“Redistribute the wealth”

[Oldstyle]

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?

I'm curious, Billy...do you see entry levels jobs that pay minimum wage as an "end point" something that people don't progress past and are stuck at for their entire lives...or do you see it as a starting point that people use to gain job skills and promotions?

What I see as a MAJOR problem is the number of people who don't progress from minimum wage jobs...don't gain job skills...and aren't reliable enough to warrant promotions! You seem to want to reward that behavior by providing a wage mandated by law to provide a comfortable living.

Now you can do that...but be forewarned to what the consequences of that action would be. You will create an underclass of under achieving losers that never do a thing with their lives. You'll also create wage inflation that will lead to overall inflation.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

Libertarians, as we both know, fight virtually any expansion of government. They LOUDLY want to cut taxes and services. They want absolutely as little government as possible.

Today GOP, as we both know, fight virtually any expansion of government. They LOUDLY want to cut taxes and services. They want absolutely as little government as possible.

You can call it whatever you want. You can call it "saxophone" if you want. It is what it is. You've been badly mis-led.
.

 

[dblack]

You've been badly mis-led.
.

I'm not the one who thinks Libertarians control the GOP. I wish it were so, but it's just not.

Maybe you got that in your head because we fight you on socialism. But that's not the only thing going on in politics. When the Republican party advocates for radically reducing our military footprint (as well as budget), when they put an end to the drug war and support gay marriage, when they completely reverse their position on dealing with our southern border, when they complain about corporate welfare instead of demonizing poor people, when they support individual liberty for everyone, and not just those who look like them, ... maybe then your claim will make sense.

 

[expat_panama]

...People all over the world want the same stuff we have in the west. Clean water, food, a car, a home, a school ...

Many Americans say that even though they've never bothered to actually ask these same people "all over the world" to say for themselves what it is that they want.

Be aware of the fact that there are billions of people who don't want "a car" because their homes are no where near roads. The fact is that while most people generally like air, food, shelter, & sex, they don't all have the same idea as to how much bother they're willing to endure to get a given amount of material worth.

So when it comes to amassing wealth, not all people are alike and this is a good thing.

 

[Markle]

Why is it you people assume that working 40 hours a week and no more is some magic number?

No one who has ever become a financial success has ever worked just 40 hours a week.

100% true!

 

[karpenter]

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.

No They Haven't
Progs Just Think
--- As Voiced By Obama
That At Some Point You've Made Enough Money

So What Does That Insinuate ??
That Anything Over Whatever Sum Is Overkill
And Can Be Seized And Re-Distributed ??

Progs As Far Back As Teddy Roosevelt
Thought There Should Be No Such Thing As A Billionaire

 

[Dan Stubbs]

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?

I always took the "hard" jobs because I could learn more than the little pointy headed one had the clean jobs. Also it was hard for employers to get people to do the job. It paid off many times with better jobs with more pay. It use to be you got out of school and got a job in a factory, and stayed there until you retired. Those days ended a long time ago.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

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.

No They Haven't
Progs Just Think
--- As Voiced By Obama
That At Some Point You've Made Enough Money

So What Does That Insinuate ??
That Anything Over Whatever Sum Is Overkill
And Can Be Seized And Re-Distributed ??

Progs As Far Back As Teddy Roosevelt
Thought There Should Be No Such Thing As A Billionaire

The joke about Obama on money is funny.\\

 

[Markle]

at fifteen dollars an hour, Labor will be more capitally motivated to work. San Francisco and Seattle are examples.

With unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, Labor can focus on improving their skill sets and returning to the labor market at the most opportune time.

So surprising that you have never answered this simple question.

What do you do with the worker who was earning $15.00 per hour prior to the minimum wage worker who was earning $7.50 per hour and got a 100% raise?

 

[Wyatt earp]

at fifteen dollars an hour, Labor will be more capitally motivated to work. San Francisco and Seattle are examples.

With unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, Labor can focus on improving their skill sets and returning to the labor market at the most opportune time.

So surprising that you have never answered this simple question.

What do you do with the worker who was earning $15.00 per hour prior to the minimum wage worker who was earning $7.50 per hour and got a 100% raise?

The worker who was making $15.00 an hour will now make $15.25 an hour and his purchasing power will be cut by 15% plus but hey at least he is now 25 cents an hour richer.


.



.

 

[Rustic]

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.

Lol
Take your political correctness and shove it up your fucking ass you silly little fucker

 

[Rustic]

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.

Lol
Flipping burgers is never is worth $15 an hour you stupid ass motherfucker

 

[Rustic]

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 such an idiot. The top 3 wealthiest people in this country own more wealth than the bottom 50% of workers. In your dumbass mind that doesn’t matter and any attempt at closing that gap is automatically the elimination of the wealthy class. Is your simple mind not capable of the slightest bit of nuanced critical thinking?

Lol
You have no right and no credibility to have a say on such things so shut the fuck up

 

[Markle]

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

So in your world, the dumb mistakes made by other people, are mistakes I should pay for the rest of MY life? Really?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Libertarians, as we both know, fight virtually any expansion of government. They LOUDLY want to cut taxes and services. They want absolutely as little government as possible.

Today GOP, as we both know, fight virtually any expansion of government. They LOUDLY want to cut taxes and services. They want absolutely as little government as possible.

You can call it whatever you want. You can call it "saxophone" if you want. It is what it is. You've been badly mis-led.
.

I consider myself conservative and would go to the Libertarian party if not for their stance on our military and drugs. I hate to say it, but sometimes you have to fight overseas. Legalization of drugs would only produce more drug users, and though it's illegal today, we are suffering more than 70,000 lives a year on overdoses.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

I don't know where you get that BS that the average age of a FF worker is 35 years old. My data says the exact opposite.

I just came off of Facebook. The US post office is now running ads on FB looking for mail carriers. At one time, you had to just about know somebody to get a job at the post office. Today? They are so desperate they are advertising on FB. It's a good paying job. I know several mail carriers.

I'm in transportation, and our industry is looking for over 30,000 new drivers they can't find. You can't get Americans to do these jobs. Yes, training is involved, but several companies offer free training, getting you your license, and all they want in return is for you to sign a year contract with them. After that, you have a secure career where you will always be in demand for the rest of your life.

Okay, so why aren't these jobs being filled? One word: Drugs.

Drugs are so common today that people can't pass the drug test to get a good job even if they wanted it. Pot is more important than making a living. FF and minimum wage jobs seldom drug test, so these younger people end up there. I had a young couple I rented an apartment to a few years back. They lived here for seven years. Good people, not lazy at all, but they worked FF jobs and couldn't improve themselves because of pot.

It was always my hope they would quit the dope and seek careers before it's too late. If Democrats get in charge, and do raise minimum wage to $15.00 per hour, those two people will never get off of dope and end up in their 40's with no experience except in making fries and pizza. Then it's too late to get an education or learn a trade.

 

[karpenter]

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?

You Could Marry Rich
And Swap Out Even Richer
Like John Kerry

Or Just Start At The Bottom Of The Political Ladder
Like That New Gal From The Bronx
Or Bernie Sanders Who Was Living Off His Parents In A Car
When He Started His Political Career

Politics Is Very Lucrative Prospect
Ask Pelosi, Clinton, Waters
Anyone On Capitol Hill

 

[expat_panama]

...The worker who was making $15.00 an hour will now make $15.25 an hour....

This is a common misunderstanding of minimum wage laws.

They don't make employers pay more, they simply outlaw paying someone less. An employer will only pay someone $15.25 per hour if that employee can produce more than $15.25 per hour in profit. Otherwise the employee gets sacked and the employer finds someone else who can.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

...The worker who was making $15.00 an hour will now make $15.25 an hour....

This is a common misunderstanding of minimum wage laws.

They don't make employers pay more, they simply outlaw paying someone less. An employer will only pay someone $15.25 per hour if that employee can produce more than $15.25 per hour in profit. Otherwise the employee gets sacked and the employer finds someone else who can.

No, if somebody was with a company for ten years, and after the new hike, finds themselves back at minimum wage, they are going to want a lot more for their labor.

I make more than that, but if 15 dollars is the minimum, I'm going to want a raise myself, and a damn good sized raise as well. Everybody will demand more money. That's how the Domino effect works.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You Could Marry Rich
And Swap Out Even Richer
Like John Kerry

Or you can join the military like John Kerry. Stay in the armed forces for 20 years, and you can retire and live off the pension. You can even get a part-time or full-time job on top of what the government is paying you.