“Redistribute the wealth”

[Skull Pilot]

No rich guy ever stopped you from getting a job or from getting a better paying job

Not even in right to work States? Why any homelessness.

Not in any state.

And most of the homeless are mentally ill, drug addicted or both and the rest are like you and don't want to work for a living

not even for "employment charity? only capital, right wingers.

Employment charity is when someone gives you a job because they feel sorry for you.

I don't feel sorry for anyone and that goes especially for people who won't get a job

No Charity for the homeless from Employers?

If anyone wants to give they can

 

[danielpalos]

Not even in right to work States? Why any homelessness.

Not in any state.

And most of the homeless are mentally ill, drug addicted or both and the rest are like you and don't want to work for a living

not even for "employment charity? only capital, right wingers.

Employment charity is when someone gives you a job because they feel sorry for you.

I don't feel sorry for anyone and that goes especially for people who won't get a job

No Charity for the homeless from Employers?

If anyone wants to give they can

we have homelessness, in alleged, Right to Work States.

Shouldn't employers promote a work ethic?

 

[Skull Pilot]

When asked why he paid his employees more than the average, Henry Ford said he wanted his employees to be able to afford to buy one of his cars.

to you fake capitalism experts, capitalism does not work well if all you have is a few rich people & poor people.

You need the middle class with buying power.

Something Republicans & Trump know nothing about..

You give an example of capitalism in your criticism of capitalism

To deny Ford was a capitalist is beyond stupid

Look dickbreath, I never said Ford was not a capitalist.

You can be a capitalist & treat your employees well.

Unfettered capitalism will not succeed. That is why we need regulations.

As the housing industry, ask wall street in 2008.

You do understand that federal meddling played a major role in the housing crash as well as the stock market real estate bubble don't you?

The Fed held interest rates at an artificially low number in order to prevent what would have been a gradual rise in interest rates and a slowing of the real estate market . This is a naturally occurring event when markets are not meddled with. If interest rates had been allowed to rise the real estate and the mortgage market would have both contracted thus preventing the bubble from ever forming in the first place

But instead we got the government interference you wanted and look where it got us

 

[Skull Pilot]

Not in any state.

And most of the homeless are mentally ill, drug addicted or both and the rest are like you and don't want to work for a living

not even for "employment charity? only capital, right wingers.

Employment charity is when someone gives you a job because they feel sorry for you.

I don't feel sorry for anyone and that goes especially for people who won't get a job

No Charity for the homeless from Employers?

If anyone wants to give they can

we have homelessness, in alleged, Right to Work States.

Shouldn't employers promote a work ethic?

Shouldn't you promote your own work ethic

 

[Meister]

How about workers work to learn skills that afford them more worth to employers?

For what should they be given $15 per hour? Flipping a fry tray five times an hour?

If you work 40 hours a week at a wage that matches your skills, why should an employer pay you more?

If you cannot live on $10 per hour, isn't it your responsibility to improve your worth?

Shouldnt wages increase with inflation and productivity though? They haven't been and that's what the problem is. That an adult may still be out there making only 7 or 8 an hour doing labor is fucked up. That's a failure in our system, probably multiple failures, and it's not just the individual's fault. Consumers need money in their pockets for this mary go round to keep spinning. If they are working full time then the majority of them should have money in their pocket to spend.

I'm starting to think that these jobs just flat shouldnt exist if they wont support a person because the business refuse to pay them. They arent good jobs. Automate them and let's ensure the opportunities for affordable skills development and job training are out there.

Question: when productivity and sales sink, should the employer be able to reduce wages during those times?

 

[Wyatt earp]

When asked why he paid his employees more than the average, Henry Ford said he wanted his employees to be able to afford to buy one of his cars.

to you fake capitalism experts, capitalism does not work well if all you have is a few rich people & poor people.

You need the middle class with buying power.

Something Republicans & Trump know nothing about..

You give an example of capitalism in your criticism of capitalism

To deny Ford was a capitalist is beyond stupid

Look dickbreath, I never said Ford was not a capitalist.

You can be a capitalist & treat your employees well.

Unfettered capitalism will not succeed. That is why we need regulations.

As the housing industry, ask wall street in 2008.

And how do you legistrate (regulate) morality?


.

 

[grainbely]

How about workers work to learn skills that afford them more worth to employers?

For what should they be given $15 per hour? Flipping a fry tray five times an hour?

If you work 40 hours a week at a wage that matches your skills, why should an employer pay you more?

If you cannot live on $10 per hour, isn't it your responsibility to improve your worth?

Shouldnt wages increase with inflation and productivity though? They haven't been and that's what the problem is. That an adult may still be out there making only 7 or 8 an hour doing labor is fucked up. That's a failure in our system, probably multiple failures, and it's not just the individual's fault. Consumers need money in their pockets for this mary go round to keep spinning. If they are working full time then the majority of them should have money in their pocket to spend.

I'm starting to think that these jobs just flat shouldnt exist if they wont support a person because the business refuse to pay them. They arent good jobs. Automate them and let's ensure the opportunities for affordable skills development and job training are out there.

Question: when productivity and sales sink, should the employer be able to reduce wages during those times?

First, what's your point and what are you suggesting?

Theres lots of things an autonomous business can do to address decreasing productivity or sales. It will probably depend on the cause. If a specific person is no longer performing their job at the agreed level then firing is always an option and probably preferred since the job as defined needs to be done. Idk how often wage is decreased but I'd think that would be rare unless negotiated on a large scale. If sales are decreasing then layoffs or cutting hours may be options until the root cause is addressed.

 

[Richard-H]

How about workers work to learn skills that afford them more worth to employers?

For what should they be given $15 per hour? Flipping a fry tray five times an hour?

If you work 40 hours a week at a wage that matches your skills, why should an employer pay you more?

If you cannot live on $10 per hour, isn't it your responsibility to improve your worth?

Paying people their 'Market value' only means paying the lowest possible wage...if they can replace you with a more desperate worker that they can pay less.. they will. This means that employers have a vested interest in paying as little as possible - and keeping as many people as they can as desperate as possible.

If 20 people flip hamburgers and bring in millions in profits for their employers they deserve a lot more than $15/hr. It doesn't matter if they can be replaced with someone more desperate than they. THEY are doing the work that's earning those millions, and they deserve a fair cut of the profits.

ONLY productive work creates wealth. Those that do the work deserve a fair cut of the profits.

If that's what you believe, then get a job that offers profit sharing as a benefit. If your company doesn't offer profit sharing, buy stock in your company and share the wealth. But don't expect anybody to hand their wealth over to you for nothing.

Nobody is asking for anyone to hand their wealth over for nothing. Workers only want a fair share of the wealth that they create.

I agree that profit sharing is a great idea. Perhaps it should be mandated by law for everyone!

 

[danielpalos]

not even for "employment charity? only capital, right wingers.

Employment charity is when someone gives you a job because they feel sorry for you.

I don't feel sorry for anyone and that goes especially for people who won't get a job

No Charity for the homeless from Employers?

If anyone wants to give they can

we have homelessness, in alleged, Right to Work States.

Shouldn't employers promote a work ethic?

Shouldn't you promote your own work ethic

I didn't advocate for Right to Work States.

 

[Richard-H]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

So no progressive has ever suggested that radical redistribution of wealth... except for you right in the next paragraph. Just call it "narrowing the gap", instead of wealth redistribution and BOOM!

Yes, we know you are a Marxist, who actually believes the poor are poor because the rich are rich. A crazy belief... You are in the top of the top as an American, I say we redistribute this wealth and relocate you to the true socialist utopia where these policies are in place.

You're dead wrong. The rich are rich because they do not pay working people fairly.

/----/ Care to back that nonsense up with some facts?

Fact - Only productive labor creates wealth.

Fact - Ownership does not create wealth.

Fact - Hording wealth is not the same as creating wealth.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

So no progressive has ever suggested that radical redistribution of wealth... except for you right in the next paragraph. Just call it "narrowing the gap", instead of wealth redistribution and BOOM!

Yes, we know you are a Marxist, who actually believes the poor are poor because the rich are rich. A crazy belief... You are in the top of the top as an American, I say we redistribute this wealth and relocate you to the true socialist utopia where these policies are in place.

You're dead wrong. The rich are rich because they do not pay working people fairly.

/----/ Care to back that nonsense up with some facts?

Fact - Only productive labor creates wealth.

Fact - Ownership does not create wealth.

Fact - Hording wealth is not the same as creating wealth.

So in your strange world ownership of a company doesn't earn wealth? No wonder employees like you are a dime a dozen.


.

 

[Richard-H]

I’ve never understood what that phrase really means. There is never an explanation on how to do it.

Republicans of course automatically assume the extreme which is that the wealth would be radically distributed among the entire population which would eliminate the wealthy class of America and thus end capitalism as we know it. However, no prominent progressive has EVER suggested this. The issue on the left is the rising inequality between the middle class and wealthy class. We aren’t suggesting some naive, theoretical utopia where everyone lives off the same wealth regardless of their contribution to society and lives happily ever after. Republicans just assume that’s what lefties mean when we talk about wealth inequality because it makes for a convenient argument. It makes dismissing the leftwing ideology easy.

Of course, what lefties actually want to do is simply narrow the gap so that anyone working 40 hours a week doesn’t have to live in poverty. That’s it. That’s all lefties care about. In this current economy, that is impossible for 10s of millions of people. Why is that impossible? Because the top 3 richest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers.

Again, I’ll admit I don’t know how it should be done, but it needs to be done. Radical change is necessary. The last time someone could comfortably live off $10 per hour was in the 1960’s.

So no progressive has ever suggested that radical redistribution of wealth... except for you right in the next paragraph. Just call it "narrowing the gap", instead of wealth redistribution and BOOM!

Yes, we know you are a Marxist, who actually believes the poor are poor because the rich are rich. A crazy belief... You are in the top of the top as an American, I say we redistribute this wealth and relocate you to the true socialist utopia where these policies are in place.

You're dead wrong. The rich are rich because they do not pay working people fairly.

/----/ Care to back that nonsense up with some facts?

Fact - Only productive labor creates wealth.

Fact - Ownership does not create wealth.

Fact - Hording wealth is not the same as creating wealth.

So in your strange world ownership of a company doesn't earn wealth? No wonder employees like you are a dime a dozen.


.

I'm a long way from being a dime a dozen employee. Try six figures.

No ownership does not create wealth in and of itself. An owner may do some productive work that creates wealth, but ownership alone does not.

Hording wealth is not the same thing as creating wealth.

 

[Wyatt earp]

So no progressive has ever suggested that radical redistribution of wealth... except for you right in the next paragraph. Just call it "narrowing the gap", instead of wealth redistribution and BOOM!

Yes, we know you are a Marxist, who actually believes the poor are poor because the rich are rich. A crazy belief... You are in the top of the top as an American, I say we redistribute this wealth and relocate you to the true socialist utopia where these policies are in place.

You're dead wrong. The rich are rich because they do not pay working people fairly.

/----/ Care to back that nonsense up with some facts?

Fact - Only productive labor creates wealth.

Fact - Ownership does not create wealth.

Fact - Hording wealth is not the same as creating wealth.

So in your strange world ownership of a company doesn't earn wealth? No wonder employees like you are a dime a dozen.


.

I'm a long way from being a dime a dozen employee. Try six figures.

No ownership does not create wealth in and of itself. An owner may do some productive work that creates wealth, but ownership alone does not.

Hording wealth is not the same thing as creating wealth.

Yeah you make 6 figures all right screwing around on a obsecure message board crying about business owners ...



All they have to do is close up shop, so where do the employees get their wealth from then, on the unemployment line?


.

 

[EGR one]

So you want to increase wages across the board?
What will that do to the cost of goods and services?

Of course I already know the answer I just want to see what ridiculous theory you come up with.

even the dollar menu won't double.

Oh really?

yes, really.

Tell me how thats possible.

In a manner analogous to that Good capitalist who found capital solutions and did not make, "social excuses". He doubled autoworker wages not complain about minimum wages.

We have to keep an upward pressure on wages to ensure capital seeks gains from productivity instead of more stagnant, cheap labor.

Contrary to left wing propaganda, Henry Ford did not offer higher wages because he was a good guy. He offered $5 a day because he needed to attract and keep a work force on the assembly line.

 

[Skull Pilot]

How about workers work to learn skills that afford them more worth to employers?

For what should they be given $15 per hour? Flipping a fry tray five times an hour?

If you work 40 hours a week at a wage that matches your skills, why should an employer pay you more?

If you cannot live on $10 per hour, isn't it your responsibility to improve your worth?

Paying people their 'Market value' only means paying the lowest possible wage...if they can replace you with a more desperate worker that they can pay less.. they will. This means that employers have a vested interest in paying as little as possible - and keeping as many people as they can as desperate as possible.

If 20 people flip hamburgers and bring in millions in profits for their employers they deserve a lot more than $15/hr. It doesn't matter if they can be replaced with someone more desperate than they. THEY are doing the work that's earning those millions, and they deserve a fair cut of the profits.

ONLY productive work creates wealth. Those that do the work deserve a fair cut of the profits.

If that's what you believe, then get a job that offers profit sharing as a benefit. If your company doesn't offer profit sharing, buy stock in your company and share the wealth. But don't expect anybody to hand their wealth over to you for nothing.

Nobody is asking for anyone to hand their wealth over for nothing. Workers only want a fair share of the wealth that they create.

I agree that profit sharing is a great idea. Perhaps it should be mandated by law for everyone!

You agree to sell your labor for a price that price is your profit for the sale of your time.

If you want to be paid on a production basis instead of an hourly rate you can still do that in many jobs

 

[Meister]

How about workers work to learn skills that afford them more worth to employers?

For what should they be given $15 per hour? Flipping a fry tray five times an hour?

If you work 40 hours a week at a wage that matches your skills, why should an employer pay you more?

If you cannot live on $10 per hour, isn't it your responsibility to improve your worth?

Shouldnt wages increase with inflation and productivity though? They haven't been and that's what the problem is. That an adult may still be out there making only 7 or 8 an hour doing labor is fucked up. That's a failure in our system, probably multiple failures, and it's not just the individual's fault. Consumers need money in their pockets for this mary go round to keep spinning. If they are working full time then the majority of them should have money in their pocket to spend.

I'm starting to think that these jobs just flat shouldnt exist if they wont support a person because the business refuse to pay them. They arent good jobs. Automate them and let's ensure the opportunities for affordable skills development and job training are out there.

Question: when productivity and sales sink, should the employer be able to reduce wages during those times?

First, what's your point and what are you suggesting?

Theres lots of things an autonomous business can do to address decreasing productivity or sales. It will probably depend on the cause. If a specific person is no longer performing their job at the agreed level then firing is always an option and probably preferred since the job as defined needs to be done. Idk how often wage is decreased but I'd think that would be rare unless negotiated on a large scale. If sales are decreasing then layoffs or cutting hours may be options until the root cause is addressed.

My point is that there are ebb and flows to most businesses. You suggest that wages should increase during the good times.
I presented a counter point to your statement.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Employment charity is when someone gives you a job because they feel sorry for you.

I don't feel sorry for anyone and that goes especially for people who won't get a job

No Charity for the homeless from Employers?

If anyone wants to give they can

we have homelessness, in alleged, Right to Work States.

Shouldn't employers promote a work ethic?

Shouldn't you promote your own work ethic

I didn't advocate for Right to Work States.

So what?

You can work at any business that will hire you

 

[Skull Pilot]

So no progressive has ever suggested that radical redistribution of wealth... except for you right in the next paragraph. Just call it "narrowing the gap", instead of wealth redistribution and BOOM!

Yes, we know you are a Marxist, who actually believes the poor are poor because the rich are rich. A crazy belief... You are in the top of the top as an American, I say we redistribute this wealth and relocate you to the true socialist utopia where these policies are in place.

You're dead wrong. The rich are rich because they do not pay working people fairly.

/----/ Care to back that nonsense up with some facts?

Fact - Only productive labor creates wealth.

Fact - Ownership does not create wealth.

Fact - Hording wealth is not the same as creating wealth.

So in your strange world ownership of a company doesn't earn wealth? No wonder employees like you are a dime a dozen.


.

I'm a long way from being a dime a dozen employee. Try six figures.

No ownership does not create wealth in and of itself. An owner may do some productive work that creates wealth, but ownership alone does not.

Hording wealth is not the same thing as creating wealth.

You do know that the zeros to the right of the decimal point don't really matter don't you?

 

[Meister]

How about workers work to learn skills that afford them more worth to employers?

For what should they be given $15 per hour? Flipping a fry tray five times an hour?

If you work 40 hours a week at a wage that matches your skills, why should an employer pay you more?

If you cannot live on $10 per hour, isn't it your responsibility to improve your worth?

Paying people their 'Market value' only means paying the lowest possible wage...if they can replace you with a more desperate worker that they can pay less.. they will. This means that employers have a vested interest in paying as little as possible - and keeping as many people as they can as desperate as possible.

If 20 people flip hamburgers and bring in millions in profits for their employers they deserve a lot more than $15/hr. It doesn't matter if they can be replaced with someone more desperate than they. THEY are doing the work that's earning those millions, and they deserve a fair cut of the profits.

ONLY productive work creates wealth. Those that do the work deserve a fair cut of the profits.

If that's what you believe, then get a job that offers profit sharing as a benefit. If your company doesn't offer profit sharing, buy stock in your company and share the wealth. But don't expect anybody to hand their wealth over to you for nothing.

Nobody is asking for anyone to hand their wealth over for nothing. Workers only want a fair share of the wealth that they create.

I agree that profit sharing is a great idea. Perhaps it should be mandated by law for everyone!

Profit sharing is a good idea, but making it a law ? More government in the private sector....is always the answer isn't it?
Yet, the government can't run a business on it's own and make a profit it seems. Taxpayers are always the bailout.

 

[Cellblock2429]

even the dollar menu won't double.

Oh really?

yes, really.

Tell me how thats possible.

In a manner analogous to that Good capitalist who found capital solutions and did not make, "social excuses". He doubled autoworker wages not complain about minimum wages.

We have to keep an upward pressure on wages to ensure capital seeks gains from productivity instead of more stagnant, cheap labor.

Contrary to left wing propaganda, Henry Ford did not offer higher wages because he was a good guy. He offered $5 a day because he needed to attract and keep a work force on the assembly line.

/----/ H Ford also wanted to create new customers. At $5 a day, they could afford to buy his cars.