Poll: Solid majority (71%) of Americans support Obama’s increase of the minimum wage

[Redfish]

At some point in time, the concept of employment as the sole source for income will become obsolete, a step already taken by replacing the Gold Standard by the Goods and Services Economy.

actually that already has occurred, for some - called a dividend. paying someone not to be a criminal is another - food stamps.

there is absolutely no justification for one individual, Bill Gates to have $64 Billion in assets while another segment of society is restricted to a minimum salary.

like it or not the Goods and Services economy is an entirely new concept at its inception and will change entirely all existing economic philosophies in the immediate future.

does your comment about Gates apply to Pelosi, Streisand, Soros, Clooney, Schumer, Reid, Kerry, the Rockefellers, Clinton, Gore etc ?

Have you asked those liberals to give up some of their wealth for the "common good" ? What was their reply?

Gates is rich because he designed a computer operating system that everyone in the world wanted and needed. Would he have done that if the profit motive was not there? Would he have done it for the "common good" ? If you say yes, you have no concept of human beings and what motivates them.

 

[BreezeWood]

At some point in time, the concept of employment as the sole source for income will become obsolete, a step already taken by replacing the Gold Standard by the Goods and Services Economy.

actually that already has occurred, for some - called a dividend. paying someone not to be a criminal is another - food stamps.

there is absolutely no justification for one individual, Bill Gates to have $64 Billion in assets while another segment of society is restricted to a minimum salary.

like it or not the Goods and Services economy is an entirely new concept at its inception and will change entirely all existing economic philosophies in the immediate future.

does your comment about Gates apply to Pelosi, Streisand, Soros, Clooney, Schumer, Reid, Kerry, the Rockefellers, Clinton, Gore etc ?

Have you asked those liberals to give up some of their wealth for the "common good" ? What was their reply?

Gates is rich because he designed a computer operating system that everyone in the world wanted and needed. Would he have done that if the profit motive was not there? Would he have done it for the "common good" ? If you say yes, you have no concept of human beings and what motivates them.

does your comment about Gates apply to Pelosi, Streisand, Soros, Clooney, Schumer, Reid, Kerry, the Rockefellers, Clinton, Gore etc ?

of course, and it will not be a matter of "common good" but a new economic reality based on median education.


Would he have done that if the profit motive was not there? Would he have done it for the "common good" ?

there may still be a profit motive - but mathematical economics based on goods and services would prevent "excessive" compensation.

if not him enough would do it without profit motive but legitimate income reward and in fact a more progressive system would evolve.

 

[Derideo_Te]

At some point in time, the concept of employment as the sole source for income will become obsolete, a step already taken by replacing the Gold Standard by the Goods and Services Economy.

actually that already has occurred, for some - called a dividend. paying someone not to be a criminal is another - food stamps.

there is absolutely no justification for one individual, Bill Gates to have $64 Billion in assets while another segment of society is restricted to a minimum salary.

like it or not the Goods and Services economy is an entirely new concept at its inception and will change entirely all existing economic philosophies in the immediate future.

does your comment about Gates apply to Pelosi, Streisand, Soros, Clooney, Schumer, Reid, Kerry, the Rockefellers, Clinton, Gore etc ?

Have you asked those liberals to give up some of their wealth for the "common good" ? What was their reply?

Gates is rich because he designed a computer operating system that everyone in the world wanted and needed. Would he have done that if the profit motive was not there? Would he have done it for the "common good" ? If you say yes, you have no concept of human beings and what motivates them.

Ignorance is indeed bliss! Plenty of "common good" software development already exists and I have no doubt that the complainer makes use of some of it without even knowing it. I wonder how many "free" applications are on his smartphone/iphone?

Linux - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux (i/ˈlɪnəks/ lin-əks[6][7] or /ˈlɪnʊks/ lin-uuks)[8][9][10] is a Unix-like computer operating system assembled under the model of free and open source software development and distribution. The defining component of Linux is the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released 5 October 1991 by Linus Torvalds.[11][12]
Linux was originally developed as a free operating system for Intel x86-based personal computers. It has since been ported to more computer hardware platforms than any other operating system. It is a leading operating system on servers and other big iron systems such as mainframe computers and supercomputers:[13][14][15][16] more than 90% of today's 500 fastest supercomputers run some variant of Linux,[17] including the 10 fastest.[18] Linux also runs on embedded systems (devices where the operating system is typically built into the firmware and highly tailored to the system) such as mobile phones, tablet computers, network routers, televisions[19][20] and video game consoles; the Android system in wide use on mobile devices is built on the Linux kernel.
The development of Linux is one of the most prominent examples of free and open source software collaboration: the underlying source code may be used, modified, and distributed—commercially or non-commercially—by anyone under licenses such as the GNU General Public License. Typically Linux is packaged in a format known as a Linux distribution for desktop and server use. Some popular mainstream Linux distributions include Debian (and its derivatives such as Ubuntu and Linux Mint), Red Hat Enterprise Linux (and its derivatives such as Fedora and CentOS), Mandriva/Mageia, openSUSE (and its commercial derivative SUSE Linux Enterprise Server), and Arch Linux. Linux distributions include the Linux kernel, supporting utilities and libraries and usually a large amount of application software to fulfill the distribution's intended use.

Free and open source software - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Free and open source software (F/OSS, FOSS) or free/libre/open source software (FLOSS) is software that is both free software and open source. It is liberally licensed to grant users the right to use, copy, study, change, and improve its design through the availability of its source code.[1] This approach has gained both momentum and acceptance as the potential benefits[clarification needed] have been increasingly recognized by both individuals and corporations.[2][3]
In the context of free and open-source software, free refers to the freedom to copy and re-use the software, rather than to the price of the software. The Free Software Foundation, an organization that advocates the free software model, suggests that, to understand the concept, one should "think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer".[4]
FOSS is an inclusive term that covers both free software and open source software, which despite describing similar development models, have differing cultures and philosophies.[5] Free software focuses on the fundamental freedoms it gives to users, whereas open source software focuses on the perceived strengths of its peer-to-peer development model.[6] FOSS is a term that can be used without particular bias towards either political approach.
Free software licences and open source licenses are used by many software packages. While the licenses themselves are in most cases the same, the two terms grew out of different philosophies and are often used to signify different distribution methodologies.[7]

 

[Pogo]

At some point in time, the concept of employment as the sole source for income will become obsolete, a step already taken by replacing the Gold Standard by the Goods and Services Economy.

actually that already has occurred, for some - called a dividend. paying someone not to be a criminal is another - food stamps.

there is absolutely no justification for one individual, Bill Gates to have $64 Billion in assets while another segment of society is restricted to a minimum salary.

like it or not the Goods and Services economy is an entirely new concept at its inception and will change entirely all existing economic philosophies in the immediate future.

does your comment about Gates apply to Pelosi, Streisand, Soros, Clooney, Schumer, Reid, Kerry, the Rockefellers, Clinton, Gore etc ?

Have you asked those liberals to give up some of their wealth for the "common good" ? What was their reply?

Gates is rich because he designed a computer operating system that everyone in the world wanted and needed. Would he have done that if the profit motive was not there? Would he have done it for the "common good" ? If you say yes, you have no concept of human beings and what motivates them.

In the Bob Uecker voice, that's juuuust a bit overhyped to imagine "everybody wanted" it. That was domination through marketing. Same reason Bruce Springstein sells any records at all. Besides, AFAIK he basically plagiarized that 'design' from Digital.

I'm far from alone when I say that this will be my last PC.

 

[Redfish]

At some point in time, the concept of employment as the sole source for income will become obsolete, a step already taken by replacing the Gold Standard by the Goods and Services Economy.

actually that already has occurred, for some - called a dividend. paying someone not to be a criminal is another - food stamps.

there is absolutely no justification for one individual, Bill Gates to have $64 Billion in assets while another segment of society is restricted to a minimum salary.

like it or not the Goods and Services economy is an entirely new concept at its inception and will change entirely all existing economic philosophies in the immediate future.

does your comment about Gates apply to Pelosi, Streisand, Soros, Clooney, Schumer, Reid, Kerry, the Rockefellers, Clinton, Gore etc ?

Have you asked those liberals to give up some of their wealth for the "common good" ? What was their reply?

Gates is rich because he designed a computer operating system that everyone in the world wanted and needed. Would he have done that if the profit motive was not there? Would he have done it for the "common good" ? If you say yes, you have no concept of human beings and what motivates them.

In the Bob Uecker voice, that's juuuust a bit overhyped to imagine "everybody wanted" it. That was domination through marketing. Same reason Bruce Springstein sells any records at all. Besides, AFAIK he basically plagiarized that 'design' from Digital.

I'm far from alone when I say that this will be my last PC.

fine, I am sure Gates does not care if you buy a PC or a Mac.

there was a demand for a user friendly computer operating system, Gates filled that need either by being a good designer or a good thief as you claim. Either way he is rich because he is smart.

But that doesn't fit the view of humanity that you libtards have now does it?

Sorry, but dancing around the maypole singing cum-by-ya only exists in liberal fantasy land.

 

[theHawk]

WOW! 9 dollars an hour x 40 hours a work week = $360. dollars a week. Multiply that by 4 weeks a month = at least $1440. a month. Hmmm, now many Americans would thank God for that liveable, decent wage.




Strong support continues for minimum wage - First Read

A solid majority of Americans support President Obama’s proposal in his most recent State of the Union to increase the minimum wage.

Some 71 percent of those surveyed said they supported raising the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour from $7.25, while 27 percent opposed it, according to a Gallup Poll released Wednesday.

The results attest to the popularity of Obama’s plan, wrote Gallup’s Lydia Saad in the poll’s release...

How about bringing inflation down so their money is actually worth something?

$7 isn't shit because of Obama's printing presses.

 

[The Rabbi]

At some point in time, the concept of employment as the sole source for income will become obsolete, a step already taken by replacing the Gold Standard by the Goods and Services Economy.

actually that already has occurred, for some - called a dividend. paying someone not to be a criminal is another - food stamps.

there is absolutely no justification for one individual, Bill Gates to have $64 Billion in assets while another segment of society is restricted to a minimum salary.

like it or not the Goods and Services economy is an entirely new concept at its inception and will change entirely all existing economic philosophies in the immediate future.

does your comment about Gates apply to Pelosi, Streisand, Soros, Clooney, Schumer, Reid, Kerry, the Rockefellers, Clinton, Gore etc ?

Have you asked those liberals to give up some of their wealth for the "common good" ? What was their reply?

Gates is rich because he designed a computer operating system that everyone in the world wanted and needed. Would he have done that if the profit motive was not there? Would he have done it for the "common good" ? If you say yes, you have no concept of human beings and what motivates them.

Ignorance is indeed bliss! Plenty of "common good" software development already exists and I have no doubt that the complainer makes use of some of it without even knowing it. I wonder how many "free" applications are on his smartphone/iphone?

[

Wow, non-sequitur much? Microsoft preceded open source software.

 

[Derideo_Te]

does your comment about Gates apply to Pelosi, Streisand, Soros, Clooney, Schumer, Reid, Kerry, the Rockefellers, Clinton, Gore etc ?

Have you asked those liberals to give up some of their wealth for the "common good" ? What was their reply?

Gates is rich because he designed a computer operating system that everyone in the world wanted and needed. Would he have done that if the profit motive was not there? Would he have done it for the "common good" ? If you say yes, you have no concept of human beings and what motivates them.

Ignorance is indeed bliss! Plenty of "common good" software development already exists and I have no doubt that the complainer makes use of some of it without even knowing it. I wonder how many "free" applications are on his smartphone/iphone?

[

Wow, non-sequitur much? Microsoft preceded open source software.

Ironic!

non-sequitur much?

 

[The Rabbi]

Ignorance is indeed bliss! Plenty of "common good" software development already exists and I have no doubt that the complainer makes use of some of it without even knowing it. I wonder how many "free" applications are on his smartphone/iphone?

[

Wow, non-sequitur much? Microsoft preceded open source software.

Ironic!

non-sequitur much?

Translation: Oops, I guess I'm not too smart.

Thanks for confirming it for us.

 

[Samson]

Too bad your short attention span kicked in and you failed to comprehend the rest of my post. Had you continued reading you might have understood my point.

Indeed, The stupidity of this statement:

The reality here is that underpaying your janitors is the same thing as raising your own taxes.

caused me to ignore the balance of your babblings.

I never said I would "underpay" anyone.

Perhaps your head was up your academic ass:

I said I would pay one very good janitor $17/hr, WELL OVER the $9/hr minimum wage, expecting him/her to deliver the same services/hr as two (2) entry level janitors.

Furthermore, I would expect a $17/hr janitor would be very loyal; MUCH more loyal than either of two $9/hr janitors, and that I would save on the costs YOU mentioned associated with continuously rehiring and retraining.

How good of you to admit to your own shortcomings. That is the first step to remedying them.

I agree that you said that you would pay $17/hr to one janitor. But then you expect him to do 16 hours of work in an 8 hour day. Apparently you do not understand the basics of what can be accomplished in a workday.

Apparently you believe that your janitor cannot maximize productivity.

No doubt because you are incapable of it yourself.

However, you have mastered whining, which should serve you well in your socialist utopia.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Wow, non-sequitur much? Microsoft preceded open source software.

Ironic!

non-sequitur much?

Translation: Oops, I guess I'm not too smart.

Thanks for confirming it for us.

The incessant need to belittle others reeks of a massive inferiority complex.

 

[Samson]

Ironic!

Translation: Oops, I guess I'm not too smart.

Thanks for confirming it for us.

The incessant need to belittle others reeks of a massive inferiority complex.

The inferiority of your arguement reeks of a massive intelligence deficit

 

[Derideo_Te]

Indeed, The stupidity of this statement:

The reality here is that underpaying your janitors is the same thing as raising your own taxes.

caused me to ignore the balance of your babblings.

I never said I would "underpay" anyone.

Perhaps your head was up your academic ass:

I said I would pay one very good janitor $17/hr, WELL OVER the $9/hr minimum wage, expecting him/her to deliver the same services/hr as two (2) entry level janitors.

Furthermore, I would expect a $17/hr janitor would be very loyal; MUCH more loyal than either of two $9/hr janitors, and that I would save on the costs YOU mentioned associated with continuously rehiring and retraining.

How good of you to admit to your own shortcomings. That is the first step to remedying them.

I agree that you said that you would pay $17/hr to one janitor. But then you expect him to do 16 hours of work in an 8 hour day. Apparently you do not understand the basics of what can be accomplished in a workday.

Apparently you believe that your janitor cannot maximize productivity.

No doubt because you are incapable of it yourself.

However, you have mastered whining, which should serve you well in your socialist utopia.

Apparently you believe that if you paid a pregnant women twice her salary she would produce a baby in half the time.

Too bad you are incapable of mastering reality.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Translation: Oops, I guess I'm not too smart.

Thanks for confirming it for us.

The incessant need to belittle others reeks of a massive inferiority complex.

The inferiority of your arguement reeks of a massive intelligence deficit

I really appreciate your confirmation that I was right. Have a nice day.

 

[Samson]

How good of you to admit to your own shortcomings. That is the first step to remedying them.

I agree that you said that you would pay $17/hr to one janitor. But then you expect him to do 16 hours of work in an 8 hour day. Apparently you do not understand the basics of what can be accomplished in a workday.

Apparently you believe that your janitor cannot maximize productivity.

No doubt because you are incapable of it yourself.

However, you have mastered whining, which should serve you well in your socialist utopia.

Apparently you believe that if you paid a pregnant women twice her salary she would produce a baby in half the time.

Too bad you are incapable of mastering reality.

Finally you have completely demonstrated you have no inkling about the subject of the thread:

Women do not get paid a wage for producing offspring.

What a complete moron.

This is why I love the internet.

 

[The Rabbi]

How good of you to admit to your own shortcomings. That is the first step to remedying them.

I agree that you said that you would pay $17/hr to one janitor. But then you expect him to do 16 hours of work in an 8 hour day. Apparently you do not understand the basics of what can be accomplished in a workday.

Apparently you believe that your janitor cannot maximize productivity.

No doubt because you are incapable of it yourself.

However, you have mastered whining, which should serve you well in your socialist utopia.

Apparently you believe that if you paid a pregnant women twice her salary she would produce a baby in half the time.

Too bad you are incapable of mastering reality.

Apparently you believe that's an apt comparison. I can't decide whether you are just not trying or whether you actually believe that.

 

[Dragonlady]

So your solution to poverty is to overpay everyone in poverty? People do not NEED foodstamps unless they are unable to work for physical or mental reasons. ever hear of working two jobs to make ends meet?

Raising the minimum wage is not "overpaying everyone in poverty" since those making minimum wage have had the purchasing power of their wages eroded by stagnation for years. The percentage of workers receiving minimum wage is not that large that increasing the MW would have that big an impact on prices.

The idea that people need to work two full time jobs to make ends meet is ludicrous. We say it's so important that parents spend time with their children that the ideal is to have one parent in the home full time, and here you're saying that poor parents need to work two jobs to support their children. When are they supposed to be parents if they're working 60 to 80 hours a week?

 

[Dubya]

total horseshit-----the price of labor should be set by supply and demand, not some foolish govt mandate. the whole "living wage" idea is lunacy. a "living wage" for a guy with 4 kids in San Francisco is totally different from the "living wage" for a single guy in south dakota.

NO one is owed a "living wage" you are only owed what you earn. If you have more skills and talents than the other guy you will earn more.

the whole minimum wage idea is a cop out.

Where did I post that anyone was owed a living wage?

I was pointing out the cost to society to underpaying people. When someone is earning poverty level wages whether in SF or SD the impact on your taxes is the same. They end up needing foodstamps and using the ER for their healthcare which you are paying for. If they were paid a living wage those burdens would no longer be on the taxpayers.

How difficult is it for those who want to slash entitlement spending to understand the root causes? What is the future for America if you continue to underpay workers and reduce entitlements? Do you really want America to become a 3rd world nation? Because that is exactly where you are headed with your current positions. There is a bigger picture here. Try and take a step back and see if you can figure it out for yourselves.

So your solution to poverty is to overpay everyone in poverty? People do not NEED foodstamps unless they are unable to work for physical or mental reasons. ever hear of working two jobs to make ends meet?

If McDonalds raises their pay scale, two things happen, 1. their prices go up meaning they sell fewer burgers and 2. they employ fewer people. Then those people go on unemployment and/or foodstamps and welfare-----and WE pay the bill.

You have the whole concept backwards.

You don't have a clue, because you're a mindless fool parroting right-wing nonsense. You talk about working two jobs and then vote for Republicans who make it so there isn't one job to work. McDonald's serves customer in 119 countries and that includes countries with higher minimum wages and universal health care. Raising the minimum wage will get more customers for McDonald's, because some of those customers will get pay raises and can afford to eat out more often.

Can you explain why right-wingers believe any business hires people who aren't absolutely needed to do that business? McDonald's can't get rid of people and function as a business.

 

[hunarcy]

"Let's see the math, because the sequester is suppose to be in the 80 billion dollar range."

And by that, I presume you are saying it's a 2% reduction in the GROWTH of government. It certainly won't mean that ANY part of government will have fewer dollars to spend than they did last year. You realize that, right?

 

[hunarcy]

Can you explain why right-wingers believe any business hires people who aren't absolutely needed to do that business? McDonald's can't get rid of people and function as a business.

I know of no right-wingers who believe any business hires people who aren't needed to do the business. I do know that as costs rise, a way must be found to deal with those costs and typically employees are cut to manage those costs.