The Terrible Fear of Paying the Poor Too Much

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I said your claim that vaccines are being used for forced sterilization is not factual and they are pseudo. You have taken great liberties into attributing that to a great deal more and the post I am responding to right now it seems you really feel the need to claim that I don't understand.

In your first paragraph alone you felt the need to claim I don't understand not once or twice, but four times and you then go on to talk about being insulted.

As far as vaccines go I said I haven't seen the evidence of your claim, Normally people would then present the evidence that backs their claim but not you instead you move on to other topics.

Since you went back to the topic of minimum wage after much about progressives, climate changes, marxism, liberals and restated your claim that a raise in the minimum wage will not fix anything ... well actually you said

But now since this thread is about wage increases, a forced pay raise of a few bucks an hour is not going to put a dent in anyone's ability to rise above poverty.

Can you please explain how being able to make more doesn't help those in poverty.

I have read plenty of opinions from you I just wonder if you can back it up with anything substantial. However if all you have is more opinions and labels to throw around then I am not interested.

Thanks for you time.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Since my word is not enough for you, I will post an article which relates the concept of social and income inequality with Marxian philosophy.

www.jstor.org...

As for your claim that I am somehow fabricating this business about sterilization through vaccines, I believe it is you who does not have sufficient knowledge or research to back up your claim that vaccines do not or can not sterilize, and you simply refuse to hear what Bill Gates himself said.

According to the World Intellectual Property Organization, which is part of the United Nations, scientists from the organization are developing vaccines specifically to damage fertility – as a method of contraception. A suggested ingredient for the vaccine is polysorbate 80. As a preferred ingredient, scientists are obviously aware of its ability to cause infertility. - See more at: www.naturalhealth365.com...

www.naturalnews.com... and a quote from Bill Gates on that page

"The world today has 6.8 billion people... that's headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent."

And this

In the mid-90s more than 3.4 million Filipino women were injected with tetanus vaccines… found to contain human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG)… which, when introduced into the body coupled with a tetanus toxoid carrier, produces anti-bodies that render a woman incapable of maintaining [her] pregnancy. The vaccine was supposed to be against tetanus, which afflicts both men and women, but only women were vaccinated, and only women between age 15 and 45. - See more at: www.jillstanek.com...

www.jillstanek.com...

So I don't know...I think you just don't want to hear it.

a reply to: Grimpachi

On wage increases, I said raising the minimum wage by a few bucks will not bring people out of poverty, that it won't work against the backdrop of the rate of inflation, that the Progressive income tax is a disincentive for getting out of a lower income tax bracket. Since you obviously won't hear any of that, I am not going to bother arguing with you anymore. Plus I now have given you other sources which agree with me. I also said that mandatory wage increases are not based on the cost of production, and will increase the cost of production, thus adding to the rise in inflation. The way business works is they take the costs of labor plus the cost of raw materials and overhead such as electric or tools or whatever else, and you get the price of a product. A business must make some profit or it will not survive. A mandatory wage increase again is not based on the market or on the cost of production, but on an emotional feeling that one is worth more than one is getting. Also, it is becoming pretty common knowledge that Obamacare has weighed in on the ability of businesses to function with new regulations and higher premiums, it is pretty clear that businesses have to cut costs.


Not to mention that none of this amounts to the OP opinion that business owners just have a fear of paying more. It is a preposterous insinuation, and real economists understand why.




Now, I believe there is no reason on earth why women should be paid less than men for an equal job done. I am not certain however that more government mandates will fix this either, any more than mandating pay raises will fix income inequality or raise people out of poverty. I have pointed out already that centralized planning failed in the Soviet Union and it will fail in the US as well, and it comes out of Socialist/Marxist/Communist philosophy.
People who are greedy will always be greedy and we are not going to fix everything with more centralized planning and authoritarian control.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

This is the reason why I discussed the Progressive income tax as a Marxian tool. The minute your income goes up, your tax rate goes up as well, and a Progressive tax is even steeper than a regular tax, which is why some people are suggesting that a flat tax is more fair. In any case, the further you go up the economic ladder, the higher the tax rate is, and essentially you are penalized for your hard work.

Well I hope you don't think that is new information for anyone here. I would file that under common knowledge maybe that isn't true for some or for the young just starting out. Now as far as welfare vs actual pay yes there is a sliding scale yet another thing that is screwed up and as it has been pointed out in this thread already the companies that want to keep the wage where it is at are in fact pushing the cost onto the American taxpayer through welfare, food stamps and so forth. Maybe I am strange in that I would rather be able to pay my own way and hold my head a little higher even if I did come out about the same in the end after taxes than get paid $7 and receive welfare. I tink most people would prefer to be able to support themselves then get a handout. Pride goes a long way in lifting a person up and driving them to go further.

I will have to look a little further into that heritage blog because there has been more than a few times I have found such lacking.

The Super-Rich hide their money in tax shelters and trusts and Swiss bank accounts and therefore they are often fine with raising taxes on all the common people. Also they do not make their money from hourly rates, so a minimum wage is meaningless in the context of things, and the Elites will not pay for the carp they push off on us.

That is definitely general knowledge.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I am sorry but I do not except anything from natural news as far as I am concerned they are sorcha faal. Every single article from them that I have fact checked has come up with multiple discrepancies or flat out lies.

If you believe they have met any standards of journalistic integrity then I know we will never see eye to eye on this. I simply do not have the patience or energy to correct all their failings. If that is the kind of thing you are inclined to believe well I am sorry.

And FYI I have read those articles or most of them before which is why I feel this way about their publication. It is because I took the time to factcheck them. Maybe I can find the thread and post the link for you to go over cause I certainly don't need to do it again.


There are very few and far between news sources where I just see as worthless and that one is in a top spot.

a reply to: Grimpachi

How many times do I have to explain that when you mandate forced pay raises, it will effectively pass on the cost to everyone who buys products across the board, just like we have already seen at the grocery stores with inflationary costs because the cost of production will always be passed on to the consumer. This is contrary to the concept of supply and demand, which is what the free market economy is based upon. No matter how many times you force a pay raise, it is not going to change things, because it is relative. So while you may feel a temporary relief from a few extra bucks, it is not going to solve these problems and it will not stop the wage/price spiral from happening. Many neo-Marxists also expect to take money from those who make more and give it to others. This is called income redistribution. It happens in a lot of ways.
Every time you get a pay raise, the government will just tax you more to pay for whatever it wants, whether it is war in Iraq or Libya, covert stuff we never hear about in the news, poverty programs in Africa, bailing out banks, upgrading IT databases in medical establishments to comply with HIPAA, paying for Congress to have Cadillac health programs, new zoos, or bridges to nowhere.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Now you are just whining that my sources aren't up to your standards. There are innumerable sources I could locate. If you expect to find it on the Merck pharmaceutical website, I cannot promise because they are dedicated to hiding this stuff from the public.
Then there's this...
truthstreammedia.com...

“India’s National Institute of Immunology successfully completed in 1988 the first phase of trials with three versions of an anti-fertility vaccine for women. Sponsored by the government of India and supported by the Foundation, the trials established that with each of the tested vaccines, at least one year of protection against pregnancy could be expected, based on the levels of antibodies formed in response to the immunization schedule.”
In its 1997 review of anti-fertility vaccines, Indian based International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology didn’t forget to acknowledge its main benefactor:

“The work on LHRH and HCG vaccines was supported by research grants of The Rockefeller Foundation, (…).”

In the 1990s the work on anti-fertility vaccines went in overdrive, especially in third-world nations, as did the funding provided by the deep pockets of the Rockefeller Foundation. At the same time, the target-population of the globalists- women- began to stir uncomfortably with all this out-in-the-open talk of population reduction and vaccines as a means to achieve it.

Betsy Hartman, Director of the Population and Development Program at Hampshire College, Massachusetts and “someone who believes strongly in women’s right to safe, voluntary birth control and abortion”, is no supporter of the anti-fertility vaccine, as brought into being by the Rockefeller Foundation. She explains in her essay Population control in the new world order:

“Although one vaccine has been tested on only 180 women in India, it is being billed there as ‘safe, devoid of any side effects and completely reversible’. The scientific community knows very well that such assertions are false – for instance, many questions still remain about the vaccine’s long-term impact on the immune system and menstrual cycle. There is also evidence on film of women being denied information about the vaccine in clinical trials. Nevertheless, the vaccine is being prepared for large-scale use.”

So I am not going to waste any more of my time trying to convince you of something you simply will not hear. All you are doing is complaining about my sources, or criticizing me as a person, or denouncing me as unscientific, or whatever other silly excuse you have.

One more thing I have left to say on all this, is that while I am for free market solutions and decry socialism wherever I see it, on the other side, neocons tend to overlook the fact that we have lost a great deal of our manufacturing base, and thus many of the jobs left over are minimum wage type like flipping burgers for McDonalds and it is difficult to ever rise above that, but that is still not a reason to raise the minimum wage. We need to get our manufacturing base back and get people trained for good high tech jobs. We do have a problem with jobs being outsourced, and as one of the articles I just posted mentions that high unemployment is connected to mandated pay raise because employers will simply not hire people full time. We are already seeing this with Obamacare as well.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

How many times do I have to explain that when you mandate forced pay raises, it will effectively pass on the cost to everyone who buys products across the board

You can say it as many times as you want however according to many articles and reports from CEOs across the nation it would be so minute that no one would feel it. You know what I did feel? I picked up duble cheeseburgers for everyone the otherday like 12 of them the price went up 20 cent. I think the last article I read on the subject dealing with MD said if wages were raised they would have to raise the price by 2 cent. So you tell me after looking at this
why did the price go up already by that much and who is it going to.

Also as you said if people make more there will be less on welfare as they will not qualify. You have an education in business so it shouldn't be too hard to see what I am saying.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I honestly I am losing interest in this but I will read that source in the morning. Naturaul news is simply the worst IMO and you are not the first to say the evidence is there but "you just have to look real hard" or something to that effect. I entertained such claims when I first came to ATS and I almost jumped on the GMO bandwagon until I really looked for myself. I still have an open request for evidence based information on that. But hey I am pretty unpopular for that. Oh well.

It isn't that I will not hear it it is that I have heard it investigated it and found claims lacking or fraudulant choked full of quote mining misrepresentation and double speak. Some people have even claimed there is a conspiracy activly affot of depopulation as we speak.

To them I just say call me when this starts counting down.www.census.gov...

originally posted by: DerbyGawker

Let's just run through your rebuttals in order.

1. You changed the conditions of the argument. You said "free" to move, I explained how you are not "free" to move. Being capable of moving and being free to do so are two separate matters. Even slaves were allowed to travel with permission from the master.

Clearly your understanding of "Free to move" is different that most.
People are free to move from state to state.
It doesn't mean that it is free for the move to happen.
And using slavery as a comparison sounds like you have been taking lessons from the Race Pimps Sharpton and Jackson.

originally posted by: DerbyGawker
2. Requiring one to obtain a SSN violates the notion of freedom of association, ergo it tramples upon your freedom. There is no law that states you must obtain one therefor the requirement to have one in order to gain employment is antithetical to a free people and only exists out of corporate ignorance.

There is no law requiring you to have a SSN.
And there are laws, even on the back of the SS card stating it is not to be used for ID.
There are many illegals that work without one.

originally posted by: DerbyGawker
3. You're obviously unaware of the history of Americans during the dust bowl who literally packed up what few belongings they had into their automobiles, and travelled to another state without a license, settled and built their own homes by hand without any government involvement or licensing schemes. That is freedom.

Noooo, I am well aware of that.
Seems that you just proved my point. People can pick up and relocate to where the jobs are.

originally posted by: DerbyGawker
4. No, you're just being absurd. Freedom means you don't need government interference to engage in lawful activity. A license is permission from the government to engage in legal activity. Therefor you are not free to travel to another state, you need the governments permission to do so yourself.

Don't need a license to have someone drive me from place to place, nor hire a company to move me, nor ride the bus nor walk where I wish to go.

originally posted by: DerbyGawker
5. What a rather weak argument. If you can't be bothered to defend your ill-conceived assertions then don't bother wasting our time with your writing of them. You then change the argument to complete your rebuttal. This is called a straw-man and makes your premise look weak.

Ahhh, how cute. When you have nothing else, claim the opposing side has a weak argument.

originally posted by: DerbyGawker
6. This is a nonsensical response that benefits no one.

And this applies to what again?

originally posted by: DerbyGawker
I can now clearly see you just like to spew ignorant hatred with irrational statements and there is no point in further acknowledging you.

So, take you ball and go home. NO one is stopping you.

a reply to: drock905

So, blame everyone else except the person.
Typical.


How often does this 'blame corporations' thing work?

Well, I suppose it may be a good idea to look in the mirror and wonder how others have been allowed to take control of nearly every aspect of our lives before we point blame in any other direction, yes?.

What do you see in the mirror big-guy?, acne?.

a reply to: macman

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
Well, I suppose it may be a good idea to look in the mirror and wonder how others have been allowed to take control of nearly every aspect of our lives before we point blame in any other direction, yes?.

So again, blame others.
When you allow excuses to drive your life, you probable don't have much to show for it.

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
What do you see in the mirror big-guy?, acne?.

Nah. Just someone, of average everything, able to be successful in life.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

Anyone have advice on how to get rid of drug-dealing, loud, violent, foul-mouthed, psychotic, child-abusing, unemployed 'neighbors' and their 'hangers on'?

I do, but taking into consideration our interactions, I don't think you would have the stomach for it.

.........

........

....

..
.


a reply to: macman

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

Anyone have advice on how to get rid of drug-dealing, loud, violent, foul-mouthed, psychotic, child-abusing, unemployed 'neighbors' and their 'hangers on'?

I do, but taking into consideration our interactions, I don't think you would have the stomach for it.

Why are people still debating this guy? I havent read a coherent thought or anything related to the topic really, yet he keeps spamming the topic

How many fast food chains, how many buisness models in the US would still be viable if welfare for the working would be removed and most minimum wage workers would be unable to be rested and presentable every day at their workplace on minimum wage? There is a reason only a fraction of successful chains in the US expand outside the US. Wendys, Jack in the Box, Walmart, White Castle and others we only know out of the news, popular culture, or from people whom visited.

www.dailykos.com...

Wal-Mart's poverty wages force employees to rely on $2.66 billion in government help every year, or about $420,000 per store. In state after state, Wal-Mart employees are the top recipients of Medicaid. As many as 80 percent of workers in Wal-Mart stores use food stamps.

its quite telling that the very people whom are very vocal about self reliance, making your own way against government handouts are essentially defending a system, where the profits many companies make come out of the taxpayers pocket.

File that under think first then talk. If you feel the individual shouldnt rely on the government for a better pay then please explain why you feel its alright that CEOs and shareholders rely on the welfare system and medicaid for their huge bonuses, profits and dividends?

You are afraid a large menue at McDonals will cost 2 bucks more if wages are increased? Well look at what you are paying NOW.

originally posted by: Merinda

Why are people still debating this guy? I havent read a coherent thought or anything related to the topic really, yet he keeps spamming the topic

And yet you reply as well.

originally posted by: Merinda

How many fast food chains, how many buisness models in the US would still be viable if welfare for the working would be removed and most minimum wage workers would be unable to be rested and presentable every day at their workplace on minimum wage?

Oh, the poor working person not able to get a good nights rest.
I get on average 5 hours of sleep a night, work a day job as a Telecom Engineer and run a business.
The boo-hoos will not be coming from me.
If they aren't presentable, then they don't work.

originally posted by: Merinda

There is a reason only a fraction of successful chains in the US expand outside the US. Wendys, Jack in the Box, Walmart, White Castle and others we only know out of the news, popular culture, or from people whom visited.

Okay then.

originally posted by: Merinda

www.dailykos.com...

Wal-Mart's poverty wages force employees to rely on $2.66 billion in government help every year, or about $420,000 per store. In state after state, Wal-Mart employees are the top recipients of Medicaid. As many as 80 percent of workers in Wal-Mart stores use food stamps.

Yeah, Daily Kos huh??
No thanks.

originally posted by: Merinda

its quite telling that the very people whom are very vocal about self reliance, making your own way against government handouts are essentially defending a system, where the profits many companies make come out of the taxpayers pocket.

Oh geez, it is like you aren't listening.
I am for a flat tax, no write offs.
No welfare, except in extreme instances for a small time.

originally posted by: Merinda

File that under think first then talk. If you feel the individual shouldnt rely on the government for a better pay then please explain why you feel its alright that CEOs and shareholders rely on the welfare system and medicaid for their huge bonuses, profits and dividends?

They are both sucking the tax payer dry.
Remove them all.

originally posted by: Merinda

You are afraid a large menue at McDonals will cost 2 bucks more if wages are increased? Well look at what you are paying NOW.

I don't eat there and I am not fearful of much in life.

originally posted by: macman
They are both sucking the tax payer dry.
Remove them all.

But you can't both not pay a living wage and not have a welfare system. It's one or the other (or both). Neither isn't an option.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Grimpachi

How many times do I have to explain that when you mandate forced pay raises, it will effectively pass on the cost to everyone who buys products across the board, just like we have already seen at the grocery stores with inflationary costs because the cost of production will always be passed on to the consumer. This is contrary to the concept of supply and demand, which is what the free market economy is based upon. No matter how many times you force a pay raise, it is not going to change things, because it is relative. So while you may feel a temporary relief from a few extra bucks, it is not going to solve these problems and it will not stop the wage/price spiral from happening.

Blah blah blah blah....I can't hear you. That's the response of someone that you are trying to get through to. Hell, let's raise everybody's wages to $15/hr. Of course the people who were already making 10 to $15/hr will have to get raises too, otherwise it's not "fair".

To use my business as an example, I will increase my payroll by about 88%, effectively cutting my profit down to unsustainable levels unless I raise my prices to compensate for that. Since everyone is doing that raise to $15, almost every business will raise their prices/fees to compensate for that.

Those making $15/hr are taking home more, but the relative costs of everything will stay as they were prior to the raise. Since everything will now cost more, their purchasing power hasn't increased. They are still the low man on the totem pole and "the working poor".

People think that businesses will run at lower profit margins, I got news for you.... they won't. they will pass the pricing down to the consumer. Been that way for forever.


Of course people's responses to that will be "Well don't be so greedy with your profit" or "Let's raise the minimum wage to $20/hr, that will solve it".

originally posted by: Aazadan

But you can't both not pay a living wage and not have a welfare system. It's one or the other (or both). Neither isn't an option.

There once was a time where there was neither Social Security, Welfare or a Minimum wage in America. Once you suckle at the teat of Government, they won't let you go.