Why should a hamburger flipper make the same as a highly skilled worker???

[JoeB131]

Yeah they were glad I was gone so I would stop showing them up.

So you kind of admit your co-workers hated you? Why am I not surprised.

 

[JoeB131]

When I used to work for people the only thing I ever cared about was moving up. I never fell into the habits of people who worked a job for years and never moved up. You know like you

wouldn't know. I've moved up in every job I've had. And I did it without pissing off my coworkers to the point where they hated me. Probably because I'd always take the time to help them and resolved problems.

In short, I don't live by "I've got mine, fuck you".

 

[dblack]

There is no evidence creates this large amount of unemployment that you corporate tools suggest.

Of course not. Isn't the predominant argument of the "living wage" folks that, in relative terms, minimum wage has actually been dropping over the years? That in terms of real value, it's actually lower now that it's ever been?

 

[Steinlight]

There is no evidence creates this large amount of unemployment that you corporate tools suggest.

Of course not. Isn't the predominant argument of the "living wage" folks that, in relative terms, minimum wage has actually been dropping over the years? That in terms of real value, it's actually lower now that it's ever been?

Lol at how you put living wage on quotes you prick. Why don't you explain why there hasn't been this rise in unemployment everytime the wage has been increased. Isn't it a job killer that destroys business or something?

 

[dblack]

There is no evidence creates this large amount of unemployment that you corporate tools suggest.

Of course not. Isn't the predominant argument of the "living wage" folks that, in relative terms, minimum wage has actually been dropping over the years? That in terms of real value, it's actually lower now that it's ever been?

Lol at how you put living wage on quotes you prick. Why don't you explain why there hasn't been this rise in unemployment everytime the wage has been increased. 8 sent it a job killer that destroys business or something?

Because the cumulative raises have been less than inflation and increases in productivity. In real terms, minimum wage has actually been dropping over the years.

In the interest of clarifying my own views, I'm really not very concerned about minimum wage laws as a policy priority. They're sheer pablum as I see it. But they do offer a great opportunity to encourage people to think critically about politics.

 

[Ame®icano]

It's States like Mississippi that DO NOT HAVE a State Minimum wage, that forced the federal government to issue one. If Mississippi and Alabama and a couple of other States who have never legislated a minimum wage in their State had done so, and not allowed employers in their States to pay their employees 10 cents an hour if they wished, or continued their slave wages so to speak, we would NOT have a Federal Mandated Minimum wage today.

I believe most States have a State minimum higher than the Federal Minimum wage or equal to it, but they have their own state law for it....

Mississippi does not, and allows employers to pay whatever they wish, if the Federal Minimum was not in place....thus the history of the FEDERAL minimum.

Reason for feds to create "one size fits all" shoe is to provide shoes for those who don't have them. It's better to have any shoe then shoe that doesn't fit at all. Its interesting that you come to defense of federal law that supersedes the state law, but only because it supports your argument. Clever...

 

[bripat9643]

No it doesnt reduce the need for welfare. It disguises the source of the welfare by calling it a wage. When companies close down due to their profit margin disappearing more people will be out of a job. The other way it will hurt is if companies move their operations overseas. Its a vicious cycle. People pay X amount of $ for a product. You cant give people more money to make the product if its not worth more money.

I can see your point, the capitalist needs the worker to produce surplus value, and doesn't want to lose profits, but other countries with higher wages are doing fine. One of my main problems with capitalism is that laborers need to be exploited due to the need to create surplus value. Capitalism is vicious, but many will get mad that you suggest welfare, but I can actually agree with your point. The capitalist greed knows no limit.

The people with the gold always exploit the masses with a little gold in order to get more gold. This is true in almost every system.

Except for a system in which that which produces the gold is collectively owned by the workers, or true communism.

Has that ever existed in the modern world?

The free territories of Ukraine, the Paris commune, some other examples that were crushed or appeared during revolutions... All we have had are claimed socialist states and places that existed like the USSR failing to follow Marxism-Leninism.

The USSR tried to follow Marxism-Leninism, but everyone began starving to death. Following Marxism-Leninism is like drawing a triangle with 4 sides.

 

[Marxist]

I can see your point, the capitalist needs the worker to produce surplus value, and doesn't want to lose profits, but other countries with higher wages are doing fine. One of my main problems with capitalism is that laborers need to be exploited due to the need to create surplus value. Capitalism is vicious, but many will get mad that you suggest welfare, but I can actually agree with your point. The capitalist greed knows no limit.

The people with the gold always exploit the masses with a little gold in order to get more gold. This is true in almost every system.

Except for a system in which that which produces the gold is collectively owned by the workers, or true communism.

Has that ever existed in the modern world?

The free territories of Ukraine, the Paris commune, some other examples that were crushed or appeared during revolutions... All we have had are claimed socialist states and places that existed like the USSR failing to follow Marxism-Leninism.

The USSR tried to follow Marxism-Leninism, but everyone began starving to death. Following Marxism-Leninism is like drawing a triangle with 4 sides.

They didn't really follow it the way they should've, and brutal warfare, unindustrialized at the beginning..

 

[Ame®icano]

Funny, then why do I make a six figure income and have great healthcare?

You are right. The idea of you making 100k+ is funny. Doing what? Not political commentary. That's for sure.

 

[JoeB131]

The USSR tried to follow Marxism-Leninism, but everyone began starving to death. Following Marxism-Leninism is like drawing a triangle with 4 sides.

Actually, the USSR rose from a backward ass country under the Tsars to winning WWII and being a dominant power for nearly half a century.

You do realize they overthrew the Tsar for a reason, right?

 

[Marxist]

The USSR tried to follow Marxism-Leninism, but everyone began starving to death. Following Marxism-Leninism is like drawing a triangle with 4 sides.

Actually, the USSR rose from a backward ass country under the Tsars to winning WWII and being a dominant power for nearly half a century.

You do realize they overthrew the Tsar for a reason, right?

Finally, someone who understands context.

 

[Toro]

The USSR tried to follow Marxism-Leninism, but everyone began starving to death. Following Marxism-Leninism is like drawing a triangle with 4 sides.

Actually, the USSR rose from a backward ass country under the Tsars to winning WWII and being a dominant power for nearly half a century.

Then collapsed.

And all the other communist countries that tried it ditched it, except two. And one of those is starting to ditch it now.

 

[JoeB131]

Then collapsed.

And all the other communist countries that tried it ditched it, except two. And one of those is starting to ditch it now.

No one ever tried "Communism". They had things they called "Communism".

Now, there are good reasons why Communism wouldn't work, but those things didn't happen in various countries that tried something they called "Communism".

 

[Marxist]

The USSR tried to follow Marxism-Leninism, but everyone began starving to death. Following Marxism-Leninism is like drawing a triangle with 4 sides.

Actually, the USSR rose from a backward ass country under the Tsars to winning WWII and being a dominant power for nearly half a century.

Then collapsed.

And all the other communist countries that tried it ditched it, except two. And one of those is starting to ditch it now.

It collapsed due to a variety of factors, mainly due to breaking away from what their original goal was and fucking up big time. Communist countries? They are communist by claim, nothing more, they don't even come remotely close to fitting what communism is.

 

[Marxist]

Then collapsed.

And all the other communist countries that tried it ditched it, except two. And one of those is starting to ditch it now.

No one ever tried "Communism". They had things they called "Communism".

Now, there are good reasons why Communism wouldn't work, but those things didn't happen in various countries that tried something they called "Communism".

Really now? These may not be communist, but they are certainly proof that people can achieve great things, or seemingly impossible things.
The paris commune, The ukraine free territory, Revolutionary catalonia..

 

[Lakhota]

Where does a highly skilled trades person only earn 15 an hour?

Amen to that. The OP is an idiot.

 

[Ame®icano]

Your pay scale should be relative to the value of the work you do. How much can your employer sell your work for versus the total cost of production, including your labor? If you make hamburgers which sell for an average of $3.00 each, and you can make 100 burgers in an hour, the value of your work is $300.00 per hour. There are other costs associated with the production of the burgers, such as the cost of the ingredients and packaging, lease payments for the buildings, equipment costs, advertising and promotion, etc. If you are paid minimum wage, you are paid 7 cents for each burger you make. If your wages were to increase to $10.00 per hour, you would be receiving 10 cents for each burger you make.

No, its not. The way you put it makes one believe that only worker of value is burger flipper. The value of his work is not $300 an hour. The value of his work, plus work of cashiers, floor sweeper, busboy and manager, then cost of ingredients, utilities, supplies, and then cost of business taxes, property taxes, insurance, bank payments, all together is worth $300 an hour, and only if they sell 100 burgers.

What if they sell only 20 burgers, how much their work is worth?

Also, not all burgers sells for $3, many places have "value items" that sells for much less. Profit margin on burgers is very small. The biggest profit fast food joints are making on side items such as soda and fries. Soda machine and fry boy makes more profit to the owner then burger flipper.

It shouldn't matter how many others people would be willing to do your job for less, or the skill level required to do the work, what should matter is the value of your work. When you produce a product for sale, such as making burgers, it's relatively easy to calculate the value of your work. What we have seen is that while the retail price of the burgers has risen, as have all of the other costs associated with their production and sale have risen, the wages of the people making the burgers has not. Management pay has risen, and executive pay has skyrocketed, although management and executives aren't being more massively more productive than in the past, but the frontline workers who make the products sold, have not. It's not jealousy or envy for workers to ask that their wages go up as well.

Value of fast food "frontline workers" did not increase. It remained the same.

Those are not career jobs where people stay on forever. There is no investment in such workers that pays off in extended period of time. They come without skills, they are meant to stay for some time and leave, pretty much without skills, then get replaced with people without skills. However, those who show some loyalty and decide to stick around, they usually climb the ladder, get raises and promotions.

 

[Ame®icano]

Under capitalism, the laborer cannot receive what he is worth, and usually way less.

While in communism, they're get what they're worth, they just have nothing to buy with it.

Btw, you never replied to me in other thread... wonder why.

 

[Marxist]

Under capitalism, the laborer cannot receive what he is worth, and usually way less.

While in communism, they're get what they're worth, they just have nothing to buy with it.

Btw, you never replied to me in other thread... wonder why.

Which reply did I miss? The USSR, cuba, they are not communist in any way, never were, they were applying a flawed theory. Oh yeah, tell me all about the paris commune, revolutionary catalonia, the free territories of ukraine..

 

[Ame®icano]

The USSR tried to follow Marxism-Leninism, but everyone began starving to death. Following Marxism-Leninism is like drawing a triangle with 4 sides.

Actually, the USSR rose from a backward ass country under the Tsars to winning WWII and being a dominant power for nearly half a century.

You do realize they overthrew the Tsar for a reason, right?

Industrial revolution was happening regardless of who was in power. Bolsheviks killed Romanovs, then took the credit? Then they slaughtered everyone else who was in their way, won the WWII then killed some 20 mill of their own people. Thats OK, because they would starve to death anyways, right?