What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

[Cecilie1200]

just because a company gives a man a job, does not mean that company pays a living wage.

you can work for McDonalds and make minimum wage, thats not exactly a living wage
you can work for walmart and make $10 an hour, thats not exactly a living wage

Define "living".

Living to me means paying the rent, the heat, and food. That's a living wage, because those are the things you need to live.

Actually, living goes beyond that.

For example, you forgot clothing and you didn't mention health care. Or gas money/public transportation money so they can actually get to work.

How often do YOU buy clothes?

Hate to break it to you, but my family has had periods where it managed on $10 an hour. It wasn't fun, but it's doable.

And, of course, the operative point that you and your comrades always seem to forget is that it's not anyone else's responsibility to make sure you have the money you need. It's yours. If you aren't making enough money, the solution is NOT to bitch and blame someone else and demand that they give you more. It's to find a way to make more money yourself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

where can you do that on $10 an hr?

$10 x 40 x 4.3 = $1720
Rent: $750
Heat/electric: $100
Food (for a family of 3): $450

That's $1300. You have $420 to use for incidentals.

Once again, clothing! Transportation. Now that there's a child ( or children ) day care, school supplies, toilet paper, dish soap, shampoo, towels, bed sheets, furniture, TAXES.

You're numbers omit real life, which means its fantasyland.

Once again, how often are you buying clothes? And where? How much are you spending on transportation (and why aren't you more pissed about Obama's soaring gas prices?) Personally, I never spent any money on day care. I made different life choices (something that never occurs to liberals, for some reason). I can't even imagine why you think towels, sheets, and furniture are regularly-occurring expenses in life. And where the hell are you shopping if you're spending that much money on school supplies and soap and such?

 

[Mr.Nick]

Progressives believe if that they believe what they're saying it is true...

Oh yeah and their citations of op-ed articles kind of pisses me off too...

"Oh you don't believe what I'm saying, huffo proves my assertions" - it's like WTF...

Since someone wrote a blog you a agree with it's now factual???

It's so funny...

 

[Foxfyre]

Those who stay in school, actually educate themselves, and graduate. . . .those who stay mostly away from controlled substances and illegal activities. . . those who do whatever apprentice or odd jobs or part time work or take low end "Mcjobs" to learn a trade and/or acquire marketable skills, develop a work ethic, acquire references, etc.. . . .those who wait until they are married to have kids. . . .and those who are willing to start at the bottom in order to move up the ladder and/or get to the top. . . . . such folks will almost always earn a living wage and more.

One of the frustrating things about arguing with many liberals is that they think they are owed or entitled to a living wage among other things. They see it as their right for their employer to pay them that living wage regardless of how much their labor is worth. They see it as their right to have an employer who acts as more of a benevolent monarch providing for the people's every need. Of course many have been conditioned to look at government that way too.

Conservatives look at labor as just another commodity not any different than inputs, raw materials, infrastructure, transportation, or any other costs of doing business.

By the time you figure in waste, employee theft, inventory, and the cost of providing, maintaining, and making usable facilities, record keeping, plus mandatory licensing, taxes, and insurance, the profit on an Egg McMuffin or Quarter Pounder is pretty small. A huge volume is necessary to meet payroll and provide a profit for the employer who is risking a very large chunk of change operating that McDonalds.

Therefore, even in a very good McDonalds, the value of any one employee's labor is worth only as much as the price of product sold because he/she is there less all the costs of producing that product including a reasonable profit for the owner. Pay the worker more than the customer is willing to pay for the product and the business will eventually have to close and the worker will have no income at all.

Of course it is a two way street. Without the employees, the employer will also not be able to turn a profit and the business closes. In the free market, the employer and employees negotiate wages that serve the needs of both and still allow a profit for the employer. When that no longer is possible, there is no longer a McDonalds there.

Some of our more leftist/liberal friends here seem to think a profit should not be a factor in what the employees get paid.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Those who stay in school, actually educate themselves, and graduate. . . .those who stay mostly away from controlled substances and illegal activities. . . those who do whatever apprentice or odd jobs or part time work or take low end "Mcjobs" to learn a trade and/or acquire marketable skills, develop a work ethic, acquire references, etc.. . . .those who wait until they are married to have kids. . . .and those who are willing to start at the bottom in order to move up the ladder and/or get to the top. . . . . such folks will almost always earn a living wage and more.

One of the frustrating things about arguing with many liberals is that they think they are owed or entitled to a living wage among other things. They see it as their right for their employer to pay them that living wage regardless of how much their labor is worth. They see it as their right to have an employer who acts as more of a benevolent monarch providing for the people's every need. Of course many have been conditioned to look at government that way too.

Conservatives look at labor as just another commodity not any different than inputs, raw materials, infrastructure, transportation, or any other costs of doing business.

By the time you figure in waste, employee theft, inventory, and the cost of providing, maintaining, and making usable facilities, record keeping, plus mandatory licensing, taxes, and insurance, the profit on an Egg McMuffin or Quarter Pounder is pretty small. A huge volume is necessary to meet payroll and provide a profit for the employer who is risking a very large chunk of change operating that McDonalds.

Therefore, even in a very good McDonalds, the value of any one employee's labor is worth only as much as the price of product sold because he/she is there less all the costs of producing that product including a reasonable profit for the owner. Pay the worker more than the customer is willing to pay for the product and the business will eventually have to close and the worker will have no income at all.

Of course it is a two way street. Without the employees, the employer will also not be able to turn a profit and the business closes. In the free market, the employer and employees negotiate wages that serve the needs of both and still allow a profit for the employer. When that no longer is possible, there is no longer a McDonalds there.

Some of our more leftist/liberal friends here seem to think a profit should not be a factor in what the employees get paid.

Progressives are economically retarded and certainly feel entitled...

The ones that do know something about economics always have an economic theory that mimics socialism, er a controlled economy.

Of course what they don't get is that such a theory requires obedience to the state which limits freedom..

Of course when reality is pushed they go into denial mode...

Progressives want to have their cake and eat it...

 

[KevinWestern]

$10 x 40 x 4.3 = $1720
Rent: $750
Heat/electric: $100
Food (for a family of 3): $450

That's $1300. You have $420 to use for incidentals.

Once again, clothing! Transportation. Now that there's a child ( or children ) day care, school supplies, toilet paper, dish soap, shampoo, towels, bed sheets, furniture, TAXES.

You're numbers omit real life, which means its fantasyland.

Once again, how often are you buying clothes? And where? How much are you spending on transportation (and why aren't you more pissed about Obama's soaring gas prices?) Personally, I never spent any money on day care. I made different life choices (something that never occurs to liberals, for some reason). I can't even imagine why you think towels, sheets, and furniture are regularly-occurring expenses in life. And where the hell are you shopping if you're spending that much money on school supplies and soap and such?

Getting by (with a family of three) making $10/hr would be extraordinarily difficult. I understand your point that you don't buy towels every week, ect, but there's absolutely no denying that getting by (virtually anywhere) making $10/hr with a family of three would be EXTREMELY difficult. You seem to downplay it.

Also, Obama does not control the gas prices (stop oversimplifying things), as that’s a silly thing to say. I’m going to guess that you probably won’t give him credit in the Fall when the prices drop, will you?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Also, Obama does not control the gas prices, as that’s a silly thing to say.

The Obama deserves every bit as much blame as the left heaped on to GWB.

 

[KevinWestern]

Also, Obama does not control the gas prices, as that’s a silly thing to say.

The Obama deserves every bit as much blame as the left heaped on to GWB.

So, then two wrongs = a right?

 

[Uncensored2008]

id prefer not to commute (such as you do, but thats your choice) hence why i live where i work. i probably also have a much lower gas bill than you do as well as a much lower mortgage payment. but then again, thats the choice you make.

there isnt much cactus in RC anymore, i guess its been a while since you been out this way.

I went shooting in Liddell Creek about 2 weeks ago. The 15 goes right through Rancho. Once past Bass Pro Shops, it sure looks like desert to me.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Also, Obama does not control the gas prices, as that’s a silly thing to say.

The Obama deserves every bit as much blame as the left heaped on to GWB.

So, then two wrongs = a right?

I'm sorry -- I just want to be clear:
You're stating that the liberals/Dems were wrong to blame GWB for the high gas prices during his term?

 

[KevinWestern]

The Obama deserves every bit as much blame as the left heaped on to GWB.

So, then two wrongs = a right?

I'm sorry -- I just want to be clear:
You're stating that the liberals/Dems were wrong to blame GWB for the high gas prices during his term?

Yes, definitely.

I want to note that it’s my opinion that Washington – as a whole – was a more potent 'influencer' of gas prices during the Bush Era than the Obama Era, mostly because this era housed the beginnings and escalations of the Iraq/Afghan war.

But if you know your stuff you will know that both the Dems and Republicans decided/voted on invading Iraq. It couldn't have happened without the cooperation of both parties. To say anything gas price related 2001-2008 was the result of just Bush is silly, and a way oversimplified approach to things. Misleading even.

 

[The T]

Those who stay in school, actually educate themselves, and graduate. . . .those who stay mostly away from controlled substances and illegal activities. . . those who do whatever apprentice or odd jobs or part time work or take low end "Mcjobs" to learn a trade and/or acquire marketable skills, develop a work ethic, acquire references, etc.. . . .those who wait until they are married to have kids. . . .and those who are willing to start at the bottom in order to move up the ladder and/or get to the top. . . . . such folks will almost always earn a living wage and more.

One of the frustrating things about arguing with many liberals is that they think they are owed or entitled to a living wage among other things. They see it as their right for their employer to pay them that living wage regardless of how much their labor is worth. They see it as their right to have an employer who acts as more of a benevolent monarch providing for the people's every need. Of course many have been conditioned to look at government that way too.

Conservatives look at labor as just another commodity not any different than inputs, raw materials, infrastructure, transportation, or any other costs of doing business.

By the time you figure in waste, employee theft, inventory, and the cost of providing, maintaining, and making usable facilities, record keeping, plus mandatory licensing, taxes, and insurance, the profit on an Egg McMuffin or Quarter Pounder is pretty small. A huge volume is necessary to meet payroll and provide a profit for the employer who is risking a very large chunk of change operating that McDonalds.

Therefore, even in a very good McDonalds, the value of any one employee's labor is worth only as much as the price of product sold because he/she is there less all the costs of producing that product including a reasonable profit for the owner. Pay the worker more than the customer is willing to pay for the product and the business will eventually have to close and the worker will have no income at all.

Of course it is a two way street. Without the employees, the employer will also not be able to turn a profit and the business closes. In the free market, the employer and employees negotiate wages that serve the needs of both and still allow a profit for the employer. When that no longer is possible, there is no longer a McDonalds there.

Some of our more leftist/liberal friends here seem to think a profit should not be a factor in what the employees get paid.

Conservatives also look at people as individuals and try to bring forth the potential of that individual by not grouping them as the left does by treating them as an individual.

It is better for the enterprise or endeavour.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

.

But if you know your stuff you will know that both the Dems and Republicans decided/voted on invading Iraq. .

Bottom line is BO is against low prices and now he must pay for it!!


In 2008, before his appointment, Steven Chu told the Wall Street Journal: "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe."

 

[Foxfyre]

Those who stay in school, actually educate themselves, and graduate. . . .those who stay mostly away from controlled substances and illegal activities. . . those who do whatever apprentice or odd jobs or part time work or take low end "Mcjobs" to learn a trade and/or acquire marketable skills, develop a work ethic, acquire references, etc.. . . .those who wait until they are married to have kids. . . .and those who are willing to start at the bottom in order to move up the ladder and/or get to the top. . . . . such folks will almost always earn a living wage and more.

One of the frustrating things about arguing with many liberals is that they think they are owed or entitled to a living wage among other things. They see it as their right for their employer to pay them that living wage regardless of how much their labor is worth. They see it as their right to have an employer who acts as more of a benevolent monarch providing for the people's every need. Of course many have been conditioned to look at government that way too.

Conservatives look at labor as just another commodity not any different than inputs, raw materials, infrastructure, transportation, or any other costs of doing business.

By the time you figure in waste, employee theft, inventory, and the cost of providing, maintaining, and making usable facilities, record keeping, plus mandatory licensing, taxes, and insurance, the profit on an Egg McMuffin or Quarter Pounder is pretty small. A huge volume is necessary to meet payroll and provide a profit for the employer who is risking a very large chunk of change operating that McDonalds.

Therefore, even in a very good McDonalds, the value of any one employee's labor is worth only as much as the price of product sold because he/she is there less all the costs of producing that product including a reasonable profit for the owner. Pay the worker more than the customer is willing to pay for the product and the business will eventually have to close and the worker will have no income at all.

Of course it is a two way street. Without the employees, the employer will also not be able to turn a profit and the business closes. In the free market, the employer and employees negotiate wages that serve the needs of both and still allow a profit for the employer. When that no longer is possible, there is no longer a McDonalds there.

Some of our more leftist/liberal friends here seem to think a profit should not be a factor in what the employees get paid.

Conservatives also look at people as individuals and try to bring forth the potential of that individual by not grouping them as the left does by treating them as an individual.

It is better for the enterprise or endeavour.

I think most conservative bosses who aren't forced into a union model do try to get the maximum benefit from the people they hire. And generally that results in equal benefit to the employee. It is a rare employee who delivers unrewarded maximum effort and good employees who are under appreciated, mistreated, abused, and/or under utilized are not going to be as productive as those who are appreciated, treated fairly and with respect and who are offered opportunity to learn and grow in the job.

Employees with an entitlement mentality or otherwise crappy employees usually don't give maximum anything other than headaches to their employers. And unless some nepotism is involved, they usually don't excel or get very far in developing a satisfying career.

I don't believe I have ever had a job for more than 60 days that I was doing what I was initially hired to do by the time I left. And by the time I left I would have a much more interesting and satisfying job than it was when I started. That usually is not possible in most union shops.

Then too, as JoeB pointed out earlier in the thread, there are some really shitty bosses out there, and those generally don't keep really good people for long. I've had some of the best and some of the worst over my working life. I didn't stay with the worst for long.

 

[The T]

Those who stay in school, actually educate themselves, and graduate. . . .those who stay mostly away from controlled substances and illegal activities. . . those who do whatever apprentice or odd jobs or part time work or take low end "Mcjobs" to learn a trade and/or acquire marketable skills, develop a work ethic, acquire references, etc.. . . .those who wait until they are married to have kids. . . .and those who are willing to start at the bottom in order to move up the ladder and/or get to the top. . . . . such folks will almost always earn a living wage and more.

One of the frustrating things about arguing with many liberals is that they think they are owed or entitled to a living wage among other things. They see it as their right for their employer to pay them that living wage regardless of how much their labor is worth. They see it as their right to have an employer who acts as more of a benevolent monarch providing for the people's every need. Of course many have been conditioned to look at government that way too.

Conservatives look at labor as just another commodity not any different than inputs, raw materials, infrastructure, transportation, or any other costs of doing business.

By the time you figure in waste, employee theft, inventory, and the cost of providing, maintaining, and making usable facilities, record keeping, plus mandatory licensing, taxes, and insurance, the profit on an Egg McMuffin or Quarter Pounder is pretty small. A huge volume is necessary to meet payroll and provide a profit for the employer who is risking a very large chunk of change operating that McDonalds.

Therefore, even in a very good McDonalds, the value of any one employee's labor is worth only as much as the price of product sold because he/she is there less all the costs of producing that product including a reasonable profit for the owner. Pay the worker more than the customer is willing to pay for the product and the business will eventually have to close and the worker will have no income at all.

Of course it is a two way street. Without the employees, the employer will also not be able to turn a profit and the business closes. In the free market, the employer and employees negotiate wages that serve the needs of both and still allow a profit for the employer. When that no longer is possible, there is no longer a McDonalds there.

Some of our more leftist/liberal friends here seem to think a profit should not be a factor in what the employees get paid.

Conservatives also look at people as individuals and try to bring forth the potential of that individual by not grouping them as the left does by treating them as an individual.

It is better for the enterprise or endeavour.

I think most conservative bosses who aren't forced into a union model do try to get the maximum benefit from the people they hire. And generally that results in equal benefit to the employee. It is a rare employee who delivers unrewarded maximum effort and employees who are under appreciated, mistreated, abused, and/or under utilized are not going to be as productive as those who are appreciated, treated fairly and with respect and who are offered opportunity to learn and grow in the job.

I don't believe I have ever had a job for more than 60 days that I was doing what I was initially hired to do by the time I left. And by the time I left I would have a much more interesting and satisfying job than it was when I started. That usually is not possible in most union shops.

Then too, as JoeB pointed out earlier in the thread, there are some really shitty bosses out there, and those generally don't keep really good people for long. I've had some of the best and some of the worst over my working life. I didn't stay with the worst for long.

Yep. As I would come to find out that my 'boss' was in it for himself...I'd be looking for another venue in the interim.

 

[Bfgrn]

It doesn't have to be though. All it requires is each side to articulate a rationale for their opinion about it, pro or con.

Conservatives can usually do that easily. They don't always do it without adding some sideswipes/insulting comments--which is frustrating to me--but they all mostly CAN do it.

This is an experiment to see if there are any liberals who can and will do that. My opinion has been that very very few are even capable of doing that, much less will. And so far nobody on this thread has proved me wrong.

And it is that single phenomenon that makes arguing an issue with a liberal so frustrating. It is not, as Jillian suggested, that people disagree with me. I thoroughly enjoy a good workout to defend a principle or concept or action. It sure doesn't provide that when everybody agrees with you. And I can completely respect somebody who can competently argue against my position on anything and really admire those who can produce an argument superior to mine. And yes, there are a lot of people who can.

You ignore articulated rationale when it is presented to you, as if it doesn't exist. That tells me your argument is solely based on emotions. I have presented a mountain of FACTS on numerous threads that dismantle your dogma and false conclusions about social programs, what our nation was like before those programs and how they have helped to lift millions out of poverty. You constantly ignore those facts and keep on chanting your social Darwinism.

No. Accusing people of malfeasance or misconduct or otherwise insulting, accusing, or deferrring to their actions that have nothing to do with the stated principle is NOT an articulated rationale. It is a deflection or sidetrack or obfusication that seems to be rather typical of the argument most liberals present.

For instance this morning, there was a discussion between Bill Hemmer and Jan Schakowsky re the recently present GOP House budget. She declared it unacceptable and a violation of American values.

Three times Bill Hemmer asked her what American values included trillion dollar deficits for most of the next twenty years as the Democrats are proposing.

Three times she refused to answer that question and kept changing the subject to something or somebody she could attack. Why? In my opinion it is because those trillion dollar deficits are indefensible and are a damning issue for Democrats.

Just as all of you liberals on this thread so far are refusing to address this simple principle:

I, as a conservative, say that federal entitlements are mostly destructive, counter productive, create long term dependencies, and generally do far more harm than good.

What say you?

The liberals have been doing everything but stand on their heads--maybe they're doing that too?--to avoid addressing that specific statement. All it would require the liberal who disagrees with it to say is:

Entitlements encourage productivity, do not create or encourage dependencies, and do mostly good.

Once that is said, you have the basis for a debate.

So why aren't liberals willing to say that? Because either they know it cannot be defended or they cannot articulate a defense for it. Or they know that this is a damning issue for liberalism.

Prove me wrong.

I have always proven you wrong, but it will never dent your right wing dogma. Let's start by disproving your ignorant stereotyping.

And regardless of the inate abilities they are born with, those who stay in school and actually educate themselves, who don't overindulge in controlled substances, who don't get involved in illegal activity, who work at whatever jobs they can get to acquire marketable skills, references, and a work ethic, and who get married before they have kids will almost always prosper. Let's call this group Citizen A.

Perhaps you think those who drop out of school, who over indulge in controlled substances, who get involved in illegal activity, who won't stick it out on low end jobs to acquire a work ethic, marketable skills, references, who have kids but don't get married, and who find it easier just to let others support them should prosper as much? Let's call this group Citizen B.

Welfare recipients are no more likely to 'overindulge in controlled substances' than the general population.

Drug testing proponents like to argue that there are large numbers of drug users going on welfare to get money to support their habits. The claim feeds into long-standing stereotypes about the kind of people who go on welfare, but it does not appear to have much basis in fact.

Several studies, including a 1996 report from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, have found that there is no significant difference in the rate of illegal-drug use by welfare applicants and other people. Another study found that 70% of illegal-drug users between the age of 18 and 49 are employed full time.

Drug-testing laws are often touted as a way of saving tax dollars, but the facts are once again not quite as presented. Idaho recently commissioned a study of the likely financial impact of drug testing its welfare applicants. The study found that the costs were likely to exceed any money saved.

Read more: Drug Testing the Poor: Bad Policy, Even Worse Law | TIME Ideas | TIME.com

 

[koshergrl]

Wrong.

Substance Use Among Persons in Families Receiving Government Assistance

[COLOR=#fffff]In Brief​

​

• An estimated 27 million persons aged 12 to 64 lived in families that received government assistance in the year prior to the interview
• Prevalence of past month heavy alcohol use was lower in assisted families than in unassisted families among persons aged 18 to 25, but higher among persons aged 35 to 49
• Past month illicit drug use was higher in assisted families than in unassisted families among persons aged 12 to 64[/COLOR]

Substance Use Among Persons in Families Receiving Government Assistance

 

[Vidi]

$10 x 40 x 4.3 = $1720
Rent: $750
Heat/electric: $100
Food (for a family of 3): $450

That's $1300. You have $420 to use for incidentals.

Once again, clothing! Transportation. Now that there's a child ( or children ) day care, school supplies, toilet paper, dish soap, shampoo, towels, bed sheets, furniture, TAXES.

You're numbers omit real life, which means its fantasyland.

That's what the EXTRA $420 IS FOR, dipwad.

It's a LIVING wage. A wage that is meant to provide the BARE ESSENTIALS TO LIFE.

And it's more than enough.

$420 for everything else? I paid $72 dollars yesterday to fill up my car with gas so I can get to work. That's every week!!!

Day care HALF days costs $170 a week!

That's 242 and we haven't EATEN YET. Or paid for electricity, or garbage pick up, or clothes.

Or a trip to the dentist or the doctor.

Or an oil change, or replacing the tires on your car, or toilet paper, or tooth paste!

We don't live in Narnia, or NeverNeverland, or Oz...this is the really really world...come and join us.

 

[Bfgrn]

Wrong.

Substance Use Among Persons in Families Receiving Government Assistance

[COLOR=#fffff]In Brief​

​

• An estimated 27 million persons aged 12 to 64 lived in families that received government assistance in the year prior to the interview
• Prevalence of past month heavy alcohol use was lower in assisted families than in unassisted families among persons aged 18 to 25, but higher among persons aged 35 to 49
• Past month illicit drug use was higher in assisted families than in unassisted families among persons aged 12 to 64[/COLOR]

Substance Use Among Persons in Families Receiving Government Assistance

Is there a point you're trying to make here? The statistics do not prove welfare recipients are any more likely to 'overindulge in controlled substances' than the general population.

AND...study found that 70% of illegal-drug users between the age of 18 and 49 are employed full time.

 

[Mr Natural]

Once again, clothing! Transportation. Now that there's a child ( or children ) day care, school supplies, toilet paper, dish soap, shampoo, towels, bed sheets, furniture, TAXES.

You're numbers omit real life, which means its fantasyland.

That's what the EXTRA $420 IS FOR, dipwad.

It's a LIVING wage. A wage that is meant to provide the BARE ESSENTIALS TO LIFE.

And it's more than enough.

$420 for everything else? I paid $72 dollars yesterday to fill up my car with gas so I can get to work. That's every week!!!

Day care HALF days costs $170 a week!

That's 242 and we haven't EATEN YET. Or paid for electricity, or garbage pick up, or clothes.

Or a trip to the dentist or the doctor.

Or an oil change, or replacing the tires on your car, or toilet paper, or tooth paste!

We don't live in Narnia, or NeverNeverland, or Oz...this is the really really world...come and join us.

In the Wonderful World of Conservatopia, everyone can get by on ten bucks an hour.