To those saying flipping burgers or dunking fries deserves 15.00 per hour...

[Papageorgio]

My issue is when the tax incentives leave, so will the job. It happens a lot in corporate America. There are programs that currently allow a business to hire those fresh out prison and it allows for some nice tax breaks and some programs will even pay part of the employees wages, then when the six month incentive disappears, the person is laid off or fired.

So short term it works, long term it won't.

No the incentives do not disappear. Every time the worker qualifies for a pay raise, the employer gives them the cost adjustment and keeps the same incentive year for year.

It depends what the incentives are, I am for stream lining the tax code not complicating it.

I've repeated them a few times on this thread:

1) I'd allow employers to hire whomever they want. They can hire foreigners without papers, an all white staff, an all black one, pay whatever they want

2) I would leave the current tax rate in place (which is about 39 percent IIRC)

3) I would then create these incentives for employers who want to reduce their taxes

A) Substantial tax break for an employer to hire an all American staff

B) Additional tax breaks to take people off unemployment, welfare, disability, etc.

C) Another tax break for employers that start employees at a wage above 15 percent higher than the poverty level with yearly increases above inflation

D) Tax incentives for employers to hire in accordance with the government's guidelines on non-discriminatory hiring (providing the employer qualifies under article A of this list.)

Employers could then get their taxes reduced to about 15 percent or less. Giving tax breaks without the employer doing something in return is silly. Let them earn it. (That is from post # 890) Did you see what I did there?

Number one I am against, we need to help our citizens and fix our problems before we help others.

I'm okay with number 2.

3.A Not sure about that one, I would need to see what a substantial tax break is.
B. I wouldn't care for, it creates job instability as an employer fires one person so they can hire another for a tax break, that would be a sum zero game.
C. Again it depends on the tax break, I am not a big corporate welfare guy.
D. I am against a business getting rewarded for following the law, so I would ask for something different in D.

I am for getting rid of many deductions, I did not go back and read #890.

Overall, it at least gets a ball rolling. It's the start of a discussion.

You are not understanding the entire bill, nor would you want to. Seems you only want to criticize it.

IF an employer fires one employee to hire another one, he not only loses the training time, he cannot use that employee for the tax break regarding annual pay increases.

At the worst end of the scale, entry level workers could get a year's experience, a livable wage and that might translate into motivated workers doing things that would help them get into a better financial position rather than relying on Uncle Scam and welfare.

I mentioned parts I liked yet you want to focus on me being critical. When you want to have a dialogue let me know.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

No the incentives do not disappear. Every time the worker qualifies for a pay raise, the employer gives them the cost adjustment and keeps the same incentive year for year.

It depends what the incentives are, I am for stream lining the tax code not complicating it.

I've repeated them a few times on this thread:

1) I'd allow employers to hire whomever they want. They can hire foreigners without papers, an all white staff, an all black one, pay whatever they want

2) I would leave the current tax rate in place (which is about 39 percent IIRC)

3) I would then create these incentives for employers who want to reduce their taxes

A) Substantial tax break for an employer to hire an all American staff

B) Additional tax breaks to take people off unemployment, welfare, disability, etc.

C) Another tax break for employers that start employees at a wage above 15 percent higher than the poverty level with yearly increases above inflation

D) Tax incentives for employers to hire in accordance with the government's guidelines on non-discriminatory hiring (providing the employer qualifies under article A of this list.)

Employers could then get their taxes reduced to about 15 percent or less. Giving tax breaks without the employer doing something in return is silly. Let them earn it. (That is from post # 890) Did you see what I did there?

Number one I am against, we need to help our citizens and fix our problems before we help others.

I'm okay with number 2.

3.A Not sure about that one, I would need to see what a substantial tax break is.
B. I wouldn't care for, it creates job instability as an employer fires one person so they can hire another for a tax break, that would be a sum zero game.
C. Again it depends on the tax break, I am not a big corporate welfare guy.
D. I am against a business getting rewarded for following the law, so I would ask for something different in D.

I am for getting rid of many deductions, I did not go back and read #890.

Overall, it at least gets a ball rolling. It's the start of a discussion.

You are not understanding the entire bill, nor would you want to. Seems you only want to criticize it.

IF an employer fires one employee to hire another one, he not only loses the training time, he cannot use that employee for the tax break regarding annual pay increases.

At the worst end of the scale, entry level workers could get a year's experience, a livable wage and that might translate into motivated workers doing things that would help them get into a better financial position rather than relying on Uncle Scam and welfare.

I mentioned parts I liked yet you want to focus on me being critical. When you want to have a dialogue let me know.

He doesn't want dialogue, he wants a soap box. His ideals are all based on Christian Identity theology - White Nationalist Christian. Most of what he puts out as his ideals, are already in place, he simply wants to be recognized by those that are gullible as looking like a leader, he is nothing more than a hack activist.

 

[Humorme]

To those who want to give all the power to the mega-corporations:

Walmart donated $325 million dollars in one year to charity. money cam

No the incentives do not disappear. Every time the worker qualifies for a pay raise, the employer gives them the cost adjustment and keeps the same incentive year for year.

It depends what the incentives are, I am for stream lining the tax code not complicating it.

I've repeated them a few times on this thread:

1) I'd allow employers to hire whomever they want. They can hire foreigners without papers, an all white staff, an all black one, pay whatever they want

2) I would leave the current tax rate in place (which is about 39 percent IIRC)

3) I would then create these incentives for employers who want to reduce their taxes

A) Substantial tax break for an employer to hire an all American staff

B) Additional tax breaks to take people off unemployment, welfare, disability, etc.

C) Another tax break for employers that start employees at a wage above 15 percent higher than the poverty level with yearly increases above inflation

D) Tax incentives for employers to hire in accordance with the government's guidelines on non-discriminatory hiring (providing the employer qualifies under article A of this list.)

Employers could then get their taxes reduced to about 15 percent or less. Giving tax breaks without the employer doing something in return is silly. Let them earn it. (That is from post # 890) Did you see what I did there?

Number one I am against, we need to help our citizens and fix our problems before we help others.

I'm okay with number 2.

3.A Not sure about that one, I would need to see what a substantial tax break is.
B. I wouldn't care for, it creates job instability as an employer fires one person so they can hire another for a tax break, that would be a sum zero game.
C. Again it depends on the tax break, I am not a big corporate welfare guy.
D. I am against a business getting rewarded for following the law, so I would ask for something different in D.

I am for getting rid of many deductions, I did not go back and read #890.

Overall, it at least gets a ball rolling. It's the start of a discussion.

You are not understanding the entire bill, nor would you want to. Seems you only want to criticize it.

IF an employer fires one employee to hire another one, he not only loses the training time, he cannot use that employee for the tax break regarding annual pay increases.

At the worst end of the scale, entry level workers could get a year's experience, a livable wage and that might translate into motivated workers doing things that would help them get into a better financial position rather than relying on Uncle Scam and welfare.

I mentioned parts I liked yet you want to focus on me being critical. When you want to have a dialogue let me know.

Same here. A discussion is a back and forth. Just remember, this is a discussion board. You might learn more if you ask questions before being critical. Isn't that what you really got pissed about at me in the first place?

 

[Papageorgio]

To those who want to give all the power to the mega-corporations:

Walmart donated $325 million dollars in one year to charity. money cam

It depends what the incentives are, I am for stream lining the tax code not complicating it.

I've repeated them a few times on this thread:

1) I'd allow employers to hire whomever they want. They can hire foreigners without papers, an all white staff, an all black one, pay whatever they want

2) I would leave the current tax rate in place (which is about 39 percent IIRC)

3) I would then create these incentives for employers who want to reduce their taxes

A) Substantial tax break for an employer to hire an all American staff

B) Additional tax breaks to take people off unemployment, welfare, disability, etc.

C) Another tax break for employers that start employees at a wage above 15 percent higher than the poverty level with yearly increases above inflation

D) Tax incentives for employers to hire in accordance with the government's guidelines on non-discriminatory hiring (providing the employer qualifies under article A of this list.)

Employers could then get their taxes reduced to about 15 percent or less. Giving tax breaks without the employer doing something in return is silly. Let them earn it. (That is from post # 890) Did you see what I did there?

Number one I am against, we need to help our citizens and fix our problems before we help others.

I'm okay with number 2.

3.A Not sure about that one, I would need to see what a substantial tax break is.
B. I wouldn't care for, it creates job instability as an employer fires one person so they can hire another for a tax break, that would be a sum zero game.
C. Again it depends on the tax break, I am not a big corporate welfare guy.
D. I am against a business getting rewarded for following the law, so I would ask for something different in D.

I am for getting rid of many deductions, I did not go back and read #890.

Overall, it at least gets a ball rolling. It's the start of a discussion.

You are not understanding the entire bill, nor would you want to. Seems you only want to criticize it.

IF an employer fires one employee to hire another one, he not only loses the training time, he cannot use that employee for the tax break regarding annual pay increases.

At the worst end of the scale, entry level workers could get a year's experience, a livable wage and that might translate into motivated workers doing things that would help them get into a better financial position rather than relying on Uncle Scam and welfare.

I mentioned parts I liked yet you want to focus on me being critical. When you want to have a dialogue let me know.

Same here. A discussion is a back and forth. Just remember, this is a discussion board. You might learn more if you ask questions before being critical. Isn't that what you really got pissed about at me in the first place?

Not sure what makes you think I am pissed at you, take care.

 

[Papageorgio]

It depends what the incentives are, I am for stream lining the tax code not complicating it.

I've repeated them a few times on this thread:

1) I'd allow employers to hire whomever they want. They can hire foreigners without papers, an all white staff, an all black one, pay whatever they want

2) I would leave the current tax rate in place (which is about 39 percent IIRC)

3) I would then create these incentives for employers who want to reduce their taxes

A) Substantial tax break for an employer to hire an all American staff

B) Additional tax breaks to take people off unemployment, welfare, disability, etc.

C) Another tax break for employers that start employees at a wage above 15 percent higher than the poverty level with yearly increases above inflation

D) Tax incentives for employers to hire in accordance with the government's guidelines on non-discriminatory hiring (providing the employer qualifies under article A of this list.)

Employers could then get their taxes reduced to about 15 percent or less. Giving tax breaks without the employer doing something in return is silly. Let them earn it. (That is from post # 890) Did you see what I did there?

Number one I am against, we need to help our citizens and fix our problems before we help others.

I'm okay with number 2.

3.A Not sure about that one, I would need to see what a substantial tax break is.
B. I wouldn't care for, it creates job instability as an employer fires one person so they can hire another for a tax break, that would be a sum zero game.
C. Again it depends on the tax break, I am not a big corporate welfare guy.
D. I am against a business getting rewarded for following the law, so I would ask for something different in D.

I am for getting rid of many deductions, I did not go back and read #890.

Overall, it at least gets a ball rolling. It's the start of a discussion.

You are not understanding the entire bill, nor would you want to. Seems you only want to criticize it.

IF an employer fires one employee to hire another one, he not only loses the training time, he cannot use that employee for the tax break regarding annual pay increases.

At the worst end of the scale, entry level workers could get a year's experience, a livable wage and that might translate into motivated workers doing things that would help them get into a better financial position rather than relying on Uncle Scam and welfare.

I mentioned parts I liked yet you want to focus on me being critical. When you want to have a dialogue let me know.

He doesn't want dialogue, he wants a soap box. His ideals are all based on Christian Identity theology - White Nationalist Christian. Most of what he puts out as his ideals, are already in place, he simply wants to be recognized by those that are gullible as looking like a leader, he is nothing more than a hack activist.

He wants everyone to agree with him 100%, I don’t. I don’t like corporate welfare. We have 95% employment, the market is right to start raising wages without tax breaks. Government is not the answer, never has been.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So let me get this straight.

Conservatives do not want low level workers to enjoy a living wage. Adults holding two or three low level jobs are doing so because, as Conservatives believe, they are somehow not motivated. Not motivated. What a thing to think about someone out there working two or three jobs.

Conservatives believe that labor is a commodity like raw materials or packaging. This labor commodity should be controlled by the owners of the means of production by suppressing wages, for the benefit of the owners and shareholders.

Conservatives believe that organized labor is not only unnecessary but a direct threat to the owners of the means of production. Organized labor would mean corruption, unreasonably high wages, benefits and a greater emphasis on workplace health and safety. Unions should be shunned at all cost, in spite of the historical fact that when labor unions were strong, the middle class was strong. Coincidence? Absolutely not.

Conservatives believe that the highest incomes deserve tax breaks while those who can least afford it should be taxed more, as illustrated in the current tax bill slithering through congress today.

And Conservatives believe that working class Americans should buy into this political ideology even though it offers little to the very voters they are courting.

That about sums it up from my perspective. I await the inevitable spin, lies and obfuscations.

It's interesting that you started this post with the premise that you were going to "get things straight", only to move right into being dead wrong about every single point and revealing that you know absolutely nothing about the things you mentioned. How can anyone believe you really want to "get straight" what conservatives think when you make it manifestly obvious you've never listened to a word any conservative has ever said?

1) Conservatives want very much for low-level workers to have a living wage. What they don't want is for elitist social engineers like you to mandate your definition of "living wage" according to whatever subjective whim sounds good to you at the moment, and force others to pay it out of THEIR pockets for labor that simply doesn't compare in value.

2) Appeals to extreme and very rare cases convince no one. Leftists are forever trying to pretend that their goal is only to help people who "work two or three low level jobs", or women who've been raped and impregnated by their own dads, or whatever, and then try to pretend that those people represent far more than the statistically insignificant numbers they actually do.

3) Labor IS a commodity. For the vast majority of the world, it is the only commodity they have to exchange for the goods and services they need. Even crazy homeless panhandlers on the street understand this, or they wouldn't hold up signs that say "Will work for food".

4) Neither side of the labor-wage transaction ever fully controls that transaction, unless a more-powerful third party - like the government - awards that control through force. And even then, the control is an illusion, because control really belongs to the third party, and can be snatched away as soon as that third party's support shifts. And a free and voluntary transaction clearly benefits everyone; otherwise, people wouldn't continue to choose to contribute their labor to enter into it.

5) Organized labor is a direct threat to pretty much everyone and everything. Anyone who thinks otherwise has somehow managed to live under a rock somewhere, ignorant of even the most basic history of unions. Organized labor DID lead to corruption, unreasonably high wages, the bankrupting of companies, and the loss of jobs. And pointlessly slurring from your premise of presumably apocryphal bad results into the wonders you're convinced unions actually produce only serves to make your argument more incoherent. Are you denigrating the conservative beliefs outlined to you by the voices in your head, or are you singing paeans to leftist beliefs? Pick a point.

6) Labor unions did not make the middle class strong. Even at the height of their popularity, they represented a statistically small group of workers and industries in small pockets of the country. The majority of the middle class has done without, and still managed to be strong. Also, just for the record, there's a rather large stretch between "organized labor" and "unions". It's one thing for you and your co-workers to approach management as a group to address concerns; it's another to establish the AFL-CIO.

7) Conservatives never believe ANYONE should pay higher taxes. But yes, tax breaks are obviously more deserved by people who actually PAY taxes, rather than simply handing out money taken from others to people who aren't paying anything, and calling it a "tax break".

8) I highly doubt you actually know a damned thing about what's contained in the current tax bill, other than a handful of hysterical leftist headlines you skimmed over as your search browser booted up.

9) If you really believe you have so much wonderful stuff to offer, why do you suppose it is that it has such trouble gaining any traction with the general population without lying about it?

10) That not only sums up your perspective, it sums up why your perspective should NEVER be offered as any sort of meaningful look at reality.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So let me get this straight.

Conservatives do not want low level workers to enjoy a living wage. Adults holding two or three low level jobs are doing so because, as Conservatives believe, they are somehow not motivated. Not motivated. What a thing to think about someone out there working two or three jobs.

Conservatives believe that labor is a commodity like raw materials or packaging. This labor commodity should be controlled by the owners of the means of production by suppressing wages, for the benefit of the owners and shareholders.

Conservatives believe that organized labor is not only unnecessary but a direct threat to the owners of the means of production. Organized labor would mean corruption, unreasonably high wages, benefits and a greater emphasis on workplace health and safety. Unions should be shunned at all cost, in spite of the historical fact that when labor unions were strong, the middle class was strong. Coincidence? Absolutely not.

Conservatives believe that the highest incomes deserve tax breaks while those who can least afford it should be taxed more, as illustrated in the current tax bill slithering through congress today.

And Conservatives believe that working class Americans should buy into this political ideology even though it offers little to the very voters they are courting.

That about sums it up from my perspective. I await the inevitable spin, lies and obfuscations.

Conservatives may cry foul, but I'd say that is a critical, but (in a strict lawyerly way) semi-accurate portrayal of what the conservative position is.

The problem is, Democrats / left wingers don't have a better solution. Just today Ted Cruz was on the radio reminiscing about a conversation with Bernie Sanders. Cruz asked Sanders what the difference was between Democrats and Socialists on economic issues. Bernie is reputed to not have an answer.

Socialism is not the answer either and has failed every time it's been tried. Even communist China is adopting some free market principles. All we need is a position not yet considered.

Gee, why on EARTH would conservatives "cry foul" about a "lawyerly, semi-accurate" statement that they're evil slave-mongers who want everyone else to suffer? Can't imagine what objection anyone could have to this reasoned, dispassionate assertion.

I also can't imagine what this sort of "damning with faint praise" non-assistance is supposed to offer anyone. If you're going to believe something, try ACTUALLY believing it, instead of stabbing your beliefs in the back and then half-heartedly offering its bleeding corpse to people as "well, it's better than nothing". Not the best sales technique.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There’s the rub! All our investments are diversified. Can you say where your investments are? What the ceos of those companies make ?

Board members and ceos are all in cahoots to hook each other up with other people’s money.

My investments are diversified but I purchased each stock, some in precious metals, and a percentage in cash.

Forty percent of the stocks I purchased after President Trump was elected have increased over 125% More than double. Twenty percent have increased 20% and the rest in between. I don't care what the CEO is paid, they are making money for the company and for me.

Send your complaint about the high wages of CEO's to former President Bill Clinton. He is responsible. If you're angry about CEO's, put your money under your mattress or in the bank.

Timmy acts as though the information about where money in retirement plans is invested is some great, unknowable secret, and investors are required to simply hand over the cash and remain helplessly ignorant about how it's managed. Definitely makes me doubt that he has any investments at all.

 

[Humorme]

So let me get this straight.

Conservatives do not want low level workers to enjoy a living wage. Adults holding two or three low level jobs are doing so because, as Conservatives believe, they are somehow not motivated. Not motivated. What a thing to think about someone out there working two or three jobs.

Conservatives believe that labor is a commodity like raw materials or packaging. This labor commodity should be controlled by the owners of the means of production by suppressing wages, for the benefit of the owners and shareholders.

Conservatives believe that organized labor is not only unnecessary but a direct threat to the owners of the means of production. Organized labor would mean corruption, unreasonably high wages, benefits and a greater emphasis on workplace health and safety. Unions should be shunned at all cost, in spite of the historical fact that when labor unions were strong, the middle class was strong. Coincidence? Absolutely not.

Conservatives believe that the highest incomes deserve tax breaks while those who can least afford it should be taxed more, as illustrated in the current tax bill slithering through congress today.

And Conservatives believe that working class Americans should buy into this political ideology even though it offers little to the very voters they are courting.

That about sums it up from my perspective. I await the inevitable spin, lies and obfuscations.

Conservatives may cry foul, but I'd say that is a critical, but (in a strict lawyerly way) semi-accurate portrayal of what the conservative position is.

The problem is, Democrats / left wingers don't have a better solution. Just today Ted Cruz was on the radio reminiscing about a conversation with Bernie Sanders. Cruz asked Sanders what the difference was between Democrats and Socialists on economic issues. Bernie is reputed to not have an answer.

Socialism is not the answer either and has failed every time it's been tried. Even communist China is adopting some free market principles. All we need is a position not yet considered.

Gee, why on EARTH would conservatives "cry foul" about a "lawyerly, semi-accurate" statement that they're evil slave-mongers who want everyone else to suffer? Can't imagine what objection anyone could have to this reasoned, dispassionate assertion.

I also can't imagine what this sort of "damning with faint praise" non-assistance is supposed to offer anyone. If you're going to believe something, try ACTUALLY believing it, instead of stabbing your beliefs in the back and then half-heartedly offering its bleeding corpse to people as "well, it's better than nothing". Not the best sales technique.

The conservatives pretend that I'm a liberal; the liberals pretend I'm conservative. Both sides hate my ideas because their party leadership didn't advocate it first.

Both sides are stuck on stupid, both waiting for the MSM to promote one of the major sides over the other while neither have a good history of working.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I can't say I'm an expert on the John Birch Society, but I suspect that government deciding what trades of labor for wages between free people is not part of their program.

If you seek to provide an incentive to higher wages, cut business taxes. Regardless, the push to unsustainable wages has resulted in the introduction of automation to restore equilibrium to the fast food industry.

There you go again, misrepresenting my position. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, DOES NOT mean they have adopted socialism. You need to learn how to read before I begin insulting your reading skills the way you're misrepresenting my position.

The real key to getting employers to provide higher wages and seek out American workers is to incentivize employers instead of penalizing them. Cutting taxes is absolute bullshit.

You advocate cutting taxes and what does the government get in exchange? Employers don't want to raise wages; the right don't want minimum wages. Are both sides going to be stuck on stupid for eternity? I said this before. Put me in charge and I'll give the employers MORE than they've ever asked for AND I could lower taxes without raising the federal deficit:

1) I'd allow employers to hire whomever they want. They can hire foreigners without papers, an all white staff, an all black one, pay whatever they want

2) I would leave the current tax rate in place (which is about 39 percent IIRC)

3) I would then create these incentives for employers who want to reduce their taxes

A) Substantial tax break for an employer to hire an all American staff

B) Additional tax breaks to take people off unemployment, welfare, disability, etc.

C) Another tax break for employers that start employees at a wage above 15 percent higher than the poverty level with yearly increases above inflation

D) Tax incentives for employers to hire in accordance with the government's guidelines on non-discriminatory hiring (providing the employer qualifies under article A of this list.)

Employers could then get their taxes reduced to about 15 percent or less. Giving tax breaks without the employer doing something in return is silly. Let them earn it.

If the employer does not pay a livable wage, the employee will end up on welfare. If you let employers hire people for chicken feed and lower their taxes while eliminating welfare, crime would spiral out of control... which means even higher taxes. Make employers earn their tax cuts. Give them the option.

Well, thank Allah you're not in charge, and never will be, Comrade.

Labor is a commodity. In a free system, employers compete for talent. When I need an engineer, I have to compete against other manufacturers to purchase the best talent I can afford. That's how a market operates. Low skill labor fails to command a high price because it is plentiful. Anyone can do it, and frankly a Kiosk can do it better than low skilled people can. Under a market economy, wages will rise to the level of value that an employee produces. Increasing fiat currency will not increase value. What this means is that increasing the number of dollars paid a counter worker in McDogfoods will not increase the value of that labor, it will merely reduce the representative value of each dollar. Confiscatory taxation as you advocate sharply increases the costs of a business and hence reduces the percent that can be used to fund labor. Your scheme in fact reduces the value that will be paid to the labor force.

If you ever decide to educate yourself so you actually know what the fuck you're talking about, here is a great start by one of the preeminent economists of our age.

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market_2.pdf

. Do you realize that you are a promoter of a socialized wage system at or near the bottom rungs in order to promote a capitalist system at or near the top of the food chain ??? Why does the capitalist system only apply at the top now, and not throughout the entire system ?

You'll need to explain your rather odd claim.

In what way am I, a Laissez Faire Capitalist, promoting a socialized wage? How does the free exchange of labor for wages, uncoerced by government do that?

. You want socialism to exist at or near the bottom in order to supply workers like mindless zombies to the upper levels, but meanwhile the upper levels respect a capitalist system only at or near the levels in which exist up above. Its classic Class Warfare is what it all amounts too.

You keep making the claim, but fail to offer anything to support your absurdity.

You are posting falsehoods.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[Why do you think government exist, and why we have laws and protections in this country ?

Why do I think government exists? Generally to oppress the masses under the rule of despots.

Why SHOULD government exist?

{Governments are formed among free men to secure the natural rights granted to them by God.} - John Locke

Look familiar? Jefferson borrowed it in our Declaration of Independence. Locke stated a fundamental truth, that government exists only to secure natural rights. What are these natural right? Life, liberty, and pursuit of our own fortunes (Jefferson used happiness). Hence the purpose of government is ensure that those with desire to deprive others of rights are constrained. This begins with constraint of invading armies from foreign nations who seek to rape and plunder the wealth of this land, as the nation of Mexico has been doing for decades, and which President Trump is finally standing up to. It follows with a system of laws and justice that ensures restraint on predatory acts internally by armed robbers and frauds.

Government does NOT legitimately exist to take the earned wealth of one person to give it to a person they more favor.

If people wouldn't have done the idiotic things in which they have done over the years, then government would have never got involved in the way that it has over the years. Do you think that Trump isn't going to use government power to make change in the country, and to enforce laws in this country ? All that government is ok though right ?? Look, all people want is respect that's all, but for some reason if that respect cost a few dollars to help people keep in tune with the cost of living in a state, then HELL NO huh ???

Irrelevant to the false claim you made that I am " a promoter of a socialized wage system at or near the bottom rungs in order to promote a capitalist system at or near the top of the food chain"

 

[Humorme]

There you go again, misrepresenting my position. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, DOES NOT mean they have adopted socialism. You need to learn how to read before I begin insulting your reading skills the way you're misrepresenting my position.

The real key to getting employers to provide higher wages and seek out American workers is to incentivize employers instead of penalizing them. Cutting taxes is absolute bullshit.

You advocate cutting taxes and what does the government get in exchange? Employers don't want to raise wages; the right don't want minimum wages. Are both sides going to be stuck on stupid for eternity? I said this before. Put me in charge and I'll give the employers MORE than they've ever asked for AND I could lower taxes without raising the federal deficit:

1) I'd allow employers to hire whomever they want. They can hire foreigners without papers, an all white staff, an all black one, pay whatever they want

2) I would leave the current tax rate in place (which is about 39 percent IIRC)

3) I would then create these incentives for employers who want to reduce their taxes

A) Substantial tax break for an employer to hire an all American staff

B) Additional tax breaks to take people off unemployment, welfare, disability, etc.

C) Another tax break for employers that start employees at a wage above 15 percent higher than the poverty level with yearly increases above inflation

D) Tax incentives for employers to hire in accordance with the government's guidelines on non-discriminatory hiring (providing the employer qualifies under article A of this list.)

Employers could then get their taxes reduced to about 15 percent or less. Giving tax breaks without the employer doing something in return is silly. Let them earn it.

If the employer does not pay a livable wage, the employee will end up on welfare. If you let employers hire people for chicken feed and lower their taxes while eliminating welfare, crime would spiral out of control... which means even higher taxes. Make employers earn their tax cuts. Give them the option.

Well, thank Allah you're not in charge, and never will be, Comrade.

Labor is a commodity. In a free system, employers compete for talent. When I need an engineer, I have to compete against other manufacturers to purchase the best talent I can afford. That's how a market operates. Low skill labor fails to command a high price because it is plentiful. Anyone can do it, and frankly a Kiosk can do it better than low skilled people can. Under a market economy, wages will rise to the level of value that an employee produces. Increasing fiat currency will not increase value. What this means is that increasing the number of dollars paid a counter worker in McDogfoods will not increase the value of that labor, it will merely reduce the representative value of each dollar. Confiscatory taxation as you advocate sharply increases the costs of a business and hence reduces the percent that can be used to fund labor. Your scheme in fact reduces the value that will be paid to the labor force.

If you ever decide to educate yourself so you actually know what the fuck you're talking about, here is a great start by one of the preeminent economists of our age.

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market_2.pdf

. Do you realize that you are a promoter of a socialized wage system at or near the bottom rungs in order to promote a capitalist system at or near the top of the food chain ??? Why does the capitalist system only apply at the top now, and not throughout the entire system ?

You'll need to explain your rather odd claim.

In what way am I, a Laissez Faire Capitalist, promoting a socialized wage? How does the free exchange of labor for wages, uncoerced by government do that?

. You want socialism to exist at or near the bottom in order to supply workers like mindless zombies to the upper levels, but meanwhile the upper levels respect a capitalist system only at or near the levels in which exist up above. Its classic Class Warfare is what it all amounts too.

You keep making the claim, but fail to offer anything to support your absurdity.

You are posting falsehoods.

You attack people over "falsehoods?" Surely you jest. Perhaps you can explain a few things to all of us here. In post # 893 you wrote:

"Labor is a commodity."

Let us start there since the word commodity, according to my sources, is synonymous with goods:

I found great synonyms for "commodity" on the new Thesaurus.com!

Frederic Bastiat, author of the book The Law wrote:

"When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will."

The current "conservative" position is highly inconsistent here. For the conservative position is to put a wall around America and keep foreign workers out, knowing that the free market is, supposedly, all about having zero restrictions on commodities / goods. Yet, on the surface, the nutty wall idea is being sold on the pretext of protecting U.S. jobs for Americans. Why? As you claim, they are only commodities. So, if I'm relying on you, it's within the scope of free market principles to protect jobs for Americans, but it is antithetical to your beliefs to pay them for an honest day's work???

How about anti - discriminatory laws. If an employer thinks he can profit better by hiring an all white, all black, or even an all foreign work-force, how do you support the notion of civil rights laws...OR are you against those?

 

[Uncensored2008]

My issue is when the tax incentives leave, so will the job. It happens a lot in corporate America. There are programs that currently allow a business to hire those fresh out prison and it allows for some nice tax breaks and some programs will even pay part of the employees wages, then when the six month incentive disappears, the person is laid off or fired.

So short term it works, long term it won't.

No the incentives do not disappear. Every time the worker qualifies for a pay raise, the employer gives them the cost adjustment and keeps the same incentive year for year.

It depends what the incentives are, I am for stream lining the tax code not complicating it.

I've repeated them a few times on this thread:

1) I'd allow employers to hire whomever they want. They can hire foreigners without papers, an all white staff, an all black one, pay whatever they want

2) I would leave the current tax rate in place (which is about 39 percent IIRC)

3) I would then create these incentives for employers who want to reduce their taxes

A) Substantial tax break for an employer to hire an all American staff

B) Additional tax breaks to take people off unemployment, welfare, disability, etc.

C) Another tax break for employers that start employees at a wage above 15 percent higher than the poverty level with yearly increases above inflation

D) Tax incentives for employers to hire in accordance with the government's guidelines on non-discriminatory hiring (providing the employer qualifies under article A of this list.)

Employers could then get their taxes reduced to about 15 percent or less. Giving tax breaks without the employer doing something in return is silly. Let them earn it. (That is from post # 890) Did you see what I did there?

Number one I am against, we need to help our citizens and fix our problems before we help others.

I'm okay with number 2.

3.A Not sure about that one, I would need to see what a substantial tax break is.
B. I wouldn't care for, it creates job instability as an employer fires one person so they can hire another for a tax break, that would be a sum zero game.
C. Again it depends on the tax break, I am not a big corporate welfare guy.
D. I am against a business getting rewarded for following the law, so I would ask for something different in D.

I am for getting rid of many deductions, I did not go back and read #890.

Overall, it at least gets a ball rolling. It's the start of a discussion.

You are not understanding the entire bill, nor would you want to. Seems you only want to criticize it.

IF an employer fires one employee to hire another one, he not only loses the training time, he cannot use that employee for the tax break regarding annual pay increases.

At the worst end of the scale, entry level workers could get a year's experience, a livable wage and that might translate into motivated workers doing things that would help them get into a better financial position rather than relying on Uncle Scam and welfare.

The bill has not been finalized. Neither you nor anyone here has seen or read the bill. You are offering only partisan blather based on the idiocy you read on the leftist hate sites.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, thank Allah you're not in charge, and never will be, Comrade.

Labor is a commodity. In a free system, employers compete for talent. When I need an engineer, I have to compete against other manufacturers to purchase the best talent I can afford. That's how a market operates. Low skill labor fails to command a high price because it is plentiful. Anyone can do it, and frankly a Kiosk can do it better than low skilled people can. Under a market economy, wages will rise to the level of value that an employee produces. Increasing fiat currency will not increase value. What this means is that increasing the number of dollars paid a counter worker in McDogfoods will not increase the value of that labor, it will merely reduce the representative value of each dollar. Confiscatory taxation as you advocate sharply increases the costs of a business and hence reduces the percent that can be used to fund labor. Your scheme in fact reduces the value that will be paid to the labor force.

If you ever decide to educate yourself so you actually know what the fuck you're talking about, here is a great start by one of the preeminent economists of our age.

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market_2.pdf

Go fuck yourself. You're a smart ass and this thread was progressing right along until you came here with your asinine childishness. You can disagree without the name calling. And Heil Hitler to you too.

So that would be "no" you are not interested in educating yourself with actual fact?

I'm shocked.....

I doubt you have any facts. When you start out calling me a communist, it shows you are so far from reality you probably don't have a clue about anything.

Those of you claiming to have ALL the facts usually have none. So, do your strawman thing and move on. Got a problem with me personally? Take it up in PM. We're done here.

Are you even semi-literate?

Labor is a commodity. In a free system, employers compete for talent. When I need an engineer, I have to compete against other manufacturers to purchase the best talent I can afford. That's how a market operates. Low skill labor fails to command a high price because it is plentiful. Anyone can do it, and frankly a Kiosk can do it better than low skilled people can. Under a market economy, wages will rise to the level of value that an employee produces. Increasing fiat currency will not increase value. What this means is that increasing the number of dollars paid a counter worker in McDogfoods will not increase the value of that labor, it will merely reduce the representative value of each dollar. Confiscatory taxation as you advocate sharply increases the costs of a business and hence reduces the percent that can be used to fund labor. Your scheme in fact reduces the value that will be paid to the labor force.

If you ever decide to educate yourself so you actually know what the fuck you're talking about, here is a great start by one of the preeminent economists of our age.

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market_2.pdf

When you have to ask other people about their level of literacy, you are probably lacking in your own.

I offered you precise words, you decided to dishonestly ignore what I wrote and instead chant leftist talking points.

If you wish to dispel your abject ignorance regarding economics, I offered you a link to Rothbard's magnus opus, entirely free of charge.

One can lead a socialist to knowledge, but one cannot make a socialist think.

 

[Uncensored2008]

To those who want to give all the power to the mega-corporations:

Walmart donated $325 million dollars in one year to charity. money cam

It depends what the incentives are, I am for stream lining the tax code not complicating it.

I've repeated them a few times on this thread:

1) I'd allow employers to hire whomever they want. They can hire foreigners without papers, an all white staff, an all black one, pay whatever they want

2) I would leave the current tax rate in place (which is about 39 percent IIRC)

3) I would then create these incentives for employers who want to reduce their taxes

A) Substantial tax break for an employer to hire an all American staff

B) Additional tax breaks to take people off unemployment, welfare, disability, etc.

C) Another tax break for employers that start employees at a wage above 15 percent higher than the poverty level with yearly increases above inflation

D) Tax incentives for employers to hire in accordance with the government's guidelines on non-discriminatory hiring (providing the employer qualifies under article A of this list.)

Employers could then get their taxes reduced to about 15 percent or less. Giving tax breaks without the employer doing something in return is silly. Let them earn it. (That is from post # 890) Did you see what I did there?

Number one I am against, we need to help our citizens and fix our problems before we help others.

I'm okay with number 2.

3.A Not sure about that one, I would need to see what a substantial tax break is.
B. I wouldn't care for, it creates job instability as an employer fires one person so they can hire another for a tax break, that would be a sum zero game.
C. Again it depends on the tax break, I am not a big corporate welfare guy.
D. I am against a business getting rewarded for following the law, so I would ask for something different in D.

I am for getting rid of many deductions, I did not go back and read #890.

Overall, it at least gets a ball rolling. It's the start of a discussion.

You are not understanding the entire bill, nor would you want to. Seems you only want to criticize it.

IF an employer fires one employee to hire another one, he not only loses the training time, he cannot use that employee for the tax break regarding annual pay increases.

At the worst end of the scale, entry level workers could get a year's experience, a livable wage and that might translate into motivated workers doing things that would help them get into a better financial position rather than relying on Uncle Scam and welfare.

I mentioned parts I liked yet you want to focus on me being critical. When you want to have a dialogue let me know.

Same here. A discussion is a back and forth. Just remember, this is a discussion board. You might learn more if you ask questions before being critical. Isn't that what you really got pissed about at me in the first place?

So, your position is that it is a bad thing that Walmart donates to charity?

 

[Uncensored2008]

So let me get this straight.

Conservatives do not want low level workers to enjoy a living wage. Adults holding two or three low level jobs are doing so because, as Conservatives believe, they are somehow not motivated. Not motivated. What a thing to think about someone out there working two or three jobs.

Conservatives believe that labor is a commodity like raw materials or packaging. This labor commodity should be controlled by the owners of the means of production by suppressing wages, for the benefit of the owners and shareholders.

Conservatives believe that organized labor is not only unnecessary but a direct threat to the owners of the means of production. Organized labor would mean corruption, unreasonably high wages, benefits and a greater emphasis on workplace health and safety. Unions should be shunned at all cost, in spite of the historical fact that when labor unions were strong, the middle class was strong. Coincidence? Absolutely not.

Conservatives believe that the highest incomes deserve tax breaks while those who can least afford it should be taxed more, as illustrated in the current tax bill slithering through congress today.

And Conservatives believe that working class Americans should buy into this political ideology even though it offers little to the very voters they are courting.

That about sums it up from my perspective. I await the inevitable spin, lies and obfuscations.

It's interesting that you started this post with the premise that you were going to "get things straight", only to move right into being dead wrong about every single point and revealing that you know absolutely nothing about the things you mentioned. How can anyone believe you really want to "get straight" what conservatives think when you make it manifestly obvious you've never listened to a word any conservative has ever said?

1) Conservatives want very much for low-level workers to have a living wage. What they don't want is for elitist social engineers like you to mandate your definition of "living wage" according to whatever subjective whim sounds good to you at the moment, and force others to pay it out of THEIR pockets for labor that simply doesn't compare in value.

2) Appeals to extreme and very rare cases convince no one. Leftists are forever trying to pretend that their goal is only to help people who "work two or three low level jobs", or women who've been raped and impregnated by their own dads, or whatever, and then try to pretend that those people represent far more than the statistically insignificant numbers they actually do.

3) Labor IS a commodity. For the vast majority of the world, it is the only commodity they have to exchange for the goods and services they need. Even crazy homeless panhandlers on the street understand this, or they wouldn't hold up signs that say "Will work for food".

4) Neither side of the labor-wage transaction ever fully controls that transaction, unless a more-powerful third party - like the government - awards that control through force. And even then, the control is an illusion, because control really belongs to the third party, and can be snatched away as soon as that third party's support shifts. And a free and voluntary transaction clearly benefits everyone; otherwise, people wouldn't continue to choose to contribute their labor to enter into it.

5) Organized labor is a direct threat to pretty much everyone and everything. Anyone who thinks otherwise has somehow managed to live under a rock somewhere, ignorant of even the most basic history of unions. Organized labor DID lead to corruption, unreasonably high wages, the bankrupting of companies, and the loss of jobs. And pointlessly slurring from your premise of presumably apocryphal bad results into the wonders you're convinced unions actually produce only serves to make your argument more incoherent. Are you denigrating the conservative beliefs outlined to you by the voices in your head, or are you singing paeans to leftist beliefs? Pick a point.

6) Labor unions did not make the middle class strong. Even at the height of their popularity, they represented a statistically small group of workers and industries in small pockets of the country. The majority of the middle class has done without, and still managed to be strong. Also, just for the record, there's a rather large stretch between "organized labor" and "unions". It's one thing for you and your co-workers to approach management as a group to address concerns; it's another to establish the AFL-CIO.

7) Conservatives never believe ANYONE should pay higher taxes. But yes, tax breaks are obviously more deserved by people who actually PAY taxes, rather than simply handing out money taken from others to people who aren't paying anything, and calling it a "tax break".

8) I highly doubt you actually know a damned thing about what's contained in the current tax bill, other than a handful of hysterical leftist headlines you skimmed over as your search browser booted up.

9) If you really believe you have so much wonderful stuff to offer, why do you suppose it is that it has such trouble gaining any traction with the general population without lying about it?

10) That not only sums up your perspective, it sums up why your perspective should NEVER be offered as any sort of meaningful look at reality.

Bravo, well said.

 

[Mudda]

View attachment 164037

Even McDonald's acknowledges that their business was intended for children.
Holding businesses that are created with the employment of kids & college students responsible for the poor choices people make in life is wrong. If you're in your mid to late 20's or higher & working for minimum wage you have no one to blame but yourself. You're poor choices should not result in a 10.00 Big Mac or 4 dollar fry.

McDonald's is killing you with their food. Stop eating there. Problem solved. Now go pour yourself some more 'shine.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So let me get this straight.

Conservatives do not want low level workers to enjoy a living wage. Adults holding two or three low level jobs are doing so because, as Conservatives believe, they are somehow not motivated. Not motivated. What a thing to think about someone out there working two or three jobs.

Conservatives believe that labor is a commodity like raw materials or packaging. This labor commodity should be controlled by the owners of the means of production by suppressing wages, for the benefit of the owners and shareholders.

Conservatives believe that organized labor is not only unnecessary but a direct threat to the owners of the means of production. Organized labor would mean corruption, unreasonably high wages, benefits and a greater emphasis on workplace health and safety. Unions should be shunned at all cost, in spite of the historical fact that when labor unions were strong, the middle class was strong. Coincidence? Absolutely not.

Conservatives believe that the highest incomes deserve tax breaks while those who can least afford it should be taxed more, as illustrated in the current tax bill slithering through congress today.

And Conservatives believe that working class Americans should buy into this political ideology even though it offers little to the very voters they are courting.

That about sums it up from my perspective. I await the inevitable spin, lies and obfuscations.

Conservatives may cry foul, but I'd say that is a critical, but (in a strict lawyerly way) semi-accurate portrayal of what the conservative position is.

The problem is, Democrats / left wingers don't have a better solution. Just today Ted Cruz was on the radio reminiscing about a conversation with Bernie Sanders. Cruz asked Sanders what the difference was between Democrats and Socialists on economic issues. Bernie is reputed to not have an answer.

Socialism is not the answer either and has failed every time it's been tried. Even communist China is adopting some free market principles. All we need is a position not yet considered.

Gee, why on EARTH would conservatives "cry foul" about a "lawyerly, semi-accurate" statement that they're evil slave-mongers who want everyone else to suffer? Can't imagine what objection anyone could have to this reasoned, dispassionate assertion.

I also can't imagine what this sort of "damning with faint praise" non-assistance is supposed to offer anyone. If you're going to believe something, try ACTUALLY believing it, instead of stabbing your beliefs in the back and then half-heartedly offering its bleeding corpse to people as "well, it's better than nothing". Not the best sales technique.

The conservatives pretend that I'm a liberal; the liberals pretend I'm conservative. Both sides hate my ideas because their party leadership didn't advocate it first.

Both sides are stuck on stupid, both waiting for the MSM to promote one of the major sides over the other while neither have a good history of working.

Wow, way to make this all about you and your splendiferousness.

I don't know if you're conservative or leftist, and I don't give a shit. Perhaps you could show some interest in actually addressing what I said, which is that if you're going to support something, this half-assed, "It sucks, but it could be worse" bullshit is worse than no support at all.

And calling what Nosmo spewed "lawyerly and semi-accurate" doesn't make you look fair-minded and independent; it makes you look ignorant and mildly deranged.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So let me get this straight.

Conservatives do not want low level workers to enjoy a living wage. Adults holding two or three low level jobs are doing so because, as Conservatives believe, they are somehow not motivated. Not motivated. What a thing to think about someone out there working two or three jobs.

Conservatives believe that labor is a commodity like raw materials or packaging. This labor commodity should be controlled by the owners of the means of production by suppressing wages, for the benefit of the owners and shareholders.

Conservatives believe that organized labor is not only unnecessary but a direct threat to the owners of the means of production. Organized labor would mean corruption, unreasonably high wages, benefits and a greater emphasis on workplace health and safety. Unions should be shunned at all cost, in spite of the historical fact that when labor unions were strong, the middle class was strong. Coincidence? Absolutely not.

Conservatives believe that the highest incomes deserve tax breaks while those who can least afford it should be taxed more, as illustrated in the current tax bill slithering through congress today.

And Conservatives believe that working class Americans should buy into this political ideology even though it offers little to the very voters they are courting.

That about sums it up from my perspective. I await the inevitable spin, lies and obfuscations.

It's interesting that you started this post with the premise that you were going to "get things straight", only to move right into being dead wrong about every single point and revealing that you know absolutely nothing about the things you mentioned. How can anyone believe you really want to "get straight" what conservatives think when you make it manifestly obvious you've never listened to a word any conservative has ever said?

1) Conservatives want very much for low-level workers to have a living wage. What they don't want is for elitist social engineers like you to mandate your definition of "living wage" according to whatever subjective whim sounds good to you at the moment, and force others to pay it out of THEIR pockets for labor that simply doesn't compare in value.

2) Appeals to extreme and very rare cases convince no one. Leftists are forever trying to pretend that their goal is only to help people who "work two or three low level jobs", or women who've been raped and impregnated by their own dads, or whatever, and then try to pretend that those people represent far more than the statistically insignificant numbers they actually do.

3) Labor IS a commodity. For the vast majority of the world, it is the only commodity they have to exchange for the goods and services they need. Even crazy homeless panhandlers on the street understand this, or they wouldn't hold up signs that say "Will work for food".

4) Neither side of the labor-wage transaction ever fully controls that transaction, unless a more-powerful third party - like the government - awards that control through force. And even then, the control is an illusion, because control really belongs to the third party, and can be snatched away as soon as that third party's support shifts. And a free and voluntary transaction clearly benefits everyone; otherwise, people wouldn't continue to choose to contribute their labor to enter into it.

5) Organized labor is a direct threat to pretty much everyone and everything. Anyone who thinks otherwise has somehow managed to live under a rock somewhere, ignorant of even the most basic history of unions. Organized labor DID lead to corruption, unreasonably high wages, the bankrupting of companies, and the loss of jobs. And pointlessly slurring from your premise of presumably apocryphal bad results into the wonders you're convinced unions actually produce only serves to make your argument more incoherent. Are you denigrating the conservative beliefs outlined to you by the voices in your head, or are you singing paeans to leftist beliefs? Pick a point.

6) Labor unions did not make the middle class strong. Even at the height of their popularity, they represented a statistically small group of workers and industries in small pockets of the country. The majority of the middle class has done without, and still managed to be strong. Also, just for the record, there's a rather large stretch between "organized labor" and "unions". It's one thing for you and your co-workers to approach management as a group to address concerns; it's another to establish the AFL-CIO.

7) Conservatives never believe ANYONE should pay higher taxes. But yes, tax breaks are obviously more deserved by people who actually PAY taxes, rather than simply handing out money taken from others to people who aren't paying anything, and calling it a "tax break".

8) I highly doubt you actually know a damned thing about what's contained in the current tax bill, other than a handful of hysterical leftist headlines you skimmed over as your search browser booted up.

9) If you really believe you have so much wonderful stuff to offer, why do you suppose it is that it has such trouble gaining any traction with the general population without lying about it?

10) That not only sums up your perspective, it sums up why your perspective should NEVER be offered as any sort of meaningful look at reality.

Bravo, well said.

Why, thank you. I've been working on the first few posts for the blog I intend to set up in the next month or so, so I was feeling long-winded.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

You attack people over "falsehoods?" Surely you jest. Perhaps you can explain a few things to all of us here. In post # 893 you wrote:

"Labor is a commodity."

Let us start there since the word commodity, according to my sources, is synonymous with goods:

I found great synonyms for "commodity" on the new Thesaurus.com!

Frederic Bastiat, author of the book The Law wrote:

"When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will."

The current "conservative" position is highly inconsistent here. For the conservative position is to put a wall around America and keep foreign workers out, knowing that the free market is, supposedly, all about having zero restrictions on commodities / goods. Yet, on the surface, the nutty wall idea is being sold on the pretext of protecting U.S. jobs for Americans. Why? As you claim, they are only commodities. So, if I'm relying on you, it's within the scope of free market principles to protect jobs for Americans, but it is antithetical to your beliefs to pay them for an honest day's work???

How about anti - discriminatory laws. If an employer thinks he can profit better by hiring an all white, all black, or even an all foreign work-force, how do you support the notion of civil rights laws...OR are you against those?

First off, I certainly did not "attack" Beagal, who is an old friend, even prior to this board.

Secondly, the phrase "labor is a commodity" is axiomatic, it is a truth grasped by those with a fundamental understanding of the principles of economics.

Odd that you turned to a thesaurus rather than a dictionary for the definition of the word.

Oh, here is why;

{
Definition of commodity
plural commodities
: an economic good: such as
a : a product of agriculture or mining

• agricultural commodities like grain and corn

b : an article of commerce especially when delivered for shipment

• reported the damagedcommodities to officials

c : a mass-produced unspecialized product

• commodity chemicals

• commodity memory chips

2a : something useful or valued

• that valuable commodity, patience

; also : thing, entity
b : convenience, advantage

• … the many commodities incidental to the life of a public office …
• —Charles Lamb

: a good or service whose wide availability typically leads to smaller profit margins and diminishes the importance of factors (such as brand name) other than price
4: one that is subject to ready exchange or exploitation within a market

• … stars as individuals and as commodities of the film industry.
• —Film Quarterly}

So as we see, labor being a service of wide availability is unquestionably a commodity.

As for your parting shot, if it is not clear from what I write that I am a Libertarian, an actual liberal, then the fact that I state as much in my avatar should clue you in.

When people trade, the only factors prohibited are coercion and fraud. If I seek to sell you a truck, the price I offer is my business alone. You are free to meet my price or not buy the truck. I may negotiate, or I might not. Neither government nor social justice warriors, nor the church are involved in the trade.

If I seek to purchase your time and talent through labor, you are free to accept what I offer in exchange or you may try to negotiate more favorable terms, or you may walk away from the deal. Neither government nor social justice warriors, nor the church are involved in the trade.

Clear enough?