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.

 

Repeal minimum wage says the Grouch

page: 15
13
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkm1864
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


38 year old male and yes sometimes i do have to work 36 hours straight because i'm paid to do a job and until its done i'm costing the client 10k an hour. Ive been doing it for over 15 years and ill do it up into my 60's. The gulf has no problem hiring people that are older. As a matter of fact im working on a shrimp boat trawling for debris and the company rep is 68 years old. Now they dont expect me to swing a hammer because the more experience you earn out here the less physical your job becomes but you are expected to use your brain more and take on more responsibility.


I think its funny how liberals bash the evil oil companies but what other field can a man make 300 to 1200 dollars a day without a degree.


You have to understand that liberal's are all slaves to the feminist female supremacist hate movement. When feminist's say "Patriarchy" they are not using the Anthropology definition. The definition they use is :men's ability to self determination. Ability to go to school, work and decide what we will do with our schooling and our work(if you actually read into the more advanced feminism meant only for feminist's, they won't be happy until every male is either dead or enslaved).

So liberals hate the fact that your able to earn the income you earn through your own endeavors. Hence the high taxes and the law's that enable it to be stolen from you by the bourgeoisie class..




posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by davidgrouchy
Believe what you want man.
I'm all for free expression.

It is not a contradiction to me
if I support his record while
valuing your input simultaneously.

I only spoke up because I thought the back and forth was going off the rails a little bit,
and I felt that if someone seconded his statements as nothing personal,
just a consistent and justifyable position it would remove a little bit of the acrimony from the debate.

I was a little disappointed when it was suggested that he "hit the bricks; stupid"
but I respect the choice as personal expression. One that isn't really a personal attack.

Fair play, I say.


David Grouchy

p.s. I am sorry that it feels like a personal attack to you. As far as my limited human mind can tell, he is focused on the ideas themselves.
edit on 2-8-2011 by davidgrouchy because: (no reason given)


How can you say he didnt personally attack me? He has been condescending and rude since his first post directed at me. Maybe you think being a jerk is different from a personal attack, i dunno.

On the flip side, his post explaining how "useful idiot" wasnt a personal attack, when from his tone it pretty obviously was, will be one for the ages.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 





1) If corporations are removed from the picture, what would stop groups of businessmen from banding together to influence events, as happened in the past, and was in fact the reason for legislation in the first place?


What the hell do you mean the past? Are you not aware that corporations have banded together to influence events, here and now?

Do you have any idea what the Federal Reserve is? It is a cartel of private bankers banded together to influence events today, and the bailout of the banks was one of their influences. Big fan of moral hazard are you?




2) If minimum wage is a causation of the problems we are seeing today, then why, adjusted for inflation, has the min wage decreased since the 70s, whereas CEO pay has skyrocketed? One would think if the min wage was to blame, it would be the other way around.


There are many causes to the problems we are seeing today, the vast majority of these causes coming from government regulation. Your envy of CEO pay is your problem. You have no real interest in using charter revocation as a method of controlling corporations in a meaningful way, so your appeal to popular contempt rings hallow.




He has contradicted himself so many times in this thread, and then just whips up words basically saying "nuh uh" when called on it. He called for a completely free market, free of regulation, then chastises me for saying that he wants no laws.


How is one a contradiction to the other? You have to necessarily pretend that I haven't all ready contended that law is a natural phenomenon and that the notion of "no laws" is nonsensical. I have all ready spoken to this, but you are willfully ignoring it. What I said was that laws cannot be "removed". You cannot remove the laws of unalienable rights any more than you could remove the law of gravity, or the law of entropy.




Im done with this game of self aggrandizing mental masturbation. You can believe whatever you want to believe, but I will always remember you as someone who ran from questions, even as you insulted others.


It is a false memory, sport. I have not run from any questions, you ignored my answers.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 





On the flip side, his post explaining how "useful idiot" wasnt a personal attack, when from his tone it pretty obviously was, will be one for the ages.


If the shoe fits...



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by dreamseeker
reply to post by galadofwarthethird
 


This system is not great in anyway. In fact I wish we could throw it all out and start again. I have several other ideals but I don't think our current society is evoloved enough to understand.

I have one idea of income based bills so no one is over burdened but that would be the same problem you are referencing. There is no perfect system only better systems and ones that evolve over time. We are stunted in our evolution what used to work no longer works but we can't go backwards either. The question is how do we move forward and give people a better standard of living?

Within our current system there needs to be a minuim wage because without it there would be no protection from companies in regards to income. Can the minuim wage standard be revamped? Sure it can. We don't need to eliminate it 100% because that would leave a lot of room open for expoltation and corruption. Now in this system there is also no maxium wage so a person is not limited. If there was no minuim wage it would take years even decades to make a livable wage.


All that you said above is martian to me, in fact I understand martian so i don't even know what the above means. It's all semantics you all are arguing about semantics, minimum wage is there to help people, but its there to oppress them as well, both are true and both are real.

So eliminate it, or revamp it, do whatever you want, but remember that it is all semantics and the same word can and do have many different meanings to different people. So it would be best to watch the people more so then the words they say.

But really what the problem is that the pyramid system is a energy funneling or stealing system even the ones who originally made it are either extinct or have reinvented it. And so the remnants of it on this planet will have to do the same thing or eventually go extinct, evolution some would call it. I would call it...duh.

So revamp it or get rid of it, all of it wont be done withing a day or anytime soon, and it will be done like everything else, the way it was built will be the way it will be unmade and remade. One step on the pyramid at a time.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Except I could build it without all the problems they are currently having and it would not be identical but similar to the iphone or ipad, and much better software. But still I would probably get sued. Because there are certain parts and features that are patented.


No you wouldn't. Look, you cannot have it both ways. You ignore the fact that Hewlitt Packard makes computers, and so does Apple, and IBM, and several other companies. They are not all using the same patent design. You are necessarily ignoring this in order to create this false reality of yours, and to what end?

Either you have invented a product similar yet altogether different from an ipad, or iphone, or you haven't. If you have, then you are not guilty of patent infringement, if you haven't and are attempting to use some other persons invention and pass it off as yours, then you are guilty of patent infringement.

What you and others keep doing is walking up to pristine ponds, grabbing a stick and stirring violently and declaring: See! The pond isn't so pristine! It is all muddied!!



Ummm...so I guess this came from an alternate universe or something then?
Apple iPhone Patent a HUGEblow to smartphone makers (or some such thing)
And once again my nerd is showing...I'll get that.
Also ETA:Not saying I have invented such a thing but that I could invent something similar, but as you can see in the above article it could be a problem.
Now then, This argument is moot. The fact is, we're talking about minimum wage.
I still stick with I am not working for under minimum wage even if it would be repealed, After all I just got done borrowing a hefty sum of cash to go to school and well, I am pretty sure the banks don't wanna hear "I can't pay because I can't eeven get minimum wage now for a highly specialized field even though I got a 3.5 GPA, you know I am still entry level, I have no work experience in this field." Nope they won't wanna hear that, they want their money back and they will do whatever it takes (like taking my house or locking me up) to get it.


edit on 3-8-2011 by ldyserenity because: ETA

edit on 3-8-2011 by ldyserenity because: more add ins



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Minimum wage only deforms the job market and prevents creation of much needed new unqualified jobs. Its intended purpose - to prevent worker slavery, can be achieved by much simpler and more elegant means - NIT welfare.

The best option would be to abolish minimum wage, and institute some form of basic income with NIT. It will act as a kind of "minimum wage", ensuring that noone would be forced to choose between working for absurdly low wage or dying, thus making the wage choice really voluntary. And thats all that is needed. Other than that, everyone could set the price of his work as low or high as he wants. If someone wants to work 80+ hours a week for a few bucks, he would still have the option, but wont be forced to do so. But I think most people would rather stay only on BI than take such low paying job, thus the employer would have to raise wages - thats how BI acts as "minimal wage".

And if you think about it, in the net effect it may actually cost less than current system, even with taxation required for BI, since you have to pay unemployment benefits, charity money or other means of helping to everyone who doesnt work even now.
Minimal wage is not good solution, it just converts the problem of low wages into problem of unemployment, thats all.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
Minimum wage only deforms the job market and prevents creation of much needed new unqualified jobs. Its intended purpose - to prevent worker slavery, can be achieved by much simpler and more elegant means - NIT welfare.

The best option would be to abolish minimum wage, and institute some form of basic income with NIT. It will act as a kind of "minimum wage", ensuring that noone would be forced to choose between working for absurdly low wage or dying, thus making the wage choice really voluntary. And thats all that is needed. Other than that, everyone could set the price of his work as low or high as he wants. If someone wants to work 80+ hours a week for a few bucks, he would still have the option, but wont be forced to do so. But I think most people would rather stay only on BI than take such low paying job, thus the employer would have to raise wages - thats how BI acts as "minimal wage".

And if you think about it, in the net effect it may actually cost less than current system, even with taxation required for BI, since you have to pay unemployment benefits, charity money or other means of helping to everyone who doesnt work even now.
Minimal wage is not good solution, it just converts the problem of low wages into problem of unemployment, thats all.


Isn't this the same outcome as minimum wage?



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 




Isn't this the same outcome as minimum wage?


No, the outcome will be decrease in umemployment and economic growth. When it comes to preventing worker slavery then yes, the outcome of NIT would be the same, but without the mentioned negatives of minimum wage.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Then it is just a matter of time, then China is that country and we can take it all back again. It is a circle.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
well, since mexicans are going back to mexico, don't worry david, you can come mow my lawn and I'll pay you $3 an hour


Why so much? Don't they make less than a dollar a day at many Chinese factories? Surely, if we're going to compete with the Chinese, our wages need to reflect this. So 1 dollar a day would be a great start!! (sarcasm injected).



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


And where do they get this idea to pay such low wages.
I honestly think if the government had never stepped in people would be getting paid much more on the hour.
Whose more likely in touch with the needs of the people, a boss, or a government official? I would say 10 bucks an hour would probably be about where minimum was if the government hadn't planted the idea of 7.25 or whatever.

People would also be more inclined to ask for raises and complain as they wouldn't be going into a job "knowing the pay" even if it was expected to be a low paying job they wouldn't have these already dashed hopes and would be more likely to speak up.

When someone applies for a job knowing it's minimum wage and that minimum wage is set they are resigned to that before they even start. You have someone get in and then hear for the first time that the pay is low and they aren't basing your pay off of any past experience or education I guarantee people would be more likely to speak up and/or walk out.
edit on 3-8-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 03:12 AM
link   
I'm a Doctor, you have cancer. This is what I tell you when you low ball me. "Die then"

There is no need for a minimum wage, only for supply and demand. Many people need jobs and many companies need employees and can't afford minimum wage. It's lose lose. Do the math.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by dreamseeker
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I have heard of Laissez faire captilism Ayn Rand was a big propent of that. That is a french term. I am afriand of the majority who will not pay good wages. I don't really support laissez faire capitilism myself because I believe if you just let things run its natural course there could be negative concequences.


Really? Do you think if nature runs its natural course there will be negative consequences?


We already tried it and there were.
You really think this time it would be entirely different?



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Quit pretending like an entire populace was helplessly trapped in industrial jobs working 12 hours a day, and that no one was farming then. Of course, ask the independent farmer how they're doing today up against the corporate farm. Got to love that Monsanto corporation, no?


Giving Monsanto more power, as you advocate, will help that independent farmer how?



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vilkata
The minimum wage itself is very indicative of what is wrong in our society.

The politicians keep it because getting rid of it would be political suicide for whoever is involved, due to an uninformed populace.

Big Business keeps it, because it strengthens their monopolies; smaller companies can't afford to hire and therefore grow into decent competition. And lets face it, some minimum wage jobs simply aren't worth as much pay as others, and if a job isn't worth paying minumum wage the company will be that much more reluctant to hire.

And guess what? The populace in general would benefit. Companies would be able to hire more people, and jobs would become commonplace, something that is sadly removed from the current situation. Smaller businesses would have more money to spend and increased chance of growth, promoting competition, and the lowered prices for consumers as a result. Starting a business itself would be that much easier and more attainable, further promoting healthy economic competition.


Help me understand how this works in the real world.
If they repeal the min. wage and a company can pay its workers say $2.00 and hour then they can hire more people, right?
So more companies can hire more people and more people will be employed, right?
But who the hell is going to be able to survive at any job that pays that little? They are going to need to work 120 hours a week and no job is going to offer that so they are going to need 4 jobs. So what good does it do to create more jobs if those jobs require the employees to take on more of those jobs anyway?

If I have one job at $8/hr and the company lowers pay to $2/hr so they can hire 3 more people, they save no money but all 4 of us have to go out and find 3 more jobs each thus eating up any and all newly created jobs. So the end result is just people working longer for less.

Please correct me.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Undertough
 


I think you pretty much just demolished the "create more jobs" argument in that post, nice to see some good ol fashioned logic here



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by dreamseeker
 





Negoation is no longer a part of our current society.


This is a bald faced lie, and demonstrably so. I will demonstrate this by responding to your direct reply to me in a new post.


Salary is "non negotiable?"
Recruiter says salary is non-negotiable: BS?
Salary non-negotiable?? in a call center
Starting salary is non-negotiable

creating sustainable results in growth and performance

MYTH 2: Everything is negotiable. If I can only learn how to effectively negotiate, I'll be able to use this skill to get a much higher salary than initially offered by an employer.


REALITY: Some things are negotiable, including many salaries. Other things are non-negotiable, including many salaries. The popular notion that everything is negotiable is simply false. For a salary to be negotiable, you must first have a willing partner, one who is sufficiently motivated to engage in a haggling game. If the other party doesn't need nor wish to negotiate, then you have no one to play this game. And some people simply don't negotiate or negotiate very little at all; some are even insulted by the fact that you might even consider negotiat­ing what to them is a "done deal." Indeed, many employers have rigid pay systems that do not allow much flexibility on base pay; they may have more flexibility with benefits. Unfortunately, much of what is written about salary negotiations is most appropriate for large corporations with 1,000 or more employees and for employees who make over $100,000 a year. Since very few people ever work for such organizations or make that much money, much of the advice is inappropriate for most people (85 percent) who work for small organizations (fewer than 100 employees) that have less negotiating flexibility on salaries. In fact, many salaries are non-negotiable. The most negotiable salaries are for high-level positions in large corporations requiring a great deal of experience. Even in these organizations, most entry-level positions come with set salaries that are either non­negotiable or involve little salary flexibility. Therefore, if you are first entering the job market or moving to an entry-level position, don't expect to find many employers willing to negotiate a great deal on salary.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by davidgrouchy
 


The truth is that if there were no minimum wage that businesses would have to compete for employees.


The truth is, this notion is just Elitist/globalist propaganda to save business's a buck. There is very little way to compete for something a moron can do. Please list a country, here on ATS that has abolished the minimum wage
or has no minimum wage, so we can discuss the practical viability of your assertion. You can't BTW... The wealthiest nations on Earth have minimum wage. The Anti Human ignorance you guys spout will be defeated,
thank god


And minimum wage doesn't save corporations any money?! Just think how much a corporation like McDonald's saves every year because they only have to pay their employees $7.25 an hour. Actually it is the independent owners of individual McDonald's restaurants that save the money, but money is saved regardless. The Federal Government has no authority, constitutionally speaking, to tell a private business owner what he or she has to pay their employees.


McDonalds can pay its employees anything above minimum wage it wants. Are you really suggesting that if the minimum wage were abolished, then McDonalds would pay its employees more? Perhaps I misread this?



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Undertough
 


en.wikipedia.org...



A negative income tax is intended to create a single system that would not only pay for government, but would also fulfill the social goal of making sure that there was a minimum level of income for all. It is theorized that, with an NIT, the need for minimum wage, food stamps, welfare, social security programs and other government assistance programs could be eliminated, thus reducing the administrative effort and cost to a fraction of what it is under the current system, as well as eliminating the perverse incentives created by these overlapping aid programs, e.g. when a minimum wage worker who earns a little more nets out with less income because he is newly ineligible for aid. The worker is stuck in a welfare trap and has no incentive to seek higher wages.

A NIT does not disrupt low-wage markets, whereas a minimum wage makes certain very low end jobs impossible (as anyone whose labour is valued at less than the minimum wage must be unemployed). A NIT would therefore increase the availability of cheap labour, which would enable businesses to do domestically some of the work which they would otherwise have to outsource to other countries.


There is also answer to MrXYZ outsourcing fears.


There are so many other things that would have to be fix or changed before anything like this could ever be implemented in any kind of meaningful way. MrXYZ points out tax loopholes/havens, etc. From your own source -

The main drawback is one commonly found in almost any income-based tax system: it requires considerable reporting and supervision in order to avoid fraud. The incentive to commit fraud may be increased with an NIT, since the monetary reward for fraud could be larger than a taxpayer's total tax liability. The added expense of policing fraud could offset the benefit from reducing administration costs resulting in a net increase in costs

I do not understand how anyone that sees the world we live in today believes that this could actually be successfully policed and as is pointed out, the cost of doing so could make it a wash. Given the abuses of the tax system now, making it harder to police and adding incentive to cheat does not sound like it will be a cheaper system to have in place.

I do not agree with the criticism about it being a disincentive to work though. I do not buy the argument that most people are perfectly happy to sit home and do nothing and be poor. Most people I encounter would like more than they have, even if they have to work for it.

I am also unsure why this system sounds better.

If I own a company now and can afford to hire one person at $8/hr, then I will and they will make that money. Pretty cut and dry.
With the NIT, I can pay that same employee $4/hr. This means I can hire two people, right? No. This means I will be taxed more heavily. Which means that other $4 has to then both go to and pay for a bureaucracy than then distributes some of that money to that employee to compensate them for the low paying job I gave them. So I still have one employee and he get's less than $8/hr because someone has to pay someone to come collect my taxes and redistribute it to the employee.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join