It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The Terrible Fear of Paying the Poor Too Much

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 08:32 PM
a reply to: xuenchen

I wonder if there's "Two" sides of fear with this minimum wage issue.

The possible end results of a massive wage increase across the board could be:

1) Layoffs causing more unemployment and government assistance, along with a higher work load placed on the left over employees that could affect service levels to customers.

2) Higher prices across the board.

Where's the middle ground?

Obviously, you did not read the articles provided in the OP.
It presents the 'middle ground' quite well.

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 08:36 PM

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ~Lucidity

The Walmarts and McDonaldses need to remember two things: 1.) they would be nothing without their employees and 2.) what goes around comes back around.

And the people need to remember something together or you're screwed. - See more at:


And if all those low-wage employees called in sick on the same day - whether Walmart or McDonalds (paid or unpaid - just call in sick) or hotel housekeepers or CNAs in the nursing homes that care for the elderly parents of the 'congressmen' - well -
it would make a HUGE statement.

And if all those low-wage employees called in sick on the same day - whether Walmart or McDonalds (paid or unpaid - just call in sick) or hotel housekeepers or CNAs in the nursing homes that care for the elderly parents of the 'congressmen' - well - it would make a HUGE statement.

Why would you encourage unethical and immoral behavior to combat unethical and immoral behavior? Calling in "sick" when you are not sick is lying. If you want to have a low-wage earners' strike, organize and execute it---but using unethical behavior to make your point? That's just dragging yourself down into the gutter with those you claim to oppose. Why would be wanting to punish the elderly parents of anyone by denying them care in a nursing home? That is truly cruel and unusual---I think you need to look deeply into your motives here. Your suggested methodology offends me deeply. Is that the way you would wish to be treated?

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 08:43 PM
a reply to: diggindirt

Or it might just remind them that the people still have some power.

It's just been beaten into us to be beholden and look where this kowtowing behavior has gotten us, eh? It allowed them to do this.

And why is it so horrible to make a statement in a peaceful way? And what could be the consequences? They could fire everyone and replace them? Yeah, with the amount of rampant unemployment, maybe they could, but that would eat into their profits a bit too. And they really wouldn't like that.

And so is your alternative to just grovel and let them keep piling up all the money for themselves? Just because...well they can?

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 08:44 PM

originally posted by: V22tech
Gotta love the liberal approach to economics, pay people more for doing less. What makes you think a burger flipper deserves 15 bucks an hour?

As Carlos Mencia said, "if you're 25, 35, 45 and still working a McDonalds, you're f*cking retarded." I want you to explain to me how hiking the pay of employees by 10 bucks is not going to affect the prices of food.

I find it amusing that you go on a tirade about people making $15 an hour then add a quote about people being retards and hiking pay by $10.

The reason I find this amusing is because most people that are mentally challenged "PC" have a certain level of reading comprehension.

From the OP.

There is a wealthy Conservative businessman in California (Silicone Valley) named Ron Unz who is/was pushing for a raise TO $10.00/hour, not $10 MORE than what they're earning now.
- See more at:

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 08:44 PM

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: benrl

Let them eat Cake...

Thats a dangerous attitude my friend.

Dangerous to whom?
This idea that business and the US is to be held hostage by the "have nots" with threats of strikes and/or violence is just that, a threat.
If they strike, they loose any income, except that of Govt handouts.
If they respond with violence, it not only shows the disgusting angry dog gnashing its teeth, but will be met with force in return.

see that's the thing you and other like minded people don't get, at the rate things are going it wont just be a threat for much longer. it will become civil war against the rich especially with how popular more socialist policies are becoming with younger generations who are quickly becoming more and more of a majority, all the right conditions for such a conflict are quickly forming right now within the next 10 years.

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 08:47 PM

originally posted by: V22tech
Minimum wage is not supposed to be a career. It was intended for kids going to high school to earn a couple extra bucks on the side.

I would greatly appreciate sources for that claim, as I can't find any supporters of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 stating anything remotely close to that idea.
edit on 28-4-2014 by OrdoAdChao because: for and of, tricky prepositions, they are!

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 08:48 PM
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Well the stories all have a lot of "stories".

Can you quote the "middle ground" that would best work IYO?

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 08:52 PM
a reply to: diggindirt

I second this. Let the employers know exactly why you are not coming to work and show them with solidarity. Without each other acting in unison, we are nothing but small cuts upon the knuckles of a great beast.

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 08:52 PM
Speaking of reading comprehension, you dont have it. When i say raising it by ten im assuming you are already making around 5 bucks, or were you too stupid to see that? Next time, dont insult someone if you cant even comprehend what they write.

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 08:55 PM

originally posted by: JimTSpock
It is a sad state of affairs in America, and other rich countries, when a full time worker working 40 hours a week or more can't make enough to live off or support their family and needs to rely on government benefits and full time work aswell to survive. Big business loves cheap labour, that's why everything is made in China and Asia and manufacturing is shrinking in countries with above dirt pay.

A lot of right wingers like the US Republicans are fans of let the free market take care of everything, but that doesn't always work and they were faced with moral hazard and too big to fail and had no choice but to go against their market principals and do trillion dollar bailouts in the global financial crisis of 2008. Money, profit and greed rule and have the real power.

Thanks, Captain!

I've said it before but it bears repeating: I am training in my third career (at 45) thanks to outsourcing. I support a family of 4, including 2 teenagers and my wife - who is disabled, but not receiving benefits - on $13 an hour. To get by I work 55-62 hours a week, and I still fall behind, thanks to the rising cost of everything. I routinely make the choice between a $30 copay to see a doctor and food or gas.

I don't qualify for any assistance.

I don't consider myself part of the American middle class. I'll never take a vacation. I'll never retire. Those dreams are not my own, and consequently -- I don't cry much when politicians like Moran complain about his wages in Congress. I dream of living long enough to see my kids grown, and than, with any luck, a quick death. Peasant dreams for modern day serfs in the richest joke on the planet.

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 08:57 PM
It called common sense pal, you really think a burger flipping job should be a career? I never claimed it was some kind of act or bill it was an opinion, but if you think burger flipping should be a career than you are a fool.

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 08:59 PM
a reply to: V22tech

Did you or did you not say a burger flipper making 15 bucks an hour because I quoted where you did say exactly that.

I also quoted the OP where it says raising it to 10 dollars not 15 or 10 more.

So exactly how did you come up with the 15 dollar figure or did you not understand the OP?

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 08:59 PM
a reply to: 0zzymand0s

And you deserve a great deal of applause for taking what little time you have to add to this discussion. Thank you. The workers of the world need people like you to lead as an example, I at least have the luxury of collectively bargained time to participate in these kinds of arguments against those who believe we should all lift ourselves by our imaginary boot straps into the clouds and look upon the down-trodden workers and believe their efforts to be envy.

Again, thank you.
edit on 28-4-2014 by OrdoAdChao because: Wow, I slaughted that last sentence

edit on 28-4-2014 by OrdoAdChao because: same as above

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 09:02 PM
Carlos Mencia called someone retarded and didn't include himself? Now that's funny.

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 09:05 PM
a reply to: V22tech

I take it you were replying to me. Burger flipping would have been covered by the notion of the stated act as readily as ditch digging. The point is that if an employer has a position that is required to be filled, it must be paid at a certain rate regardless of the individual taking the position status in life. Equality, does it mean anything? Or is equality something that must be earned?


I'll make it more clear: If a company wishes to profit from anyone's work, it is required to pay a standard rate, regardless of what that rate "makes" that individual on the class scale. If all that a person can be is a burger flipper, should they simply subsist and claim government assistance at the cost of tax payer dollars? I think not. But the simple fact that such a person wishes to work and not just subsist on subsidies should blow some kind of dog whistle to you.
edit on 28-4-2014 by OrdoAdChao because: (no reason given)

Second EDIT (just for fun):

I asked for sources because you stated what the minimum wage was "intended" for as if it were some written in stone fact. The fact is that the act was put into place to prevent worker exploitation and the rise of "company stores" that dealt in script that a worker could only use in company owned venues. It was to help establish a free-market, not prevent it. It made companies pay workers REAL money so that they could choose and not the employer.
edit on 28-4-2014 by OrdoAdChao because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 09:14 PM
If they raise the minimum wage, I want a raise, too. Seems it's only fair. You know what my last raise was? $00.01. Yeah.

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 09:16 PM

originally posted by: ThichHeaded
Let me put it to you this way..

When I started working in the low 90s I think.. I was getting min wage... 3.25 in my state. Prices of things were as follows..

Cigs = .90
Gas = between 99 and 1.10 a gallon
Lb of ground meat = about 49 to 59 cents a lb..

Today min wage is 7.25 where I live.
Cigs = good ones marlboro 7 bucks, newport around 7.50ish.
Gas = 3.80 a gallon
A lb of ground meat = 5 bucks.

My translation, you can only fill a cup so far before everything in the cup over flows..
Meaning you can give all the money to the poor, it still doesn't make them feel rich.. It actually makes them poorer..

Ahh Inflation, goto love it.

One of the main problems is min wage is not as fast as inflation when your government sucks and don't fix the problem. Minimum wage has been very consistent to be very close to 1996 dollars, but when we see hyper inflation in staple foods, gas etc it is kind of hard to blame employers.

With that said we need to see 10 bucks an hour in minimum wage to help offset our stupid Government, but what do people feel about 15 bucks an hour?

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 09:17 PM
I always hear about a "living wage". What is this based on?

Single person?
Single parent and one kid?
Two parents and 2.3 kids?

Do we change a person's "living wage" according to their family size? Would this not lead to paying people to breed rather than work? I am honestly curious and I am not trying to be rude by asking the question.

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 09:20 PM
To the OP:
Why do you want to continue to discuss an issue that has already been decided by the majority of U.S. Citizens to be immoral and unjust? Talk, talk, talk, and meanwhile the people who pay the computer programmers are finding more ways to exploit the people who cook and clean for the computer programmers. Nothing is going to change until you reprogram the "system" to allow some of those Electronic Bytes to "trickle down" to the people most likely to spend it. This "trickle down" was never meant to be a cost to the Consumer, but to be a cost to the profit margin of the Corporation. The Corporations and their Shareholders must share the profits with the workers. That was the whole point of the Bush tax cuts. The profit that the Corporations realized by not paying taxes would be re-directed to the workers. Instead the Corporate Jerks kept the profits and created chaos in the markets by implementing the 2008 market crash and mortgage foreclosure crisis.

edit on 28-4-2014 by BurbGirl378 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 09:21 PM
Minimum wage 40 years ago was $2.00 and gas was .49 a gallon and my VW bug cost $3K. That same year, my parents bought a brand new, pretty nice house that they paid $24K for.

Minimum wage is now $7.25 and gas is 3.59 a gallon and a VW bug is $24K. That house sold this month for $240K.

Something's wrong with this picture, eh?

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in