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.
Of course life is a requirement. The disagreement is simply on who should be responsible for providing its necessitites. You believe that's someone else's responsibility. I believe providing for yourself if your a capable adult is your responsibility. The reason your view can't work is simple. For you to be able to obligate a business owner to providing for you that business owner obviously had to earn enough to provide for themselves first. He has to do at least twice the work you're willing to do (assuming this is a business with just one employee) to provide you that which you believe your obligated to. So you can get off your moral high horse because their is absolutely NOTHING moral about the notion that somoene else owes you enough to live on.
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.
You say things you have no evidence for that run counter to everything we know about how economics works. You cite concepts of basic supply and demand yet clearly don't see the issue from the employers side. They buy things to you know. One of them being labor. If the price of it goes up, the supply of it must decrease. Once again your beliefs rest on presumptions that simply aren't so. It can not be assumed that if a company raises it's wages they will automatically sell more stuff. You think a GM employee is going to buy two cars instead of one if their pay goes up? It would also assume that everyone that works for company x demand products from company x. Also not true.
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.
I understood your make believe scenario just fine. As it is completely unrealistic and doesn't prove much of anything, again, I fail to see the point.