Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Again... ones like wrongwinger refuse to accept that people get roommates, or share bills, or live at home longer, or live in a crappy trailer, or whatever else... you should not, and should never have thought, that minimum wage supports you in a private place with all the shit you want and need...
Do you really think the working poor are not doing that already? Who do you think is living in those crappy trailers? Who do you think is living 12 people to a three bedroom house?
Many many of them are not... you can afford at minimum wage, 4 people living in a crappy 2BR in a cheap part of town... most simply do not want to and think they deserve more... funny how also, rather than improving that situation, they buy Nikes, TV's, internet, video games, beer, or whatever else.. simple thing is, that even with the 'working poor', they spend a lot on non-necessities.. and we then subsidize thru government, their refusal to use their lower earnings for necessities in spite of their frivolity
Is the employee physically and mentally able to seek a higher paying job? Is he physically and mentally able to seek the training needed to qualify for a higher paying job? If he's able to work at a better job, or at least able to prepare for work at a better job, and chooses not to, then taxpayers should not be required to support him.
You seem to assume that there are ample higher paying jobs that remain unfilled.
What if he is functioning to the best of his abilities? Who should make up the difference in his menial wage and what it costs to support a family? His employer or the taxpayer?
Those who the taxpayers are unwilling to support. What should happen to them and their families?
Why did he start a family if he didn't have the ability to support one? Do you cook a meal with no stove, fire or ingredients?
What happens to people who work 40 hours a week and do not make enough to support their families?
Answer: The taxpayer makes up the difference
Who should be responsible for supporting the person who works all week for you? The employer or the taxpayer?
The person. Ultimately, they are responsible for supporting themselves. The employer is only responsible to pay them what the particular job is worth. If it isn't enough, you get a second job or better yourself to get a better, higher paying job. The government should have no responsibility at all.
You seem to assume that there are ample higher paying jobs that remain unfilled.
What if he is functioning to the best of his abilities? Who should make up the difference in his menial wage and what it costs to support a family? His employer or the taxpayer?
Those who the taxpayers are unwilling to support. What should happen to them and their families?
Why did he start a family if he didn't have the ability to support one? Do you cook a meal with no stove, fire or ingredients?
Some people started families when they had good jobs and reasonable expectations of keeping their jobs.
Then they lost them.
Maybe after that they were only able to find the kind of job a high school student traditionally takes. The kind of job which sadly some employers use as a strike against an applicant for a higher level job.
But is that a reason to expect the kind of job a high school student traditionally takes to pay wages high enough to support a family?
You only have 2 choices. Thats what republicans refuse to admit
There's more than 2 choices and that's what lefties refuse to admit. If a 40 hr work week doesn't support your life choices, get a second (or better paying) job.
Now tell me how the job market has so many jobs that this is an option. When you cant you'll see where you're falling short. You are ignoring the world and reality
What happens to people who work 40 hours a week and do not make enough to support their families?
Answer: The taxpayer makes up the difference
Who should be responsible for supporting the person who works all week for you? The employer or the taxpayer?
The person. Ultimately, they are responsible for supporting themselves. The employer is only responsible to pay them what the particular job is worth. If it isn't enough, you get a second job or better yourself to get a better, higher paying job. The government should have no responsibility at all.
So simple
Yes, 30 million people can just go out and get second and third jobs. There are so many of them
Education? How do you afford an education without a job?
Yes, people should be responsible. But your solutions only work in a booming economy with employers begging for help. In our economy, it is workers begging for a job and because of an excessive availability of labor, that will be a low paying job
And your assumption, as assumptions so often are, would be incorrect. We don't have a perfectly free market and some gov't intervention is necessary. I have no prob with a gov't mandated min wage as long as it accounts for market realities which, BTW, I believe it generally does.you seem to be saying it is only right if the labor rate is set at the lowest possible denominator by "the invisible hand" of a market.
And your assumption, as assumptions so often are, would be incorrect. We don't have a perfectly free market and some gov't intervention is necessary. I have no prob with a gov't mandated min wage as long as it accounts for market realities which, BTW, I believe it generally does.you seem to be saying it is only right if the labor rate is set at the lowest possible denominator by "the invisible hand" of a market.
There's more than 2 choices and that's what lefties refuse to admit. If a 40 hr work week doesn't support your life choices, get a second (or better paying) job.
Now tell me how the job market has so many jobs that this is an option. When you cant you'll see where you're falling short. You are ignoring the world and reality
Virtually anyone who is motivated to self-support finds a way to get it done. The prob is irresponsibility, the nanny state and - drum roll, please - attitudes like yours.
What happens to people who work 40 hours a week and do not make enough to support their families?
Answer: The taxpayer makes up the difference
Who should be responsible for supporting the person who works all week for you? The employer or the taxpayer?
And that is just plain wrong. They should work 60 (or 70) hours and be responsible for supporting themselves.
You guys are just clueless
You respond to a problem that affects over 30 million people with a solution that works for a single person
There are not 30 million extra jobs out there so that every person working and needing government assistance can work 60 or 70 hour weeks. Most of these people struggle to find a job that gives them 40 hour weeks
And no, there are not an additional 30 million lawn cutting jobs or babysitting jobs so the working poor can supplement their income
The taxpayer fills the void or the employer fills the void. Who would you rather have do it?
Now tell me how the job market has so many jobs that this is an option. When you cant you'll see where you're falling short. You are ignoring the world and reality
Virtually anyone who is motivated to self-support finds a way to get it done. The prob is irresponsibility, the nanny state and - drum roll, please - attitudes like yours.
So now that you've been shown there arent enough jobs and despite reality not supporting you you've fallen all the way down to "theres gotta be a way" as a solution.
Now THATS how you backpeddle
And your assumption, as assumptions so often are, would be incorrect. We don't have a perfectly free market and some gov't intervention is necessary. I have no prob with a gov't mandated min wage as long as it accounts for market realities which, BTW, I believe it generally does.you seem to be saying it is only right if the labor rate is set at the lowest possible denominator by "the invisible hand" of a market.
ah, and you were making incorrect assumptions about me. Funny how that works. But min wage won't raise a family.
In another thread someone claimed that people have a right to be paid enough to support a family. I'd like to hear input from others on this.
Does a person with a paper route have the right to be paid enough to support a family?
Should a grocery bagger get paid enough to support a family?
What is the lowest level of job where you think the employers should be required to pay their employees enough to support a family? And how large of a family should this job be able to support?
If my brother quit his computer job and went to work as a Wal-Mart stocker, should he be able to expect Wal-Mart to pay him enough to support his six children?
In another thread someone claimed that people have a right to be paid enough to support a family. I'd like to hear input from others on this.
Does a person with a paper route have the right to be paid enough to support a family?
Should a grocery bagger get paid enough to support a family?
What is the lowest level of job where you think the employers should be required to pay their employees enough to support a family? And how large of a family should this job be able to support?
If my brother quit his computer job and went to work as a Wal-Mart stocker, should he be able to expect Wal-Mart to pay him enough to support his six children?
Hey tell me what other choices there are if there are more. Ones that are based in reality would be great. Thanks.
You don't accept people taking responsibility for their own support "reality"?
You seem to have a ton of bullshit questions but cant answer any. Thats how fake logic works you cant even explain it
In another thread someone claimed that people have a right to be paid enough to support a family. I'd like to hear input from others on this.
Does a person with a paper route have the right to be paid enough to support a family?
Should a grocery bagger get paid enough to support a family?
What is the lowest level of job where you think the employers should be required to pay their employees enough to support a family? And how large of a family should this job be able to support?
If my brother quit his computer job and went to work as a Wal-Mart stocker, should he be able to expect Wal-Mart to pay him enough to support his six children?
No. Being a grocery bagger and a stocker once, I know that those two jobs aren't meant to support a family. They are meant to get one person on their feet financially. They are meant to be a stepping stone to a career, not a career.
Personally, I believe it to be a matter of prioritization. I think one shouldn't have a family until he is in an ideal financial situation, where he will be in a position to support his family. I think that demanding a living wage is taking the work out of moving up, getting promoted, or having a more gainful career in the future.
The concept of minimum effort/maximum reward is flawed. What ever happened to people wanting to better themselves?
Virtually anyone who is motivated to self-support finds a way to get it done. The prob is irresponsibility, the nanny state and - drum roll, please - attitudes like yours.
So now that you've been shown there arent enough jobs and despite reality not supporting you you've fallen all the way down to "theres gotta be a way" as a solution.
Now THATS how you backpeddle
For anyone who has tried it, there is always a way. As for proving there aren't enough jobs, well that has yet to be done so I'll tell you what I just told RW ... when all open positions are filled we will revisit your nanny POV.
You don't accept people taking responsibility for their own support "reality"?
You seem to have a ton of bullshit questions but cant answer any. Thats how fake logic works you cant even explain it
Huh?? I can't decide if you're just playing asinine games, or if you really are this stupid ... Your question was answered, by several of us. Responsibility for a person's 'support' lies with the person, no one else. You rejected that answer out of hand, so I'm asking, why? Why is that a 'bullshit question' to you? Sorry, but you're the one dodging reality here.
How much should the person who makes all the money for a company make?
That situation only exist in a one man shop. Otherwise there is no person who makes all the money for the company.
The employees do.
