What Is Wrong With America ?

[P@triot]

Who said anything about "punishing the wicked"? Answer: you did. Sure taxes are for funding govt.and they are NOT wrong. Only thing wrong about taxes right now is that they are too small on the rich, and need to be raised to fix a lot of problems, that have been going unfixed, in unfairness to the American people.

Why is it Dumbocrats speak about topics which they are completely and totally uninformed about? The top 1% earned 13% of the wealth but pay 22% of the taxes. The top 20% earned 50% of the wealth but pay 68% of the taxes. Do you see a pattern? The taxes they pay are a much higher percentage than the wealth they are earning.

Now lets look at the other side. The bottom 40% earned 14% of the wealth but pay only 4% of the taxes. The taxes they pay are a much lower percentage than the wealth they are earning.

Only thing wrong about taxes right now [MENTION=45665]protectionist[/MENTION] is that they are way too high on the rich and way too low on the parasites...

You can toss out all the stats you like, but from whom are they derived ? Answer ? The same govt of rich people that I critiqued in the OP. So you're referring to a group of rich people to ask a question about rich people. Cool. Thta's about like asking the honchos of General Motors which is better > a Cadillac or a Lincoln ?

In the days of the old Soviet Union, the govt's "statistics there used to say it was a socialist country with an equal distribution of wealth. Only problem was the members of the Communist Party living in mansions and riding around in limousines, while millions of people were standing on bread lines. And in America ? No county's gap between he rich and the poor is greater the in the, and the US gap is greater than it ever as been since records have been kept, now surpassing the old largest gap (1927)

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2009/8/19/saupload_rich_us.png

PS - if anyone's wondering what we might call this upward surge on the graph since 1980, it could be called "the Reagan era".

In other words, even CBO statistics (which both the Republicans and the Dumbocrats are on record as stating are very accurate and unbiased) are "fake" in your mind. In fact, everything in your mind are lies and somehow you are the lone "enlightened" one who we should all follow.

Tell us junior, if "stats" are all "derived" from "the same govt of rich people" who you "critiqued in the OP" - where do you get your information that taxes are too low on the wealthy?

Do you realize what a tool you are now? You've literally painted yourself into a corner with this ignorant post. If we can't trust "stats", then whatever you say is irrelevant if you back it up with anything. And if you have nothing to back up what you say, then whatever you say is even more irrelevant and is not formed from any basis in reality. So either way, you just made your own opinion uninformed and worthless (because if your opinion is informed, whatever sources you used were "derived" from evil people who can't be trusted).

 

[RKMBrown]

the phrase in red is what is wrong with thinking in the USA today. That somehow, employers and/or the govt OWE you a living.

Yes. Too many people are going through life thinking that the world owes them something, and that life should be fair.

Too many people are going through life thinking that it's OK for life to be unfair, (where it could easily be made to be fair). And I'd say everyone IS owed something. Just a FAIR shake, that's all. But that's not happening in America today with a very small group getting richer and richer, at the expense of everyone else.

Blah blah blah.. do you have any idea how rich our poor are? Have you not seen the photos showing you just how fat our poor are? Do you not know they all have free cell phones and flat screen TVs and live like kings and queens in their own government funded apartments, all for staying out of the job market?

 

[protectionist]

Actually, it's robbery. Robbery is theft by force. Far worse than just theft.

Besides which, I fail to see how making money by providing people with goods and services they want and need is theft.

People didn't become rich by stealing from you when you gave it to them voluntarily.

1. Taxation is a normal process of govt, not robbery, not theft.

2. Companies steal from workers the difference between what they should pay (in accordance with work performed), and what they do pay. Simple as that.

3. Workers don't voluntarily accept underpayment. I've answered that already.

1) Taxation to fund necessary functions of our government, such as for national defense and other items listed in the Constitution are the normal process of Government. Taxation and borrowing against future taxation to redistribute income from peter's labor to pay paul to sit on his ass is theft.

2) If companies are not paying workers the agreed upon sum we have a court system to take care of that. If people don't like the agreed upon sum they are free to go elsewhere.

3) No one said workers voluntarily accept underpayment. That's some dumb ass strawman you are trying to make up that no one is getting paid what they deserve because the man is keeping you down. You are a coward. You work for the man then complain about it, you are not worth of your job, and clearly being paid to much.

1. I didn't say anything about taxing to pay someone to sit on their ass. Note: the most ass-sitting ass sitters are the super rich, who never get their hands dirty.

2. By not providing enough taxes (like to pay ICE agents and CBP officers, & build the Mexican border fence) THAT is causing & perpetuating the most welfare drain.

3. "agreed upon sum", "court system to take care of that", " free to go elsewhere" >> all rationalizations of cheapskate employers.

3. Of course workers are not getting paid what they should, and of course it is very often the greed of the employers that is the reason. Millions of workers get less tha 10 bucks an hour. You call that acceptable ? Sure you do, because like many others, you are living in a denial dream world, manufactured to maximize profits regardless of the effects. And you bitch about govt regulation. Govt wouldn't have to step in to kick your greedy ass, if you acted properly in the first place.

 

[protectionist]

Yes. Too many people are going through life thinking that the world owes them something, and that life should be fair.

Too many people are going through life thinking that it's OK for life to be unfair, (where it could easily be made to be fair). And I'd say everyone IS owed something. Just a FAIR shake, that's all. But that's not happening in America today with a very small group getting richer and richer, at the expense of everyone else.

Blah blah blah.. do you have any idea how rich our poor are? Have you not seen the photos showing you just how fat our poor are? Do you not know they all have free cell phones and flat screen TVs and live like kings and queens in their own government funded apartments, all for staying out of the job market?

I'm talking about the WORKING poor. Try to keep up.

 

[dcraelin]

Then why not have the govt guarantee every citizen an income of 100K per year? same pay for every job, EQUALITY, FAIRNESS.

I see that argument all the time, and it is ridiculous. Of Course that would destroy a business.
But if a Business cant pay a wage that provides for a basic existence then it probably doesnt really have a viable business anyway.

A business has no obligation to pay an employee any more than that employee's labor is worth to the business. If you have minimal education and minimal skills, then your labor is not very valuable.
Tell us what hourly wage is needed to provide for "basic existence". is it the same for a guy with 5 kids as a single guy when both are doing the same job? is it the same in NYC as in Fargo, ND ? Is it the same for a healthy person and one with medical issues?
Should the business base its wages on the individual needs of the employees or each employee's contribution to the business?

I agree a business has no obligation to pay more than that employee's labor is worth, but if that worth is so low it doesnt provide a living wage then it would be better for both business and laborer to find other arrangements.

I dont think wage earners at the bottom of the scale are very good negotiators and are often taken advantage of. I dont think 11.11/hr, which is I believe what is being discussed, is out of line. It would not pay for someone with a lot of medical issues, or someone with 5 kids...I think it is a reasonable compromise level.

If a business, even in Fargo, cant pay that wage, then I would say it isn't really a viable business

 

[Darkwind]

I see that argument all the time, and it is ridiculous. Of Course that would destroy a business.
But if a Business cant pay a wage that provides for a basic existence then it probably doesnt really have a viable business anyway.

A business has no obligation to pay an employee any more than that employee's labor is worth to the business. If you have minimal education and minimal skills, then your labor is not very valuable.
Tell us what hourly wage is needed to provide for "basic existence". is it the same for a guy with 5 kids as a single guy when both are doing the same job? is it the same in NYC as in Fargo, ND ? Is it the same for a healthy person and one with medical issues?
Should the business base its wages on the individual needs of the employees or each employee's contribution to the business?

I agree a business has no obligation to pay more than that employee's labor is worth, but if that worth is so low it doesnt provide a living wage then it would be better for both business and laborer to find other arrangements.

I dont think wage earners at the bottom of the scale are very good negotiators and are often taken advantage of. I dont think 11.11/hr, which is I believe what is being discussed, is out of line. It would not pay for someone with a lot of medical issues, or someone with 5 kids...I think it is a reasonable compromise level.

If a business, even in Fargo, cant pay that wage, then I would say it isn't really a viable business

Have you ever run a business?

And don't give us the platitudes about having not run a business does not mean you don't understand how business works. Clearly, you don't.

 

[P@triot]

There is nothing more comical than uninformed, unhinged Dumbocrats.

They start with a false premise from a place of pure ignorance out of extreme envy (someone has something I don't, and I'm pissed about it so I need to create a narrative for why I should be able to take it from them).

So then, without any facts, they declare "wealthy people made their wealth by exploiting people and their taxes are too low".

When facts and reason prove that insane narrative to be false, desperation kicks in. Now they have to defend their previous uninformed position at all costs - lest they lose credibility in their desperate quest to take what belongs to someone else. And that's when the shit completely falls apart.

This is where the desperation creates extreme insanity. "Well, uh, your facts are just bullshit because they are created by wealthy elite to keep you oppressed, maaaaaaan".

Uh, ok. Well then, how do you know that taxes are too low on the wealthy? I mean, if facts "can't be trusted", then how do you form your opinions? Are you acknowledging that your opinions are uninformed opinions?

God, Dumbocrats are so dumb it defies logic. They simply cannot function. No wonder they need government - people this extremedly stupid could not possibly be able to feed and clothe themselves.

 

[P@triot]

Too many people are going through life thinking that it's OK for life to be unfair, (where it could easily be made to be fair). And I'd say everyone IS owed something. Just a FAIR shake, that's all. But that's not happening in America today with a very small group getting richer and richer, at the expense of everyone else.

Blah blah blah.. do you have any idea how rich our poor are? Have you not seen the photos showing you just how fat our poor are? Do you not know they all have free cell phones and flat screen TVs and live like kings and queens in their own government funded apartments, all for staying out of the job market?

I'm talking about the WORKING poor. Try to keep up.

So the working poor are not fat and do not have as much as the poor who do not work, in your mind?

This guy is such a fuck'n ignorant tool.....

 

[dcraelin]

A business has no obligation to pay an employee any more than that employee's labor is worth to the business. If you have minimal education and minimal skills, then your labor is not very valuable.
Tell us what hourly wage is needed to provide for "basic existence". is it the same for a guy with 5 kids as a single guy when both are doing the same job? is it the same in NYC as in Fargo, ND ? Is it the same for a healthy person and one with medical issues?
Should the business base its wages on the individual needs of the employees or each employee's contribution to the business?

I agree a business has no obligation to pay more than that employee's labor is worth, but if that worth is so low it doesnt provide a living wage then it would be better for both business and laborer to find other arrangements.

I dont think wage earners at the bottom of the scale are very good negotiators and are often taken advantage of. I dont think 11.11/hr, which is I believe what is being discussed, is out of line. It would not pay for someone with a lot of medical issues, or someone with 5 kids...I think it is a reasonable compromise level.

If a business, even in Fargo, cant pay that wage, then I would say it isn't really a viable business

Have you ever run a business?

And don't give us the platitudes about having not run a business does not mean you don't understand how business works. Clearly, you don't.

I have never run a business.......does that give you leeway to not address the points I make?

would also say that is an hourly rate and business could hire part time to save a little, and generally I believe these minimum wage proposals do come with certain exemptions for waiters/waitresses etc.

 

[RKMBrown]

1. Taxation is a normal process of govt, not robbery, not theft.

2. Companies steal from workers the difference between what they should pay (in accordance with work performed), and what they do pay. Simple as that.

3. Workers don't voluntarily accept underpayment. I've answered that already.

1) Taxation to fund necessary functions of our government, such as for national defense and other items listed in the Constitution are the normal process of Government. Taxation and borrowing against future taxation to redistribute income from peter's labor to pay paul to sit on his ass is theft.

2) If companies are not paying workers the agreed upon sum we have a court system to take care of that. If people don't like the agreed upon sum they are free to go elsewhere.

3) No one said workers voluntarily accept underpayment. That's some dumb ass strawman you are trying to make up that no one is getting paid what they deserve because the man is keeping you down. You are a coward. You work for the man then complain about it, you are not worth of your job, and clearly being paid to much.

1. I didn't say anything about taxing to pay someone to sit on their ass. Note: the most ass-sitting ass sitters are the super rich, who never get their hands dirty.

2. By not providing enough taxes (like to pay ICE agents and CBP officers, & build the Mexican border fence) THAT is causing & perpetuating the most welfare drain.

3. "agreed upon sum", "court system to take care of that", " free to go elsewhere" >> all rationalizations of cheapskate employers.

3. Of course workers are not getting paid what they should, and of course it is very often the greed of the employers that is the reason. Millions of workers get less tha 10 bucks an hour. You call that acceptable ? Sure you do, because like many others, you are living in a denial dream world, manufactured to maximize profits regardless of the effects. And you bitch about govt regulation. Govt wouldn't have to step in to kick your greedy ass, if you acted properly in the first place.

>> 1. I didn't say anything about taxing to pay someone to sit on their ass. Note: the most ass-sitting ass sitters are the super rich, who never get their hands dirty.

Then what is taxing my income to pay someone to sit on their asses? I call if theft, if not theft what do you call it comrade?

>> 2. By not providing enough taxes (like to pay ICE agents and CBP officers, & build the Mexican border fence) THAT is causing & perpetuating the most welfare drain.

Nonsense we pay enough taxes the problem is our government does not want to spend what we give them on things like protecting our borders. Not when they can spend it on protecting Afghanistan's, Israel's, Europe's, Japan's, Iraq's, ... borders. We could give our government 100% of our income and they still wouldn't spend it on protecting our border. Why? Because they want the welfare drain. Why? Because it creates a population the needs government to live. Why? Because then they are our masters.

>> 3. "agreed upon sum", "court system to take care of that", " free to go elsewhere" >> all rationalizations of cheapskate employers.

Cheapskate employers get the employees they deserve. It's a symbiotic relationship.

>> 3. Of course workers are not getting paid what they should, and of course it is very often the greed of the employers that is the reason. Millions of workers get less tha 10 bucks an hour. You call that acceptable ? Sure you do, because like many others, you are living in a denial dream world, manufactured to maximize profits regardless of the effects. And you bitch about govt regulation. Govt wouldn't have to step in to kick your greedy ass, if you acted properly in the first place.

Why the hell should we pay a 15year old kid the same amount to bag our groceries as we would a plumber with 15years professional experience?

 

[P@triot]

I see that argument all the time, and it is ridiculous. Of Course that would destroy a business.
But if a Business cant pay a wage that provides for a basic existence then it probably doesnt really have a viable business anyway.

A business has no obligation to pay an employee any more than that employee's labor is worth to the business. If you have minimal education and minimal skills, then your labor is not very valuable.
Tell us what hourly wage is needed to provide for "basic existence". is it the same for a guy with 5 kids as a single guy when both are doing the same job? is it the same in NYC as in Fargo, ND ? Is it the same for a healthy person and one with medical issues?
Should the business base its wages on the individual needs of the employees or each employee's contribution to the business?

I agree a business has no obligation to pay more than that employee's labor is worth, but if that worth is so low it doesnt provide a living wage then it would be better for both business and laborer to find other arrangements.

I dont think wage earners at the bottom of the scale are very good negotiators and are often taken advantage of. I dont think 11.11/hr, which is I believe what is being discussed, is out of line. It would not pay for someone with a lot of medical issues, or someone with 5 kids...I think it is a reasonable compromise level.

If a business, even in Fargo, cant pay that wage, then I would say it isn't really a viable business

But that's the beauty of the free market. It really doesn't matter what you think. The business is free to operate as best as it can, whether or not you think it is "viable".

And here is the thing chief - put your money where you mouth is. If you think $11.11 per hour is reasonable, then why don't you start a business and create jobs for people who need them - paying (of course) at least $11.11 per hour?

It amazes me that Dumbocrats demand of others what they themselves are not willing to do. Don't ask me to provide a job for $11.11 per hour if you are not willing to provide a job for $11.11 per hour.

 

[protectionist]

Why is it Dumbocrats speak about topics which they are completely and totally uninformed about? The top 1% earned 13% of the wealth but pay 22% of the taxes. The top 20% earned 50% of the wealth but pay 68% of the taxes. Do you see a pattern? The taxes they pay are a much higher percentage than the wealth they are earning.

Now lets look at the other side. The bottom 40% earned 14% of the wealth but pay only 4% of the taxes. The taxes they pay are a much lower percentage than the wealth they are earning.

Only thing wrong about taxes right now [MENTION=45665]protectionist[/MENTION] is that they are way too high on the rich and way too low on the parasites...

You can toss out all the stats you like, but from whom are they derived ? Answer ? The same govt of rich people that I critiqued in the OP. So you're referring to a group of rich people to ask a question about rich people. Cool. Thta's about like asking the honchos of General Motors which is better > a Cadillac or a Lincoln ?

In the days of the old Soviet Union, the govt's "statistics there used to say it was a socialist country with an equal distribution of wealth. Only problem was the members of the Communist Party living in mansions and riding around in limousines, while millions of people were standing on bread lines. And in America ? No county's gap between he rich and the poor is greater the in the, and the US gap is greater than it ever as been since records have been kept, now surpassing the old largest gap (1927)

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2009/8/19/saupload_rich_us.png

PS - if anyone's wondering what we might call this upward surge on the graph since 1980, it could be called "the Reagan era".

In other words, even CBO statistics (which both the Republicans and the Dumbocrats are on record as stating are very accurate and unbiased) are "fake" in your mind. In fact, everything in your mind are lies and somehow you are the lone "enlightened" one who we should all follow.

Tell us junior, if "stats" are all "derived" from "the same govt of rich people" who you "critiqued in the OP" - where do you get your information that taxes are too low on the wealthy?

Do you realize what a tool you are now? You've literally painted yourself into a corner with this ignorant post. If we can't trust "stats", then whatever you say is irrelevant if you back it up with anything. And if you have nothing to back up what you say, then whatever you say is even more irrelevant and is not formed from any basis in reality. So either way, you just made your own opinion uninformed and worthless (because if your opinion is informed, whatever sources you used were "derived" from evil people who can't be trusted).

1. Reported for Age discrimination/harassment

2. I don't give a rat's ass what Republican and Democrats say. I'm an Independent, and both Rs & Ds are tools of the super rich.

3. "where do you get your information that taxes are too low on the wealthy?" >>> Here's one place (among others) >> National Taxpayers Union - History of Federal Individual Income Bottom and Top Bracket Rates

4. HA HA. Nice try, if only it made sense. We can trust stats if/whenever they conform to reality that we see all around us. I already explained that in my Soviet Union example, in a recent post. Try to keep up.

 

[protectionist]

A business has no obligation to pay an employee any more than that employee's labor is worth to the business. If you have minimal education and minimal skills, then your labor is not very valuable.
Tell us what hourly wage is needed to provide for "basic existence". is it the same for a guy with 5 kids as a single guy when both are doing the same job? is it the same in NYC as in Fargo, ND ? Is it the same for a healthy person and one with medical issues?
Should the business base its wages on the individual needs of the employees or each employee's contribution to the business?

I agree a business has no obligation to pay more than that employee's labor is worth, but if that worth is so low it doesnt provide a living wage then it would be better for both business and laborer to find other arrangements.

I dont think wage earners at the bottom of the scale are very good negotiators and are often taken advantage of. I dont think 11.11/hr, which is I believe what is being discussed, is out of line. It would not pay for someone with a lot of medical issues, or someone with 5 kids...I think it is a reasonable compromise level.

If a business, even in Fargo, cant pay that wage, then I would say it isn't really a viable business

Have you ever run a business?

And don't give us the platitudes about having not run a business does not mean you don't understand how business works. Clearly, you don't.

I ran a business for 12 years, very successfully. I started it with almost zero start-up capital, and slowly built it. I payed commission sales people the equivalent of $150/hour and didn't even blink. Businesses all around me were paying minimum wage and bitching about the MW going up. I was bitching about the MW NOT GOING UP. The low MW was the biggest obstacle I faced in running my business. I sold memberships to a club which were $1000 each. The low MW limited my sales drastically.

As any good business seller would do, I, after some wrangling, invariably asked resistant potential customers (callers) this >> "What is the most you can pay now, as a down payment, and not completely obliterate yourself ? " Every day, I heard callers answer "Uh, 10 bucks". (I took a down payment of $500, and $100/mo, in-house financing)

When wages are down, so is disposable income in the community, and thereby YOUR SALES, as well.

 

[protectionist]

A business has no obligation to pay an employee any more than that employee's labor is worth to the business. If you have minimal education and minimal skills, then your labor is not very valuable.
Tell us what hourly wage is needed to provide for "basic existence". is it the same for a guy with 5 kids as a single guy when both are doing the same job? is it the same in NYC as in Fargo, ND ? Is it the same for a healthy person and one with medical issues?
Should the business base its wages on the individual needs of the employees or each employee's contribution to the business?

I agree a business has no obligation to pay more than that employee's labor is worth, but if that worth is so low it doesnt provide a living wage then it would be better for both business and laborer to find other arrangements.

I dont think wage earners at the bottom of the scale are very good negotiators and are often taken advantage of. I dont think 11.11/hr, which is I believe what is being discussed, is out of line. It would not pay for someone with a lot of medical issues, or someone with 5 kids...I think it is a reasonable compromise level.

If a business, even in Fargo, cant pay that wage, then I would say it isn't really a viable business

But that's the beauty of the free market. It really doesn't matter what you think. The business is free to operate as best as it can, whether or not you think it is "viable".

And here is the thing chief - put your money where you mouth is. If you think $11.11 per hour is reasonable, then why don't you start a business and create jobs for people who need them - paying (of course) at least $11.11 per hour?

It amazes me that Dumbocrats demand of others what they themselves are not willing to do. Don't ask me to provide a job for $11.11 per hour if you are not willing to provide a job for $11.11 per hour.

$11.11/hour is chicken feed. I paid $150/hour to commissioned sales people, and that still gave me 85% of the sale. I probably should have paid them even more.

 

[Darkwind]

I agree a business has no obligation to pay more than that employee's labor is worth, but if that worth is so low it doesnt provide a living wage then it would be better for both business and laborer to find other arrangements.

I dont think wage earners at the bottom of the scale are very good negotiators and are often taken advantage of. I dont think 11.11/hr, which is I believe what is being discussed, is out of line. It would not pay for someone with a lot of medical issues, or someone with 5 kids...I think it is a reasonable compromise level.

If a business, even in Fargo, cant pay that wage, then I would say it isn't really a viable business

Have you ever run a business?

And don't give us the platitudes about having not run a business does not mean you don't understand how business works. Clearly, you don't.

I have never run a business.......does that give you leeway to not address the points I make?

would also say that is an hourly rate and business could hire part time to save a little, and generally I believe these minimum wage proposals do come with certain exemptions for waiters/waitresses etc.

I have addressed the points you have made hundreds of times over the years. I get tired of explaining business 101 to people who think that the hourly wage of employes are some kind of arbitrary number assigned by greedy business owners.

In order to bring a commodity or service to the market place, a business incurs costs. These costs are offset by the prices they charge for their goods or services. With Me so far?

These goods or services cannot just be charged any amount the business owner wants. This is because the consumer of the business product will only pay a certain amount for any good or service. There comes a point at which the consumer can go elsewhere for a better 'bargain' on the exact same product or service.

This means that the business must keep costs below the maximum income realized. This translates to analysis of what each aspect of the business costs money. This means the lease/rent/mortgage must be paid. The electricity and heating must be paid for. The taxes, city/local/state/federal must be paid (often ahead of any other expenditure). Suppliers of raw goods (if you produce something) must be paid. Then there is labor.

If the cost for such items such as furniture, electricity, mortgage, taxes are a set cost, that can be planned for. If I produce something, like a widget, then the costs for the materials fluctuate based upon supplier and I have to account for that fluctuation. This means that I have, I absolutely HAVE to place a cushion in my bottom line to account for spikes in costs to materials. This leaves labor.

In order for worker X to produce a widget, it takes a specific amount of work. This work is calculated over a period of time. Lets say its over time period of one hour. Lets also say that I have just the one production employee.

This employee must produce 10 widgets per hour at X number of dollars per widget, just to pay for his own wages. But wait! I have other employees in other departments. This means that their wages must also be paid. So, this production worker must now produce 300 widgets per hour just so that my business can break even. That is a fixed wage. However, an employees output is not a fixed number. Some days, the employee only produces 2000 units per day, where I need him or her to produce 2400. Some days, he or she produces 2600 per day. When all is said and done, it averages out to 2400 per day based upon an analysis I did on productivity.

This provides everyone wages, plus some overhead and expansion cushion for the business. This cushion eventually translates into more demand for My widget, at which time, I can now hire another employee....

And so the cycle goes....

If the government comes along and demands that I pay that employee twice what it costs My business to produce, then one of three things are going to have to happen. The employees are going to have to double their output, or one of the employees is going to lose his or her job, or I am going to pass the cost along to the consumer. If I do that last thing, I may lose business because consumers won't pay a higher price, and then I end up losing an employee anyway.

In any case, the arbitrary assignment of a higher minimum wage will cost the country economic activity in lost sales, lost production and lost wages.

A free labor market is a much better way to set wages than a forced theft by government.

This is, of course, a very simplified version of what actually goes on. I don't have years to write out business scenarios for an Internet forum discussion.

 

[protectionist]

1) Taxation to fund necessary functions of our government, such as for national defense and other items listed in the Constitution are the normal process of Government. Taxation and borrowing against future taxation to redistribute income from peter's labor to pay paul to sit on his ass is theft.

2) If companies are not paying workers the agreed upon sum we have a court system to take care of that. If people don't like the agreed upon sum they are free to go elsewhere.

3) No one said workers voluntarily accept underpayment. That's some dumb ass strawman you are trying to make up that no one is getting paid what they deserve because the man is keeping you down. You are a coward. You work for the man then complain about it, you are not worth of your job, and clearly being paid to much.

1. I didn't say anything about taxing to pay someone to sit on their ass. Note: the most ass-sitting ass sitters are the super rich, who never get their hands dirty.

2. By not providing enough taxes (like to pay ICE agents and CBP officers, & build the Mexican border fence) THAT is causing & perpetuating the most welfare drain.

3. "agreed upon sum", "court system to take care of that", " free to go elsewhere" >> all rationalizations of cheapskate employers.

3. Of course workers are not getting paid what they should, and of course it is very often the greed of the employers that is the reason. Millions of workers get less tha 10 bucks an hour. You call that acceptable ? Sure you do, because like many others, you are living in a denial dream world, manufactured to maximize profits regardless of the effects. And you bitch about govt regulation. Govt wouldn't have to step in to kick your greedy ass, if you acted properly in the first place.

>> 1. I didn't say anything about taxing to pay someone to sit on their ass. Note: the most ass-sitting ass sitters are the super rich, who never get their hands dirty.

Then what is taxing my income to pay someone to sit on their asses? I call if theft, if not theft what do you call it comrade?

>> 2. By not providing enough taxes (like to pay ICE agents and CBP officers, & build the Mexican border fence) THAT is causing & perpetuating the most welfare drain.

Nonsense we pay enough taxes the problem is our government does not want to spend what we give them on things like protecting our borders. Not when they can spend it on protecting Afghanistan's, Israel's, Europe's, Japan's, Iraq's, ... borders. We could give our government 100% of our income and they still wouldn't spend it on protecting our border. Why? Because they want the welfare drain. Why? Because it creates a population the needs government to live. Why? Because then they are our masters.

>> 3. "agreed upon sum", "court system to take care of that", " free to go elsewhere" >> all rationalizations of cheapskate employers.

Cheapskate employers get the employees they deserve. It's a symbiotic relationship.

>> 3. Of course workers are not getting paid what they should, and of course it is very often the greed of the employers that is the reason. Millions of workers get less tha 10 bucks an hour. You call that acceptable ? Sure you do, because like many others, you are living in a denial dream world, manufactured to maximize profits regardless of the effects. And you bitch about govt regulation. Govt wouldn't have to step in to kick your greedy ass, if you acted properly in the first place.

Why the hell should we pay a 15year old kid the same amount to bag our groceries as we would a plumber with 15years professional experience?

Your post is a mess. Clean it up, and then I'll respond to your questions.

PS- do you know how to use the post system ? If not, check with the moderators for tips.

 

[Darkwind]

I agree a business has no obligation to pay more than that employee's labor is worth, but if that worth is so low it doesnt provide a living wage then it would be better for both business and laborer to find other arrangements.

I dont think wage earners at the bottom of the scale are very good negotiators and are often taken advantage of. I dont think 11.11/hr, which is I believe what is being discussed, is out of line. It would not pay for someone with a lot of medical issues, or someone with 5 kids...I think it is a reasonable compromise level.

If a business, even in Fargo, cant pay that wage, then I would say it isn't really a viable business

But that's the beauty of the free market. It really doesn't matter what you think. The business is free to operate as best as it can, whether or not you think it is "viable".

And here is the thing chief - put your money where you mouth is. If you think $11.11 per hour is reasonable, then why don't you start a business and create jobs for people who need them - paying (of course) at least $11.11 per hour?

It amazes me that Dumbocrats demand of others what they themselves are not willing to do. Don't ask me to provide a job for $11.11 per hour if you are not willing to provide a job for $11.11 per hour.

$11.11/hour is chicken feed. I paid $150/hour to commissioned sales people, and that still gave me 85% of the sale. I probably should have paid them even more.

Wow....Remind Me to never start a business with you. You don't even know that you paid them zero wages UNLESS they produced for you.

OR what do you think "Paid commission" means? They don't get you sales, they don't get paid....even if they put in 50 hours that week.

Talk about abusing employees.

 

[Darkwind]

For those of you who think that business just sets wages arbitrarily I recommend an introductory book to help you.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Common-Sense-Economy-ebook/dp/B0047T86CO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1390148877&sr=8-1&keywords=thomas+sowell+basic+economics]Amazon.com: Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy, 4th Edition eBook: Thomas Sowell: Kindle Store[/ame]

 

[KNB]

For those of you who think that business just sets wages arbitrarily I recommend an introductory book to help you.

Amazon.com: Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy, 4th Edition eBook: Thomas Sowell: Kindle Store

Without having to read that book, could you explain how the author justifies the Federal minimum wage not being adjusted for cost-of-living increases (inflation) since the 1970s?

 

[protectionist]

Have you ever run a business?

And don't give us the platitudes about having not run a business does not mean you don't understand how business works. Clearly, you don't.

I have never run a business.......does that give you leeway to not address the points I make?

would also say that is an hourly rate and business could hire part time to save a little, and generally I believe these minimum wage proposals do come with certain exemptions for waiters/waitresses etc.

I have addressed the points you have made hundreds of times over the years. I get tired of explaining business 101 to people who think that the hourly wage of employes are some kind of arbitrary number assigned by greedy business owners.

In order to bring a commodity or service to the market place, a business incurs costs. These costs are offset by the prices they charge for their goods or services. With Me so far?

These goods or services cannot just be charged any amount the business owner wants. This is because the consumer of the business product will only pay a certain amount for any good or service. There comes a point at which the consumer can go elsewhere for a better 'bargain' on the exact same product or service.

This means that the business must keep costs below the maximum income realized. This translates to analysis of what each aspect of the business costs money. This means the lease/rent/mortgage must be paid. The electricity and heating must be paid for. The taxes, city/local/state/federal must be paid (often ahead of any other expenditure). Suppliers of raw goods (if you produce something) must be paid. Then there is labor.

If the cost for such items such as furniture, electricity, mortgage, taxes are a set cost, that can be planned for. If I produce something, like a widget, then the costs for the materials fluctuate based upon supplier and I have to account for that fluctuation. This means that I have, I absolutely HAVE to place a cushion in my bottom line to account for spikes in costs to materials. This leaves labor.

In order for worker X to produce a widget, it takes a specific amount of work. This work is calculated over a period of time. Lets say its over time period of one hour. Lets also say that I have just the one production employee.

This employee must produce 10 widgets per hour at X number of dollars per widget, just to pay for his own wages. But wait! I have other employees in other departments. This means that their wages must also be paid. So, this production worker must now produce 300 widgets per hour just so that my business can break even. That is a fixed wage. However, an employees output is not a fixed number. Some days, the employee only produces 2000 units per day, where I need him or her to produce 2400. Some days, he or she produces 2600 per day. When all is said and done, it averages out to 2400 per day based upon an analysis I did on productivity.

This provides everyone wages, plus some overhead and expansion cushion for the business. This cushion eventually translates into more demand for My widget, at which time, I can now hire another employee....

And so the cycle goes....

If the government comes along and demands that I pay that employee twice what it costs My business to produce, then one of three things are going to have to happen. The employees are going to have to double their output, or one of the employees is going to lose his or her job, or I am going to pass the cost along to the consumer. If I do that last thing, I may lose business because consumers won't pay a higher price, and then I end up losing an employee anyway.

In any case, the arbitrary assignment of a higher minimum wage will cost the country economic activity in lost sales, lost production and lost wages.

A free labor market is a much better way to set wages than a forced theft by government.

This is, of course, a very simplified version of what actually goes on. I don't have years to write out business scenarios for an Internet forum discussion.

You forgot one thing (one HUGE thing) >. Your INCREASE IN SALES as a result of the huge increase in disposable income (with the bigger the wages increase, the bigger the increase in sales)

You are correct that we cannot set our prices. They are preset by THE MARKET. And that market TELLS US what our price will be. And if we go above our "market price" (the price you see on every item in the store) we lose sales$$ and income and profits.
Likewise, if we lay off employees we lose money.

So what can we do ? We can rejoice that the greater disposable income in the community, is now increasing our sales$$$$.