The Point that Living Wage Supporters Ignore

a reply to: RomeByFire

Look at Oprah. Born to a single-mother who was a maid. Lived in rural poverty. She inherited nothing but poverty. Now she is one of the wealthiest people in America.

Myself, I was born on a native reserve. Now I own my own business, my own home, and have a great life.

Blame everyone else if it makes you feel better. But to expect others to take care of you because you will not do what it takes to get further is a mistake.

a reply to: forkedtongue

As a libertarian I would think you should understand this point very clearly.

The GOV, because of lobbying, has made it so all but impossible to start a new business or even expand a small mom and pop business it is ludicrous.

But they give many giant breaks to all the giant corps that can guarantee a better deal for their supply chain just because of volume and power.

I say level the field and watch walmart/mcdonalds type business models burn to the ground.

Simple really.

End welfare. Make it a $1,000,000 fine to employ an illegal alien, per employed alien, per day employed.

They will pay a livable wage or go out of business because nobody will work there.

Capitalism at its finest.

Supply and demand in action.

Because without illegals undercutting Americans, these places will be ghost towns the first month the foodstamps dont come in.

The problem is GOV intervention.

I am also a centrist, and I see clearly what the problems here are with our economy.

Welfare was a free check to underpay workers, so businesses took it. Why wouldnt they?

The worker can still feed his family, but not by making enough, but through welfare.

The business side saw this and ran with it.

Creating todays economy of quaranteed fail for 1/2 of workers no matter what anyone does.

Even if everyone made all the right choices and worked hard.

1/2 would live in working poverty, that is the situation the welfare state has created.

I'm not a libertarian. I hold no political affiliation.

But I am fully against the welfare state for the exact reasons you say.

originally posted by: RomeByFire
a reply to: Edumakated

Turner Broadcasting... oh the memories, or nightmares haha.

There are definitely legitimate examples of start-up businesses that have came out of nowhere. I have an uncle that started his own business with one other guy in roofing/siding, he is now a multi-millionaire with 83 people working underneath of him.

Thing is.. I really don't care to be a millionaire. I don't care for money as most people do, I'd rather help people and enjoy their company, and sure - much of this requires money, but I'm NOT a businessman - people over profits, all day, every day. To each his own, I suppose.

We really don't have much of a free market though, man. Bail outs, for example - IF and only if, we had a free market - these bail outs never would have occurred, too big to fail - never would have existed.

They would have failed, and the chaos - would have been real.

But this is not a free market, and the tax-payer funded bailouts is proof that corporate welfare does exist, case and point, bailouts.

My point isn't a business one, it's a reality one.

Why are these business using off-shore accounts to avoid the American-legal system, if it is so fair and just?

The big banks should have been allowed to fail. The politicians were afraid of the systematic risk though if they allowed them to collapse. It would have hurt in the short term, but we would have been better off if they failed. I don't support huge corporate lobbying.

One of the reasons I support a more simple tax code is to get rid of the corruption that it causes. Our politicians use our tax code and its complexity to dole out favors. Our tax code should not take an army of high dollar lawyers and accountants to understand. Both progressives and conservatives should be for simplifying the tax code.

a reply to: stolencar18

This may sound a bit off topic, but does out sourcing also make poverty levels rise? If so, would returning those factory jobs and other jobs back here in america lower it and exporting goods and/or services bring in money?

Living wage?

The tripwire here is not in wage but in value of employee.

Imagine the cost of lunch at McDonald's or Wendy's or Burger King or Subway or Hardees or Chik-fil-A... or any other fast food joint, should the hourly wage pop to $10 an hour or more. Do we expect those companies to simply suck-up the extra expense? Or... will we see a sudden jack in the prices of their products?

From there, with the cost of product being higher, how many people will simply buy less or perhaps, nothing at all? And with a drop in sales... what will these companies do besides cutting back on expenses by laying off employees?

Paying sandwich flippers or road construction sign holders or grocer baggers or waiters/waitresses more will only lead to less jobs available.

The clicker here is in first, getting an honest, decent education. Yup, it can be done.
I know... I've been there.

Learn how to add and subtract without a calculator or iPhone. Know how to write your name in ink by hand (gasp!) without having to ask for help. Spend less time doing selfies and more time learning how to survive in the REAL world.

The living wage is what you get when you actually try to live.

Happy New year to all

...

originally posted by: Edumakated

We really don't have much of a free market though, man. Bail outs, for example - IF and only if, we had a free market - these bail outs never would have occurred, too big to fail - never would have existed.

They would have failed, and the chaos - would have been real.

But this is not a free market, and the tax-payer funded bailouts is proof that corporate welfare does exist, case and point, bailouts.

My point isn't a business one, it's a reality one.

Why are these business using off-shore accounts to avoid the American-legal system, if it is so fair and just?
The big banks should have been allowed to fail. The politicians were afraid of the systematic risk though if they allowed them to collapse. It would have hurt in the short term, but we would have been better off if they failed. I don't support huge corporate lobbying.

One of the reasons I support a more simple tax code is to get rid of the corruption that it causes. Our politicians use our tax code and its complexity to dole out favors. Our tax code should not take an army of high dollar lawyers and accountants to understand. Both progressives and conservatives should be for simplifying the tax code.

*Hurrah* for some sanity ... I would have covered your post in stars if I

could have! I don't live in the USA but ....

Although I lost money through the banks collapse, if the first one was

allowed to fail, I am sure the others would have got their act together!

and mine, and other's losses would have far been less than they were.

It was said of many who lost their money that *well they got it for nothing?*

Well no they didn't, Yes I got shares when the bank floated but I had been

a loyal customer for very many years, banking, saving, and mortgaging with

them.

I topped up my shares buying shares at market rates from family so as to

help me when I retired. Well obviously that didn't happen!


I don't need to reiterate that the banks were bailed out and the top men

responsible for the mess were given a multi million golden handshake and

knighthoods!?

Instead of the government bailing out the banks they should have

implemented the scheme which is now in place of guaranteeing that a sum

of around £85,000 was now safe to every bank customer.

Whilst they are in business to make money there should be a cap on the types

of profit they are allowed to make, such as the exorbitant profits from things

like sending out automatically generated letters.

a reply to: stolencar18

Why should any one of us care?

Have we come to the point where the nanny state is expected and assumed?

People should take the responsibility to provide for themselves. I know the disabled can't, there are programs for them. For everyone else? Work. Quit your whining. It is not society's job to be your nursemaid.

So tired of those trying to justify theft.

EDIT; this is just to the theme, not you, OP.

a reply to: schuyler

It's a little skewed though...What $200,000 to a multimillionaire isn't exactly what $600 is to someone living paycheck to paycheck...

yeah that $600 to the feds is going to look like a tiny tiny percentage while the $200,000 might look like a substantial amount...but in reality, the $200,000 didn't hurt that top dog as much as that $600 hurt the little guy....

(for ease I'm going to use smaller numbers)Say the general cost of living is $30,000/yr in whatever particular area....and the "rich guy" is making $60,000/yr while the "poor guy" is making $20,000/year..... paying 2% is going to be $1,200 for the "rich guy" and $400 for the "poor guy".....leaving the "rich guy" still well above the cost of living and the "poor guy" even worse off than he was before....

A2D

originally posted by: schuyler

The so-called "rich" are paying TWICE their "fair share" already. So when you guys harp on and on about the rich needing to pay their fair share, well then, cut their taxes in half so that they pay the same percentage in taxes that they make.

It's a matter of proportion.

The rich may be paying "TWICE their fair share", but that amount taken from them makes no negative impact whatsoever upon their standard of living or quality of life.

If you were to place that same tax burden on those at the lower end of the scale, making them pay "TWICE their fair share", it would have a noticeably negative impact upon their lives.

Therin lies the difference. The BIG difference.

If a man has twenty million dollars dropping into his personal Bank account every year, taking ten million in taxes will probably annoy him, but it won't mean he has to cut down on chocolates coated with gold leaf or stop drinking milk siphoned from white tigers.

If however a man has twenty thousand dollars dropping into his personal Bank account every year, taking ten thousand in taxes could render him homeless.

It's all about proportion. That's why, despite your fancy numbers, the rich can afford be taxed much more than they currently are, and why morally they should be.

That said, you know what? I'd be happy to see, as you suggest, the wealthy have their taxes halved. On the same day the "'little people" are given affordable access to accountants and advisors who will inform them of how best to reduce their tax payments, because that benefit is currently restricted almost entirely to the wealthy.

Yep...why on earth should someone who works for a living expect to be paid a living wage,of course they should work 40 hours a week and then go and collect food stamps so they can afford to live....who woulda thunk it could be any other way.....

originally posted by: Motorhead

originally posted by: schuyler

The so-called "rich" are paying TWICE their "fair share" already. So when you guys harp on and on about the rich needing to pay their fair share, well then, cut their taxes in half so that they pay the same percentage in taxes that they make.

It's a matter of proportion.

The rich may be paying "TWICE their fair share", but that amount taken from them makes no negative impact whatsoever upon their standard of living or quality of life.

If you were to place that same tax burden on those at the lower end of the scale, making them pay "TWICE their fair share", it would have a noticeably negative impact upon their lives.

Therin lies the difference. The BIG difference.

If a man has twenty million dollars dropping into his personal Bank account every year, taking ten million in taxes will probably annoy him, but it won't mean he has to cut down on chocolates coated with gold leaf or stop drinking milk siphoned from white tigers.

If however a man has twenty thousand dollars dropping into his personal Bank account every year, taking ten thousand in taxes could render him homeless.

It's all about proportion. That's why, despite your fancy numbers, the rich can afford be taxed much more than they currently are, and why morally they should be.

That said, you know what? I'd be happy to see, as you suggest, the wealthy have their taxes halved. On the same day the "'little people" are given affordable access to accountants and advisors who will inform them of how best to reduce their tax payments, because that benefit is currently restricted almost entirely to the wealthy.

Little people don't pay taxes, so why would they need accountants and advisors to help reduce their tax burden? Secondly, if our tax code wasn't so screwed up, no one would need accountants, lawyers, etc to file their taxes.

The problem is you have half the country not paying a damn thing complaining that the people who do actually pay aren't paying enough! WTF?

EVERYONE should have to pay some taxes. I don't care if it is as little as $10. Everyone needs some skin in the game so they don't feel compelled to raise taxes on everyone else.

The hoarding or denial of jobs needed in order for all adult human beings to obtain land, stable homes, utilities, fresh food, clean water and health care is a human rights violation.

There is simply no excuse anyone can have for trying to explain these away in splitting hairs with economic debates.

Don't waste your breath on this old arguement folks, unless its to relay the time is near justice will be served.

a reply to: stolencar18

Simple ....

If people cannot afford to purchase and use the things they help make, then the economy receds in a 'negative self-reinforcing loop.

Your post was all over the place. I addressed your title - ONLY.

Yeesh. First the op states that "life isn't fair". And then he goes on to prescribe a pursuit of hard work and responsible living (according to him) that will magically provide wealth just as if it were a fair world where hard work is rewarded. This is simply not the case.
Then he goes on to talk about how we can't raise wages because things " balance out". In what way do they balance out?? The working class on down are experiencing a declining standard of living, while the top 1% and higher have their income soaring. In what way is that balancing out? If it was truly balancing out, then prices would be dropping as our wages stagnate.....but this is obviously not the case. It balances..... In a certain groups favor.

I don't understand, and I have yet to see anyone answer this. You argue against an increase in minimum wage. We don't want an increase. We want it balanced back to what it was. But minimum wage has stagnated while inflation has soared. So what do YOU think the answer is, that minimum wage should just continue its deterioration until it's negligible? (More so than now). Are the people at the bottom supposed to just continue having a declining standard of living?

People act like there is not a class war going on. Well, maybe there isn't. Because the poor and working class really don't even have a clue they should be fighting. Let me tell you what the situation is, in case you don't get it yet. The rich decide what they want. Congress then legislates it. And you and I get ignored. Do you and I want war? Do you and I want bank bailouts? Do you or I want government enforced products, like mandated health or car insurance? Do you or I want all our correspondence recorded? Yet all these things happen....against the will of the vast (non wealthy) majority. Now think of all the things that you KNOW the vast majority of the (working class) us wants.....and how many of those things have happened.
You don't have representatives, you have owners. They are cornering the market on money, power, and property. And everything is the way it is right now because that's exactly the way they want it, and exactly what they paid our congresses and presidents to provide.

And man did I go off on a rant. Comes from having to type on my phone. Everything takes so long to get down that I sidetrack. Sorry.

Thomas Sowell.... enough said. Watch, listen, and learn.

a reply to: forkedtongue

Hey, I get that jobs are scarce for most people...but I went to college, I had to borrow a lot of money to do so and now am paying that money back...nobody wanted to help me, in fact I was told that because I was a student my family (I am married no kids) didn't qualify for any aid...the office troll literally told me that if I had no job and didn't go to school they would have all kinds of money for me...I made up my mind then that I would never ask for anything again and I haven't...I busted my ass, finished school, pinched every penny and sacrificed almost everything to make sure my bills were paid and now I have a great job that pays well for the area where I live. Now you want me to pay some highschool dropouts more than I made fresh from college? That my friend is idiocy. If you really want to help out the bottom rung of the pay scale, remove the income tax, and go with a national sales tax, or even a flat tax system. Close all the loopholes and quit penalizing people for succeeding in life. That is the dream isn't it...we all want to make more, but then you want to tax the people who make more so the better you do the more you tax yourself? Then tell the poor bastard that has been working a job the past three years that the new kid will be making the same amount they worked so hard to get walking through the door...congratulations you just expanded the number of poor people, and increased poverty, lowered morale, and caused businesses to either raise prices or cut jobs to make up the new pay scale difference

a reply to: elsafam357

Yeah, except that people on minimum wage in the 60s were making closer to what you make than those on minimum wage now. As far as purchasing power goes. It's all a scam. Prices soared in 06 due to gas prices skyrocketing at the time, but they never went back down after gas dropped. Pay fell off during the 08 recession due to businesses losing money, but it never came back. My point is that over the last 4 decades they use every excuse to raise prices, out stall labor increases, but it has almost nothing to do with actual cost and everything to do with shifting profits from our work from us to them. It's not about the hard work we put in. As soon as someone skilled enough but willing to work for less comes along you'll be dumped like last week's rotten beef. This illusion you have that because of your hard work you are indispensable is a fairy tale, and once they find a way to outsource, automate, or remove your job, then you will see. This isn't a fairy tale. The hard working knight in shining armor does not win in the end. The only winners will be the kings of industry.

originally posted by: spirit_horse
a reply to: stolencar18

Agreed. I saw a breakdown and if they took all the money from the rich it would provide about $640 per person in the US.

I don't know where you got your numbers from, but if you took the wealth of the top 400 wealthiest people in the US and distributed their money evenly in the US (babies included), around 300 million people would instantly get around $7,600, and only 400 would be broke.

source

a reply to: forkedtongue

Hi Forked....Maybe I missed the answer in your post, so I'm asking for clarification.

I understand your motivations behind everything you said, and I even agree with a few points. But my real question is, what happens when you implement the measures you and others refer to?

Let's say Walmart goes away, and is replaced by X-Mart, and X-Mart pays everyone $15/hr or $20 or $200/hr. The figure doesn't really matter. Those wages are rolled into the price of the product, which means your $2 loaf of bread is now $3 or $6, and your grocery bill is now $600 instead of $300. You're earning more on the bottom line of your paycheck, but you spend more for everyday services, whether it's retail or services. So how does your plan offset that? Are you proposing a profit cap for businesses? Because that's really the only way your idea works...Any business is going to increase prices to offset costs and ensure there is still a profit margin. So really, it's a wash. The poverty line just moves up, but nobody is really ahead.

Except...
That won't work either. Who would bother running a business when they're told they can't earn a profit or get rich from it? Let's be honest...People start businesses or invent products or provide a service so they can make a buck, and hopefully a lot of bucks. If you're suddenly told that you can't make that buck here, or you can only make a certain amount of bucks, would you still start your business or provide your service here? Do you think some people could be motivated to leave the country in that case? Are we going to stop them from moving away?

Finally, I agree that demand creates jobs, but that is only half of the equation. Demand creates a vacuum for jobs, and someone with business sense and the means to start a business fills that vacuum with employees. People in poverty don't create jobs, and they don't hire people, and it's very rare that they start up successful businesses. The vast majority of job positions are created by those earning more than the average. Ya, there still has to be a demand, but sometimes the rich person creates that demand as well. Example...look around your house. Find something "novel" that wasn't around 10 years ago. Say a Tassimo/Keurig coffee machine, or a selfie stick, or tablet. Someone invented these things. The world didn't know they wanted it - but once they saw it they decided they wanted it. The person who invented it, and started the businesses, and hired the people - that person created the jobs initially. Sure, increased demand for that product likely created more jobs, but it's still on that one person who started it and funded it. Even companies like Walmart or GM or GE were started by individuals at some level, and their growth is managed by individuals now. That growth and direction finds the vacuum that needs to be filled.

So, I understand your points - I truly do - but my question is unanswered. HOW will your ideas work? It's one thing to believe them, but all you've done is the same thing as everyone else: tout all these "great" ideas about how the world would be better if X, Y, and Z happened without considering consequences, side effects, or the bigger picture.

Anyways, I've rambled enough. Look forward to your two cents.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Big corps makes billions of dollard in profit, get away with barely paying any taxes,'then close shop and go to third world countries to have there product produced.

But yea its the poor guys fault he wants a wage to survive.

I just ran some super quick math from numbers I found on Google, but a few sites indicate Walmart had around 6 billion in profits, and has 2.1 million American employees. Even if Walmart became a charity and gave all profits to employees, that's about $2850, or around $240 monthly extra that the employees get...before taxes.

So let's say for arguments sake that we can agree that 6 billion dollars is 'too much" profit, but one billion is fine, because companies still need a profit. So split the 5 billion, and everyone gets about $198 extra monthly, before taxes.

So in the big picture, you get $150-$180 bucks extra monthly...That's not even considering things like whether or not companies close doors and move away, etc. That's just addressing the basic greedy point that is "they make too much, so give me some". Well, if we give everyone some, they're really not getting a whole lot at all, and chances are many will end up out of work altogether.