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.

 

Bernie Sanders: Time For A Federal Living Wage

page: 2
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Thanks MystikMushroom!




posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

There are those that would rather fatten their already fat wallets, and the are those that will open their wallets and give to those in need. What I truly can not understand is why so many folks would complain about people wanting earn more money, they want to earn enough money to not be eligible for foodstamps.

Do you want to give foodstamps to working Americans to help subsidize their employers. or would you rather they earned enough to take care of themselves?

I just do not see raising the minimum wage hurting our economy, I see it as stimulating the economy. We know trickle down economics is a failure or it was just an outright lie, now it is time to try something else.

Not only do I feel we need t raise minimum wage, but I feel there should be federally funded jobs for anyone that wants to work.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

No.

People should be paid based on merit and ability.

Being paid a certain level based on the fact that you exist is socialism and class-warfare.

Socialism because there is no qualification other than your existence.

Class-warfare because you'll have one group that earns their money from talent, experience, merit and ability and another group that earns their money just by showing up.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom




It's only helping the wheel go around to have more people spending more money.


Exactly thats what welfare is all about and why there is rampant abuse in the welfare system.

They take the money from the middle class to prevent them from saving to much, and then give it to the poor in order to make them good consumers. Its all about making consumers.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

I guess we have to many people that exist then...




People should have the right to life (using an anti-abortion argument here) -- and life in an industrialized, 1st world democracy should mean certain basic needs for life are afforded.

It's just like the pro-life argument. You want these babies born, but decry the mothers of them when they apply for food stamps.

The working poor are human beings, and deserve dignity and the right-to-life. They deserve a shot at upward mobility if they so choose.

The economy deserves to have more consumers freely spending money.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Your words have both wisdom and historical significance.

Jobs are becoming or in the case of good jobs have become privileges, not awarded for merit.

Socialism as we are born here and have a right to live here, not that we are born into slavery and must work for the system to survive.

Class warfare, is not a few having enormous excess a war on those that are in need to survive another day?



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

I think we are looking at this the wrong way. What I propose is that people are not "paid" just because they exist, rather we as a society find it morally right and economically beneficial that we ensure all people have basic needs guaranteed.

Having sections of our society that go hungry, lack shelter or medical care is a bigger burden to our collective society than it would be to provide such needs.

In doing so, we are not taking away the benefits from those that work hard and succeed to have a better life.

Also, you are correct that it is socialism. I don't see what is wrong with that in the slightest. Many of us cower in fear at the mention of socialism because we attach the extreme accounts in history in which socialism went awry. But applying strategic amounts of socialism is good and can even be witnessed at work today in our society.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert


Also, you are correct that it is socialism. I don't see what is wrong with that in the slightest. Many of us cower in fear at the mention of socialism because we attach the extreme accounts in history in which socialism went awry. But applying strategic amounts of socialism is good and can even be witnessed at work today in our society.



I've often said that socialism is the best, most ideal system.

On paper.

What messes up socialism is people, corrupt politicians, corrupt people, entitlement mentality.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

And what would those federal jobs be? If you have a person who has no functional education, not even high school, and let's not beat around the bush, in many places many are functionally illiterate, what does the government pay them to do?

I suppose the farmers could use them pick lettuce instead of the illegals. But instead of "paying" them, why don't we attach it to the concept of earning their already existing welfare?

It seems there are plenty of jobs AMericans won't do, and plenty of Americans who can't/won't do jobs. They should meet up.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Seems like so many are willing to applaud those who game the system to get rich but when those who game the system to get food and they freak out.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

I can agree. Man corrupts all systems. Capitalism would of been nice as well, if greed didn't muck it up.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 05:09 PM
link   
I'm with the Beez on this one.

I will say, I think there should be a small raise in the minimum wage, but what really needs to be looked into is the prices that are being charged for RENT. I make 28k a year + benefits and can't afford my car payment and even a 1 bedroom apartment. RENT IS TOO DAMN HIGH!



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

I posted this in another thread about creating a maximum wage but I feel it is relevant here.

Min wage increases will do nothing. As wages go up retails go up to consume the extra income.

Because the ones at the top have no cap on their income they will keep raising prices until your wage increases end up having a negative impact.

This has been proven, time and time again.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

MANY business models were calculated using the $7.25/hr figure. If we re-tool now so that every swinging dick at the McDonald's counter has to make $30k/year, get ready for everything you pay for to double in price. Hiking minimum wage by a factor of two or more isn't going to eliminate poverty. The extra costs will bounce right back to the consumer, who will remain poor.
edit on 24-7-2015 by Urantia1111 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Sadly I am seeing two sides forming here, those that feel workers should earn a living wage. Then there are those that wish to condemn it, why do say it will not work?

Is it possible you still want the failed trickle down economics?

Maybe you are proud that one of the US of A's largest retailer pays wages low enough that their workers are getting welfare / food stamps?

To me it looks like the system is failing in just about every way, but heaven forbid a change. We can not have the poor earning a living, where would we get homeless people?



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

What you're asking, of me, is to devalue my worth, my pay, by artificially elevating everyone else's to some arbitrary "living wage".

If everyone get's a set minimum living wage, then everything that costs money, will reset to that new standard, since there will be more currency into the market. It's a controlled inflation. Everything will cost more.

My standard of living will fall as a result.

I know and understand that you or anyone else could care less. Why should you?

But conversely, why should I give a damn about anyone else?



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

It's not the "system" that is the failure. The fact that (Walmart) pays relatively low wages (for moving items through a barcode reader or organizing cereal) is a SYMPTOM of a larger problem. That being, Americans are largely a nation of cashiers and shelf stockers. And many don't even qualify or show up for THOSE jobs. Hundreds of millions are looking for the easiest existence possible, and now bitching that the pay is crappy. *yawns*



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

This is a fantastic post and I'm not at all surprised (disappointed, but not surprised), nobody has replied to it. You actually get it and that's not only rare, it's looked down upon by those who don't.

There are several huge issues that would occur if the feds passed a $15/hr minimum wage hike.
1. Only those under $15/hr would see a measurable raise.
-Take a place like Tucson, AZ. Current right out of college Engineer in Training positions at a Civil firm there are running around $40-$45K per year. That's $21.50 an hour. Min. wage in AZ is $8.05 an hour. That means a college educated, entry level professional is making about 2.67-times minimum wage for their investment of 4+ years and $40,000+++ for their education. Now, boost minimum wage to $15 an hour, that's an 86% raise... does anyone really believe the EIT is suddenly going to get called into their boss' office and will e told "Son, we're bumping you to $40 an hour"? GET REAL. Now view it from the EIT's point of view. Not only are they receiving less benefit from their investment of time and real money, their purchasing power just became significantly reduced thanks to supply and demand. Suddenly the local 3 star restaurant he takes his girlfriend to on special dates is charging $35 a plate instead of the prior $20. Rents are going to go up at nice apartments because those folks who saw their wages double by mandate aren't going to want to stay shacked up with roomates... no, they're going to put more pressure on the rental situation, which leaves our EIT friend paying even more when his lease expires.
2. There will be a glut of laid off older workers. If you've got a business which is paying somebody $20 an hour merely because they've been working for you for all these years and now you're told not only do you have to provide them health care (ACA), but your other workers under $15 an hour now must be bumped up to $15, you're gonna look for savings wherever they can be found. Guess what? 50 year old Harry costs your insurance plan a lot more than 18 year old Joe does, so Harry hit the road.
3. Profits don't "go down" in business. When profits go down, those are called "losses." Business operates differently than home finances do... in business (and this is run as much by federal regulations and IRS reporting rules as it is Wallstreet greed, so don't start in with the 99% bullcrap) you set a profit goal and if you fail to meet it, you post the amount you missed it by as an operating loss. That means if it suddenly costs a business 86% more to produce something, prices WILL go up. Furthermore, thanks to FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulations) every business is permitted (and expected) to use an IRS determined overhead rate which represents their true cost of business. That rate seems to be in the 2.5 range for most companies. In other words, a $15 wage actually costs a business $37.5 an hour.

Sooooo, say someone is working as a contract worker and their company bills their efforts out at $30 an hour. That person makes $10.80 an hour, considering the overhead rate that costs the company $27 an hour, and that company is making a very modest 11% profit of $3 an hour. Now the law changes and that worker must be paid $15 an hour. Factor the overhead gives us $37.5... now if the company "IS MAKING GOOD PROFITS ALREADY SO WHY SHOULD THOSE GO UP?" and capitulates to people who have ZERO business suggesting how someone else's business should run, and takes their previous $3 per hour profit, the amount billed to the customer still just escalated by $10.50 to $40.50. That's a 35% increase in costs to the customer and the company just saw it's profits drop from 11% to 8%!!! If, however, the business operates as businesses should and takes their modest 11% same as before, the customer cost is now $41.67.

So the difference between greed and good as far as the company's profits go in this scenario is $1.17 an hour whereas the difference between "fair wage" and "unfair wage" is reflected in a $10.50 increase to the customer.

Well, there's yet another great reason why I'm thrilled to see the Left's version of "The Unelectable" Ron Paul in this race. My wallet and my sanity appreciate him being the only one pushing this stupid idea.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 12:42 AM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Basically, this is designed to punish success.



posted on Jul, 25 2015 @ 01:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
I know and understand that you or anyone else could care less. Why should you?

But conversely, why should I give a damn about anyone else?

But, isn't this what you are advocating? You are worried about your worth and so is the guy who is going to throw you under the bus.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join