the choice, do they?
I'm not talking about telling people to be a plumber. Hey, I want to be a multi billionaire, but the job vacancy for that one is taken by someone else. So where's my choice? Oh, the choice is there, I can choose to pursue something, that doesn't mean there's going to be room for me. Plenty of kids apply for schools they can't get into because others are better, so they have to do something they don't want to do. That's life.
What I'm talking about is saying "hey, we need 50,000 kids to study to be a plumber this year, and 2,000 to be engineers, you can apply to be an engineer, but if you don't make it, there are plenty of available spaces in plumbing"
You say the individual trumps the society, yet it doesn't. You can't say whatever the hell you want, society makes rules that you have to abide by or go to prison, how is this the individual trumping society exactly?
The right go on and on and on about how the left are destroying morals, morals are about society not the individual. Give me a break.
The kid either does self study, or does the best he can with what is available.Right, so a kid at the age of 12 decides what skills he needs, but the school he goes to doesn't provide those skills, then what?
yet, the cognitively dissonant right wing, claims we need nationalism and socialism when it comes to freedom of association and Contract in our at-will employment States when it comes to hiring people from out of State.
Clearly isn't enough if you have to work between 53 and 92 hours at minimum wage simply to be able to afford accommodation.
Not everyone that works a menial job is paying the rent. He's a kid hoping to build a resume, maybe save a few bucks. He's a student living with a bunch of roommates. Maybe it's an retired lady that wants to get out of the house and engage with people. It's also the simple man, uneducated and perhaps slow, but is fully capable of sweeping the floors.
Your minimum wage laws PREVENT those people from working at all.
Shame on you.
Sure, however there are those that are. In the UK there is a different minimum wage for those within certain years (like 16-18, then 18 to 20 something).
No, minimum wage DOES NOT prevent people from working. More people were working AFTER minimum wage in the UK than before. Shame on you for making up bullshit lies. This is why I demand evidence from people, too many people just make shit up.
Causation vs correlation....and the logical fallacy of anecdote.
Look at the unemployment rate among youth. Look at the number of people on the dole! Look at corporations installing machines the moment technology becomes more efficient than your minimum wage and other meddling in private matters of compensation.
Look at objective studies:
Let the Data Speak: The Truth Behind Minimum Wage Laws
Now I'm sure you can cite leftist economists that will swear minimum wage laws do not affect employment, despite logic and reason.
Fine, because here's the important part: You have no right to tell a man what he's willing to work for, you meddling fuck.
that is what they said about Prohibition. only the right wing, never gets it.how much will a war on illegals cost? more financing?Again, the problem is that there will always be minimum wage workers, and people should be able to afford accommodation, food etc, right? We're not talking about having the latest smart phone here, we're talking about a roof over your head, something everyone who is working should be able to afford with 1/3 of their wage.
Again, the problem is that there will always be minimum wage workers
Boot 20 million illegals and the number of jobs available to American low-skill workers will increase.
Wages for some will increase due to supply and demand.
Yeah, and for less than minimum wage.... and they'll just have to live under the bridge, or take money from the govt to live.
Wages will increase if you boot the illegals competing with them.
how much will a war on illegals cost?
A war on illegals? LOL!
We'll save billions a year. Not to mention reducing the CO2 we emit.
They'll release a lot less back in Mexico. Do it for Mother Earth!!!
it's up to you to find out what skills will bring the best price in the marketplace and then get the training you need to perform those skillsFirstly, the US isn't doing enough to get people the skills that they need. Secondly the rich want people to be poor so they can work these minimum wage jobs and make others rich. Again, we're a society, shouldn't we at least make sure that people can afford a fucking roof over their head if they are actually being productive and actually making other people rich?
What kind of a selfish world do we live in where we say to people that 40 or even 50 hours isn't even enough to get a roof over their head, no matter what kind of work they're doing. The right moans and bitches that people don't work, then when they do work they couldn't give a fuck about whether it's actually worth their while to do so.Firstly, the US isn't doing enough to get people the skills that they need.
Its up to the US to get people trained?
I always thought that was MY job.
What kind of a selfish world do we live in where we say to people that 40 or even 50 hours isn't even enough to get a roof over their head, no matter what kind of work they're doing
The real world.
You should visit sometime
The problem is a country needs certain skills. Look at Germany, they set out to be a high tech manufacturer, seeing, rightly, that if you stick to the cheap stuff, that countries like China, Taiwan, Vietnam will be able to come along with low skilled and much cheaper workers and take over your jobs. The US is trying to get back jobs that it shouldn't have, and because it hasn't gone out there to get higher tech jobs, many of these are being done abroad too or require foreign workers to do them. This is a problem.
Some countries are deciding how they want their society to be, and they decided they want their society to be strong. You lot have decided you want low paid manufacturing jobs. I don't get it.
A society is strong when people have the freedom to be and do what they want
Do you want to live in a country where you are told that you have to be a plumber because the country needs plumbers or would you rather make your own choices
The individual always trumps society
Right, so a kid at the age of 12 decides what skills he needs, but the school he goes to doesn't provide those skills, then what?
A society is strong when people get to choose, but too much choice doesn't make society stronger, you still need people to do certain things. Is society strong when people get conscripted? Sure, but they don't have the choice, do they?
I'm not talking about telling people to be a plumber. Hey, I want to be a multi billionaire, but the job vacancy for that one is taken by someone else. So where's my choice? Oh, the choice is there, I can choose to pursue something, that doesn't mean there's going to be room for me. Plenty of kids apply for schools they can't get into because others are better, so they have to do something they don't want to do. That's life.
What I'm talking about is saying "hey, we need 50,000 kids to study to be a plumber this year, and 2,000 to be engineers, you can apply to be an engineer, but if you don't make it, there are plenty of available spaces in plumbing"
You say the individual trumps the society, yet it doesn't. You can't say whatever the hell you want, society makes rules that you have to abide by or go to prison, how is this the individual trumping society exactly?
The right go on and on and on about how the left are destroying morals, morals are about society not the individual. Give me a break.The kid either does self study, or does the best he can with what is available.Right, so a kid at the age of 12 decides what skills he needs, but the school he goes to doesn't provide those skills, then what?
how much will a war on illegals cost? more financing?Again, the problem is that there will always be minimum wage workers
Boot 20 million illegals and the number of jobs available to American low-skill workers will increase.
Wages for some will increase due to supply and demand.
Yeah, and for less than minimum wage.... and they'll just have to live under the bridge, or take money from the govt to live.
Wages will increase if you boot the illegals competing with them.
how much will a war on illegals cost?
A war on illegals? LOL!
We'll save billions a year. Not to mention reducing the CO2 we emit.
They'll release a lot less back in Mexico. Do it for Mother Earth!!!
Not to mention wages would rise.. Simple case of supply and demand.
.
Got to love those low cost of living welfare queen, red States.
Clearly isn't enough if you have to work between 53 and 92 hours at minimum wage simply to be able to afford accommodation.
Got to love those high costs of living deep blue States. LMAO
Only the right wing, never gets it. It is about privatizing costs not socializing costs.
Clearly isn't enough if you have to work between 53 and 92 hours at minimum wage simply to be able to afford accommodation.
Not everyone that works a menial job is paying the rent. He's a kid hoping to build a resume, maybe save a few bucks. He's a student living with a bunch of roommates. Maybe it's an retired lady that wants to get out of the house and engage with people. It's also the simple man, uneducated and perhaps slow, but is fully capable of sweeping the floors.
Your minimum wage laws PREVENT those people from working at all.
Shame on you.
Sure, however there are those that are. In the UK there is a different minimum wage for those within certain years (like 16-18, then 18 to 20 something).
No, minimum wage DOES NOT prevent people from working. More people were working AFTER minimum wage in the UK than before. Shame on you for making up bullshit lies. This is why I demand evidence from people, too many people just make shit up.
What evidence do you have to support this? Are you sure the minimum wage was not accompanied by a decrease in welfare benefits, forcing people who were living off the government, into the work force?
social services pays out around fourteen dollars an hour by market friendly comparison and market friendly contrast. only the right wing, never gets the point about market friendliness, if it is not about guns or lucre.tell you what since you seem to think everyone making less than 15 an hour gets some kind of government welfare why don't you put a link to that?care to cite your statistics.why do you assume low skill workers will receive social servicessocial services pays the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour.I don't feel bad for people who never aspire to do more than put french fries and burgers in paper bags for a living it's their choice to be unskiiled
a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage competes favorably, for rational choice theory purposes.
most don't
why does the right complain about the cost of social services.
