“Redistribute the wealth”

[Billy000]

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.

Define what it is to live "comfortably", Billy? Should a family of 4 be able to live "comfortably" off of a minimum wage job? Should that comfort include things like cell phones...50" flat screens...expensive sneakers...vacations...movie nights out...? Just what does your "radical change" include? You say you think it needs to be done at the same time you admit that you don't have the faintest idea HOW to do it! How can you demand radical change when you don't have solutions?

Lol if someone is making minimum wage has 2 kids, they could definitely not afford spending hundreds of dollars on entertainment monthly at the risk of starving themselves.

So why is anybody who works minimum wage having kids? That's the rich guys fault?

People make dumb mistakes. Either way, you have kids that didn’t choose to be born.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Define what it is to live "comfortably", Billy? Should a family of 4 be able to live "comfortably" off of a minimum wage job? Should that comfort include things like cell phones...50" flat screens...expensive sneakers...vacations...movie nights out...? Just what does your "radical change" include? You say you think it needs to be done at the same time you admit that you don't have the faintest idea HOW to do it! How can you demand radical change when you don't have solutions?

Lol if someone is making minimum wage has 2 kids, they could definitely not afford spending hundreds of dollars on entertainment monthly at the risk of starving themselves.

So why is anybody who works minimum wage having kids? That's the rich guys fault?

People make dumb mistakes. Either way, you have kids that didn’t choose to be born.

Correct. But the parents chose to have them. Having children is not an affliction. It takes a little effort to have babies. I never had any children because I planned it that way. I didn't want the responsibility or cost of raising children. See? It's pretty easy.

 

[Billy000]

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.

Define what it is to live "comfortably", Billy? Should a family of 4 be able to live "comfortably" off of a minimum wage job? Should that comfort include things like cell phones...50" flat screens...expensive sneakers...vacations...movie nights out...? Just what does your "radical change" include? You say you think it needs to be done at the same time you admit that you don't have the faintest idea HOW to do it! How can you demand radical change when you don't have solutions?

Lol if someone is making minimum wage has 2 kids, they could definitely not afford spending hundreds of dollars on entertainment monthly at the risk of starving themselves.

That's reality, Billy. You seem to want to change that. My question for you is what should minimum wage provide? You seem to think it should provide a "comfortable" living. I think you're delusional. "Comfort" is derived from gradually moving up the employment ladder! It always has worked that way and always SHOULD work that way! Artificially setting wage levels almost never produces the results that people like you desire...something you'd grasp if you had even a rudimentary knowledge of economics.

Minimum wage federal or state, is not nearly enough to cover the cost of living. 20 million workers make under $10. Don’t you think that’s a problem?

 

[Billy000]

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.

Define what it is to live "comfortably", Billy? Should a family of 4 be able to live "comfortably" off of a minimum wage job? Should that comfort include things like cell phones...50" flat screens...expensive sneakers...vacations...movie nights out...? Just what does your "radical change" include? You say you think it needs to be done at the same time you admit that you don't have the faintest idea HOW to do it! How can you demand radical change when you don't have solutions?

Lol if someone is making minimum wage has 2 kids, they could definitely not afford spending hundreds of dollars on entertainment monthly at the risk of starving themselves.

So why is anybody who works minimum wage having kids? That's the rich guys fault?

People make dumb mistakes. Either way, you have kids that didn’t choose to be born.

Correct. But the parents chose to have them. Having children is not an affliction. It takes a little effort to have babies. I never had any children because I planned it that way. I didn't want the responsibility or cost of raising children. See? It's pretty easy.

So since the children can’t be provided for, we should just let them starve?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wealth inequality is driven by the rise in power of multi national corporations.

Its true in the uk and probably true in the US.

Its very simple. If you dont accept this shit wage we will move or factory to India or China and then you will get nothing.

At that point any notion that you get paid what you are worth is gone.

So all the jobs move to the developing world and Capital gets to dictate everything.

Western countries are always going to be vulnerable to this because we are so wealthy compared to the third world.

The answer to the problem is very simple. We raise the standards of living in the third world. When there is more equality between nations there is less opportunity to play workers off against each other.

The situation is like this: we want cheap products. We want strong growth in the market to secure our retirement accounts or personal investments. We want good paying jobs.

The problem with that is we can't have all three. We had to choose, and we chose strong growth and cheap products. If you are going to have strong growth and cheap products, you are not going to get good paying monkey jobs. Those days are long gone. They are not coming back.

I dont really know what the answer to it all is. At some point the chinese will reject hard work and low pay and those jobs will move to africa or somewhere else that is poor. One thing that is certain is that the 1% will not lose out.

The answer is to promote domestic products. It's the American consumer in charge of all this. We don't care where we get our products from, who we put out of work, or what those workers are paid. All we care about is price. Until that attitude changes, it will remain like this forever.

Im not sure Ray. In many instances the actual products dont even exist any more. In the UK it is almost impossible to buy british made clothing , for example. The same goes for hi tech stuff. There are no uk firms waiting to pick up the slack.

There was a report on the news here about a famous youth brand called Superdry who pay Indian workers something like 29p an hour to make expensive clothing. So lets say you reject Supedry you still have no choice becuse all the other brands are doing the same and there is no ethical alternative.

Inequality ensures that home produced will never be able to compete.

If you can't find British made clothing it's because it doesn't sell. We have the same problem in the US. At Christmas I can buy a 50 foot strand of lights for $24.00, or I can buy the $7.00 one made in China. Guess which one I'm going to buy?

So companies like Walmart don't carry the $24.00 lights because nobody would buy them. A store only sells what their customers buy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Define what it is to live "comfortably", Billy? Should a family of 4 be able to live "comfortably" off of a minimum wage job? Should that comfort include things like cell phones...50" flat screens...expensive sneakers...vacations...movie nights out...? Just what does your "radical change" include? You say you think it needs to be done at the same time you admit that you don't have the faintest idea HOW to do it! How can you demand radical change when you don't have solutions?

Lol if someone is making minimum wage has 2 kids, they could definitely not afford spending hundreds of dollars on entertainment monthly at the risk of starving themselves.

So why is anybody who works minimum wage having kids? That's the rich guys fault?

People make dumb mistakes. Either way, you have kids that didn’t choose to be born.

Correct. But the parents chose to have them. Having children is not an affliction. It takes a little effort to have babies. I never had any children because I planned it that way. I didn't want the responsibility or cost of raising children. See? It's pretty easy.

So since the children can’t be provided for, we should just let them starve?

No, what we should do is if you have to get any public assistance, you should have to be fixed first. No more going on the dole and popping out more kids for a larger welfare check, bigger SNAP's card, larger HUD house in the suburbs. Once you sign on to our social programs, you don't get one red cent until you can't have children any longer.

That would solve some of the problem, because the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. It makes no sense that working middle-class Americans who will likely have offspring of working middle-class people be limited while welfare people are having three, four, five kids that the rest of us have to support.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Define what it is to live "comfortably", Billy? Should a family of 4 be able to live "comfortably" off of a minimum wage job? Should that comfort include things like cell phones...50" flat screens...expensive sneakers...vacations...movie nights out...? Just what does your "radical change" include? You say you think it needs to be done at the same time you admit that you don't have the faintest idea HOW to do it! How can you demand radical change when you don't have solutions?

Lol if someone is making minimum wage has 2 kids, they could definitely not afford spending hundreds of dollars on entertainment monthly at the risk of starving themselves.

That's reality, Billy. You seem to want to change that. My question for you is what should minimum wage provide? You seem to think it should provide a "comfortable" living. I think you're delusional. "Comfort" is derived from gradually moving up the employment ladder! It always has worked that way and always SHOULD work that way! Artificially setting wage levels almost never produces the results that people like you desire...something you'd grasp if you had even a rudimentary knowledge of economics.

Minimum wage federal or state, is not nearly enough to cover the cost of living. 20 million workers make under $10. Don’t you think that’s a problem?

Sure it's a problem. That's why you do something to make your labor worth more money.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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?

Okay, let’s pretend every low wage worker did this, who would be left behind to work those low wage jobs that are the backbone of the American work force? You might conveniently say teenagers, but the demand of jobs would greatly outnumber them and they would only work seasonally.

Matches your skill? So you think the only thing fast food workers do is dunk French fires? Have you ever been to a fast good restaurant? The workers have multiple roles to fill and it is non stop productivity until they leave. On top of that, they deal with the biggest asshole customers on the planet. Who decides what a wage is worth if the business owner makes every effort to minimize labor cost for the sake of profit?

And no, I don’t work fast food but I used to.

It's still shit work that doesn't warrant $15/hr; anyone can do it.

 

[expat_panama]

Wealth inequality is driven by the rise in power of multi national corporations...

As long as people are diverse, how can wealth be equal?

 

[task0778]

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.

Define what it is to live "comfortably", Billy? Should a family of 4 be able to live "comfortably" off of a minimum wage job? Should that comfort include things like cell phones...50" flat screens...expensive sneakers...vacations...movie nights out...? Just what does your "radical change" include? You say you think it needs to be done at the same time you admit that you don't have the faintest idea HOW to do it! How can you demand radical change when you don't have solutions?

Lol if someone is making minimum wage has 2 kids, they could definitely not afford spending hundreds of dollars on entertainment monthly at the risk of starving themselves.

That's reality, Billy. You seem to want to change that. My question for you is what should minimum wage provide? You seem to think it should provide a "comfortable" living. I think you're delusional. "Comfort" is derived from gradually moving up the employment ladder! It always has worked that way and always SHOULD work that way! Artificially setting wage levels almost never produces the results that people like you desire...something you'd grasp if you had even a rudimentary knowledge of economics.

Minimum wage federal or state, is not nearly enough to cover the cost of living. 20 million workers make under $10. Don’t you think that’s a problem?

Sure it's a problem. That's why you do something to make your labor worth more money.

Exactly. It's not the responsibility of the employer to pay you more than you're worth, it's YOUR responsibility to make yourself worth more than you're being paid. If your current employer won't pay you that much, then you go to work for somebody else.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wealth inequality is driven by the rise in power of multi national corporations...

As long as people are diverse, how can wealth be equal?

"People say that getting ahead is not a good idea because it leaves others behind. But that's the idea of getting ahead. If we all moved ahead the same distance at the same time, then nobody gets ahead."
Brian Kilmeade

 

[Billy000]

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.

Define what it is to live "comfortably", Billy? Should a family of 4 be able to live "comfortably" off of a minimum wage job? Should that comfort include things like cell phones...50" flat screens...expensive sneakers...vacations...movie nights out...? Just what does your "radical change" include? You say you think it needs to be done at the same time you admit that you don't have the faintest idea HOW to do it! How can you demand radical change when you don't have solutions?

Lol if someone is making minimum wage has 2 kids, they could definitely not afford spending hundreds of dollars on entertainment monthly at the risk of starving themselves.

That's reality, Billy. You seem to want to change that. My question for you is what should minimum wage provide? You seem to think it should provide a "comfortable" living. I think you're delusional. "Comfort" is derived from gradually moving up the employment ladder! It always has worked that way and always SHOULD work that way! Artificially setting wage levels almost never produces the results that people like you desire...something you'd grasp if you had even a rudimentary knowledge of economics.

Minimum wage federal or state, is not nearly enough to cover the cost of living. 20 million workers make under $10. Don’t you think that’s a problem?

Sure it's a problem. That's why you do something to make your labor worth more money.

Again, if most of them did that, who would be left behind to fill those 10s of millions of positions?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Wealth inequality is driven by the rise in power of multi national corporations...

As long as people are diverse, how can wealth be equal?

I dont think diversity is the issue. People all over the world want the same stuff we have in the west. Clean water, food, a car, a home, a school for their kids. When they cant get those things they take a risk and try elsewhere.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Define what it is to live "comfortably", Billy? Should a family of 4 be able to live "comfortably" off of a minimum wage job? Should that comfort include things like cell phones...50" flat screens...expensive sneakers...vacations...movie nights out...? Just what does your "radical change" include? You say you think it needs to be done at the same time you admit that you don't have the faintest idea HOW to do it! How can you demand radical change when you don't have solutions?

Lol if someone is making minimum wage has 2 kids, they could definitely not afford spending hundreds of dollars on entertainment monthly at the risk of starving themselves.

That's reality, Billy. You seem to want to change that. My question for you is what should minimum wage provide? You seem to think it should provide a "comfortable" living. I think you're delusional. "Comfort" is derived from gradually moving up the employment ladder! It always has worked that way and always SHOULD work that way! Artificially setting wage levels almost never produces the results that people like you desire...something you'd grasp if you had even a rudimentary knowledge of economics.

Minimum wage federal or state, is not nearly enough to cover the cost of living. 20 million workers make under $10. Don’t you think that’s a problem?

Sure it's a problem. That's why you do something to make your labor worth more money.

Exactly. It's not the responsibility of the employer to pay you more than you're worth, it's YOUR responsibility to make yourself worth more than you're being paid. If your current employer won't pay you that much, then you go to work for somebody else.

Exactly. So how do we determine what ones labor is worth? That's simple.

Your labor is only worth as much as an employer could find another to do the same job and same quality of work.

If you operate a tow motor and are paid 20 bucks an hour and quit your job, your employer has to find a replacement.

If he can find somebody to operate that tow motor for 18 bucks an hour, you were overpaid. If he has to pay somebody twenty two dollars an hour, you were underpaid. If he can find somebody for twenty bucks an hour, you were paid what you were worth.

What Billy is saying is that we should force that company to pay that operator 22 bucks an hour even though that employer could find somebody for less money. That doesn't work. The supply and demand system of wages is not perfect, but as close to perfect as we will ever get.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Define what it is to live "comfortably", Billy? Should a family of 4 be able to live "comfortably" off of a minimum wage job? Should that comfort include things like cell phones...50" flat screens...expensive sneakers...vacations...movie nights out...? Just what does your "radical change" include? You say you think it needs to be done at the same time you admit that you don't have the faintest idea HOW to do it! How can you demand radical change when you don't have solutions?

Lol if someone is making minimum wage has 2 kids, they could definitely not afford spending hundreds of dollars on entertainment monthly at the risk of starving themselves.

That's reality, Billy. You seem to want to change that. My question for you is what should minimum wage provide? You seem to think it should provide a "comfortable" living. I think you're delusional. "Comfort" is derived from gradually moving up the employment ladder! It always has worked that way and always SHOULD work that way! Artificially setting wage levels almost never produces the results that people like you desire...something you'd grasp if you had even a rudimentary knowledge of economics.

Minimum wage federal or state, is not nearly enough to cover the cost of living. 20 million workers make under $10. Don’t you think that’s a problem?

Sure it's a problem. That's why you do something to make your labor worth more money.

Again, if most of them did that, who would be left behind to fill those 10s of millions of positions?

Who cares? Fast food is garbage, we'll survive.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Define what it is to live "comfortably", Billy? Should a family of 4 be able to live "comfortably" off of a minimum wage job? Should that comfort include things like cell phones...50" flat screens...expensive sneakers...vacations...movie nights out...? Just what does your "radical change" include? You say you think it needs to be done at the same time you admit that you don't have the faintest idea HOW to do it! How can you demand radical change when you don't have solutions?

Lol if someone is making minimum wage has 2 kids, they could definitely not afford spending hundreds of dollars on entertainment monthly at the risk of starving themselves.

That's reality, Billy. You seem to want to change that. My question for you is what should minimum wage provide? You seem to think it should provide a "comfortable" living. I think you're delusional. "Comfort" is derived from gradually moving up the employment ladder! It always has worked that way and always SHOULD work that way! Artificially setting wage levels almost never produces the results that people like you desire...something you'd grasp if you had even a rudimentary knowledge of economics.

Minimum wage federal or state, is not nearly enough to cover the cost of living. 20 million workers make under $10. Don’t you think that’s a problem?

Sure it's a problem. That's why you do something to make your labor worth more money.

Again, if most of them did that, who would be left behind to fill those 10s of millions of positions?

Other Americans. The companies would have to offer more money to attract workers, and wages would increase by itself without government interference.

 

[Billy000]

Lol if someone is making minimum wage has 2 kids, they could definitely not afford spending hundreds of dollars on entertainment monthly at the risk of starving themselves.

That's reality, Billy. You seem to want to change that. My question for you is what should minimum wage provide? You seem to think it should provide a "comfortable" living. I think you're delusional. "Comfort" is derived from gradually moving up the employment ladder! It always has worked that way and always SHOULD work that way! Artificially setting wage levels almost never produces the results that people like you desire...something you'd grasp if you had even a rudimentary knowledge of economics.

Minimum wage federal or state, is not nearly enough to cover the cost of living. 20 million workers make under $10. Don’t you think that’s a problem?

Sure it's a problem. That's why you do something to make your labor worth more money.

Again, if most of them did that, who would be left behind to fill those 10s of millions of positions?

Other Americans. The companies would have to offer more money to attract workers, and wages would increase by itself without government interference.

Lol who?! Those higher wage jobs are already incredibly competitive. You’re talking about 10s of millions of positions.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's reality, Billy. You seem to want to change that. My question for you is what should minimum wage provide? You seem to think it should provide a "comfortable" living. I think you're delusional. "Comfort" is derived from gradually moving up the employment ladder! It always has worked that way and always SHOULD work that way! Artificially setting wage levels almost never produces the results that people like you desire...something you'd grasp if you had even a rudimentary knowledge of economics.

Minimum wage federal or state, is not nearly enough to cover the cost of living. 20 million workers make under $10. Don’t you think that’s a problem?

Sure it's a problem. That's why you do something to make your labor worth more money.

Again, if most of them did that, who would be left behind to fill those 10s of millions of positions?

Other Americans. The companies would have to offer more money to attract workers, and wages would increase by itself without government interference.

Lol who?! Those higher wage jobs are already incredibly competitive. You’re talking about 10s of millions of positions.

Minimum wage workers in this country are 4% of our workforce. Most people who stay with a job that started at minimum wage make more in less than a years time.

Most of those workers are: retirees looking for something to do, kids in high school or college, stay at home mothers who are looking to make a few bucks while the kids are in school.

Walmart is not going to do without cashiers and shelf stockers. McDonald's is not going to do without french fry and hamburger makers. They will do whatever it takes to fill those positions including and not limited to an increased wage offer.

 

[Billy000]

Minimum wage federal or state, is not nearly enough to cover the cost of living. 20 million workers make under $10. Don’t you think that’s a problem?

Sure it's a problem. That's why you do something to make your labor worth more money.

Again, if most of them did that, who would be left behind to fill those 10s of millions of positions?

Other Americans. The companies would have to offer more money to attract workers, and wages would increase by itself without government interference.

Lol who?! Those higher wage jobs are already incredibly competitive. You’re talking about 10s of millions of positions.

Minimum wage workers in this country are 4% of our workforce. Most people who stay with a job that started at minimum wage make more in less than a years time.

Most of those workers are: retirees looking for something to do, kids in high school or college, stay at home mothers who are looking to make a few bucks while the kids are in school.

Walmart is not going to do without cashiers and shelf stockers. McDonald's is not going to do without french fry and hamburger makers. They will do whatever it takes to fill those positions including and not limited to an increased wage offer.

4% are on the federal. 10s of millions more make their state minimum wage which in most states is pretty low. The average age of a fast food worker is 35. These are adults who are stuck at their jobs ether because higher wage jobs are very competitive or they don’t have the time and money to learn new skills.

How many more do you think make less than 15 per hour?

 

[dblack]

As another poster has said, addressing inequality and maintaining a strong safety net is very good social insurance against revolution.

No, not armed revolution. Electoral revolution. Cultural revolution. The libertarians in control of the GOP somehow don't or won't or can't see this.
.

Libertarians have taken control of the
GOP!?!?!

Wow... how did i miss that?

I dunno!
.

I found out why! I did some research and discovered that you're just wrong. Libertarians don't support the GOP or Trump at all. In fact, they're among his harshest critics. You must have been into daniel's stash when you dreamed that one up.

Reading is fundamental! Check out it. No need to thank me.