It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Dunkin' Donuts Worker's Death Reveals The True Cost Of Our Low-Wage, Part-Time Economy

page: 11
75
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer



Who decides what is "decent"?


We do. It's time we sit down, discuss it and come to a compromise.



You run into 1st Amendment issues there.


I don't think it's an issue. The 1st amendment grants American citizens certain rights and expectations. A corporation is not a US citizen and is not a person. You cannot incarcerate a corporation if they break a law and they are not given such rights under the constitution. Therefore they are not granted the same rights as we are.




posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer


Who decides what is "decent"?



Easy the LAW!

Just enforce the same laws that us common folk have to obey.

If a business commits fraud, miss sells products, evades taxes or acts in a dishonest fashion then rip them apart.

No bail outs, no get of jail free cards, no "Alfluenza" just hold the super rich to the same laws as us and jail the directors (and accomplices) arses and take there personnel assets to repay the damages and if in major case liquidate the company and use its assets to pay the damages.

Iceland did a pretty good job getting rid of the banks that destroyed the economy in 2007.

Obey the law, fine. No issues from me, make all the billions you like.

Break the law and I wanna see you burn like I would if I did the same.


originally posted by: beezzer

You run into 1st Amendment issues there.


I dont see a issue.

Businesses and c operations can stand outside the white house in picket lines or write letters (that get ignored) like everyone else.


I don't see anything in the first that says "one must allow businesses and powerful groups to bribe and have special access to politicians"
edit on 30-8-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: kosmicjack

Not only are they eating off the middle class, they have been successful in shifting the blame for the decline of the middle class in America on the poor wanting more 'handouts' and being too lazy to work while accusing anyone who questions why the rich do not pay more as liberal socialists moochers who hate rich people and capitalism.

In overdraft fees alone, the big banks collect billions are year. That is billions from people who can't even keep a minimum balance in their bank who have to pay extra.


edit on 30-8-2014 by jrod because: ed



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

In the 80’s I was at GM making good money for a young guy.
Before the auto industry got wiped out by the Japanese, bad American auto factories, and greedy capitalists.


This fact came from an excellent source, however I haven't had time to verify it

From the late 1940's GM cut (or allowed to fall back) production and quality in an effort to avoid anti-trust lawsuits.

Since then, all American automakers have been leery of gaining too much market share, which led to the takeover by foreign manufacturers.



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: twfau
I can't speak for America, but in the UK social care sector you can get a thousand people going for the same professional job, particularly assistant psychologists and practitioners. This leaves many graduates working in any job whilst they're looking the gateway into the profession they want, which can take years. The average age of an assistant psychologist is 28, roughly six years after graduation. I don't think it's as clear-cut as saying low-paid workers have no ambition.


Those graduates should be able to start their own businesses, such as, providing services to established companies or providing services cheaper.

Is there a legal cap on how many practitioners are allowed?



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

The defense spending we have today has absolutely nothing to do with defending our borders as outlined in the constitution but all about protecting the globalist utopia for multinational corporations. I did not realize the whole world is our country.

If we were actually intent on protecting our borders we would not have an open wide southern border for cheap labor to pour through. They figure why even bother to close the border in this globalist utopia where everyone will be competing for jobs while the top elite thumb their noses at everyone. Then these elites and proamnesty corporate lobbyists want everyone else to pay for it..

Welfare and foodstamp spending was 1/5 of what it is today prior to the 2008 crash.
People did not decide to become lazy after 2008 and as we know, many even work that get foodstamps.

No, what happened was Wall Street Casino tanked the economy with their clever instruments and wanted everyone to bail them out and then piss on the rest of the country.


Wages are stagnating but profits keep going up for politically connected class of Wall Street and Multinational Corporations in what is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic, not a Corporate Monarch



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: twfau
I can't speak for America, but in the UK social care sector you can get a thousand people going for the same professional job, particularly assistant psychologists and practitioners. This leaves many graduates working in any job whilst they're looking the gateway into the profession they want, which can take years. The average age of an assistant psychologist is 28, roughly six years after graduation. I don't think it's as clear-cut as saying low-paid workers have no ambition.


Those graduates should be able to start their own businesses, such as, providing services to established companies or providing services cheaper.

Is there a legal cap on how many practitioners are allowed?

And were do these graduates get the money to start up?

NEWSFLASH! Starting a business up is not free!

I get pissed off when people say "just start you own business if unemployed"


I had to beg a and scrap to get the loans to start my business up and I have a perfect credit rating and a few years of professional experience behind me and I still found it near impossible

For a 21 year grad who has £30,000 in student debt a none existent credit score starting a business is not a viable option.

Plus not everyone has what it takes to run there won business.

Some people are employees not employers.

edit on 30-8-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-8-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

I think a better idea would be to make lobbying tax payer funded with no private money allowed so all citizens and not just corporate and banking citizens have access to politicians.



Or we could go back to being a Constitutional Republic by booting the corporate and banking citizens out and killing the revolving door between Washington DC, Wall Street and Industries.

DEAL?



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Bravo.



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: caterpillage
Wonder if anyone considered the impact of the affordable care act on solidifying our "part-time" wage job economy?



I dont know but Im sure you can ask Big Pharma and Insurance that are at the top of list of lobbying Industry. It was a permanent stealth bailout for them at tax payers expense sold under propanda as being for the people lol.



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: eManym

Then entry level skilled wages should also be raised.



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: twfau
I can't speak for America, but in the UK social care sector you can get a thousand people going for the same professional job, particularly assistant psychologists and practitioners. This leaves many graduates working in any job whilst they're looking the gateway into the profession they want, which can take years. The average age of an assistant psychologist is 28, roughly six years after graduation. I don't think it's as clear-cut as saying low-paid workers have no ambition.


Those graduates should be able to start their own businesses, such as, providing services to established companies or providing services cheaper.

Is there a legal cap on how many practitioners are allowed?

And were do these graduates get the money to start up?

NEWSFLASH! Starting a business up is not free!

I get pissed off when people say "just start you own business if unemployed"


I had to beg a and scrap to get the loans to start my business up and I have a perfect credit rating and a few years of professional experience behind me and I still found it near impossible

For a 21 year grad who has £30,000 in student debt a none existent credit score starting a business is not a viable option.

Plus not everyone has what it takes to run there won business.

Some people are employees not employers.


An agency could hire them out a reduced rates to cover days off or temporary situations. If not, there are too many in that field.

Job prospects are one of the reasons to choose a major; other wise everyone would major in movie star or professional athlete.



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

Social Security should NOT be included, it is an entirely separate thing.


What is so wrong in giving the people more of their money to plan their retirement?

I want people to have more money and government less money.

Can you honestly say you are against that?



And who is going to take a paycut?
The healthcare, pharma and insurance industry dont want to take a paycut
The defense industry does not want to take a paycut
The finance industry does not want to take a paycut
The agricultural conglomerates do not want to take a paycut.

You are blaming the puppets instead of puppet masters that paid for their campaigns, bribe, wine and dine them.

As expected, the ones at the top that do not want a paycut, they cut food stamp amount per person in January but raised the money to big ag to make up the difference.

They want to cut everyone that has no politically or monetary power.


(post by Psykotik removed for political trolling and baiting)

posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   
This is sad, but this stuff happens all the time. We have the internet and 'reliable' tv now, though, so we hear about it quicker than people 30-40 years ago did.

It's sad that she had to work four jobs.

The economy is this way for a reason. I can only assume that if the higher ups wanted the economy fixed, it would be.

It's just sad.. I know someone who works in an E.R. and she makes enough for bills and food. She has no extra.
My boyfriend worked two jobs hoping it would help put him through college, and he ended up not going because it just wasn't enough.
I once worked 42 hours in a week, and didn't even break 400 dollars.
There are people who go to college, and can't get a job better than BK, is that their fault? No.

Just pay people a friggin livable wage. It doesn't matter what job they have. You shouldn't feel like your only purpose in life is to work.



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

Are you really in complete denial that the uber rich control the US government?


Some of the founders let the cat out of the bag sort of when they wanted to make requirements of a certain amount of property to be held to be eligible to vote. That's another issue to discuss.

But really you cant trust a pure democracy to watch out for your 'stuff" if you have anything in this world and certainly not in this day and age. Just look at what France has done to the haves. 80%, 90% tax?

I would certainly be concerned about what emotionally drummed up folks would and could do to anyone they were convinced was responsible for the death of a woman who had to have 4 jobs ect, ect.



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer


I'm offering solutions, not placing blame and pointing fingers.

You never place blame? Or point fingers?

guffaw!!!

What's the solution you've offered for income inequality? Less government? Novel approach...And, so - more of what then? More just plain folks - workin' harder? More elbow grease? Seems like the folks that can manage to find work are working pretty hard. Why is there no work then? The government?

Capital in the Twenty-First Century

Expand your horizons. Maybe it's not all about the government Beeze - almost nothing is that simplistic. Not even economics

If you can't quite bring yourself to blame the poor for being poor - you can always blame the government for the poor - one way or another, doesn't matter. Protect the money - this is all I ever hear - protect the money...Maybe this would be a good place for you to say something about torches and pitchforks

:-)

By the way Beeze - I'm not as far left as you would love to believe. Most people aren't. Just rational - and I believe there are rational people across the board - left and right

Eliminating government is not going to eliminate poverty - nothing will. But there are things we can do that will help - a living wage is one of those things. If people can't afford labor - and it hurts their business - how is that not just part of a functioning, capitalistic economy? If the price of flour goes up - there are adjustments. The price of labor also goes up - people are worth what they're worth. If you force wages to stay low - how is that even capitalism? How is it also not morally and ethically wrong?

edit on 8/30/2014 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Sad the things people have to go through when they can't find full time work with benefits anymore.

I think we all know whats to blame for that.



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer


Who decides what is "decent"?


Society does, we did it before we can do it just as easily again. A decent amount of income should easily be defined as one that allows you to provide yourself basic shelter, clothing, food, modest transportation and a relatively modest expendable income. The minimum wage has to be set to allow you to survive and stay fixed to the rate of inflation and cost of living that is all there really is to it. The labor pool will figure itself out all by itself with no further interference. Those content to just survive will do just that survive. Those that want better will either get a further education or take on second jobs that allow them to develop their skills. Employers will have to pay higher wages to attract more skilled workers. The productivity to income charts look the way they do because it takes an act of Congress to raise the minimum wage.

But even doing that isn't quite enough we have to change our trade policies. Free trade is pushed as opening foreign markets to US made goods. But in practice that isn't what is happening what is happening is we are employing foreign labor to provide us the goods we once made ourselves. The truth of it is when NAFTA was passed the complaint was never really about Canada's place in the trade union. Because Canada is pretty close to our equal in the benefits income and standard of living. Mexico was the problem partner because of their low standard of living and wage demands. But even then towns on the border started thriving and employees started demanding better. So the corporate elite lobbied to get China into free trade status. The border with Mexico is largely a mess because business fled to China. Now the Chinese are starting to demand better wages and living conditions. And here we go with the search for the next pool of cheaply exploited labor, oh i meant new trade partner.

We have to quit doing the Reaganomics shuffle. We know what works, equitable trade sprinkled with a little protectionism for our own good and that of our trading partners. A living wage and a well regulated banking and investment system. Smart businessmen and women will always find a way to make more money regardless of the taxes they pay and it is time we start making them do it without consuming and destroying everyone else around them.

What's wrong with huge corporations? They are the mighty champions and they are afraid. They are afraid of every small business they might have to compete with so they buy the government for their own survival. Because they all know that once they were the young hungry small business that knocked off the previous champion and someone younger and more innovative is eventually going to knock them down.

Contrary to GOP belief there is a limited number of people that can be in the top 1% club. For each new member outside the line for population growth someone has to fall out. The beauty of it is there is any number of people could be the one. But the system is being gamed by those already there to keep them there. So that leaves the next thing that has to be done is get the private money out of our political system. We go to 100% publicly funded campaigns and eliminate private funds and contributions of any kind.

That is my list of what needs to be done. It isn't that hard and there are certainly things that can be done in terms of the finer points including looking at the tax code. But both sides have to at least agree there is in fact a problem and that it needs to be addressed. If I could find a Republican candidate willing to do the actual work and quit blaming everything but the real problems and stay out of my reproductive organs he would get my vote just as easily any Democrat.



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

You are right that only the property owners were originally allowed to vote. That was when any white male could claim any piece of unclaimed land as his own without having the banks approval.

My interpretation of this is the Founding Fathers were primarily concerned about the uneducated being allowed to vote because they would most certainly make the wrong choice.

Now the US elections are a great spectacle of human stupidity where the ill informed masses have been seemingly programmed to pick either Red or Blue.
edit on 30-8-2014 by jrod because: ed




top topics



 
75
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join