Proof a Living Wage is Possible

a reply to: Metallicus

Even if I was an all powerful global dictator I would make no changes without utilizing the democratic process.

You can't preach democracy while being a facisist.

Well I guess you can, but then I would be no different then those currently in charge.

If you don't like the results of the democratic process we will build you an Anarchist Free Market Martian Utopia.

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Isurrender73

Socialism. You just want socialism. You want to limit, control what a person can make. I'd have to say I'm against it.

You realize you live in a mixed economy already(Socialism/Capitalism)?

When corporations were controlled by the Sherman Act, which was a soft-cap on corporate dominance, the US was the greatest economy in the history of mankind.

But I guess fear of the "S Word" will prevent us from ever getting back to being the greatest nation on earth.

Just because we have had insidious, socialist policies creep into our financial system doesn't mean we shouldn't fight against them or try to have them repealed or reduced.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Metallicus

Even if I was an all powerful global dictator I would make no changes without utilizing the democratic process.

You can't preach democracy while being a facisist.

Well I guess you can, but then I would be no different then those currently in charge.

If you don't like the results of the democratic process we will build you anarchist free market Martian Utopia.

Mars works.

As long as I am not forced to live in a dystopian, socialist country.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Ironic that you mention fascist. "If you ran the show"....fascist? or just a dictator?

A livable wage. In the day. One adjusted one's living to the wage.

One got married, the two would live almost as cheaply as one. They would both work, save their money, he-or these days, he or she- would work their way up receive raises buy a house and then have children.

It worked. For millions.

Now you expect a company to be forced to pay a higher than earned wage solely because he couldn't keep his zipper up long enough to qualify himself for a livable wage. Instead of abstinence, we give the kids rubbers in school.

Virginity is of zero status, indulge is the order of the day.

To pay for that indulgence, you'd completely turn our system upside down...

Well, you don't have your way. I sure hope you don't have kids. They will have the added cross to bear of the wrong attitude to succeeding in life....

a reply to: Metallicus

Without socialism in today's world we would all be subjected to birth right. An elite class and a slave class with no in between.

This isn't the wild west where you homestead unexplored land and build yourself a fortune. And the Elitists already own 1/2 of everything, who is going to stop them from owning it all?

You want to keep your piece of the pie, but you fail to see that those at the top of the pyramid will eat your pie and leave you with nothing if you don't implement laws to stop them.

a reply to: Isurrender73

A man's fortune made from another man's efforts is theft.

This would describe the mega rich, but it would also describe socialism.

a reply to: nwtrucker

In 1991 I could afford a 1 bedroom apartment and a car at minimum wage. This is impossible anywhere in the US today and it's not likely an 18 year old would even find a 40 hour a week job anymore.

I am suggesting we get the lower class back to the same level that they were 25 years ago. After all our GDP has grown by nearly 8 Trillion dollars since then.

Your system is already upside down.

The only reason you can't see it, or simply choose to turn a blind eye is because you found a way to make it. And as long as your making it you don't have any concerns for those that are not making it.

This is the attitude of entitlement that will,see your,children become slaves to an already overpowered global group of elitist law makers.

If we continue down this path, birthright will be the only path to success in the future.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Isurrender73

A man's fortune made from another man's efforts is theft.

This would describe the mega rich, but it would also describe socialism.

True, but there is no third option outside of a regulated middle ground.

History has proven uncontrolled wealth leads to facisim. Even those so called Socialists governments, like Hitler's Germany, were just facisist elitists pulling the same strings with a different name.

Human nature stands just as much against Communism as it does Uncontrolled Capitalism. Both extremes are bound to failure due to human nature.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Metallicus

Without socialism in today's world we would all be subjected to birth right. An elite class and a slave class with no in between.

This isn't the wild west where you homestead unexplored land and build yourself a fortune. And the Elitists already own 1/2 of everything, who is going to stop them from owning it all?

You want to keep your piece of the pie, but you fail to see that those at,rhe top of the pyramid will eat your pie and leave you with nothing if you don't implement laws to stop them.

What you don't seem to understand is that your pretty little system would also set up an elite to administer it and keep it "fair" for all us little people. It is always thus in command economies. The fat cats are still fat cats; they just changed their justification for being fat cats.

originally posted by: nwtrucker


The reason it is in actuality a fraud is the loads for those theoretical new drivers would be taken away from other companies via lower rates and perks. If there was an actual shortage, rates would soar and loads wouldn't be delivered.

Thanks for the correction.
I had heard that before as well that rates would soar, and they have not.
It is all smoke and mirrors.

originally posted by: Isurrender73


I would also eliminate private meetings on the Federal and international level. All elected officials would be under 24 hour NSA type surveillance and all meetings between international parties would be televised.

There would be those that say that would not be possible due to National Security...
But they would be shills, because if anything, the whistle blowers have revealed the secrecy is not about National Security against other nations but against their own people.


Like the TPP and Spying that we heard first from the whistle blowers.

a reply to: ketsuko

Unless you are promoting an Anarchist Free Market, there is no form of government that shouldn't elect it's brightest minds to lead it.

We can however, through a new constitutional matrix, greatly reduce or eliminate the ability of our elected leaders to impose new laws outside a pure democratic process. And continue to uphold and expand our bill of rights.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: ketsuko

Unless you are promoting an Anarchist Free Market, there is no form of government that shouldn't elect it's brightest minds to lead it.

We can however, through a new constitutional matrix, greatly reduce or eliminate the ability of our elected leaders to impose new laws outside a pure democratic process. And continue to uphold and expand our bill of rights.

I am sorry, but I am looking at the US government and then reading what you say and then looking at the US government where we have people like Sheila Jackson Lee who thinks there is an American flag planted on Mars to drive the rovers past. People who think Guam could tip over because there are too many people on it and others like them.

We do not elect our best and brightest to government. We elect the ones who are most charismatic.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: nwtrucker

In 1991 I could afford a 1 bedroom apartment and a car at minimum wage. This is impossible anywhere in the US today and it's not likely an 18 year old would even find a 40 hour a week job anymore.

I am suggesting we get the lower class back to the same level that they were 25 years ago. After all our GDP has grown by nearly 8 Trillion dollars since then.

Your system is already upside down.

The only reason you can't see it, or simply choose to turn a blind eye is because you found a way to make it. And as long as your making it you don't have any concerns for those that are not making it.

This is the attitude of entitlement that will,see your,children become slaves to an already overpowered global group of elitist law makers.

If we continue down this path, birthright will be the only path to success in the future.

Frankly, I'm skeptical at your claim of a 1 bedroom apt AND a car at minimum wage at any time. 1991 or otherwise.

Unless your implying some sort of worker's revolt or revolution, the route is work smart. Save. Avoid the toys. Imrpove oneself on-line or otherwise. Work two jobs. Relocate to a higher paying regions.

The system has gotten tougher, not impossible.

Try enforcing this and there will be chaos.

Oh, by the way, spare your not having concerns for others crap. I have a daughter and two grandchildren. Their future is my main concern which is no different than 'everybody else's.

I would have the economics back to 30-40 years ago. It's not going to happen. Neither is your 'solution'.....

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Metallicus

Without socialism in today's world we would all be subjected to birth right. An elite class and a slave class with no in between.

This isn't the wild west where you homestead unexplored land and build yourself a fortune. And the Elitists already own 1/2 of everything, who is going to stop them from owning it all?

You want to keep your piece of the pie, but you fail to see that those at,rhe top of the pyramid will eat your pie and leave you with nothing if you don't implement laws to stop them.

What you don't seem to understand is that your pretty little system would also set up an elite to administer it and keep it "fair" for all us little people. It is always thus in command economies. The fat cats are still fat cats; they just changed their justification for being fat cats.

Exactly. Communist Russia had it's oligarchs. Communist China has its party loyalist. Venezuela, Cuba, etc all allow the loyalist to get rich while the masses remain poor. Greed is not solely a characteristic of Capitalism. Capitalism just harnesses it better than the others as it allows the free market to innovate.

There have always been rich, elites, etc since the beginning of time. It will never change. However, I want a system where I at least have an opportunity to better myself and family.

When you really get down to what many in this thread really want is for someone else to take care of them so they can put out minimal effort in their lives. They don't want to take responsibility for the choices they have made in their lives.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Actually, that 'middle-ground' was, and perhaps could still be, the Constitution. it stood higher than any 'ism'.

Lot's of ways of inhibiting the current out of balance. Certainly better than an out of balance 'correction' which swings things in the other direction so far that it would only be the start and precedent for further and further and further corrections of 'unfairness'.

20 million?? No one needs that much. it's unfair. 5 is more than enough...on and on and on.

No thanks. Stay out of my life. I'll make it or not on my own thanks....

originally posted by: Edumakated

When you really get down to what many in this thread really want is for someone else to take care of them so they can put out minimal effort in their lives. They don't want to take responsibility for the choices they have made in their lives.

This thread is about the working class receiving a minimum wage that is a livable standard without welfare. Outside of including the disabled and elderly point to where I said we should simply give money to people.

I provided the math to prove my point.

There is nothing in this thread about someone taking care of anyone. This entire thread is about ending the exploitation of the working class, and the the math suggests that the worker is being heavily exploited by less then 1000 people.

If anyone is defending someone who gets something for nothing it's you. The majority of those 894 do nothing but lobby congress to make more money and further exploit the working class.

The maximum wage and minimum wage does nothing but guarantee the working class will make enough to take care of themselves and the elitists will make enough to live any lifestyle they choose without usurping enough power to dictate global government.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

No thanks. Stay out of my life. I'll make it or not on my own thanks....

Where does this Utopia you speak of exist? Surely you don't think a government that is not involved in your life exists?

You can either except the crap you have until even the little you have is gone, or you can fight for something better.

Has GDP actually grown that much? gdp past data is revised every quarter to show growth presently. news uses U-3 unemployment instead of stating the labor participation rate which is crashing. .gov also tells us there is nearly no inflation, LOL.
It's a combination of being able to outsource jobs which will continue until global wages stabilize; bad monetary policy; government money mismanagement and growth.; .gov is choking businesses will fine, fee, licenses, misc. taxes in an attempt to shore up their bad idea pension schemes.
I still do not know if it will all come crashing down or a slow fall into decadence.

Mainly I am against this concept of money for all because it encourages immediate consumption, including mass baby making of lower iq individuals who have no self control, no long term thought process. It foregoes capital accumulation for present consumption. we already have this situation but it will be much worse. The moral hazard is massive. Replacing father with .gov is a terrible experiment and the outcomes have been terrible.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Puppylove

Nothing will change with increased automation...or any other change for that matter.

Hard work, astute choices will always give the edge to those that utilize them.

Obviously, but what about everyone else?

They just deserve to die?

Because it seems like those that support paying people less than it takes to live also want to cut welfare.

So is that your answer?

Assuming you are one that wants to cut welfare.