CDZ Welfare vs Charity

[koshergrl]

Seriously, when did humans give up on education?

What specifically are you referring to?

Just the total juvenile discussion. The lack of comprehension. The inability to conceive of, or present, fully formed concepts in a way that is meaningful.

Though Andy seems to get it.

 

[koshergrl]

I would disagree. The minimum wage was a significant contributing factor. If you compare the minimum wage, to the unemployment rate, there is a clear collation between the two. The Greek Minimum wage was indexed to inflation, which increased with the rise of the minimum wage.

Lol, we have had a Minimum Wage in English speaking nations ever since the Middle Ages.

If it is OK to 'hire' people for less than starvation wages, why not just have slavery? At least one was bound by law to make sure that slaves had the minimum necessities, unlike what Libertarians now set as the low bar...well, actually they have no low bar.

I have never had a Libertarian explain to me in a rational way, based on Libertarian principles, why a person cannot voluntarily enter enter a contract binding themselves over as property of another person, i.e. slavery in all its inglorious evil.

Would you care to present why such voluntary slavery is disallowed under Libertarianism? Such an arrangement would seem to be preferable to starving in back alleys working for a few pennies a day.

"less than starvation wages". Again, this is ridiculous. Obesity is a problem for the poorest people, rather than the richest. You go to Southeast Asian, and you know they are poor, because you can see their bones. You go to most African nations, and you know they are poor because they are sticks.

Only in mindless left-wing world, do you see people suffering from obesity, and claim they are on starvation wages.

REading comprehension FAIL. I never said that our poor are on starvation wages...not yet anyway. But you libertarians, or whatever you are, dont seem to ahve a problem with the concept of allowing people who cant find work to starve.

Now go ahead and twist what I said again, no one is missing what you are doing.

More than that, I have actually lived off of less than $12,000 a year, and had food to spare.

I did too when I was an 11B and when I was just out of the service.

Food is not that expensive. It really isn't. In fact, I know people who lived on $10,000 a year, and fed their kids.

Feeding one's kids starchy foods is not a healthy diet and is one source of what is leading the poor into obesity.

Not that you care, I realize.

The question is, are people better off earning ZERO because they have no job, due to your minimum wage, or would they be better off earning something?

Answer: they would be better off earning something.

I.e. they would be better off earning the bare minimum, living in squalor, living hungry from day to day, not knowign where their next meal will come from or able to get proper health care, etc.

Yeah, that disreard for ones fellow man is what I am driving at. Thanks for the help but it isnt needed.

Every time someone ends up unemployed for a long period of time, they lose their employ-ability. Most employers will not hire someone that has been out of work for a year or more.

Moreover, when they do get a job, they start all over at the very bottom rung of the ladder. The only way to advance up the ladder, is to start at the bottom.

That is an easily disproven lie. Managers do not start at the bottom of the employed pool of man power.

Those who inherit businesses do not start at the bottom.

roflmao

Every month they spend on welfare and food stamps, is a month they could have been gaining credibility, work experience, and becoming promotable at a job.

Is working for low-wages fun? No it sucks. But I did it because many of the jobs I have gotten after those crappy low wage jobs, considered me because I worked those crappy low wage jobs.

If I had been on welfare, farting around watching TV and playing video games, I would never have gotten the better jobs.

So because you could do it EVERYONE ELSE must be able to do it also?

You live in a fantasy, dude.

Yes, as a matter of fact yes. I worked THREE jobs at the same time, when I had to. You can do it. Anyone can do it. It's a matter of choice. Yes, you don't want to do it. I didn't want to do it. But I had bills to pay.

Why people like you think no one should ever have to do anything that isn't fun, is beyond me.

You read the stories of super wealthy CEOs, many had to work their butts off. The current CEO of Walmart worked unloading Walmart trucks in a distribution center. Have you ever been in one? Hot as crap in there. When it's 80º outside, it's 100º inside. You think it was 'fun' for him? NO. It sucked. But that's how you win.

You have to work the low-wage hourly trunk unloader, to work your way up and end up CEO.

Managers do not start at the bottom of the employed pool of man power.

Well you have the right to be wrong. The CEO of my last job, started out as an hourly worker. The CEO of Walmart, started off as an hourly worker. Simon Cowell started off in the mailroom as an hourly worker. Dan Adler at Walt Disney, started off hourly mail room worker. Brian Dunn started off as a floor sales rep, now CEO of Best Buy. Jim Ziemer, CEO of Harley-Davidson, started off unloading freight. Ursula Burns was a summer intern for Xerox, now CEO. Andrew Taylor was an entry level car washer for Hertz, now CEO.

You are wrong. Period.

....allowing people who cant find work...

Well, on this specific statement here, that's where you and I will obviously never agree. I have been able to find work every single time I have looked. There has never been a time, where I couldn't find work. In the worst recession, I found work.

Where are these people who magically can't find work? You might not be able to find work you want. But you can find work. You may not find work that pays what you want, but you can find work.

I was reading the story of a guy who worked for one of the banks in New York. He made 6-figures. The bank was closed, and he was unemployed.

He could have......... screamed and wailed about the rich, complained about Republicans, whined and moaned on unemployment compensation, and tried collecting as much government handouts as possible. But no, instead he got a job.... at McDonalds. So here's a guy flipping burgers over for $8/hr, who used to make 6-figures.

After he worked there for a week, the manager came over, and said "ok, you are not like the other people here, what's up? Who are you, and what's your story?" He laid it all out, and the following week, recruiters from McDonald's Corporate showed up, and interviewed him on the job. Now he's a low-level executive for McDonald's making closer to what he did before.

People who tell me, they can't find work, are one of two things. A: they are such bad employees no one wants them. B: They are simply not looking. I've had THREE job offers in this week ALONE. I have no degrees. No certifications. No skills. No abilities I am aware of. Care to explain?

I.e. they would be better off earning the bare minimum, living in squalor, living hungry from day to day, not knowign where their next meal will come from or able to get proper health care, etc.

I.E. they would be better living in poverty, off the hard work of people who pay taxes, for the rest of their lives with zero hope for improvement.

Once again, the left is the greatest destroyer of the poor that has ever existed. While proclaiming their moral superiority, they setup millions to hopelessness and misery for life.

The whole reason for state control to supplant welfare is to prevent people from being allowed to help each other, or themselves. This in turn allows the state to control the population. The size of the population, who is allowed to live, die, breed, eat....who controls the land and all of our resources. Statists use "welfare" to direct control of ALL those things.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The whole reason for state control to supplant welfare is to prevent people from being allowed to help each other, or themselves.

Really? I thought it was so people wouldnt be living in roadside camps, shantytowns, starving in work camps or in drafty log cabins.

And all that is WITH what welfare we can afford, cant imagine how bad it would be with just the tender mercies of the general public.

 

[GaryDog]

Need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage around $15 to $20 per hour.

The Kennedy Clan has been telling us this for decades already.

So, you would be willing to spend 2-3 times as much for your Big Mac then right? And for your groceries, car, gas, home, utilities, entertainment, etc., etc.
Raising the minimum wage only kicks the can down the road. How about a real solution for a change?

You would actually have more money in your pocket to buy that Big Mac. Increasing the minimum wage will reduce the tax burden as we will not be subsidising low wage employers.

Then why didn't it work in Venezuela, Greece, or even in the US in 2007 to 2009? We drastically increased the minimum wage in 2007. Why are people even talking about increasing the minimum wage, after a massive increase?

It doesn't work. Never has. Never will.

We've got several nobel laureates, you've got your own rote assertions backed up by nothing. But you do you, buddy!

Venezuela had economists too. So did Greece. So did those that supported the minimum wage hike in 2007. In fact, so did the Obama Stimulus package.

Want to know the common thread for all of them? They were all wrong.

But you do you.... and screw over everyone in the process. Facts are less important, than having Nobel medal... right?

Are you saying a minimum wage hike caused the financial meltdown of 08, and subsequent Recession?

Or are you just being thoroughly intellectually dishonest about the events surrounding that time period?

 

[GaryDog]

Red:
??? Say what? What "depends?" I wrote that in a nation where both charity and state sponsored/run welfare exist, there remain homeless and hungry people. That doesn't "depend." It is so.

If you want to make the case that the preponderance of those people are voluntarily destitute, by all means do so. I don't think that such an argument will be convincing for a quick visit to any homeless shelter to ask the people there and who depend on the shelter's largess will find few, if any, folks who have chosen homelessness and hunger as the state of their existence and who have cast off their financial resources to be so.

Green:
Perhaps that explains why all those "working poor" folks don't do what it takes to boost their financial fortunes so they can become working middle class or working "better off than middle class." I'll be sure to point JimBowie1958 to your post. He'll find it most informative regarding his great concern for folks who find themselves underemployed, or at least paid less than they are accustomed to being paid. I'm sure it never crossed his mind (nor mine) that those folks are contentedly living their lives because "their needs are met" and don't really deserve, need or want his advocacy. That should be a load off his mind; now that you've spoken and pronounced their circumstances as being willful, there's no need for him to press on with his UBI ideas.

I don't agree with Jim's overall conclusions about the UBI, but I don't agree with you either because one implication of your remark as presented is that the needs one must have met can be satiated in a static way. Well that's just not so. For example, I could stop working and I would still have housing, food, entertainment, etc.; however, I would have those things only until the money runs out. Then I'd have to change dwellings, pare back on some of my expenditures. Eventually, I could be in a position where my needs aren't met.

Additionally, needs come in varying degrees. The types of needs we are discussing in this thread are the most basic sort of needs there are.

Of the needs at the base of the "pyramid," folks will generally do whatever they have to in order to have them met. People don't just stop striving to fill the needs superior to biological/physiological needs merely because they have food and shelter.


Blue:
That makes no sense at all given that Democrats are the champions of the idea that government can solve the ills of the people governed. If voting Democratic were to foist one surely into poverty and destitution, there'd be no viable tax base that can fund the government.

And yet I have met people who did not strive to self-actualize. I know several in fact. So while you claim it's not true, the facts are it is. People who have been in those situations, say the same thing.

In the 1990s, I was working at Wendy's. We had a lady come in, and get a job, and on her first day told us she intended to only work until she could qualify for food stamps again. She even gave us the exact date she would qualify, and shockingly stopped showing up for work.

Now this lady will never leave her position as a low-wage worker on the verge of poverty. Where is your claim that she will be motivate to self-actualization? Where is the pyramid in her life? She works as little as possible, and has living off the government as a goal.

Lastly, what Democrats claim, and what Democrats do, are two very different things. If the Democrats actually pushed a policy system that fixed the problem, the problem would go away and they would lose their voter base. If everyone was rich, they wouldn't be able to gain votes by proclaiming themselves a solution to the problem. Their "solutions" have never solved anything. That's not up for debate, it's just fact. The only debatable aspect is that you claim they really believe it will solve things, and I say that they know it won't solve anything. They know it won't. Why do they still champion government solutions? Votes. That's why. They want you to vote for them.

Have you ever met someone on welfare that believed Republicans wanted what was best for the country? Of course not. Democrats know this. The Democrats never give their own money to help the poor. Republicans do. Democrats give other people's money to help the poor. Why? Because they don't care about the poor. They care about votes. Always have.

Red:
There's a lot of striving to be done between securing basic needs -- which is what this thread is about -- and self actualizing. You're earlier remark implies that upon fulfilling their basic needs folks often enough don't want to strive to fulfill "higher level" needs. That just isn't what I've observed. Might there be some folks who are content to live as might a cloistered monk and be content to fed, housed, clothed and strive to meet any other needs except that of securing "oneness with God" or live some other sort of similarly ascetic value/lifestyle? Sure, there are some folks like that, but I don't think many, if any, of the folks whom one will find living in shelters and unable to feed themselves are among them.

The context of this discussion is the people on welfare. And in that context, I maintain my prior statement, that people who fulfill their basic needs, often do not strive to higher level needs, and that is exactly what I have observed.

I have even met people who were still in school, and openly said their expressed goal was to live off welfare.

Thus far, none of the men or even women, I have seen at the shelter, were incapable of providing for themselves. Unwilling..... Unmotivated.... perhaps even uncaring to provide for themselves. Not not incapable.

Your anecdotal observations are, I'm sure, precisely as you describe them. Mine are as I describe them too. In the context of people on welfare, I can only remark on the people whom I've mentored as they are the poor folks whom I know well enough to comment on what they think and thought over long periods. Each of those individuals came from homes that depend(ed) on government handouts for food and housing, yet they all have worked toward being or are high achievers as adults. They weren't unmotivated, they were just poor and had nobody to show them what to do and how to do it in order to transform their situations from that of needing to be given food and shelter to that of having the opportunity to provide plenty of those things for not only themselves, but others, as well as pursuing their own "higher level" goals.

But those are merely anecdotal experiences and observations. I would no more say they are representative if the norm than I would accept that your diametrically different anecdotal observations depict the norm. The phenomenon you've observed as well as that I've observed are both outcomes indicated by multiple theories of motivation: Drive Theory, Field Theory, Social Learning Theory and Attribution Theory. It's not a question of whether the behavior exists. The question is whether one predominates among welfare recipients more than the other.

Other:
And what exactly is the difference between an monastic living a life of extreme asceticism and a welfare recipient?

• As goes their financial wherewithal and obtaining food, clothing and shelter, nothing other than the sources of their subsistence differ. Monastics receive their subsistence effects from charitable organizations, welfare recipients receive theirs from governments, some of which my deliver the subsistence effects via charitable organizations.
• As goes the subsistence-receiving individuals' demonstrated behavior, however, there is a clear difference: monastics seek some level of satisfaction beyond merely being fed; they act to fulfill needs beyond the most basic needs. And let's face it, a monastic's "oneness with God" is a "self-something" need they are fulfilling, even if it isn't self-actualization, for their "oneness" isn't doing anyone else any good at all.

I'm always confused

You should've stopped there.

 

[GaryDog]

Seriously, when did humans give up on education?

What specifically are you referring to?

Just the total juvenile discussion. The lack of comprehension. The inability to conceive of, or present, fully formed concepts in a way that is meaningful.

Though Andy seems to get it.

Go away, troll.

 

[koshergrl]

The whole reason for state control to supplant welfare is to prevent people from being allowed to help each other, or themselves.

Really? I thought it was so people wouldnt be living in roadside camps, shantytowns, starving in work camps or in drafty log cabins.

And all that is WITH what welfare we can afford, cant imagine how bad it would be with just the tender mercies of the general public.

See, all those people already receive welfare. That is the state of living that the government likes to subject us to. When our working class was able to make a living by extracting our publicly owned resources, and before our minorities and our public schools came under the management of the feds, these people lived perfectly reasonable lives.

 

[JimBowie1958]

See, all those people already receive welfare. That is the state of living that the government likes to subject us to.

Not necessarily.

Another wonderful feature that our Open Borders Zealots have given us is that local welfare offices often run out of funds and then can no longer help people at all.

IT happened to my Brother-in-law, a Marine veteran.

He made a six figure salary working at a bank and when the real estate crash came, he lost his job.

He had some money saved up, but his budget burned through all of it in a year. But I guess he should have saved more, but how many of us save a years worth of income and keep it available? Some do, but very few.

He lost his house soon after that and then developed a kidney stone. Have you ever had one of those? They hurt like hell. County hospitals for three hundred miles around Dallas could not help him; all out of funds. Unless you were dying they could not treat your for free.

This guy was a decorated marine veteran and he got no hel from the government. He didnt even qualify for unemployment, and I dont remember the reason why. The bank challenged his benefits, and he lost the appeal. He was desperately looking for work for years, did odd jobs here and there, then got busted with a friend who had pot in the glove box on a roadside stop.

But all that was his fault, right? IF he cant pull his own self up, then to hell with him, right?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yes, as a matter of fact yes. I worked THREE jobs at the same time, when I had to. You can do it. Anyone can do it. It's a matter of choice. Yes, you don't want to do it. I didn't want to do it. But I had bills to pay.

Lol, so that means EVERYONE SHOULD ALWAYS be able to find a job?

lol, you do not grasp how wrong that statement is, dude, but your personal experience just proves it as a universal Truth in your brain, roflmao.

Why people like you think no one should ever have to do anything that isn't fun, is beyond me.

No one ever said that, genius. Why dont you argue the points WE MAKE instead of whatever pops out of your head?

Managers do not start at the bottom of the employed pool of man power.

Well you have the right to be wrong. The CEO of my last job, started out as an hourly worker. The CEO of Walmart, started off as an hourly worker. Simon Cowell started off in the mailroom as an hourly worker. Dan Adler at Walt Disney, started off hourly mail room worker. Brian Dunn started off as a floor sales rep, now CEO of Best Buy. Jim Ziemer, CEO of Harley-Davidson, started off unloading freight. Ursula Burns was a summer intern for Xerox, now CEO. Andrew Taylor was an entry level car washer for Hertz, now CEO.

You are wrong. Period.

No, you made a universal assertion that allowed no exception that EVERYONE starts at the bottom. I gave you two counterpoints to that, proving that your universal statement is not true. You citing an exception to my assertion, which it was not as I never asserted that ALL managers start at not-bottom positions, but it is typical for a business management degreed dude to go into a business hired as a manager from day one, which disproves your universal claim, not mine.

....allowing people who cant find work...

Well, on this specific statement here, that's where you and I will obviously never agree. I have been able to find work every single time I have looked. There has never been a time, where I couldn't find work. In the worst recession, I found work.

Where are these people who magically can't find work?

One day, God will give you wisdom. It will be through experience, and it wont be with malice, but it will be good for you, as when He gave such wisdom to Job.

You will discover that, no, you cannot control your fate, God alone does, and you have been very arrogant in these things you say, that those unemployed 'just dont want the work'.

BTW, you continue to duck my question; why not allow voluntary slavery? Many have found it to be a better situation to starvation wages, so why not?

 

[Andylusion]

So, you would be willing to spend 2-3 times as much for your Big Mac then right? And for your groceries, car, gas, home, utilities, entertainment, etc., etc.
Raising the minimum wage only kicks the can down the road. How about a real solution for a change?

You would actually have more money in your pocket to buy that Big Mac. Increasing the minimum wage will reduce the tax burden as we will not be subsidising low wage employers.

Then why didn't it work in Venezuela, Greece, or even in the US in 2007 to 2009? We drastically increased the minimum wage in 2007. Why are people even talking about increasing the minimum wage, after a massive increase?

It doesn't work. Never has. Never will.

We've got several nobel laureates, you've got your own rote assertions backed up by nothing. But you do you, buddy!

Venezuela had economists too. So did Greece. So did those that supported the minimum wage hike in 2007. In fact, so did the Obama Stimulus package.

Want to know the common thread for all of them? They were all wrong.

But you do you.... and screw over everyone in the process. Facts are less important, than having Nobel medal... right?

Are you saying a minimum wage hike caused the financial meltdown of 08, and subsequent Recession?

Or are you just being thoroughly intellectually dishonest about the events surrounding that time period?

First, it always amazes me, how we have said for decades that the minimum wage causes job losses, and then when it happen, just as we say it will happen, every single time you claim that "but it was due to something else".

Did we say that the entire financial melt down was due exclusively to one economic policy? No. I don't know anyone anywhere that has suggest this.

But was it a contributing factor? Yes. Can you prove it wasn't?

Second, even if we put that argument aside, the fact is your side claims routinely, and even in this thread, that with a hike in the minimum wage the economy will boom. That people will have prosperity and higher wages, and economic growth, and so on.

Your side has made this claim hundreds on hundreds of times. Not ONE TIME......... NOT EVEN ONCE..... has that actually happened.

People were screaming that $5.25 was too law in the 1990s. In the 2000s, you said if only we can bump it up to $7.25. Now it's $7.25, and you are claiming it needs to be $10 or $15. Every single time the minimum wage goes up, the only result is that you claim it's not enough, and it needs to be higher, and people are on starvation wages.

So most rational people, look at the two sides, and what they claim the result of hiking the minimum wage will be.... and notice that your claims of Utopia have never come true, and our claims of job loss have always come true.... And quite frankly, for a person to assume that obviously the people who have been wrong every single time, are still right because "well it was something else that caused the problem".... is insane.

Did you not notices that the majority of job losses throughout the great recession, were at the lowest income level, which would be affected by minimum wage laws, rather than the high income level that would be affected by a financial melt down?

Please explain the mechanics of how a international bank losing money a Mortgage Backed Security, would magically cause high school students at McDonalds to lose their jobs? I'd love to hear your theory on how that worked.

 

[oldsoul]

Does not work. Education is not the solution. Cramming information in your head, doesn't do anything. You have to actually use the information you have.

Really? Education is not the solution? For the vast majority of those making six-figures, an education is REQUIRED. You are correct in that one must actually use the education. But, one must acquire it first.

 

[oldsoul]

What we are finding here is that welfare is now being supplemented by Charity. Most towns now have foodbanks which are run by the Salvation Army. You cant just turn up though.You have to be referred by a Dr or other kind of professional. Its a sticking plaster rather than a solution.

In California lots of working poor are showing up at soup kitchens to eat. These are charitable too.

Between the soup kitchens and the unemployment the out of luck people can barely eat and live.

The Crash of 2008 is still with us in large measure.

And it was all brought to us by Lehman Brothers.

Its madness that a person who works full time cant put a roof over his head and feed himself.
Housing costs in the UK are extortionate and even well paid youngsters have to live with their parents.

Changes to benefits rules have also exacerbated the problem. You can get your benefits stopped buy being 10 minutes late for an appointment. Get stuck in traffic and starve for a week. What does that individual do ?

Need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage around $15 to $20 per hour.

The Kennedy Clan has been telling us this for decades already.

So, you would be willing to spend 2-3 times as much for your Big Mac then right? And for your groceries, car, gas, home, utilities, entertainment, etc., etc.
Raising the minimum wage only kicks the can down the road. How about a real solution for a change?

Name it. Seriously, what's the "real solution"? It's funny to me how you conservatives insist that people get a job and get off the dole, and when people do exactly that, you blame THEM for not getting a good enough job.

Have you even bothered to read my previous posts? If you had you would have noticed that I mentioned an educational stipulation. Liberals just love to say we are not doing enough to educate our citizens, why not start with those on welfare?

 

[oldsoul]

What we are finding here is that welfare is now being supplemented by Charity. Most towns now have foodbanks which are run by the Salvation Army. You cant just turn up though.You have to be referred by a Dr or other kind of professional. Its a sticking plaster rather than a solution.

In California lots of working poor are showing up at soup kitchens to eat. These are charitable too.

Between the soup kitchens and the unemployment the out of luck people can barely eat and live.

The Crash of 2008 is still with us in large measure.

And it was all brought to us by Lehman Brothers.

Its madness that a person who works full time cant put a roof over his head and feed himself.
Housing costs in the UK are extortionate and even well paid youngsters have to live with their parents.

Changes to benefits rules have also exacerbated the problem. You can get your benefits stopped buy being 10 minutes late for an appointment. Get stuck in traffic and starve for a week. What does that individual do ?

Need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage around $15 to $20 per hour.

The Kennedy Clan has been telling us this for decades already.

So, you would be willing to spend 2-3 times as much for your Big Mac then right? And for your groceries, car, gas, home, utilities, entertainment, etc., etc.
Raising the minimum wage only kicks the can down the road. How about a real solution for a change?

You would actually have more money in your pocket to buy that Big Mac. Increasing the minimum wage will reduce the tax burden as we will not be subsidising low wage employers.

Right, just driving prices up, and thus inflation. Great answer, drive up inflation, that'll fix it.

 

[oldsoul]

Its madness that a person who works full time cant put a roof over his head and feed himself.
Housing costs in the UK are extortionate and even well paid youngsters have to live with their parents.

Changes to benefits rules have also exacerbated the problem. You can get your benefits stopped buy being 10 minutes late for an appointment. Get stuck in traffic and starve for a week. What does that individual do ?

Need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage around $15 to $20 per hour.

The Kennedy Clan has been telling us this for decades already.

So, you would be willing to spend 2-3 times as much for your Big Mac then right? And for your groceries, car, gas, home, utilities, entertainment, etc., etc.
Raising the minimum wage only kicks the can down the road. How about a real solution for a change?

You would actually have more money in your pocket to buy that Big Mac. Increasing the minimum wage will reduce the tax burden as we will not be subsidising low wage employers.

Then why didn't it work in Venezuela, Greece, or even in the US in 2007 to 2009? We drastically increased the minimum wage in 2007. Why are people even talking about increasing the minimum wage, after a massive increase?

It doesn't work. Never has. Never will.

We've got several nobel laureates, you've got your own rote assertions backed up by nothing. But you do you, buddy!

I find it quite amusing when people put up the Nobel Prize (for anything) as some proof that the person has accomplished something. It has become no more than a political back scratcher.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

You would actually have more money in your pocket to buy that Big Mac. Increasing the minimum wage will reduce the tax burden as we will not be subsidising low wage employers.

Then why didn't it work in Venezuela, Greece, or even in the US in 2007 to 2009? We drastically increased the minimum wage in 2007. Why are people even talking about increasing the minimum wage, after a massive increase?

It doesn't work. Never has. Never will.

We've got several nobel laureates, you've got your own rote assertions backed up by nothing. But you do you, buddy!

Venezuela had economists too. So did Greece. So did those that supported the minimum wage hike in 2007. In fact, so did the Obama Stimulus package.

Want to know the common thread for all of them? They were all wrong.

But you do you.... and screw over everyone in the process. Facts are less important, than having Nobel medal... right?

Are you saying a minimum wage hike caused the financial meltdown of 08, and subsequent Recession?

Or are you just being thoroughly intellectually dishonest about the events surrounding that time period?

First, it always amazes me, how we have said for decades that the minimum wage causes job losses, and then when it happen, just as we say it will happen, every single time you claim that "but it was due to something else".

Did we say that the entire financial melt down was due exclusively to one economic policy? No. I don't know anyone anywhere that has suggest this.

But was it a contributing factor? Yes. Can you prove it wasn't?

Second, even if we put that argument aside, the fact is your side claims routinely, and even in this thread, that with a hike in the minimum wage the economy will boom. That people will have prosperity and higher wages, and economic growth, and so on.

Your side has made this claim hundreds on hundreds of times. Not ONE TIME......... NOT EVEN ONCE..... has that actually happened.

People were screaming that $5.25 was too law in the 1990s. In the 2000s, you said if only we can bump it up to $7.25. Now it's $7.25, and you are claiming it needs to be $10 or $15. Every single time the minimum wage goes up, the only result is that you claim it's not enough, and it needs to be higher, and people are on starvation wages.

So most rational people, look at the two sides, and what they claim the result of hiking the minimum wage will be.... and notice that your claims of Utopia have never come true, and our claims of job loss have always come true.... And quite frankly, for a person to assume that obviously the people who have been wrong every single time, are still right because "well it was something else that caused the problem".... is insane.

Did you not notices that the majority of job losses throughout the great recession, were at the lowest income level, which would be affected by minimum wage laws, rather than the high income level that would be affected by a financial melt down?

Please explain the mechanics of how a international bank losing money a Mortgage Backed Security, would magically cause high school students at McDonalds to lose their jobs? I'd love to hear your theory on how that worked.

So what you are really saying is that Macs/Wal mart/whoever have a business model that cant work without all of us subsidising it with public handouts ?

Perhaps we would be better off without them. Other companies would come in and fill the void.

Or perhaps they would settle for a little less profit.

 

[Andylusion]

Yes, as a matter of fact yes. I worked THREE jobs at the same time, when I had to. You can do it. Anyone can do it. It's a matter of choice. Yes, you don't want to do it. I didn't want to do it. But I had bills to pay.

Lol, so that means EVERYONE SHOULD ALWAYS be able to find a job?

lol, you do not grasp how wrong that statement is, dude, but your personal experience just proves it as a universal Truth in your brain, roflmao.

Why people like you think no one should ever have to do anything that isn't fun, is beyond me.

No one ever said that, genius. Why dont you argue the points WE MAKE instead of whatever pops out of your head?

Managers do not start at the bottom of the employed pool of man power.

Well you have the right to be wrong. The CEO of my last job, started out as an hourly worker. The CEO of Walmart, started off as an hourly worker. Simon Cowell started off in the mailroom as an hourly worker. Dan Adler at Walt Disney, started off hourly mail room worker. Brian Dunn started off as a floor sales rep, now CEO of Best Buy. Jim Ziemer, CEO of Harley-Davidson, started off unloading freight. Ursula Burns was a summer intern for Xerox, now CEO. Andrew Taylor was an entry level car washer for Hertz, now CEO.

You are wrong. Period.

No, you made a universal assertion that allowed no exception that EVERYONE starts at the bottom. I gave you two counterpoints to that, proving that your universal statement is not true. You citing an exception to my assertion, which it was not as I never asserted that ALL managers start at not-bottom positions, but it is typical for a business management degreed dude to go into a business hired as a manager from day one, which disproves your universal claim, not mine.

....allowing people who cant find work...

Well, on this specific statement here, that's where you and I will obviously never agree. I have been able to find work every single time I have looked. There has never been a time, where I couldn't find work. In the worst recession, I found work.

Where are these people who magically can't find work?

One day, God will give you wisdom. It will be through experience, and it wont be with malice, but it will be good for you, as when He gave such wisdom to Job.

You will discover that, no, you cannot control your fate, God alone does, and you have been very arrogant in these things you say, that those unemployed 'just dont want the work'.

BTW, you continue to duck my question; why not allow voluntary slavery? Many have found it to be a better situation to starvation wages, so why not?

so that means EVERYONE SHOULD ALWAYS be able to find a job?

Yes. I don't buy the left-wing helpless victim mentality.

No one ever said that, genius. Why dont you argue the points WE MAKE instead of whatever pops out of your head?

So you can dish it out, but can't take it, huh? You have made up claims I have never said, a dozen times in this thread. The moment I say something about your position, you can't handle it?

Regardless, that is the argument you people use all the time. The moment anyone suggest that an individual works through hardship, they start crying that everyone else (not you, never you), is uncaring, and that everyone else should be force to help them (not you of course, just everyone else). So that is the arguments you have made, whether you admit it, or not.

No, you made a universal assertion that allowed no exception that EVERYONE starts at the bottom.

Where did I say "EVERYONE STARTS AT THE BOTTOM". It's not there. I said "THEY". The context is of the group of people we're talking about in this thread. People on welfare who have no jobs skills, and no abilities, and no degrees or education.

You think I'm talking about unemployed former executives or something? Context dude. Funny how you complain I am not responding to the points you made, and immediately MAKE UP a point I never said. Pathetic.

One day, God will give you wisdom. It will be through experience, and it wont be with malice, but it will be good for you, as when He gave such wisdom to Job.
You will discover that, no, you cannot control your fate, God alone does, and you have been very arrogant in these things you say, that those unemployed 'just dont want the work'.
BTW, you continue to duck my question; why not allow voluntary slavery? Many have found it to be a better situation to starvation wages, so why not?

I doubt G-d will ever give you wisdom. You just can't teach some people anything, especially when they are bent with their partisan ideology, that doesn't allow for counter information. People who are bent with their ideological bigotry, are in fact the most arrogant people in the world, which is why they claim everyone else is the arrogant person. This is like Hillary Clinton repeatedly claiming you can't trust Trump, while she's lied constantly for decades now. Best way to hide your own flaws, is to accuse everyone else of them.

I did not duck your question. I don't care about your questions. Ducking a question is when you don't think the other person would like your answer. I don't care enough about your opinion, to bother answering.

That loaded question is merely an attempt on your part attack the other persons. It's a passive aggressive question, not designed to provide wisdom or an exchange of knowledge, but with the goal of character assassination. It's the typical post by people who are not interested in truth, but in partisan bigotry.

The absolute best answer to such a passive aggressive question, is simply to not play, and at most give friendly advise like: "Grow up. Stop being a child." Adults have better things to do than answer questions that if answered correctly, wouldn't be understandable by the mind asking the question to begin with.

If you are able to understand the philosophical aspects of your own question, you would both know the answer that is practical reality, and how irrelevant your question was to begin with. The fact you asked, suggests both the question and answer are beyond you. So instead, I'll just amuse myself with this lengthy response, I doubt you'll understand. Have a good one.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I would disagree. The minimum wage was a significant contributing factor. If you compare the minimum wage, to the unemployment rate, there is a clear collation between the two. The Greek Minimum wage was indexed to inflation, which increased with the rise of the minimum wage.

Lol, we have had a Minimum Wage in English speaking nations ever since the Middle Ages.

If it is OK to 'hire' people for less than starvation wages, why not just have slavery? At least one was bound by law to make sure that slaves had the minimum necessities, unlike what Libertarians now set as the low bar...well, actually they have no low bar.

I have never had a Libertarian explain to me in a rational way, based on Libertarian principles, why a person cannot voluntarily enter enter a contract binding themselves over as property of another person, i.e. slavery in all its inglorious evil.

Would you care to present why such voluntary slavery is disallowed under Libertarianism? Such an arrangement would seem to be preferable to starving in back alleys working for a few pennies a day.

"less than starvation wages". Again, this is ridiculous. Obesity is a problem for the poorest people, rather than the richest. You go to Southeast Asian, and you know they are poor, because you can see their bones. You go to most African nations, and you know they are poor because they are sticks.

Only in mindless left-wing world, do you see people suffering from obesity, and claim they are on starvation wages.

REading comprehension FAIL. I never said that our poor are on starvation wages...not yet anyway. But you libertarians, or whatever you are, dont seem to ahve a problem with the concept of allowing people who cant find work to starve.

Now go ahead and twist what I said again, no one is missing what you are doing.

More than that, I have actually lived off of less than $12,000 a year, and had food to spare.

I did too when I was an 11B and when I was just out of the service.

Food is not that expensive. It really isn't. In fact, I know people who lived on $10,000 a year, and fed their kids.

Feeding one's kids starchy foods is not a healthy diet and is one source of what is leading the poor into obesity.

Not that you care, I realize.

The question is, are people better off earning ZERO because they have no job, due to your minimum wage, or would they be better off earning something?

Answer: they would be better off earning something.

I.e. they would be better off earning the bare minimum, living in squalor, living hungry from day to day, not knowign where their next meal will come from or able to get proper health care, etc.

Yeah, that disreard for ones fellow man is what I am driving at. Thanks for the help but it isnt needed.

Every time someone ends up unemployed for a long period of time, they lose their employ-ability. Most employers will not hire someone that has been out of work for a year or more.

Moreover, when they do get a job, they start all over at the very bottom rung of the ladder. The only way to advance up the ladder, is to start at the bottom.

That is an easily disproven lie. Managers do not start at the bottom of the employed pool of man power.

Those who inherit businesses do not start at the bottom.

roflmao

Every month they spend on welfare and food stamps, is a month they could have been gaining credibility, work experience, and becoming promotable at a job.

Is working for low-wages fun? No it sucks. But I did it because many of the jobs I have gotten after those crappy low wage jobs, considered me because I worked those crappy low wage jobs.

If I had been on welfare, farting around watching TV and playing video games, I would never have gotten the better jobs.

So because you could do it EVERYONE ELSE must be able to do it also?

You live in a fantasy, dude.

Yes, as a matter of fact yes. I worked THREE jobs at the same time, when I had to. You can do it. Anyone can do it. It's a matter of choice. Yes, you don't want to do it. I didn't want to do it. But I had bills to pay.

Why people like you think no one should ever have to do anything that isn't fun, is beyond me.

You read the stories of super wealthy CEOs, many had to work their butts off. The current CEO of Walmart worked unloading Walmart trucks in a distribution center. Have you ever been in one? Hot as crap in there. When it's 80º outside, it's 100º inside. You think it was 'fun' for him? NO. It sucked. But that's how you win.

You have to work the low-wage hourly trunk unloader, to work your way up and end up CEO.

Managers do not start at the bottom of the employed pool of man power.

Well you have the right to be wrong. The CEO of my last job, started out as an hourly worker. The CEO of Walmart, started off as an hourly worker. Simon Cowell started off in the mailroom as an hourly worker. Dan Adler at Walt Disney, started off hourly mail room worker. Brian Dunn started off as a floor sales rep, now CEO of Best Buy. Jim Ziemer, CEO of Harley-Davidson, started off unloading freight. Ursula Burns was a summer intern for Xerox, now CEO. Andrew Taylor was an entry level car washer for Hertz, now CEO.

You are wrong. Period.

....allowing people who cant find work...

Well, on this specific statement here, that's where you and I will obviously never agree. I have been able to find work every single time I have looked. There has never been a time, where I couldn't find work. In the worst recession, I found work.

Where are these people who magically can't find work? You might not be able to find work you want. But you can find work. You may not find work that pays what you want, but you can find work.

I was reading the story of a guy who worked for one of the banks in New York. He made 6-figures. The bank was closed, and he was unemployed.

He could have......... screamed and wailed about the rich, complained about Republicans, whined and moaned on unemployment compensation, and tried collecting as much government handouts as possible. But no, instead he got a job.... at McDonalds. So here's a guy flipping burgers over for $8/hr, who used to make 6-figures.

After he worked there for a week, the manager came over, and said "ok, you are not like the other people here, what's up? Who are you, and what's your story?" He laid it all out, and the following week, recruiters from McDonald's Corporate showed up, and interviewed him on the job. Now he's a low-level executive for McDonald's making closer to what he did before.

People who tell me, they can't find work, are one of two things. A: they are such bad employees no one wants them. B: They are simply not looking. I've had THREE job offers in this week ALONE. I have no degrees. No certifications. No skills. No abilities I am aware of. Care to explain?

I.e. they would be better off earning the bare minimum, living in squalor, living hungry from day to day, not knowign where their next meal will come from or able to get proper health care, etc.

I.E. they would be better living in poverty, off the hard work of people who pay taxes, for the rest of their lives with zero hope for improvement.

Once again, the left is the greatest destroyer of the poor that has ever existed. While proclaiming their moral superiority, they setup millions to hopelessness and misery for life.

The whole reason for state control to supplant welfare is to prevent people from being allowed to help each other, or themselves. This in turn allows the state to control the population. The size of the population, who is allowed to live, die, breed, eat....who controls the land and all of our resources. Statists use "welfare" to direct control of ALL those things.

That sounds like dogma. It doesnt fit the reality. It is about ensuring that people have access to the basics of life when they are down on their luck. It is a horrific time for them to be in that situation and most people try their hardest to move out of that situation as soon as possible.
I know that there are a small minority who play the system but we shouldnt punish the majority for their actions.

The government is not the problem here for paying out benefits.

 

[GaryDog]

Need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage around $15 to $20 per hour.

The Kennedy Clan has been telling us this for decades already.

So, you would be willing to spend 2-3 times as much for your Big Mac then right? And for your groceries, car, gas, home, utilities, entertainment, etc., etc.
Raising the minimum wage only kicks the can down the road. How about a real solution for a change?

You would actually have more money in your pocket to buy that Big Mac. Increasing the minimum wage will reduce the tax burden as we will not be subsidising low wage employers.

Then why didn't it work in Venezuela, Greece, or even in the US in 2007 to 2009? We drastically increased the minimum wage in 2007. Why are people even talking about increasing the minimum wage, after a massive increase?

It doesn't work. Never has. Never will.

We've got several nobel laureates, you've got your own rote assertions backed up by nothing. But you do you, buddy!

I find it quite amusing when people put up the Nobel Prize (for anything) as some proof that the person has accomplished something. It has become no more than a political back scratcher.

Right, Nobel laureates are all morons because you're mad that Barack Obama got one.

Not all Nobel Prizes are created equally. Some are not even awarded in the same country.

 

[oldsoul]

That is an easily disproven lie. Managers do not start at the bottom of the employed pool of man power.

Flat out lie. I was once in management, left 'cause I couldn't stand it, and I started out at the bottom. I know, or knew, literally hundreds more like me. Any more lies I can dispel for you?

 

[GaryDog]

That is an easily disproven lie. Managers do not start at the bottom of the employed pool of man power.

Flat out lie. I was once in management, left 'cause I couldn't stand it, and I started out at the bottom. I know, or knew, literally hundreds more like me. Any more lies I can dispel for you?

"Anecdotes" is plural for bullshit.