Republican top priority.....Raise taxes on the poor

[Conservative65]

Yes and what has been proven over and over is that tax cuts for corporations do very little to stimulate job growth.

What tax cuts for corporations? Rates are 35%. Highest in the world.

Supply side economics is one of the biggest political lie of all time.

Of course it is, everyone knows that raising taxes creates jobs and growth.
If we don't have enough of either, it just means our taxes aren't high enough. LOL!

Cutting taxes does jack shit for creating jobs. Why? Because stimulating supply means jack shit if you don't stimulate demand. Seriously think about it. Say you have a shoe business that has a steady supply each month. You sell a total of 200 pairs in your store each month. You receive a tax cut which allows you to sell 300 in your store instead of 200 per month. The demand hasn't changed. You would still sell 300 shoes at the same rate as before. Meaning at the end of the month you would have 100 shoes leftover. That 100 would only carry over to the next month.

There is no problem with supply in today's economy. What we lack is the demand to meet it. Low wages is what feeds it.

I created my demand by furthering my education, advancing where I work, and improving my skills. You want demand increased for some by simply handing them more money for nothing. I have yet to hear one of them say what they would be willing to do if they got what amounted to a 40% raise (from $7.25 to $10.10/hour). Last time I got that kind of raise I actually had to have earned it and do more as a result of it. They bitch and whine to get theirs.

Tell me how exactly did you increase your skills? On the job training? I'm sure that was nice back then when hiring was plentiful and you were hired at entry level.

Aside from that, how can poor people learn new skills? They are too poor to get the education for new skills. They are stuck where they are.

Last time I looked, everyone in this country has the opportunity to go to school through the 12th grade. I've shown you that those without a high school diploma account for about 1/3 of those in poverty. Where are the other two thirds? Since poverty is set at an income amount based on number of people, how many of that 2/3 is just enough above the level to not be considered in poverty but so close that the thousand dollars more they have doens't make difference?

They have people like you that can pay for their training since you claim to be so compassionate. How many of those you say can't afford new skills have you funded personally? I need a specific number but I'm betting zero.

Hey no doubt not having a diploma limits you, but given that 2/3 of poor people do have diplomas it doesn't say much having one nowadays huh?

It's more than having a piece of paper. If you graduate with a D average, who the hell do you think is going to hire you except those paying low wages because you've have low skills and cognitive ability.

By the way, there are plenty of jobs requiring a high school diploma that pay well above minimum wage. I served as an elected commissioner for the local fire department in my town. That is one example of a job that most places require a high school diploma to get hired. We started our people at somewhere around $27,000 year plus benefits with a work chedule of 24 hours on and 48 hours off. Many work part time jobs on their days off by choice.

 

[JakeStarkey]

How exactly do you measure this wage issue? Businesses pay the bare minimum because they can get away with it. It's how they maximize profit.

However the one doing the paying measures it. Since it's not your business, it's not your place to tele else what they should pay their employees. If you want to make that determination for someone, start your own business, pay what you want, and no one will tell you otherwise.

Do you know why businesses go into business?

A relationship between an employer and employee is give and take. They rely on one another. The employee deserves a wage they can live off of. Now you'll say "well the employee can work somewhere else!". Well that doesn't work if millions of people have NO CHOICE but to take a low wage job. Employees are at the mercy of the low wages. You can deny that all you want but it's still true.

Wrong, you only "deserve" what your labor is worth to your employer. The employer does not owe you a lifestyle of your choosing.

The employer deserves to offer a fair wage.

Lincoln was absolutely right that labor always precedes capital in importance.

If the employer, meaning the one paying the wage, determines a particular set of skills is worth a certain wage, who the hell do you think you are to say otherwise? If the person's skills are worth $8/hour and they get $8/hour, that's fair.

If Lincoln thinks someone with a set of skills worth a certain amount should get paid more, dig his ass up and let him pay it. Better yet, you start your own business and pay a wage I dictate you pay.

Then unionize and force the employer, at the cost of his business, to offer a fair wage.

Lincoln is right, you are wrong, and so be it.

This argument is only about power, and business has far too much.

 

[Billy000]

A relationship between an employer and employee is give and take. They rely on one another. The employee deserves a wage they can live off of. Now you'll say "well the employee can work somewhere else!". Well that doesn't work if millions of people have NO CHOICE but to take a low wage job. Employees are at the mercy of the low wages. You can deny that all you want but it's still true.

An employee deserves wage based on his/her skills. If that wage is equivalent to the skill level and it isn't enough, there are two options. Increase the skill level or get people like you to take them in.

If they have no choice but to take a law wage job because they have low skills, why is that the employer's fault and duty to pay them more than those skills are worth? Logical not emotional answer please.

Like I said the relationship is give and take between them. Because the employee is at the mercy of the low wage economy, they are stuck where they are. Businesses simply have an obligation to pay more. It's what's fair. That fairness is based on logic.

They aren't stuck if they offer skills someone considers valuable. If they have little to no skills, they are stuck but it has nothing to do with their employer.

What obligation? Businesses should pay what the business deems is fair for the skills of that job. Arguing from a fairness standpoint is emotional not logical unless you define logic as you thinking you can determine how much some business you don't own should pay or are willing to say paying someone above the skills for the job is logical. If you do, you should look up the word logic.

I challenge you to start a business and let me dictate the wages you pay. That's what you're doing for someone else's business. Interested?

The pay a business pays is hardly "what it deems fair" nowadays. They pay as low as they can get away with.

One of the main reasons why electricians are paid so well is because they are in a very profitable business. If the business is less profitable, they pay as low as they can get away with. That is the reality of today's economy of low economic demand.

Since it's not your business, it's not your place to determine what is and isn't fair. That's the problem with you pro government Liberals. You think something is your place when all you need to do is stay out of it. You don't have to like what some one else pays just understand that you need to butt out. Your kind wants the government out of people's personal choices until those choices don't suit you. That's when you think it's OK to make an exception and butt in. I've provided you with that exception in the form of a challenge. You don't seem interested in accepting it but you do seem interested in continuing to think what a business that isn't yours should do when what you need to do is mind your own fucking business.

Your argument that gov should stay completely out of the market is a philosophical one. Its a matter of perspective. You advocate for business owners and I advocate for workers. Is one more important than the other? According to you a worker should have no rights and a business should call the shots despite their relationship being give and take.

 

[Conservative65]

Instead of cutting corporate taxes by $440 billion, why don't Republicans dedicate that money to paying down the $18 trillion debt?

That is what they have been screaming about the last six years

Yes and what has been proven over and over is that tax cuts for corporations do very little to stimulate job growth. Supply side economics is one of the biggest political lie of all time.

Yes and what has been proven over and over is that tax cuts for corporations do very little to stimulate job growth.

What tax cuts for corporations? Rates are 35%. Highest in the world.

Supply side economics is one of the biggest political lie of all time.

Of course it is, everyone knows that raising taxes creates jobs and growth.
If we don't have enough of either, it just means our taxes aren't high enough. LOL!

Cutting taxes does jack shit for creating jobs. Why? Because stimulating supply means jack shit if you don't stimulate demand. Seriously think about it. Say you have a shoe business that has a steady supply each month. You sell a total of 200 pairs in your store each month. You receive a tax cut which allows you to sell 300 in your store instead of 200 per month. The demand hasn't changed. You would still sell 300 shoes at the same rate as before. Meaning at the end of the month you would have 100 shoes leftover. That 100 would only carry over to the next month.

There is no problem with supply in today's economy. What we lack is the demand to meet it. Low wages is what feeds it.

I created my demand by furthering my education, advancing where I work, and improving my skills. You want demand increased for some by simply handing them more money for nothing. I have yet to hear one of them say what they would be willing to do if they got what amounted to a 40% raise (from $7.25 to $10.10/hour). Last time I got that kind of raise I actually had to have earned it and do more as a result of it. They bitch and whine to get theirs.

Tell me how exactly did you increase your skills? On the job training? I'm sure that was nice back then when hiring was plentiful and you were hired at entry level.

Aside from that, how can poor people learn new skills? They are too poor to get the education for new skills. They are stuck where they are.

I have three college degrees, two of which are advanced. I went in with skills and because my skills allowed me to make good money, I took it upon myself to further my education while working. When I was working on my undergraduate degree, it was paid for by academic and athletic scholarships. In case you didn't know, neither of those came about by sitting on my ass begging for them or by having a D average in high school.

 

[Billy000]

Cutting taxes does jack shit for creating jobs. Why? Because stimulating supply means jack shit if you don't stimulate demand. Seriously think about it. Say you have a shoe business that has a steady supply each month. You sell a total of 200 pairs in your store each month. You receive a tax cut which allows you to sell 300 in your store instead of 200 per month. The demand hasn't changed. You would still sell 300 shoes at the same rate as before. Meaning at the end of the month you would have 100 shoes leftover. That 100 would only carry over to the next month.

There is no problem with supply in today's economy. What we lack is the demand to meet it. Low wages is what feeds it.

I created my demand by furthering my education, advancing where I work, and improving my skills. You want demand increased for some by simply handing them more money for nothing. I have yet to hear one of them say what they would be willing to do if they got what amounted to a 40% raise (from $7.25 to $10.10/hour). Last time I got that kind of raise I actually had to have earned it and do more as a result of it. They bitch and whine to get theirs.

Tell me how exactly did you increase your skills? On the job training? I'm sure that was nice back then when hiring was plentiful and you were hired at entry level.

Aside from that, how can poor people learn new skills? They are too poor to get the education for new skills. They are stuck where they are.

Last time I looked, everyone in this country has the opportunity to go to school through the 12th grade. I've shown you that those without a high school diploma account for about 1/3 of those in poverty. Where are the other two thirds? Since poverty is set at an income amount based on number of people, how many of that 2/3 is just enough above the level to not be considered in poverty but so close that the thousand dollars more they have doens't make difference?

They have people like you that can pay for their training since you claim to be so compassionate. How many of those you say can't afford new skills have you funded personally? I need a specific number but I'm betting zero.

Hey no doubt not having a diploma limits you, but given that 2/3 of poor people do have diplomas it doesn't say much having one nowadays huh?

It's more than having a piece of paper. If you graduate with a D average, who the hell do you think is going to hire you except those paying low wages because you've have low skills and cognitive ability.

By the way, there are plenty of jobs requiring a high school diploma that pay well above minimum wage. I served as an elected commissioner for the local fire department in my town. That is one example of a job that most places require a high school diploma to get hired. We started our people at somewhere around $27,000 year plus benefits with a work chedule of 24 hours on and 48 hours off. Many work part time jobs on their days off by choice.

Um since when has an employer cared about one'a GPA in high school?

 

[Billy000]

Yes and what has been proven over and over is that tax cuts for corporations do very little to stimulate job growth. Supply side economics is one of the biggest political lie of all time.

Yes and what has been proven over and over is that tax cuts for corporations do very little to stimulate job growth.

What tax cuts for corporations? Rates are 35%. Highest in the world.

Supply side economics is one of the biggest political lie of all time.

Of course it is, everyone knows that raising taxes creates jobs and growth.
If we don't have enough of either, it just means our taxes aren't high enough. LOL!

Cutting taxes does jack shit for creating jobs. Why? Because stimulating supply means jack shit if you don't stimulate demand. Seriously think about it. Say you have a shoe business that has a steady supply each month. You sell a total of 200 pairs in your store each month. You receive a tax cut which allows you to sell 300 in your store instead of 200 per month. The demand hasn't changed. You would still sell 300 shoes at the same rate as before. Meaning at the end of the month you would have 100 shoes leftover. That 100 would only carry over to the next month.

There is no problem with supply in today's economy. What we lack is the demand to meet it. Low wages is what feeds it.

I created my demand by furthering my education, advancing where I work, and improving my skills. You want demand increased for some by simply handing them more money for nothing. I have yet to hear one of them say what they would be willing to do if they got what amounted to a 40% raise (from $7.25 to $10.10/hour). Last time I got that kind of raise I actually had to have earned it and do more as a result of it. They bitch and whine to get theirs.

Tell me how exactly did you increase your skills? On the job training? I'm sure that was nice back then when hiring was plentiful and you were hired at entry level.

Aside from that, how can poor people learn new skills? They are too poor to get the education for new skills. They are stuck where they are.

I have three college degrees, two of which are advanced. I went in with skills and because my skills allowed me to make good money, I took it upon myself to further my education while working. When I was working on my undergraduate degree, it was paid for by academic and athletic scholarships. In case you didn't know, neither of those came about by sitting on my ass begging for them or by having a D average in high school.

Again your anecdotal story predates 2008 and thus today's economy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Which is all unimportant to this discussion.

I have four college degrees, was in the Army Airborne [infantry], was an allstar athlete, so my opinion is as important as yours, Conservative65, right?

You have an opinion. Goody.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I created my demand by furthering my education, advancing where I work, and improving my skills. You want demand increased for some by simply handing them more money for nothing. I have yet to hear one of them say what they would be willing to do if they got what amounted to a 40% raise (from $7.25 to $10.10/hour). Last time I got that kind of raise I actually had to have earned it and do more as a result of it. They bitch and whine to get theirs.

Tell me how exactly did you increase your skills? On the job training? I'm sure that was nice back then when hiring was plentiful and you were hired at entry level.

Aside from that, how can poor people learn new skills? They are too poor to get the education for new skills. They are stuck where they are.

Last time I looked, everyone in this country has the opportunity to go to school through the 12th grade. I've shown you that those without a high school diploma account for about 1/3 of those in poverty. Where are the other two thirds? Since poverty is set at an income amount based on number of people, how many of that 2/3 is just enough above the level to not be considered in poverty but so close that the thousand dollars more they have doens't make difference?

They have people like you that can pay for their training since you claim to be so compassionate. How many of those you say can't afford new skills have you funded personally? I need a specific number but I'm betting zero.

Hey no doubt not having a diploma limits you, but given that 2/3 of poor people do have diplomas it doesn't say much having one nowadays huh?

It's more than having a piece of paper. If you graduate with a D average, who the hell do you think is going to hire you except those paying low wages because you've have low skills and cognitive ability.

By the way, there are plenty of jobs requiring a high school diploma that pay well above minimum wage. I served as an elected commissioner for the local fire department in my town. That is one example of a job that most places require a high school diploma to get hired. We started our people at somewhere around $27,000 year plus benefits with a work chedule of 24 hours on and 48 hours off. Many work part time jobs on their days off by choice.

Um since when has an employer cared about one'a GPA in high school?

I think the point is more related to one's ability to get a scholarship or get into a decent college.

 

[Conservative65]

However the one doing the paying measures it. Since it's not your business, it's not your place to tele else what they should pay their employees. If you want to make that determination for someone, start your own business, pay what you want, and no one will tell you otherwise.

Do you know why businesses go into business?

A relationship between an employer and employee is give and take. They rely on one another. The employee deserves a wage they can live off of. Now you'll say "well the employee can work somewhere else!". Well that doesn't work if millions of people have NO CHOICE but to take a low wage job. Employees are at the mercy of the low wages. You can deny that all you want but it's still true.

Wrong, you only "deserve" what your labor is worth to your employer. The employer does not owe you a lifestyle of your choosing.

The employer deserves to offer a fair wage.

Lincoln was absolutely right that labor always precedes capital in importance.

If the employer, meaning the one paying the wage, determines a particular set of skills is worth a certain wage, who the hell do you think you are to say otherwise? If the person's skills are worth $8/hour and they get $8/hour, that's fair.

If Lincoln thinks someone with a set of skills worth a certain amount should get paid more, dig his ass up and let him pay it. Better yet, you start your own business and pay a wage I dictate you pay.

Then unionize and force the employer, at the cost of his business, to offer a fair wage.

Lincoln is right, you are wrong, and so be it.

This argument is only about power, and business has far too much.

Fuck unions. If they force an employer, that's called extortion.

This argument is about a bunch of whiny little bitches that demand they be given a higher wage for nothing. When a fast food worker can get my order correct more often than not, they can ask for more.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Which is all unimportant to this discussion.

I have four college degrees, was in the Army Airborne [infantry], was an allstar athlete, so my opinion is as important as yours, Conservative65, right?

You have an opinion. Goody.

Four degrees? Lemme guess..

Druid Philosophy
Post Bolshevik Vagina Studies
Basket Weaving
Ant Farming

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

A relationship between an employer and employee is give and take. They rely on one another. The employee deserves a wage they can live off of. Now you'll say "well the employee can work somewhere else!". Well that doesn't work if millions of people have NO CHOICE but to take a low wage job. Employees are at the mercy of the low wages. You can deny that all you want but it's still true.

Wrong, you only "deserve" what your labor is worth to your employer. The employer does not owe you a lifestyle of your choosing.

The employer deserves to offer a fair wage.

Lincoln was absolutely right that labor always precedes capital in importance.

If the employer, meaning the one paying the wage, determines a particular set of skills is worth a certain wage, who the hell do you think you are to say otherwise? If the person's skills are worth $8/hour and they get $8/hour, that's fair.

If Lincoln thinks someone with a set of skills worth a certain amount should get paid more, dig his ass up and let him pay it. Better yet, you start your own business and pay a wage I dictate you pay.

Then unionize and force the employer, at the cost of his business, to offer a fair wage.

Lincoln is right, you are wrong, and so be it.

This argument is only about power, and business has far too much.

Fuck unions. If they force an employer, that's called extortion.

This argument is about a bunch of whiny little bitches that demand they be given a higher wage for nothing. When a fast food worker can get my order correct more often than not, they can ask for more.

Aside from the shittiness of fast food, fast food workers are a prime reason to not eat fast food.

 

[Conservative65]

Which is all unimportant to this discussion.

I have four college degrees, was in the Army Airborne [infantry], was an allstar athlete, so my opinion is as important as yours, Conservative65, right?

You have an opinion. Goody.

Your opinion is as important just not correct.

 

[Conservative65]

Wrong, you only "deserve" what your labor is worth to your employer. The employer does not owe you a lifestyle of your choosing.

The employer deserves to offer a fair wage.

Lincoln was absolutely right that labor always precedes capital in importance.

If the employer, meaning the one paying the wage, determines a particular set of skills is worth a certain wage, who the hell do you think you are to say otherwise? If the person's skills are worth $8/hour and they get $8/hour, that's fair.

If Lincoln thinks someone with a set of skills worth a certain amount should get paid more, dig his ass up and let him pay it. Better yet, you start your own business and pay a wage I dictate you pay.

Then unionize and force the employer, at the cost of his business, to offer a fair wage.

Lincoln is right, you are wrong, and so be it.

This argument is only about power, and business has far too much.

Fuck unions. If they force an employer, that's called extortion.

This argument is about a bunch of whiny little bitches that demand they be given a higher wage for nothing. When a fast food worker can get my order correct more often than not, they can ask for more.

Aside from the shittiness of fast food, fast food workers are a prime reason to not eat fast food.

In July, I did my own experiment at the local fast food place where I work. I went 21 of the 24 days I worked that month. While I didn't eat the crap, I was gaining evidence to prove that fast food workers aren't worth the $15/hour they demand. When I ordered, I had them add or leave something such as mayo or pickles. 11 of the 21 times, the order was wrong. On one occassion, I ordered a new menu item without mayo or pickles to be told that neither came on it. When I got it, it had both. I took the item to the order taker who responded by saying I should have simply wiped off the mayo and taken off the pickles.

 

[Conservative65]

Yes and what has been proven over and over is that tax cuts for corporations do very little to stimulate job growth.

What tax cuts for corporations? Rates are 35%. Highest in the world.

Supply side economics is one of the biggest political lie of all time.

Of course it is, everyone knows that raising taxes creates jobs and growth.
If we don't have enough of either, it just means our taxes aren't high enough. LOL!

Cutting taxes does jack shit for creating jobs. Why? Because stimulating supply means jack shit if you don't stimulate demand. Seriously think about it. Say you have a shoe business that has a steady supply each month. You sell a total of 200 pairs in your store each month. You receive a tax cut which allows you to sell 300 in your store instead of 200 per month. The demand hasn't changed. You would still sell 300 shoes at the same rate as before. Meaning at the end of the month you would have 100 shoes leftover. That 100 would only carry over to the next month.

There is no problem with supply in today's economy. What we lack is the demand to meet it. Low wages is what feeds it.

I created my demand by furthering my education, advancing where I work, and improving my skills. You want demand increased for some by simply handing them more money for nothing. I have yet to hear one of them say what they would be willing to do if they got what amounted to a 40% raise (from $7.25 to $10.10/hour). Last time I got that kind of raise I actually had to have earned it and do more as a result of it. They bitch and whine to get theirs.

Tell me how exactly did you increase your skills? On the job training? I'm sure that was nice back then when hiring was plentiful and you were hired at entry level.

Aside from that, how can poor people learn new skills? They are too poor to get the education for new skills. They are stuck where they are.

I have three college degrees, two of which are advanced. I went in with skills and because my skills allowed me to make good money, I took it upon myself to further my education while working. When I was working on my undergraduate degree, it was paid for by academic and athletic scholarships. In case you didn't know, neither of those came about by sitting on my ass begging for them or by having a D average in high school.

Again your anecdotal story predates 2008 and thus today's economy.

It does? Perhaps you can tell me when I earned my last degree.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The employer deserves to offer a fair wage.

Lincoln was absolutely right that labor always precedes capital in importance.

If the employer, meaning the one paying the wage, determines a particular set of skills is worth a certain wage, who the hell do you think you are to say otherwise? If the person's skills are worth $8/hour and they get $8/hour, that's fair.

If Lincoln thinks someone with a set of skills worth a certain amount should get paid more, dig his ass up and let him pay it. Better yet, you start your own business and pay a wage I dictate you pay.

Then unionize and force the employer, at the cost of his business, to offer a fair wage.

Lincoln is right, you are wrong, and so be it.

This argument is only about power, and business has far too much.

Fuck unions. If they force an employer, that's called extortion.

This argument is about a bunch of whiny little bitches that demand they be given a higher wage for nothing. When a fast food worker can get my order correct more often than not, they can ask for more.

Aside from the shittiness of fast food, fast food workers are a prime reason to not eat fast food.

In July, I did my own experiment at the local fast food place where I work. I went 21 of the 24 days I worked that month. While I didn't eat the crap, I was gaining evidence to prove that fast food workers aren't worth the $15/hour they demand. When I ordered, I had them add or leave something such as mayo or pickles. 11 of the 21 times, the order was wrong. On one occassion, I ordered a new menu item without mayo or pickles to be told that neither came on it. When I got it, it had both. I took the item to the order taker who responded by saying I should have simply wiped off the mayo and taken off the pickles.

There's a reason they work there... aside form the kids that do it. Show me a 30+ year old fast food worker, and I'll show you someone with absolutely zilch going on.

 

[Billy000]

Cutting taxes does jack shit for creating jobs. Why? Because stimulating supply means jack shit if you don't stimulate demand. Seriously think about it. Say you have a shoe business that has a steady supply each month. You sell a total of 200 pairs in your store each month. You receive a tax cut which allows you to sell 300 in your store instead of 200 per month. The demand hasn't changed. You would still sell 300 shoes at the same rate as before. Meaning at the end of the month you would have 100 shoes leftover. That 100 would only carry over to the next month.

There is no problem with supply in today's economy. What we lack is the demand to meet it. Low wages is what feeds it.

I created my demand by furthering my education, advancing where I work, and improving my skills. You want demand increased for some by simply handing them more money for nothing. I have yet to hear one of them say what they would be willing to do if they got what amounted to a 40% raise (from $7.25 to $10.10/hour). Last time I got that kind of raise I actually had to have earned it and do more as a result of it. They bitch and whine to get theirs.

Tell me how exactly did you increase your skills? On the job training? I'm sure that was nice back then when hiring was plentiful and you were hired at entry level.

Aside from that, how can poor people learn new skills? They are too poor to get the education for new skills. They are stuck where they are.

I have three college degrees, two of which are advanced. I went in with skills and because my skills allowed me to make good money, I took it upon myself to further my education while working. When I was working on my undergraduate degree, it was paid for by academic and athletic scholarships. In case you didn't know, neither of those came about by sitting on my ass begging for them or by having a D average in high school.

Again your anecdotal story predates 2008 and thus today's economy.

It does? Perhaps you can tell me when I earned my last degree.

Well even if you began your education after 2008 for your final degree I assume you were already making a good living off of your first two?

 

[Conservative65]

I created my demand by furthering my education, advancing where I work, and improving my skills. You want demand increased for some by simply handing them more money for nothing. I have yet to hear one of them say what they would be willing to do if they got what amounted to a 40% raise (from $7.25 to $10.10/hour). Last time I got that kind of raise I actually had to have earned it and do more as a result of it. They bitch and whine to get theirs.

Tell me how exactly did you increase your skills? On the job training? I'm sure that was nice back then when hiring was plentiful and you were hired at entry level.

Aside from that, how can poor people learn new skills? They are too poor to get the education for new skills. They are stuck where they are.

Last time I looked, everyone in this country has the opportunity to go to school through the 12th grade. I've shown you that those without a high school diploma account for about 1/3 of those in poverty. Where are the other two thirds? Since poverty is set at an income amount based on number of people, how many of that 2/3 is just enough above the level to not be considered in poverty but so close that the thousand dollars more they have doens't make difference?

They have people like you that can pay for their training since you claim to be so compassionate. How many of those you say can't afford new skills have you funded personally? I need a specific number but I'm betting zero.

Hey no doubt not having a diploma limits you, but given that 2/3 of poor people do have diplomas it doesn't say much having one nowadays huh?

It's more than having a piece of paper. If you graduate with a D average, who the hell do you think is going to hire you except those paying low wages because you've have low skills and cognitive ability.

By the way, there are plenty of jobs requiring a high school diploma that pay well above minimum wage. I served as an elected commissioner for the local fire department in my town. That is one example of a job that most places require a high school diploma to get hired. We started our people at somewhere around $27,000 year plus benefits with a work chedule of 24 hours on and 48 hours off. Many work part time jobs on their days off by choice.

Um since when has an employer cared about one'a GPA in high school?

They don't but you missed the point of using the D average as an example. Potential employees that have a low one will show it in ways where a GPA isn't necessary. I've had applications given to me where the idiot misspelled his own name and wrote it in pencil. I don't need to know GPA to know they aren't getting hired.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Which is all unimportant to this discussion.

I have four college degrees, was in the Army Airborne [infantry], was an allstar athlete, so my opinion is as important as yours, Conservative65, right?

You have an opinion. Goody.

Your opinion is as important just not correct.

It's every bit as relevant as yours: which is not much.

 

[Conservative65]

If the employer, meaning the one paying the wage, determines a particular set of skills is worth a certain wage, who the hell do you think you are to say otherwise? If the person's skills are worth $8/hour and they get $8/hour, that's fair.

If Lincoln thinks someone with a set of skills worth a certain amount should get paid more, dig his ass up and let him pay it. Better yet, you start your own business and pay a wage I dictate you pay.

Then unionize and force the employer, at the cost of his business, to offer a fair wage.

Lincoln is right, you are wrong, and so be it.

This argument is only about power, and business has far too much.

Fuck unions. If they force an employer, that's called extortion.

This argument is about a bunch of whiny little bitches that demand they be given a higher wage for nothing. When a fast food worker can get my order correct more often than not, they can ask for more.

Aside from the shittiness of fast food, fast food workers are a prime reason to not eat fast food.

In July, I did my own experiment at the local fast food place where I work. I went 21 of the 24 days I worked that month. While I didn't eat the crap, I was gaining evidence to prove that fast food workers aren't worth the $15/hour they demand. When I ordered, I had them add or leave something such as mayo or pickles. 11 of the 21 times, the order was wrong. On one occassion, I ordered a new menu item without mayo or pickles to be told that neither came on it. When I got it, it had both. I took the item to the order taker who responded by saying I should have simply wiped off the mayo and taken off the pickles.

There's a reason they work there... aside form the kids that do it. Show me a 30+ year old fast food worker, and I'll show you someone with absolutely zilch going on.

There is a reason someone 30+ works in fast food with the exception of a retired person wanting to have something to do. My dad and I go to the local McDonalds quite often to have coffee. There is an older lady, older than me and younger than my dad, who works there. We both know her and know she doesn't need to work but simply wants something to do. She's the exception. Then there's the typical fast food worker that couldn't make change for a $5 bill on a $4.50 order if the cash regislter didn't tell them how much.

 

[Conservative65]

Which is all unimportant to this discussion.

I have four college degrees, was in the Army Airborne [infantry], was an allstar athlete, so my opinion is as important as yours, Conservative65, right?

You have an opinion. Goody.

Your opinion is as important just not correct.

It's every bit as relevant as yours: which is not much.

I agree just not correct on your part.