Obama wants to raise the minimum wage when we're on the verge of a second recession?

[Gadawg73]

The top tier tax rate remained at 91% until Kennedy 'slashed' it to 70%. There was less money for 'investors' to pump into job creation then than there is now. What there was was a shared sense of community and citizenship and a whole lot less greedy douchery.

You are right, there is less of a shared sense of community these days.
Citizens that vote for government that steals from producers to give to the moocher and parasite class is the reason why.

Back then, the captains of industry wouldn't have even considered outsourcing or moving American jobs to third world countries. They'd have been considered traitors and rightfully so. The guys at the top fired the first salvo in this class war and now that most working class jobs are gone, why does it surprise you that a lot of people need assistance?

No job has ever been moved to 3rd world countries. The American consumer YOU AND I, demanded they leave.
We are unwilling to pay $190 for a pair of Nike or any other kind of shoes of today's standards that we now buy tens of millions of for $70.00.
Ditto everything else we buy from China. We demanded it, our standard of living.
What exactly the hell is a "working class" job?
No offense to you but that is a fucked up phrase.
Are farmers "working class"? My cousins still run an apple farm in NY that my grandfather started in 1898. They make millions IN PROFITS and they work 90 hour weeks most all year.
We are ALL working class. I know some trial lawyers that struggled for 20 years and then became successful because they put in 60 hours a week all the time.
Same for doctors, are they "working class".
Again, no offense, but do you get my point? Most all of us work no matter what we make.
The American worker did not keep up with the times and go to the next wave of what employment is in demand.
Now that is largely the fault of American business also. When the automobile was coming of age there was no strong horse and buggy builders union.
There were many unions that for many years locked in and handcuffed many manufacturing businesses in the US and those union contracts for low skill uneducated workers outran the competition from other countries.
If a man in Mexico can make a widget for $5 a hour and we have to pay a US worker $18 a hour to make the exact same widget what does a company that does business around the globe do?
They send those manufacturing jobs overseas to save their business and if not, THEY LOSE ALL THE JOBS in that business.
An example of how a manufacturing business is run and how this applies:
Your company makes widgets. You employ 170 people.
You have an operating officer, a comptroller, 4 IT specialists, 2 receptionists, 8 security, 8 maintenance personnel, 6 engineers, 2 accounts receivables staff, 2 accounts payable staff, 10 secretaries, 8 sales staff, 3 personnel managers, 123 manufacturing staff, 12 shift managers, 2 in the finance department, 4 in shipping and receiving, a CPA, a plant manager and 4 assistant managers of the finished product.

So to produce that 1 widget in this plant in America it cost $10 to produce this widget and pay everyone a "living wage" plus medical insurance which is around $7,000 per employee for family coverage and rising at 15% a every year.

Your widget is made the same as the other 7 plants woridwide and they can make their exact same widget with an abundance of quality labor for $7 a widget.

If you do nothing and pay everyone the same you go BANKRUPT very quick ALL THE EMPLOYEES lose their job.

OR you do what is smart and the ONLY thing to do:
You outsource those manufacturing jobs to the countries that have that abundance of cheap uneducated labor. And it sends many messages to Americans. Educate yourself further than the man in Mexico and China.
But MOST IMPORTANTLY it does this:
It SAVED THE COMPANY AND THE REMAINING jobs.
Most of the retention rate is about 40% as about 60% of a manufacturing plant is actual line employees.
And EVERYONE in the building IS WORKING CLASS.
Government mandates like the minimum wage and union pressure has done more to run jobs overseas than anything a company ever could do.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Personally I would like to see a flat tax. 20% on any and all income no matter how it is derived. No credits, no deductions, no loopholes. The benefits of this would be many. Obviously would make figuring taxes easier for individuals. Fairness across the board. Eliminating the deductions, credits, etc. would probably increase tax revenue. The only downside would be for the politicians. The tax code could no longer be used as a bargaining chip and congress would have to learn to actually live within a budget.

So you are in favor of eliminating charity deductions and mortgage interest deductions? Incidentally what does the left have against charities, is it simply because liberals don't happen to give as much and therefore don't feel the need for such benefits? Here are some interesting facts I found with regard to charity:

A new study by a team of researchers from Rice University, the University of Texas at San Antonio and Pennsylvania State University shows that the unyielding political split in the U.S. does indeed apply to philanthropy as well.

Republicans’ moral foundations are embedded in respect for authority and traditions, loyalty and purity – so says Rice University Professor Vikas Mittal, co-author of the research paper, which will be published next month in the International Journal of Research in Marketing.

On the other side, Democrats’ moral foundations are rooted in equality and protection from harm, says Mittal.

They found that Republicans were three times more likely to part with their money when Rebuilding Together was described as “supporting working American families following traditions and supporting their communities.” On the flip side, Democrats were twice as likely to kick in when the organization was described as “ensuring the protection of a home to every individual.

I have a hard time believing the charity stats are accurate. I live in Utah where a large percentage of the population are ultraconservative, tithe paying LDS. I'm sure that 100% of that donation would be considered charity by members but actually only about 1% of that amount goes to actual charity. The rest is spent on building edifices and PR efforts.

I'm sure "churches" only make up a small portion of charity giving, you also have to consider organizations like the Salvation Army, and Compassion International which supports children in need overseas. You need to look at the much bigger side of giving (which the survey takes into account) if you want a more accurate look at charity .... something beyond just the four walls of some synagogue.

 

[depotoo]

Personally I would like to see a flat tax. 20% on any and all income no matter how it is derived. No credits, no deductions, no loopholes. The benefits of this would be many. Obviously would make figuring taxes easier for individuals. Fairness across the board. Eliminating the deductions, credits, etc. would probably increase tax revenue. The only downside would be for the politicians. The tax code could no longer be used as a bargaining chip and congress would have to learn to actually live within a budget.

So you are in favor of eliminating charity deductions and mortgage interest deductions? Incidentally what does the left have against charities, is it simply because liberals don't happen to give as much and therefore don't feel the need for such benefits? Here are some interesting facts I found with regard to charity:

A new study by a team of researchers from Rice University, the University of Texas at San Antonio and Pennsylvania State University shows that the unyielding political split in the U.S. does indeed apply to philanthropy as well.

Republicans’ moral foundations are embedded in respect for authority and traditions, loyalty and purity – so says Rice University Professor Vikas Mittal, co-author of the research paper, which will be published next month in the International Journal of Research in Marketing.

On the other side, Democrats’ moral foundations are rooted in equality and protection from harm, says Mittal.

They found that Republicans were three times more likely to part with their money when Rebuilding Together was described as “supporting working American families following traditions and supporting their communities.” On the flip side, Democrats were twice as likely to kick in when the organization was described as “ensuring the protection of a home to every individual.

I have a hard time believing the charity stats are accurate. I live in Utah where a large percentage of the population are ultraconservative, tithe paying LDS. I'm sure that 100% of that donation would be considered charity by members but actually only about 1% of that amount goes to actual charity. The rest is spent on building edifices and PR efforts.

The Politics of Giving - How America Gives - The Chronicle of Philanthropy- Connecting the nonprofit world with news, jobs, and ideas
Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism ... - Arthur C. Brooks - Google Books

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

So you are in favor of eliminating charity deductions and mortgage interest deductions? Incidentally what does the left have against charities, is it simply because liberals don't happen to give as much and therefore don't feel the need for such benefits? Here are some interesting facts I found with regard to charity:

I have a hard time believing the charity stats are accurate. I live in Utah where a large percentage of the population are ultraconservative, tithe paying LDS. I'm sure that 100% of that donation would be considered charity by members but actually only about 1% of that amount goes to actual charity. The rest is spent on building edifices and PR efforts.

I'm sure lefties will have a hard time believing. It flies in the face of everything people are told about libs. They're supposed to be the generous compassionate ones. If someone can show the author's methodology was wrong or numbers are inaccurate, I'd say go for it. I'd rather know the truth. But yeah, the gut reaction of the left to something like this is obviously going to be disbelief. I think the main difference comes down to how they give and frankly the axiom seems to hold true in reality. Liberals indeed are very generous and compassionate.......with other people's money. Both libs and cons are charitable and giving. One group gives of what they can afford of their own. The other advocates to government to give to people.

Well it all comes down to your set of values and, contrary to what some believe, your ideology beliefs play into a great part of who, if, and how much you give. I agree in that liberals are more free to give (for the most part) providing someone ELSE is making the sacrifice (but that's for another thread to discuss, and I haven't found any statistics to contradict what I've so far found).

With regards to a flat tax I agree, based on a percentage of purchases. Also, so long as we are talking "in place of" our current system and not "in addition to". Still not sold on the charity deduction part... that plays a big role in allowing and placing the responsibility onto fellow citizens, rather than the government, to assist those in need. Anything that cuts our government from being viewed as the "door step" for everyone to dump their problems on to ..... I am more in favor of. People need to put on their adult boots and start taking some personal responsibility for their own actions.

 

[Bern80]

You are right, there is less of a shared sense of community these days.
Citizens that vote for government that steals from producers to give to the moocher and parasite class is the reason why.

Back then, the captains of industry wouldn't have even considered outsourcing or moving American jobs to third world countries. They'd have been considered traitors and rightfully so. The guys at the top fired the first salvo in this class war and now that most working class jobs are gone, why does it surprise you that a lot of people need assistance?

No job has ever been moved to 3rd world countries. The American consumer YOU AND I, demanded they leave.
We are unwilling to pay $190 for a pair of Nike or any other kind of shoes of today's standards that we now buy tens of millions of for $70.00.
Ditto everything else we buy from China. We demanded it, our standard of living.
What exactly the hell is a "working class" job?
No offense to you but that is a fucked up phrase.
Are farmers "working class"? My cousins still run an apple farm in NY that my grandfather started in 1898. They make millions IN PROFITS and they work 90 hour weeks most all year.
We are ALL working class. I know some trial lawyers that struggled for 20 years and then became successful because they put in 60 hours a week all the time.
Same for doctors, are they "working class".
Again, no offense, but do you get my point? Most all of us work no matter what we make.
The American worker did not keep up with the times and go to the next wave of what employment is in demand.
Now that is largely the fault of American business also. When the automobile was coming of age there was no strong horse and buggy builders union.
There were many unions that for many years locked in and handcuffed many manufacturing businesses in the US and those union contracts for low skill uneducated workers outran the competition from other countries.
If a man in Mexico can make a widget for $5 a hour and we have to pay a US worker $18 a hour to make the exact same widget what does a company that does business around the globe do?
They send those manufacturing jobs overseas to save their business and if not, THEY LOSE ALL THE JOBS in that business.
An example of how a manufacturing business is run and how this applies:
Your company makes widgets. You employ 170 people.
You have an operating officer, a comptroller, 4 IT specialists, 2 receptionists, 8 security, 8 maintenance personnel, 6 engineers, 2 accounts receivables staff, 2 accounts payable staff, 10 secretaries, 8 sales staff, 3 personnel managers, 123 manufacturing staff, 12 shift managers, 2 in the finance department, 4 in shipping and receiving, a CPA, a plant manager and 4 assistant managers of the finished product.

So to produce that 1 widget in this plant in America it cost $10 to produce this widget and pay everyone a "living wage" plus medical insurance which is around $7,000 per employee for family coverage and rising at 15% a every year.

Your widget is made the same as the other 7 plants woridwide and they can make their exact same widget with an abundance of quality labor for $7 a widget.

If you do nothing and pay everyone the same you go BANKRUPT very quick ALL THE EMPLOYEES lose their job.

OR you do what is smart and the ONLY thing to do:
You outsource those manufacturing jobs to the countries that have that abundance of cheap uneducated labor. And it sends many messages to Americans. Educate yourself further than the man in Mexico and China.
But MOST IMPORTANTLY it does this:
It SAVED THE COMPANY AND THE REMAINING jobs.
Most of the retention rate is about 40% as about 60% of a manufacturing plant is actual line employees.
And EVERYONE in the building IS WORKING CLASS.
Government mandates like the minimum wage and union pressure has done more to run jobs overseas than anything a company ever could do.

This exactly what so many of these living wage, anti-outsourcing people don't understand. Jobs don't get oursourced so executives can keep or increase their pay. They get outsourced because if they don't part of the entire business goes away. This is happening for the company I work for now. We make a product here in the states that has direct compentitition from a company manufacturing them overseas. Because it is a high volume, low cost item the profit margins per unit are pretty small. Meaning a lot of them have to be sold to make a reasonable amount of money on them. The problem is the overseas manufacturer can sell for less than us because they have lower labor costs. We can't reduce the price of the unit without them costing more to make than we can sell them for. As a result we are moving manufacturing of a part of this item to another country where labor costs less. If we didn't do that and insisted on keeping production here and having our units cost more than the competition then that entire segment of our product line would go away and all of those jobs can be lost. This way most of the people here building that product can keep their jobs.

 

[JoeNormal]

Back then, the captains of industry wouldn't have even considered outsourcing or moving American jobs to third world countries. They'd have been considered traitors and rightfully so. The guys at the top fired the first salvo in this class war and now that most working class jobs are gone, why does it surprise you that a lot of people need assistance?

No job has ever been moved to 3rd world countries. The American consumer YOU AND I, demanded they leave.
We are unwilling to pay $190 for a pair of Nike or any other kind of shoes of today's standards that we now buy tens of millions of for $70.00.
Ditto everything else we buy from China. We demanded it, our standard of living.
What exactly the hell is a "working class" job?
No offense to you but that is a fucked up phrase.
Are farmers "working class"? My cousins still run an apple farm in NY that my grandfather started in 1898. They make millions IN PROFITS and they work 90 hour weeks most all year.
We are ALL working class. I know some trial lawyers that struggled for 20 years and then became successful because they put in 60 hours a week all the time.
Same for doctors, are they "working class".
Again, no offense, but do you get my point? Most all of us work no matter what we make.
The American worker did not keep up with the times and go to the next wave of what employment is in demand.
Now that is largely the fault of American business also. When the automobile was coming of age there was no strong horse and buggy builders union.
There were many unions that for many years locked in and handcuffed many manufacturing businesses in the US and those union contracts for low skill uneducated workers outran the competition from other countries.
If a man in Mexico can make a widget for $5 a hour and we have to pay a US worker $18 a hour to make the exact same widget what does a company that does business around the globe do?
They send those manufacturing jobs overseas to save their business and if not, THEY LOSE ALL THE JOBS in that business.
An example of how a manufacturing business is run and how this applies:
Your company makes widgets. You employ 170 people.
You have an operating officer, a comptroller, 4 IT specialists, 2 receptionists, 8 security, 8 maintenance personnel, 6 engineers, 2 accounts receivables staff, 2 accounts payable staff, 10 secretaries, 8 sales staff, 3 personnel managers, 123 manufacturing staff, 12 shift managers, 2 in the finance department, 4 in shipping and receiving, a CPA, a plant manager and 4 assistant managers of the finished product.

So to produce that 1 widget in this plant in America it cost $10 to produce this widget and pay everyone a "living wage" plus medical insurance which is around $7,000 per employee for family coverage and rising at 15% a every year.

Your widget is made the same as the other 7 plants woridwide and they can make their exact same widget with an abundance of quality labor for $7 a widget.

If you do nothing and pay everyone the same you go BANKRUPT very quick ALL THE EMPLOYEES lose their job.

OR you do what is smart and the ONLY thing to do:
You outsource those manufacturing jobs to the countries that have that abundance of cheap uneducated labor. And it sends many messages to Americans. Educate yourself further than the man in Mexico and China.
But MOST IMPORTANTLY it does this:
It SAVED THE COMPANY AND THE REMAINING jobs.
Most of the retention rate is about 40% as about 60% of a manufacturing plant is actual line employees.
And EVERYONE in the building IS WORKING CLASS.
Government mandates like the minimum wage and union pressure has done more to run jobs overseas than anything a company ever could do.

This exactly what so many of these living wage, anti-outsourcing people don't understand. Jobs don't get oursourced so executives can keep or increase their pay. They get outsourced because if they don't part of the entire business goes away. This is happening for the company I work for now. We make a product here in the states that has direct compentitition from a company manufacturing them overseas. Because it is a high volume, low cost item the profit margins per unit are pretty small. Meaning a lot of them have to be sold to make a reasonable amount of money on them. The problem is the overseas manufacturer can sell for less than us because they have lower labor costs. We can't reduce the price of the unit without them costing more to make than we can sell them for. As a result we are moving manufacturing of a part of this item to another country where labor costs less. If we didn't do that and insisted on keeping production here and having our units cost more than the competition then that entire segment of our product line would go away and all of those jobs can be lost. This way most of the people here building that product can keep their jobs.

I submit that there will always be a certain number of people who fall by the wayside when the tradeoff emerges between getting some education or finding oneself out of a job. The more high tech we become, the more will find themselves unmarketable. No matter how highly motivated they are, some people just aren't cut out for that type of economy. However, I think that with some form of protectionism, the companies that would like to retain an American workforce could do so if they weren't competing against the companies that outsourcing as a first response.

 

[Gadawg73]

No job has ever been moved to 3rd world countries. The American consumer YOU AND I, demanded they leave.
We are unwilling to pay $190 for a pair of Nike or any other kind of shoes of today's standards that we now buy tens of millions of for $70.00.
Ditto everything else we buy from China. We demanded it, our standard of living.
What exactly the hell is a "working class" job?
No offense to you but that is a fucked up phrase.
Are farmers "working class"? My cousins still run an apple farm in NY that my grandfather started in 1898. They make millions IN PROFITS and they work 90 hour weeks most all year.
We are ALL working class. I know some trial lawyers that struggled for 20 years and then became successful because they put in 60 hours a week all the time.
Same for doctors, are they "working class".
Again, no offense, but do you get my point? Most all of us work no matter what we make.
The American worker did not keep up with the times and go to the next wave of what employment is in demand.
Now that is largely the fault of American business also. When the automobile was coming of age there was no strong horse and buggy builders union.
There were many unions that for many years locked in and handcuffed many manufacturing businesses in the US and those union contracts for low skill uneducated workers outran the competition from other countries.
If a man in Mexico can make a widget for $5 a hour and we have to pay a US worker $18 a hour to make the exact same widget what does a company that does business around the globe do?
They send those manufacturing jobs overseas to save their business and if not, THEY LOSE ALL THE JOBS in that business.
An example of how a manufacturing business is run and how this applies:
Your company makes widgets. You employ 170 people.
You have an operating officer, a comptroller, 4 IT specialists, 2 receptionists, 8 security, 8 maintenance personnel, 6 engineers, 2 accounts receivables staff, 2 accounts payable staff, 10 secretaries, 8 sales staff, 3 personnel managers, 123 manufacturing staff, 12 shift managers, 2 in the finance department, 4 in shipping and receiving, a CPA, a plant manager and 4 assistant managers of the finished product.

So to produce that 1 widget in this plant in America it cost $10 to produce this widget and pay everyone a "living wage" plus medical insurance which is around $7,000 per employee for family coverage and rising at 15% a every year.

Your widget is made the same as the other 7 plants woridwide and they can make their exact same widget with an abundance of quality labor for $7 a widget.

If you do nothing and pay everyone the same you go BANKRUPT very quick ALL THE EMPLOYEES lose their job.

OR you do what is smart and the ONLY thing to do:
You outsource those manufacturing jobs to the countries that have that abundance of cheap uneducated labor. And it sends many messages to Americans. Educate yourself further than the man in Mexico and China.
But MOST IMPORTANTLY it does this:
It SAVED THE COMPANY AND THE REMAINING jobs.
Most of the retention rate is about 40% as about 60% of a manufacturing plant is actual line employees.
And EVERYONE in the building IS WORKING CLASS.
Government mandates like the minimum wage and union pressure has done more to run jobs overseas than anything a company ever could do.

This exactly what so many of these living wage, anti-outsourcing people don't understand. Jobs don't get oursourced so executives can keep or increase their pay. They get outsourced because if they don't part of the entire business goes away. This is happening for the company I work for now. We make a product here in the states that has direct compentitition from a company manufacturing them overseas. Because it is a high volume, low cost item the profit margins per unit are pretty small. Meaning a lot of them have to be sold to make a reasonable amount of money on them. The problem is the overseas manufacturer can sell for less than us because they have lower labor costs. We can't reduce the price of the unit without them costing more to make than we can sell them for. As a result we are moving manufacturing of a part of this item to another country where labor costs less. If we didn't do that and insisted on keeping production here and having our units cost more than the competition then that entire segment of our product line would go away and all of those jobs can be lost. This way most of the people here building that product can keep their jobs.

I submit that there will always be a certain number of people who fall by the wayside when the tradeoff emerges between getting some education or finding oneself out of a job. The more high tech we become, the more will find themselves unmarketable. No matter how highly motivated they are, some people just aren't cut out for that type of economy. However, I think that with some form of protectionism, the companies that would like to retain an American workforce could do so if they weren't competing against the companies that outsourcing as a first response.

If there ever was a #2 pencil in a dot.com world that would be me.
If I can learn it and use it to survive in the business world anyone can.
All about discipline and the willingness to learn.
"I am not good with computers" usually means they do not want to learn.

 

[Gadawg73]

No job has ever been moved to 3rd world countries. The American consumer YOU AND I, demanded they leave.
We are unwilling to pay $190 for a pair of Nike or any other kind of shoes of today's standards that we now buy tens of millions of for $70.00.
Ditto everything else we buy from China. We demanded it, our standard of living.
What exactly the hell is a "working class" job?
No offense to you but that is a fucked up phrase.
Are farmers "working class"? My cousins still run an apple farm in NY that my grandfather started in 1898. They make millions IN PROFITS and they work 90 hour weeks most all year.
We are ALL working class. I know some trial lawyers that struggled for 20 years and then became successful because they put in 60 hours a week all the time.
Same for doctors, are they "working class".
Again, no offense, but do you get my point? Most all of us work no matter what we make.
The American worker did not keep up with the times and go to the next wave of what employment is in demand.
Now that is largely the fault of American business also. When the automobile was coming of age there was no strong horse and buggy builders union.
There were many unions that for many years locked in and handcuffed many manufacturing businesses in the US and those union contracts for low skill uneducated workers outran the competition from other countries.
If a man in Mexico can make a widget for $5 a hour and we have to pay a US worker $18 a hour to make the exact same widget what does a company that does business around the globe do?
They send those manufacturing jobs overseas to save their business and if not, THEY LOSE ALL THE JOBS in that business.
An example of how a manufacturing business is run and how this applies:
Your company makes widgets. You employ 170 people.
You have an operating officer, a comptroller, 4 IT specialists, 2 receptionists, 8 security, 8 maintenance personnel, 6 engineers, 2 accounts receivables staff, 2 accounts payable staff, 10 secretaries, 8 sales staff, 3 personnel managers, 123 manufacturing staff, 12 shift managers, 2 in the finance department, 4 in shipping and receiving, a CPA, a plant manager and 4 assistant managers of the finished product.

So to produce that 1 widget in this plant in America it cost $10 to produce this widget and pay everyone a "living wage" plus medical insurance which is around $7,000 per employee for family coverage and rising at 15% a every year.

Your widget is made the same as the other 7 plants woridwide and they can make their exact same widget with an abundance of quality labor for $7 a widget.

If you do nothing and pay everyone the same you go BANKRUPT very quick ALL THE EMPLOYEES lose their job.

OR you do what is smart and the ONLY thing to do:
You outsource those manufacturing jobs to the countries that have that abundance of cheap uneducated labor. And it sends many messages to Americans. Educate yourself further than the man in Mexico and China.
But MOST IMPORTANTLY it does this:
It SAVED THE COMPANY AND THE REMAINING jobs.
Most of the retention rate is about 40% as about 60% of a manufacturing plant is actual line employees.
And EVERYONE in the building IS WORKING CLASS.
Government mandates like the minimum wage and union pressure has done more to run jobs overseas than anything a company ever could do.

This exactly what so many of these living wage, anti-outsourcing people don't understand. Jobs don't get oursourced so executives can keep or increase their pay. They get outsourced because if they don't part of the entire business goes away. This is happening for the company I work for now. We make a product here in the states that has direct compentitition from a company manufacturing them overseas. Because it is a high volume, low cost item the profit margins per unit are pretty small. Meaning a lot of them have to be sold to make a reasonable amount of money on them. The problem is the overseas manufacturer can sell for less than us because they have lower labor costs. We can't reduce the price of the unit without them costing more to make than we can sell them for. As a result we are moving manufacturing of a part of this item to another country where labor costs less. If we didn't do that and insisted on keeping production here and having our units cost more than the competition then that entire segment of our product line would go away and all of those jobs can be lost. This way most of the people here building that product can keep their jobs.

I submit that there will always be a certain number of people who fall by the wayside when the tradeoff emerges between getting some education or finding oneself out of a job. The more high tech we become, the more will find themselves unmarketable. No matter how highly motivated they are, some people just aren't cut out for that type of economy. However, I think that with some form of protectionism, the companies that would like to retain an American workforce could do so if they weren't competing against the companies that outsourcing as a first response.

You make good points but since every company competes with each other be they in country or not for everything including employees anti trust legislation bans them from doing what you want.

 

[Dubya]

I never said all them were teenagers. Nor is accurate for you to imply 70.6% of min wage earners are trying to live off of that. A good chumnk of that is going to be supplemental income, or wait stuff who's min wage is supplemented in tips. I would be the number of people making min wage trying to live off of it is well under 50%. At that point you have to start examining the characteristics of these people. If you don't have any type of education, whether it be a trade skill or degree, post high school your income working for someone else isn't going to warrant much more than min wage. Not doing so is on you, not on your employer. We're talking about people that have made bad choices at that point. Fixing that is what our goal ought to be. Not simply giving people money and ignoring why they don't have more earning potential.

I've posted that data, too. 67.2% of minimum wage workers are high school graduates or have a higher education. That doesn't stop you from bringing up education and you keep ignoring the fact that all these jobs are needed. Then you run your mouth like a typical right-winger and start talking about choices.

A good chumnk of that is going to be supplemental income, or wait stuff who's min wage is supplemented in tips.

Why would people with supplemental income like tips be given minimum wage? They would be paid less than minimum wage.

The fact is the Fed has a mandate from Congress to prevent a wage/price spiral and we are always going to have at least 1 in 25 people unemployed and a population having to settle for minimum wage or nothing. It's built into the economic system, so claiming it's a choice isn't true. The Fed cools down the economy long before unemployment reaches 4%.

It's not a choice to acquire skills that the current market pays more than minimum wage for? The problem for you Dubya is a lot of what you are stating is based on presumptions that simply aren't so. For example the 67.2 min wage earners have a high school diploma or better. What you are implying is that a person ought to be able to make a living wage with no more than a high school education. That simply doesn't mesh with reality. Most jobs require a specific learned skill set that isn't taught in high school.

The facutal reality is you want an assured outcome. The outcome being that everyone has at least enough to live on. Further the fact is you believe it is the responsibility of someone other than the individual needing enough to live to provide them enough to live on. That is immoral. It is immoral to obligate someone to that which you are able to provide for yourself. The fact is you lefties simply can not fathom that individuals are responsible for where they are in life, including their incomes. No one is responsible for their own outcomes in your world. A mentality that unfortuantely seems to be spreading. Which is why it is hilarious to me that people like you wonder why income disparity is what it is when you insist that ensuring yourself a living income shouldn't require effort on your own part.

I'm not implying anything. It's a fact that the job is needed if we are all PhDs. It's also a fact that working class wages have declined in purchasing power and that hurts both the person and business. Our economy would be better if minimum wage was around $10 per hour or a little higher. It's also a fact that having minimum wage too low causes subsidies with social programs and it's better for the person needing the labor to pay for it directly. If you go shopping to spend the money you've earned and you need someone to work a cash register, then you should pay for it. Let's say I'm buying groceries at WalMarts. Often I've bought over $300 worth of just grocery items and it takes me around 10 minutes to be checked out. That means it would cost me around $0.50 more to give that cashier a $3.00 per hour raise. The items bought for grocieries are mass produced and some businesses wouldn't benefit from increased volume by paying their workers more, so they would have to raise their prices. Many businesses would profit by having increased volume and they wouldn't have to raise prices, because their additional profit from sales would offset the increase in labor costs. The increase in prices is not the same percentage as the increase in labor costs, because a business has many more expenses than just labor.

 

[Bern80]

I'm not implying anything. It's a fact that the job is needed if we are all PhDs.

That makes no sense. What job is needed if we all have PhDs?

It's also a fact that working class wages have declined in purchasing power and that hurts both the person and business.

I don't dispute that fact. But some of the ownership in correcting that has to be on individuals. Part of the reason that is happening is people aren't adapting to the changing economy. It isn't reasonable to expect that they same skills that were valuable yesterday are going to remain so today.

Our economy would be better if minimum wage was around $10 per hour or a little higher. It's also a fact that having minimum wage too low causes subsidies with social programs and it's better for the person needing the labor to pay for it directly.

Umm you can't just state something as fact with nothing to back it up. Based on what evidence would the economy be better if the min wage was at least $10/hr? Based on what evidence is it better for employers to just give people what they need?

If you go shopping to spend the money you've earned and you need someone to work a cash register, then you should pay for it. Let's say I'm buying groceries at WalMarts. Often I've bought over $300 worth of just grocery items and it takes me around 10 minutes to be checked out. That means it would cost me around $0.50 more to give that cashier a $3.00 per hour raise. The items bought for grocieries are mass produced and some businesses wouldn't benefit from increased volume by paying their workers more, so they would have to raise their prices. Many businesses would profit by having increased volume and they wouldn't have to raise prices, because their additional profit from sales would offset the increase in labor costs. The increase in prices is not the same percentage as the increase in labor costs, because a business has many more expenses than just labor.

That isn't really accurate, especially for a place like Wal-Mart. Just because people have more disposable income doesn't mean they buy more. Take your grocery example. Are you going to be 4 gallons of milk instead of 2 just because you have more money? Of course not. It isn't true of my business either. One person isn't going to buy more than one of our product at a time because you can't use more than one of our products at the same time. You aren't going to get more volume from the people that can already afford these items. You're only going to get more from the people who can't except even that won't happen because those people are all on government assistance already to afford those things. So no. It does not in fact do Wal-Mart any good to pay people more under the assumption that they're going to end up buying more.

And you still haven't addressed the moral dilemmas of the living wage idea. Again living wages aren't going to be the same for everyone. Not even among people working for the same employer. Is it moral to pay two people different wages for the same job if they have different needs? Because it would seem paying a living wage would require that.

 

[Dubya]

I'm not implying anything. It's a fact that the job is needed if we are all PhDs.

That makes no sense. What job is needed if we all have PhDs?

It's also a fact that working class wages have declined in purchasing power and that hurts both the person and business.

I don't dispute that fact. But some of the ownership in correcting that has to be on individuals. Part of the reason that is happening is people aren't adapting to the changing economy. It isn't reasonable to expect that they same skills that were valuable yesterday are going to remain so today.

Our economy would be better if minimum wage was around $10 per hour or a little higher. It's also a fact that having minimum wage too low causes subsidies with social programs and it's better for the person needing the labor to pay for it directly.

Umm you can't just state something as fact with nothing to back it up. Based on what evidence would the economy be better if the min wage was at least $10/hr? Based on what evidence is it better for employers to just give people what they need?

If you go shopping to spend the money you've earned and you need someone to work a cash register, then you should pay for it. Let's say I'm buying groceries at WalMarts. Often I've bought over $300 worth of just grocery items and it takes me around 10 minutes to be checked out. That means it would cost me around $0.50 more to give that cashier a $3.00 per hour raise. The items bought for grocieries are mass produced and some businesses wouldn't benefit from increased volume by paying their workers more, so they would have to raise their prices. Many businesses would profit by having increased volume and they wouldn't have to raise prices, because their additional profit from sales would offset the increase in labor costs. The increase in prices is not the same percentage as the increase in labor costs, because a business has many more expenses than just labor.

That isn't really accurate, especially for a place like Wal-Mart. Just because people have more disposable income doesn't mean they buy more. Take your grocery example. Are you going to be 4 gallons of milk instead of 2 just because you have more money? Of course not. It isn't true of my business either. One person isn't going to buy more than one of our product at a time because you can't use more than one of our products at the same time. You aren't going to get more volume from the people that can already afford these items. You're only going to get more from the people who can't except even that won't happen because those people are all on government assistance already to afford those things. So no. It does not in fact do Wal-Mart any good to pay people more under the assumption that they're going to end up buying more.

And you still haven't addressed the moral dilemmas of the living wage idea. Again living wages aren't going to be the same for everyone. Not even among people working for the same employer. Is it moral to pay two people different wages for the same job if they have different needs? Because it would seem paying a living wage would require that.

If everybody has a PhD, someone is still going to have to collect garbage and run a cash register for society to buy things. There are obvious jobs that are needed in an economy for it to function and very few jobs are not needed. If you need a human being to do a job, pay them enough money so they can live just off of that amount.

Try backing it up with your brain! We had a country with minimum wages slightly over $10 per hour and it was better. What if everybody started getting half as much pay, except for the people earning high wages, let's say the upper 5%. How many of the 95% could exist with that pay? How many businesses would go under, because the savings in labor costs wouldn't compensate for the reduction in business. The overhead of that business isn't going to be reduced by half as much. If the business rents, is it going to have it's rent cut in half, because labor is now cheaper? Are business loans going to be cut in half? The only thing that can possibly be cut in half is something where the entire cost is labor from the 95%. Where do you ever find that in business?

Living wage is just an expression showing the minimum is way below the standards to exist. Having wages too low definitely hurts the economy and business. You can't run a country like running a small business, that can't even get credit. You don't understand macro-economics.

Wages are also too low, because of outsourcing better paying jobs. That is entirely our government's fault and it's stupid to have unbalanced trade with a nation. Trade is only a benefit to a nation when the balance is level.

 

[Political Junky]

Minimum wage increases have shown little to no effect on employment rates.

 

[dblack]

I'm not implying anything. It's a fact that the job is needed if we are all PhDs.

That makes no sense. What job is needed if we all have PhDs?

I don't dispute that fact. But some of the ownership in correcting that has to be on individuals. Part of the reason that is happening is people aren't adapting to the changing economy. It isn't reasonable to expect that they same skills that were valuable yesterday are going to remain so today.



Umm you can't just state something as fact with nothing to back it up. Based on what evidence would the economy be better if the min wage was at least $10/hr? Based on what evidence is it better for employers to just give people what they need?

If you go shopping to spend the money you've earned and you need someone to work a cash register, then you should pay for it. Let's say I'm buying groceries at WalMarts. Often I've bought over $300 worth of just grocery items and it takes me around 10 minutes to be checked out. That means it would cost me around $0.50 more to give that cashier a $3.00 per hour raise. The items bought for grocieries are mass produced and some businesses wouldn't benefit from increased volume by paying their workers more, so they would have to raise their prices. Many businesses would profit by having increased volume and they wouldn't have to raise prices, because their additional profit from sales would offset the increase in labor costs. The increase in prices is not the same percentage as the increase in labor costs, because a business has many more expenses than just labor.

That isn't really accurate, especially for a place like Wal-Mart. Just because people have more disposable income doesn't mean they buy more. Take your grocery example. Are you going to be 4 gallons of milk instead of 2 just because you have more money? Of course not. It isn't true of my business either. One person isn't going to buy more than one of our product at a time because you can't use more than one of our products at the same time. You aren't going to get more volume from the people that can already afford these items. You're only going to get more from the people who can't except even that won't happen because those people are all on government assistance already to afford those things. So no. It does not in fact do Wal-Mart any good to pay people more under the assumption that they're going to end up buying more.

And you still haven't addressed the moral dilemmas of the living wage idea. Again living wages aren't going to be the same for everyone. Not even among people working for the same employer. Is it moral to pay two people different wages for the same job if they have different needs? Because it would seem paying a living wage would require that.

If everybody has a PhD, someone is still going to have to collect garbage and run a cash register for society to buy things. There are obvious jobs that are needed in an economy for it to function and very few jobs are not needed. If you need a human being to do a job, pay them enough money so they can live just off of that amount.

Try backing it up with your brain! We had a country with minimum wages slightly over $10 per hour and it was better. What if everybody started getting half as much pay, except for the people earning high wages, let's say the upper 5%. How many of the 95% could exist with that pay? How many businesses would go under, because the savings in labor costs wouldn't compensate for the reduction in business. The overhead of that business isn't going to be reduced by half as much. If the business rents, is it going to have it's rent cut in half, because labor is now cheaper? Are business loans going to be cut in half? The only thing that can possibly be cut in half is something where the entire cost is labor from the 95%. Where do you ever find that in business?

Living wage is just an expression showing the minimum is way below the standards to exist. Having wages too low definitely hurts the economy and business. You can't run a country like running a small business, that can't even get credit. You don't understand macro-economics.

Wages are also too low, because of outsourcing better paying jobs. That is entirely our government's fault and it's stupid to have unbalanced trade with a nation. Trade is only a benefit to a nation when the balance is level.

Funniest post yet!!!

 

[dblack]

Minimum wage increases have shown little to no effect on employment rates.

That's because they have largely, and prudently, been kept well below anything like what is suggested by the "living wage" advocates - to the point of minimum wage being a token triviality.

 

[Bern80]

If everybody has a PhD, someone is still going to have to collect garbage and run a cash register for society to buy things. There are obvious jobs that are needed in an economy for it to function and very few jobs are not needed. If you need a human being to do a job, pay them enough money so they can live just off of that amount.

You're never going to get this, but we'll try it one more time just in case you're slow. YOU ARE NOT OWED BY ANYONE ENOUGH TO LIVE ON. Why the fuck should an employer be more responsible for you than you are willing to be for yourself?

Try backing it up with your brain! We had a country with minimum wages slightly over $10 per hour and it was better. What if everybody started getting half as much pay, except for the people earning high wages, let's say the upper 5%. How many of the 95% could exist with that pay? How many businesses would go under, because the savings in labor costs wouldn't compensate for the reduction in business. The overhead of that business isn't going to be reduced by half as much. If the business rents, is it going to have it's rent cut in half, because labor is now cheaper? Are business loans going to be cut in half? The only thing that can possibly be cut in half is something where the entire cost is labor from the 95%. Where do you ever find that in business?

I'm not the one that needs to grow a brain here. I'm not the one who lives and la la land and believes as long as you just give people enough to live on all their problems will go away. Secondly you keep making up this nonsensical scenarios. So now everyone making just a little more than $100k/yr (that's about where the cut off is for the top 5%) has their pay cut in half? Uuuuuhhh why would that happen? And what the fuck is your point. Duh, yes that would make it harder for those people, but since that's a fairy tale scenario I don't really see the point.

Living wage is just an expression showing the minimum is way below the standards to exist. Having wages too low definitely hurts the economy and business. You can't run a country like running a small business, that can't even get credit. You don't understand macro-economics.

Clearly I understand economics a lot better than you do. What exactly are 'the standards'? You seem to be top toeing away from the concept of enough to live on so I guess we're not talking about that standard now? So what standard are we talking about? As to running the country that's probably the biggest problem with you libs. You think when elected it's your job to run the country. It isn't. The job of the elected officials is protect people's freedoms as defined by the constitution and that's really about it. You never have considered that maybe there's a connection between government trying to run the economy and the economy going to shit have you?

Wages are also too low, because of outsourcing better paying jobs. That is entirely our government's fault and it's stupid to have unbalanced trade with a nation. Trade is only a benefit to a nation when the balance is level.

That would be another responsibility on the part of the consumer. Consumers won't pay $150 for a pair of Nike's as another poster noted. They might pay $80, but you can't sell an American made shoe for that because it costs too much to make here.

 

[Bern80]

Minimum wage increases have shown little to no effect on employment rates.

Overall, probably not. But obviously it doesn't employment for anyone making above the new min. wage. It is only going to have an effect on people who make/made the same as or less than the new minimum. That's the group we're most concerned with right? So the question is not so much how is all unemployment affected. The question is what happens to the number of minimum wage jobs when the min wage goes up. And for those jobs it simply isn't possible for the pay for those jobs to be artificially increased and not have the number of jobs that pay that amount go down. It's pretty basic supply and demand and labor is a good like anything else purchased by employers. If its cost goes up, it's demand MUST go down.

 

[zzzz]

Several states already mandate higher min wages than proposed so it will have no effect on those states. But it will have some effect on other states. The costs of new health care though needs to be addressed and an higher min wage would enable those marginal employees the ability to pay for medical.

 

[Dubya]

Minimum wage increases have shown little to no effect on employment rates.

That's because they have largely, and prudently, been kept well below anything like what is suggested by the "living wage" advocates - to the point of minimum wage being a token triviality.

In other words, you aren't bright enough to do it in steps. They should set a goal within a reasonable amount of time (let's say 2 years with 8 quarterly adjustments) to step up minimum wage so 2,000 hours is equal to the amount of money at the poverty level and it should be adjusted to true inflation every quarter. True inflation should also be used to adjust COLA.

A business has inventory, so if the increase in minimum wage causes any inflation, the business is shielded by having stock purchased cheaper than it's replacement value. I would expect some inflation in some areas of the economy, like your burger price going up, but if businesses maintained their profit margin and didn't get greedy, they would be better off once wages stabilized and inflation went back to normal.

If they made those adjustments with making corporations bring back those outsourced jobs, our economy would boom. They should push for full employment and use a guest worker program to run an economy on overdrive. That way even in downturns American workers will have jobs. The guest workers are told up front, they will be the first to go, if the economy sours.

 

[Dubya]

If everybody has a PhD, someone is still going to have to collect garbage and run a cash register for society to buy things. There are obvious jobs that are needed in an economy for it to function and very few jobs are not needed. If you need a human being to do a job, pay them enough money so they can live just off of that amount.

You're never going to get this, but we'll try it one more time just in case you're slow. YOU ARE NOT OWED BY ANYONE ENOUGH TO LIVE ON. Why the fuck should an employer be more responsible for you than you are willing to be for yourself?

Try backing it up with your brain! We had a country with minimum wages slightly over $10 per hour and it was better. What if everybody started getting half as much pay, except for the people earning high wages, let's say the upper 5%. How many of the 95% could exist with that pay? How many businesses would go under, because the savings in labor costs wouldn't compensate for the reduction in business. The overhead of that business isn't going to be reduced by half as much. If the business rents, is it going to have it's rent cut in half, because labor is now cheaper? Are business loans going to be cut in half? The only thing that can possibly be cut in half is something where the entire cost is labor from the 95%. Where do you ever find that in business?

I'm not the one that needs to grow a brain here. I'm not the one who lives and la la land and believes as long as you just give people enough to live on all their problems will go away. Secondly you keep making up this nonsensical scenarios. So now everyone making just a little more than $100k/yr (that's about where the cut off is for the top 5%) has their pay cut in half? Uuuuuhhh why would that happen? And what the fuck is your point. Duh, yes that would make it harder for those people, but since that's a fairy tale scenario I don't really see the point.

Living wage is just an expression showing the minimum is way below the standards to exist. Having wages too low definitely hurts the economy and business. You can't run a country like running a small business, that can't even get credit. You don't understand macro-economics.

Clearly I understand economics a lot better than you do. What exactly are 'the standards'? You seem to be top toeing away from the concept of enough to live on so I guess we're not talking about that standard now? So what standard are we talking about? As to running the country that's probably the biggest problem with you libs. You think when elected it's your job to run the country. It isn't. The job of the elected officials is protect people's freedoms as defined by the constitution and that's really about it. You never have considered that maybe there's a connection between government trying to run the economy and the economy going to shit have you?

Wages are also too low, because of outsourcing better paying jobs. That is entirely our government's fault and it's stupid to have unbalanced trade with a nation. Trade is only a benefit to a nation when the balance is level.

That would be another responsibility on the part of the consumer. Consumers won't pay $150 for a pair of Nike's as another poster noted. They might pay $80, but you can't sell an American made shoe for that because it costs too much to make here.

Enough said to a fool like you! You want a system that requires labor but doesn't believe life is a requirement. If someone is doing a needed job and is working 2,000 hours per year, they should get paid enough to live. If all businesses did that instead of thinking they can get away with low wages, then their business would be more profitable. They are cutting off their nose to spite their face. Low wages only benefits a business if they are the only ones doing it. When it's throughout the economic system, it hurts business.

You say too many stupid things to even bother with. Raising the wages in America would help business and allowing them to continue to drift lower is going to hurt business. I gave you the example of cutting wages in half, but use a couple brain cells and realize over time those wages can be cut in half in terms of real dollars. Of course a conservative Republican will never see that simple logic, because their concept of economics is in reverse. They are great for depressions, but can't run a successful economy. Only demand drives an economy and lower wages decreases demand.

I'm not the one that needs to grow a brain here. I'm not the one who lives and la la land and believes as long as you just give people enough to live on all their problems will go away. Secondly you keep making up this nonsensical scenarios. So now everyone making just a little more than $100k/yr (that's about where the cut off is for the top 5%) has their pay cut in half? Uuuuuhhh why would that happen? And what the fuck is your point. Duh, yes that would make it harder for those people, but since that's a fairy tale scenario I don't really see the point.

You can't even read and comprehend what was said. I said the everybody below the upper 5% had their wages cut in half. It would be mass bankrupcy, fool!

You don't understand economics, so who do you think you are kidding. You can't even read.

I'm tired of wasting my time talking to a fool. You're too dumb to even know you are dumb.

It would probably cost $10 bucks more to make the Nike's here and the consumer would pay it.

 

[theliq]

If everybody has a PhD, someone is still going to have to collect garbage and run a cash register for society to buy things. There are obvious jobs that are needed in an economy for it to function and very few jobs are not needed. If you need a human being to do a job, pay them enough money so they can live just off of that amount.

You're never going to get this, but we'll try it one more time just in case you're slow. YOU ARE NOT OWED BY ANYONE ENOUGH TO LIVE ON. Why the fuck should an employer be more responsible for you than you are willing to be for yourself?



I'm not the one that needs to grow a brain here. I'm not the one who lives and la la land and believes as long as you just give people enough to live on all their problems will go away. Secondly you keep making up this nonsensical scenarios. So now everyone making just a little more than $100k/yr (that's about where the cut off is for the top 5%) has their pay cut in half? Uuuuuhhh why would that happen? And what the fuck is your point. Duh, yes that would make it harder for those people, but since that's a fairy tale scenario I don't really see the point.



Clearly I understand economics a lot better than you do. What exactly are 'the standards'? You seem to be top toeing away from the concept of enough to live on so I guess we're not talking about that standard now? So what standard are we talking about? As to running the country that's probably the biggest problem with you libs. You think when elected it's your job to run the country. It isn't. The job of the elected officials is protect people's freedoms as defined by the constitution and that's really about it. You never have considered that maybe there's a connection between government trying to run the economy and the economy going to shit have you?



That would be another responsibility on the part of the consumer. Consumers won't pay $150 for a pair of Nike's as another poster noted. They might pay $80, but you can't sell an American made shoe for that because it costs too much to make here.

Enough said to a fool like you! You want a system that requires labor but doesn't believe life is a requirement. If someone is doing a needed job and is working 2,000 hours per year, they should get paid enough to live. If all businesses did that instead of thinking they can get away with low wages, then their business would be more profitable. They are cutting off their nose to spite their face. Low wages only benefits a business if they are the only ones doing it. When it's throughout the economic system, it hurts business.

You say too many stupid things to even bother with. Raising the wages in America would help business and allowing them to continue to drift lower is going to hurt business. I gave you the example of cutting wages in half, but use a couple brain cells and realize over time those wages can be cut in half in terms of real dollars. Of course a conservative Republican will never see that simple logic, because their concept of economics is in reverse. They are great for depressions, but can't run a successful economy. Only demand drives an economy and lower wages decreases demand.

I'm not the one that needs to grow a brain here. I'm not the one who lives and la la land and believes as long as you just give people enough to live on all their problems will go away. Secondly you keep making up this nonsensical scenarios. So now everyone making just a little more than $100k/yr (that's about where the cut off is for the top 5%) has their pay cut in half? Uuuuuhhh why would that happen? And what the fuck is your point. Duh, yes that would make it harder for those people, but since that's a fairy tale scenario I don't really see the point.

You can't even read and comprehend what was said. I said the everybody below the upper 5% had their wages cut in half. It would be mass bankrupcy, fool!

You don't understand economics, so who do you think you are kidding. You can't even read.

I'm tired of wasting my time talking to a fool. You're too dumb to even know you are dumb.

It would probably cost $10 bucks more to make the Nike's here and the consumer would pay it.

Dubya,living and having a very successful business in Australia.....I look at the really Cronic Wages most folk earn in the USA and think how on earth did a country so powerful allow their citizens live in such pauperdom and poverty.....it's not as if you have a welfare system or safety net.....for those who become unemployed or for your senior citizens to have a reasonable standard of living in their latter years.

In Australia for example American made drugs are much,much cheaper here than in the US,Americans are being exploited completely.

An American friends daughter was hospitalized in Perth for over 3 months,two operations and much intensive care.....thankfully she came good but when Randy asked for the treatment and hospital account he was told...."There is no CHARGE,everyone is covered"

Such is our health system.

Women(and men for that matter) can take Maternity Leave from their jobs (3-6 months)fully paid....plus a $5,000 to $10,000 Baby BONUS for essentials for their and our latest (Australian) child.......plus pre-and-post natal treatment for the mom and bub.

I could go on and on but I will close by saying every time I go to the States the way many folk live is so shocking....Why do you all treat and allow fellow Americans to live like this.

Your Wages are SHIT,Your Resulting Poverty is SHIT.............God continue to Bless Australia "The Lucky Country" where all are Welcome and cared for if requested and required.........The Unemployed or Under Employed have NO STIGMA,because there but for the Grace of God,could go all of US........something some of you Ghastly,Selfish,Greedy and Uncaring Americans should think about......there are Plenty of YOU

Keep Well Dubya,always great to talk to a kindred spirit steve