"Fair Share" and "Living Wage"

[Ramone45]

Please tell me no one believes this bullshit. No matter what your position, you should be furious anytime a politicians says this and you should demand specifically what they mean. This is the equivalent to Nancy Pelosi saying that we had to pass Obamacare in order to find out what's in it.

 

[Hypoxia]

Henry Ford outraged capitalists when he paid his assembly-line workers twice the going rate for skilled labor. Aha, those workers then had cash wfor decent homes and new cars and other stuff, boosting the local economy (and Ford's coffers).

I'm not sure about your anti-"Fair Share" rant but a living wage means workers needn't depend on welfare (like many Walmart workers -- note that Hillary sat on Walmart's board for years) and have money to spend in their locale. If you think paying workers less than a living wage is a good idea, try it yourself. Report back next year. If you're not in jail.

 

[Ramone45]

Good for Henry Ford! Excellent! He instituted that policy freely and it was wonderful.
You're wrong. I'm not anti-"Fair Share". I'm not anti-"Living Wage". I am anti vague and subjective concepts. For example, if G.E. pays no taxes, what specifically be their "Fair Share". Ten percent? Thirty percent? Ninety percent to make up for the past?
A "Living Wage" means you're not on welfare. People won't be satisfied with that, you know. That doesn't cover braces for the kids or a trip to Disney. A"Living Wage" should include a nice car because mobility improves opportunities.
I'm not "Anti". I just want definitions.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Please tell me no one believes this bullshit.

Until we go back to letting poor people starve/die in the streets by removing all social safety nets it's not bullshit.

No matter what your position, you should be furious anytime a politicians says this and you should demand specifically what they mean.

Why should I be furious?

I know what they mean.

This is the equivalent to Nancy Pelosi saying that we had to pass Obamacare in order to find out what's in it.

In what universe are the two even related?

 

[Real_American11]

Please tell me no one believes this bullshit. No matter what your position, you should be furious anytime a politicians says this and you should demand specifically what they mean. This is the equivalent to Nancy Pelosi saying that we had to pass Obamacare in order to find out what's in it.

Most of the posters here are brain-dead progressives... yes they believe in that communist claptrap.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Please tell me no one believes this bullshit. No matter what your position, you should be furious anytime a politicians says this and you should demand specifically what they mean. This is the equivalent to Nancy Pelosi saying that we had to pass Obamacare in order to find out what's in it.

I believe in it 100% and so do many others. It is vague because it's difficult to pin down precisely.

And Nancy Pelosi's mistake in saying we had to pass Obamacare in order to findout what's in it was in believing the American populace is made up of adults. We are not. We are petulant children. She and Obama both have that problem in common.

 

[Ramone45]

Until we go back to letting poor people starve/die in the streets by removing all social safety nets it's not bullshit.



Why should I be furious?

I know what they mean.



In what universe are the two even related?

If you know what they mean, tell me specifically what they mean. What should a family be able to afford if they earn a "Living Wage"? Should they be able to purchase a car? Should they be able to buy a house? Should they be able to afford a vacation to Florida every year? Should they be able to pay for their health insurance? Should they be able to go to the dentist and chiropractor twice a year? Should they be able to purchase any required school supplies? Should they be able to afford organic vegetables? Or should it be just a little above welfare?

 

[Ramone45]

I believe in it 100% and so do many others. It is vague because it's difficult to pin down precisely.

And Nancy Pelosi's mistake in saying we had to pass Obamacare in order to findout what's in it was in believing the American populace is made up of adults. We are not. We are petulant children. She and Obama both have that problem in common.

Jesus Christ! have you ever signed a contract in your life? SMH

 

[NOIRTRASH]

The living wage proposition assumes the worker has no egregious vices or addictions or debts or expenses. It assumes some absolute dollar amount does the job for all.

 

[BotanyBoy]

If you know what they mean, tell me specifically what they mean. What should a family be able to afford if they earn a "Living Wage"? Should they be able to purchase a car? Should they be able to buy a house? Should they be able to afford a vacation to Florida every year? Should they be able to pay for their health insurance? Should they be able to go to the dentist and chiropractor twice a year? Should they be able to purchase any required school supplies? Should they be able to afford organic vegetables? Or should it be just a little above welfare?

I'll answer you as soon as you answer me....

Why should I be furious?

The living wage proposition assumes the worker has no egregious vices or addictions or debts or expenses. It assumes some absolute dollar amount does the job for all.

If they can afford those vices at a minimum level then they likely won't have a job in the first place.

Fiends don't work and drug dealers make way to much to be some wage slave.

If you're responsible enough to show up and work you're likely responsible enough to pay your rent, stock the fridge and buy a new bus pass before you go blow the rest of it on lotto tickets n' booze.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Jesus Christ! have you ever signed a contract in your life? SMH

And written them. And owned a business.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The living wage proposition assumes the worker has no egregious vices or addictions or debts or expenses. It assumes some absolute dollar amount does the job for all.

Within reason this is true. We can argue about COLA if you like but beyond that it does.

 

[phrodeau]

It should be illegal for anyone on public assistance of any kind to possess sodas, tobacco, and alcohol. It should never be the taxpayer's place to purchase those things for anyone or free up their earned money for them to buy those things. Those products are self inflicted habits and tax money should never be used to support people's bad habits!

Then someone needs to go after the soda, tobacco and alcohol lobbies.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

I'll answer you as soon as you answer me....

Why should I be furious?



If they can afford those vices at a minimum level then they likely won't have a job in the first place.

Fiends don't work and drug dealers make way to much to be some wage slave.

If you're responsible enough to show up and work you're likely responsible enough to pay your rent, stock the fridge and buy a new bus pass before you go blow the rest of it on lotto tickets n' booze.

Naaah, If youre what you say youre always involved with someone who's a wasted fuck.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Naaah, If youre what you say youre always involved with someone who's a wasted fuck.

But I'm not a wage slave nor am I on food stamps so that is my privilege.

 

[Hypoxia]

Then someone needs to go after the soda, tobacco and alcohol lobbies.

And anti-food-stamp ranters should go after the agribiz lobbies. Food stamps are ag supports; that poor folk benefit from them is entirely coincidental.

USA Constitution established the federal gov't to, among other things, "provide for the general welfare". Elected gov't, representing us as a nation (because Constitution), gets to decide what's "the general welfare". Sometimes they decide that forced labor, blatant discrimination, rotten foods and drugs, perjured testimony (as re: tobacco and climate), blatant bribery, and other matters do not promote the general welfare. Sometimes they fuck off. When they fuck off, vote the bastards out.

Who decides what are living wages and fair-share taxes? Don't expect corporate boards to be helpful there. Their interests are not ours.

 

[Sean Renaud]

It should be illegal for anyone on public assistance of any kind to possess sodas, tobacco, and alcohol. It should never be the taxpayer's place to purchase those things for anyone or free up their earned money for them to buy those things. Those products are self inflicted habits and tax money should never be used to support people's bad habits!

Morally I agree, but in the real world pragmatism takes hold and that doesn't work on that level.

 

[Liar]

Please tell me no one believes this bullshit. No matter what your position, you should be furious anytime a politicians says this and you should demand specifically what they mean.

Have you tried asking them specifically what they mean?

 

[LeatherChaps]

I have a question for you "Living Wage" folks.

When if ever do you consider the contributory value of unit of labor verses its cost?

Let me put it another way.... if a worker only contributes $9.50 in wage value, should he still be paid $15 (or whatever amount over his contributory value) per hour?

 

[BotanyBoy]

I have a question for you "Living Wage" folks.

When if ever do you consider the contributory value of unit of labor verses its cost?

Let me put it another way.... if a worker only contributes $9.50 in wage value, should he still be paid $15 (or whatever amount over his contributory value) per hour?

As a business owner of course.

As a socially responsible citizen no.

The only way base labors value can be used is if all economic safety nets are removed...that includes those protecting the companies from the consequences of not paying their workers enough to take care of themselves.


But as long as the threshold for welfare is lower than what we are requiring companies to pay their employees it's basically subsidizing the workforce's of these mega corps. A large number of whom hand out welfare application packets to all their min wage hires, Douche Mart and McDildoughs for example.

And when mega corp billionaire companies do that, it fucks the middle class small company owners such as myself more than anyone. I shouldn't have to feed WalDouches employees so they can keep low low prices that further damage my ability to conduct bidnizz/employ people. Wal Douches CONSUMERS need to pay that cost.....and if the only way to do that is to raise min wage above the welfare qualifications then so be it.

 

[Real_American12]

Fiends don't work and drug dealers make way to much to be some wage slave.

Then getting rid of handouts will also get rid of street level drug dealers for the most part.

If you don't have disposable income to waste on drugs who will these dealers sell to? They will be forced to get regular jobs or use their illegal money to open up legitimate businesses like strip cubs and laundry mats.

It should be illegal for anyone on public assistance of any kind to possess sodas, tobacco, and alcohol.

Agreed, it should only cover limited food items (produce, dairy, meat, grain, etc.), and not things like paper towels and plastic spoons, coffee filters, etc.

Elected gov't, representing us as a nation (because Constitution), gets to decide what's "the general welfare".

Wrong, by that logic anything could be considered the "general welfare", that is not the legitimate role of government.

Morally I agree, but in the real world pragmatism takes hold and that doesn't work on that level.

What do you mean? If the EBT card didn't cover certain items then the welfare recipient could not buy those items with the card.

If tomorrow the card didn't cover soda, then people using the card would have to earn money to get soda.

When if ever do you consider the contributory value of unit of labor verses its cost?

Most of the people on this board are insane communists, they believe low intelligence, low skilled workers should be paid as much as a doctor or engineer.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Then getting rid of handouts will also get rid of street level drug dealers for the most part.

If you don't have disposable income to waste on drugs who will these dealers sell to? They will be forced to get regular jobs or use their illegal money to open up legitimate businesses like strip cubs and laundry mats.

LOL....they will sell it to the same people they still sell to.

Rich white kids, young professionals and even some older ones.

College kids, doctors, lawyers, teachers, firemen, cops, plumbers, electricians, shit even the military LOL but they usually supply so not really a huge customer base there....truckers, pilots, politicians.

Pretty much everyone in this country loves to get fucked up and party....even George Washington liked to roll up a fattie every now and then. That's right big pappa Washington was a well documented pothead and so were quite a number of his homies including Franklin and Jefferson.

http://45.media.tumblr.com/d6c028092a6457ecdc013145b246a369/tumblr_n8arllqddW1tbh1dho1_500.gif

 

[Real_American12]

Rich white kids, young professionals and even some older ones.

And wouldn't that still get rid of drugs in poor communities?

I'd rather have a few rich people doing cocaine and weed than ghettos filled with fiends willing to rob and kill for their next fix of crack.

Pretty much everyone in this country loves to get fucked up and party....even George Washington liked to roll up a fattie every now and then. That's right big pappa Washington was a well documented pothead and so were quite a number of his homies including Franklin and Jefferson.

And if you can afford your drugs because you have honest money and aren't mugging people in alleys or breaking into homes, and if you are treating the drugs like a wine party and not some tribal blood sacrifice than fine.

But if all you do is get high and live off government handouts and you behave like animals and destroy communities then it is not fine.

Pretty sure the Founding Fathers weren't raping, robbing, or burning down homes when they smoked a pipe or had a bottle of whiskey.

 

[BotanyBoy]

And wouldn't that still get rid of drugs in poor communities?

No...they just do shittier drugs..like malt liquor.

 

[Real_American12]

No...they just do shittier drugs..like malt liquor.

They'd still need money, alcohol wouldn't be covered on EBT cards.

And people will commit less crime to feed their alcohol addiction than they will their crack addiction.

Arrest the criminals, punish them in prison, and while they are in break them of their vice so that if they are released they will remain clean and sober.

Also, buying liquor at the store isn't the same problem for a community as having dealers on street corners and playgrounds.