Is It Time To Restructure Our Minimum Wage Laws?

Originally posted by OnceReturned
There are a handful of reasons that this is not a good idea. Here are 3 of them in order from the most economic to most ethical in nature:

1.) It's economically untenable to base someone compensation on someone else's compensation, instead of on the market value of that person's goods/services. If boss Bob could hire someone to empty the garbage at his company for $5/hr, but is legally mandated to hire the same person to perform the same service for $8/hr, Bob is incurring an economic loss. Now Bob has to pay more to get the same thing, and there is no reason for it other than the law. Do you think Bob will pass his expenses onto you in the form of higher prices? Of course he will. Now you will pay more to get the same product, and no one is any better off except the guy who is taking out Bob's trash, and that guy would have done it for $5/hr because he needed a job.

Do you think Bob is going to be motivated to hire a new employee at a wage that is legally(artificially) inflated? Or do you think Bob is more likely to demand more work out of his bottom guys, and if they won't put out then he will find someone who will?

Certainly, increasing minimum wages is bad for employement. Companies have limited resources are not going to buy as much of the things that cost more. If employees cost more, they will not hire as many of them.

2) We live in a global economy. When it comes to less skilled jobs, America does not have any advantages. The higher our minimum wage, the more likely Bob's company is to outsource. If he can get people to make widgets for 10 cents an hour in another country, he has no reason to play along with America minimum wage laws. If there is a job that a lot of people can do or can easily be trained to do, that job will go to the people who will do it for the least amount money. If the least amount of money in America is set by law, then any company that wants to make money will go someone that they can pay people less to do the same thing.

The higher our minimum wage, the less jobs will be in America.

3) Do you think that what Bill Gates has done is only woth 40 times more than what the janitor at Microsoft did in the same time period? Sometimes, people produce things which are worth a lot more than what other people produce. Isn't it right to compensate them accordingly? After all, they're the ones who did it, and people willingly paid for it. Who is anyone else to step in and say it was undeserved?

How do you come up with 40 as the number? I ask because arbitrary limits don't work very well economically. If there's no reason to set something at 40, then it probably shouldn't be set at 40. What's not arbitrary is market value. For example, Bill made his money from the value of Microsoft stock. That value is set by a free market. It's worth exactly as much as someone is willing to pay for it, of their own free will. Bill owns the stock, and the market(the people) are willing to pay billions for it. According to the OP, should we tell Bill and the market that his stock can't be worth that much because we say so? Or should we tell Bill that he has to give the janitor a billion, just to make it fair?

Ultimately, I do think that minimum wage in the US is a good thing. However, it is a matter of fact that it is bad for jobs here. We have to balance the benefits and the costs, and if we get carried away on a crusade to pay the lowest earners more money in order to do the exact same job, we're going to find ourselves in trouble.

Your logic, unfortunately is flawed.

1.) Bob could certainly hire some homeless bum to do the job. And tomorrow the homey will be gone. He will repost his ad to find another, cause that wage is not sustainable. In the long run, he faces a far more higher economical loss in tangible and intangible terms such as 'reputation' in the market place which is much more highly regarded than costs alone.

In the end, it will cost higher as Bob pays his employees better, and such costs as usual will be passed to consumers. But do not forget, such salary means more circulation of money in the economy and EVERYONE ultimately benefits.

The lowest denominator of costs alone does not account for a successful society, as we can see in every nation suffering in the wake of cheap china labour and their defective goods.

Increasing min. wage will be a good thing for societies, so long as it is a standard across nations. If we can provide medicines to Africa to prolong the infant mortality rate, as well as curb nicotine addiction, I fail to see why we cannot maintain a standard wage mechanism equally across nations, unless it is nothing more than a lack of will or the will to continue subjugation of humanity by the super rich.


2. As long as there is a minimum universal (international) wage, I fail to see why any corporation would seek foriegn shores for manufacturing, unless other costs such as land and infrastructure costs are lower, which with an universal minimum wage, just like an universal human rights rule, would render such resources similar in costs anywhere save the one lacking in the required resources which would incurr tariffs.

The more equal Universal min. wage is, the more there will be jobs for everyone, more so the ones whom are NOT kept stupid, but EDUCATED to innovate, which benefits humanity as a whole in progress of our race/species.

3. The reason why 40 times compensation for a biz owner is good enough is that he could not have done it without his WORKERS. Alone he is nothing, but with his workers who believed and helped him through the years, he succeeded, and it is his workers he should share his wealth with.

The market valuation is based on stock performance, and today, we realized it is nothing more than a casino where the stock brokers and big players ALWAYS wins. It is better than the casino. At least in the casino, there is an element of luck, but in the stock exchange, its the big boys who manipulates at will for profits.

It's nothing more than an elaborate PONZAI scheme to fool the masses, who makes up the bulk of the losers, and should be done away a hell long time ago and replaced with true investments based on dividends earn annually.

To pay the highest salary for the lowest earners more money is TRUE CAPITALISM at work, simply because no one wants to do that job. It is only fair instead of the current system of paying top dollars for a Harvard grad just because he is presumed to be 'highly learned'. everyone else stupid, and getting monkey results and the mess we have today.

Supply and demand. Min. wage is the only way to ensure a fair and level playing field for everyone who can work and wants to work to sustain a living, based on HONEST labour for needs and not for gambling games. Go to the casino if one wants to take risks. To play stocks as a big player is no more than being Mr. Ponzai, a con man and to be reviled forever, for cheating and scaming others.

I know I cannot change your mind, and you are not my target. The readers are, and may they form a better informed opinion to push for better status for the honest working man. Otherwise, dishonesty and guile will be the continued way to sustain one and one's family, and society ultimately suffers. Please wake up.

reply to post by Flatfish


It seems like your idea of a business is that of a very large group of people who are doing something extremely profitable, but wherein almost all of the profits are going to the top guys while the rest of the group only sees a tiny fraction.

The truth is that 3/4 of businesses in the US don't even have a payroll, they are self-employed people or family businesses. That accounts for 19,500,000 of the 25,400,000 businesses in the US. Of the 5,900,000 businesses that employee people, 2,800,000 of them employ 1 - 4 people, and 1,000,000 employ 5 - 9 people. The number of businesses with more than 500 employees is only about 17,000.
Source

Seventeen thousand out of more than twenty five million businesses in the US employ more than 500 people. That's about half of one tenth of one percent. It's not all Wall Street fat-cats out there. It's mostly small and medium sized businesses, so that's who will be affected by your policies. Everything that you've proposed here as far as minimum wage and tariffs hurts businesses. You can't make it harder for businesses and expect things to get better. The idea that you'll only be hurting millionaires by making them share their absurdly large paychecks with their employees is not realistic.

This is the kind of thinking that destroys economies. You would destroy any hope for American global competitiveness in pursuit of a fantasy. What you've proposed essentially amounts to a tax; you directly channeling money from one group to another group. Taxing employers won't make them hire more people at higher wages.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

Your logic, unfortunately is flawed.

We'll see.

1.) Bob could certainly hire some homeless bum to do the job. And tomorrow the homey will be gone. He will repost his ad to find another, cause that wage is not sustainable. In the long run, he faces a far more higher economical loss in tangible and intangible terms such as 'reputation' in the market place which is much more highly regarded than costs alone.

Bob is smarter than you think. As I stated in my original post, Bob will hire someone for less money if that person will do the same job. The "same" part applies across the board. If he can only find homeless people who quit right away when he's offering $3/hr, because the more reliable high quality workers won't do it for that amount, Bob will not be happy. He will increase the wage that he is willing to pay until he can find an employee who will do the job to Bob's satisfaction. Once he find that guy, he doesn't need to pay more, because the person is doing exactly what Bob wants, and he has learned that if he pays less, he can only attract bad employees, so he won't do that either. This sounds like a pretty good system to me: let Bob weigh the value of the job being done at various levels quality against the cost of hiring better workers until he gets it right.

Increasing the minimum wage will not increase the quality of the workers. If Bob couldn't find a decent trash man for less that $9/hr, nothing will change if the minimum wage is set at $8/hr. On the other hand, if the minimum wage is set at $10/hr, it causes problems. Now, Bob knows that his trash guy would do the work for $9/hr, but the government is forcing Bob to give the guy an extra $/hr. Bob's getting the same service except it costs more, which hurts Bob's bottom line. Bob owns the business but isn't rich, so things like this jeoperodize the whole business. If Bob isn't making ends meet he will either fire the trash guy or dissolve the whole business. Additionally, now that no one can pay less that $10/hr for any job, the homeless quitter that Bob had hired earlier can't find a job; no one will pay $10/hr for his services, which are only worth $3/hr in an open market.

Also, Bob would rather not be told what to do by the government.

In the end, it will cost higher as Bob pays his employees better, and such costs as usual will be passed to consumers. But do not forget, such salary means more circulation of money in the economy and EVERYONE ultimately benefits.

That's crazy. The total amount of money here doesn't change in either case, it's just a matter of where it's coming from and where it's going. You're saying that if it goes to the employees pockets, the whole economy is better off. How is it different when it goes to Bob? In both cases the money is going into the bank account of an individual. Why do you consider one case to be more circulation of money and the other case to be less circulation?

The more I think about this the less sense it makes. You said that the more expensive products will pay for the higher wages, which will be better for the economy because it's more money in circulation. . . But, if this is happening across the board, won't all products be more expensive, which will mean that people will have to have higher wages in order to afford the same things? And, accordng to you this is better because it's more money circulating? If we extend that logic, everything should be as expensive as possible so that companies could pay their workers as much as possible. . . This is sounding familiar. Oh yeah, it's called inflation. Your making money easier to get while decreasing it's buying power. This will make the dollar less valuable, but you'll have more of them. This is not a desirable state of affairs.

Increasing min. wage will be a good thing for societies, so long as it is a standard across nations. If we can provide medicines to Africa to prolong the infant mortality rate, as well as curb nicotine addiction, I fail to see why we cannot maintain a standard wage mechanism equally across nations, unless it is nothing more than a lack of will or the will to continue subjugation of humanity by the super rich.

Who would enforce the global minimum wage? Would it be payed in a global currency? You'll need a powerful NWO to lead a global revolution in order to put this plan into action, so I'm not even going to address it.

We already provide aid to Africa. Here's the thing: if people want to give their money to Africa to provide medicines, they are free to do so. In fact, some portion of their tax money already goes towards that, so they're doing it to some extent whether they like it or not. I'm of the opinion that when it comes to charitable actions, people should be free to choose. I don't think the government should force people to buy medicine for Africans by taxing the people and then spending the money in that way. I'm happy to support charities that aid Africa, I just don't want my government telling me that I have to and in what amount. If people really want to, they will donate. If they don't really want to, the government shouldn't make them.

The reason we can't maintain a standard wage mechanism across nations is that this is reality. Businesses don't want to be told what to pay, so if you're going to set a minimum wage, you have to enforce it. We can't enforce minimum wages in other countries. You may want every nation on earth to get together and hold hands and agree to try to make things better, but that's a fantasy which has no appealing translation into reality.

3. The reason why 40 times compensation for a biz owner is good enough is that he could not have done it without his WORKERS. Alone he is nothing, but with his workers who believed and helped him through the years, he succeeded, and it is his workers he should share his wealth with.

Then why shouldn't everyone get paid the same amount?

The business owner payed his employees the amount of money that he had to offer for a given position in order for the job to be done to his satisfaction. They employees accepted the owners offer and did the job in exchange for the money. There's nothing evil going on here. If they owner wanted to pay less for worse employees he could have, or he could have payed more and attracted better employees. If the workers wanted to make more money, they would have to provide a more valuable service that someone, somewhere, would actually pay them more money to do. If they wanted to perform a less valuable service, they could have gotten a lower paying job. The point is that everyone acted freely, which is better than being regulated by the government.

I know I cannot change your mind, and you are not my target. The readers are, and may they form a better informed opinion to push for better status for the honest working man. Otherwise, dishonesty and guile will be the continued way to sustain one and one's family, and society ultimately suffers. Please wake up.

I hope I can change your mind, but I think it's unlikely. Perhaps experience will.

Of course, everyone wishes they had more money, that's just a part of the culture. The thing is, compensation in a free market is equal to the monetary value that society places on whatever good or service someone produces. In the free-market an equilibrium is always reached at which point paying higher wages for a given position is unnecessary because at the current wages, satisfactory workers are willing to fill the position. If you payed higher wages it would be a waste because the job is already being done as well as you want it to be done; there is nothing gained by spending more money to get the same thing. On the other hand, the employer won't pay lower wages because capable workers won't accept the lower wages and instead only unsatisfactory workers will be attracked to the position. This how wages are set when everyone is able to act freely. It's not a bad system.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by Flatfish

 

NAFTA GATT. Hmmm, when did those get passed?

Let me think, who is pushing something called the Clinton Globalization Initiative. Hmmm, I think the name kinda throws it out there doesn't it?

Funny how the Dems are SUPPOSEDLY all about the workers, yet they have pretty much helped in the destruction of the US economy.

I voted for Clinton but I did not approve of everything he did while in office, signing NAFTA into law and giving China MFTS were two of the things I adamantly opposed.

Although, If the "Whole" truth were to be told, one would have to consider the fact that Clinton enjoyed a democratic controlled congress for only the first two years of his administration and neither of these two pieces of "Free Trade" legislation were signed into law during that time. Not to worry though, even I don't forgive him for signing them into law.

Just goes to show what we get when we start listening to republicans.

reply to post by OnceReturned


I'll just bet that those 3/4 of businesses in the U.S. that don't have employees are heavily invested in businesses that do. Also, I fail to see how the self employed would even be affected, unless of course there were other employees at their place of "self employment." More people work in this country than those that don't, and most of them are underpaid.

No one, other than yourself, is talking about destroying our economy. I believe that during the Eisenhower administration, the top tax rate was over 90% and that didn't destroy our economy, remember... we grew into the world's largest.

reply to post by OnceReturned


The only thing I can tell you is that no matter how little you are willing to work for, someone will always work for less. There is always someone who is hungrier or more desperate or in some cases, just wanting to supplement their retirement income. So it is indeed a brutal race to the bottom.

I fail to see where you're line of thinking would even eliminate slavery. I mean, why wouldn't an employer just purchase his employees instead of hiring them. Surely, that would improve his profit margin.

At some point it becomes exploitation, no different than slavery and minimum wage laws are necessary in order to prevent employers from usurping the company profits while paying their workers at a level so low, they qualify for social assistance despite their full time employment.

So you see, there is indeed a big difference of who's pocket the money goes into. In one pocket it provides for actual human needs and in the other it is the source of excess and luxury.

I see a few people who know what they are talking about and whole bunch of communistic crap about spreading the wealth with no work involved that dictates the wage.

I have several crews, union guys, of plumbers, pipe fitters, the occasional electrician(s), and other craft or trades hired out of the local union's hall. I bid jobs that require me to pay these wages. I'm not super wealthy, I have a few bucks, I keep guys employed that make me a few bucks while they make a few bucks.

As for the minimum wage. It is really a joke. I know of no company in my area that pays minimum wage. The kids and illegals won't work for that. Every local restaurant starts $0.50 to $1.00 above minimum wage. Any company hiring is a couple of bucks higher. Even now, right now, worst economy since the great depression; there are help wanted signs starting to appear in many strip mall windows. Seasonal jobs to be sure, but they are hiring. All above minimum wage.

Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by OnceReturned

 

I'll just bet that those 3/4 of businesses in the U.S. that don't have employees are heavily invested in businesses that do. Also, I fail to see how the self employed would even be affected, unless of course there were other employees at their place of "self employment." More people work in this country than those that don't, and most of them are underpaid.

If they're heavily invested in businesses with employees, and the businesss with employees now have to pay the employees more, those non-employer businesses that are invested will have their investment suddenly become less valuable. Businesses with employees will cost more to run, and this cost will make them less profitable. That is, of course, until they pass on their costs to consumers, in which case everything will cost more to buy. Living in a more expensive world is harder - even for the non-employer businesses - than living in a less expensive world. Additionally, you proposed a tariff which will make things even more expensive. Businesses will have higher costs across the board, which will slow growth and decrease productivity.

If you think gas is expensive now, imagine what it would cost if everyone from the well to the pump made substantially more money, and if foreign oil was more expensive because of a tariff. Now imagine how the gas cost would effect every industry that needs to transport goods. Everything that people buy will cost more. You'll make more money, but because of the price increase your buying power and quality of life will not be meaningfully different.

If you think most people are underpaid, what do you think would happen if they suddenly got paid more? If most people get more money all of a sudden - without producing more or doing more work - then money will simply become less valuable.

No one, other than yourself, is talking about destroying our economy. I believe that during the Eisenhower administration, the top tax rate was over 90% and that didn't destroy our economy, remember... we grew into the world's largest.

I encourage you to read this essay. It's written by Bruce Bartlett who was an economic advisor to Regan and worked in Bush Sr.'s Treasury. He clearly describes the actual effects of tax increases; it's a very readable and interesting essay. I'll quote a relevant piece here:

Eisenhower's fiscal conservatism carried a heavy price. There were three recessions during his administration--July 1953 through May 1954, August 1957 through April 1958, and April 1960 through February 1961--and real growth of the gross domestic product averaged just 2.5 percent over those eight years. In large part, that sluggish growth was due to high tax rates, not just on the wealthy but on the middle class as well.

...

Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance our budget, just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders, but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions, and any new recession would break all deficit records.

In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low, and the soundest way to raise the revenue in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan has borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring about budget surplus.

I repeat: our practical choice is not between a tax-cut deficit and budgetary surplus. It is between two kinds of deficits: a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy; or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenues, and achieve--and I believe this can be done--a budget surplus. The first type of deficit is a sign of waste and weakness; the second reflects an investment in the future.

Now, I'm not exactly sure to what extent your proposal is functionallly similar to a tax increase. My suspicion is that it is very similar, but even if it isn't in terms of structure, the results would be counterproductive in some of the same ways.

reply to post by Flatfish


Yes, minimum wage needs to be raised, no pay rates do not need to be tied to the C.E.O.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7c49045f0b3d.jpg[/atsimg]

However, the profit margins should be restricted to a sensible, and decent amount.

And when and if minimum wage goes up prices should not go up exorbitantly to reflect that increase.

The problem with this is corporations will fight this tooth and nail through their lobbyists.

The corruption already present in Washington D.C. will only tighten and our incomes will be screwed.

This is because corporation run closet to fascism in principle, like a dictatorship, even with shareholders.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7955c1beb1bc.jpg[/atsimg]

Look no further than the House of Representative to see the fasces, a symbol of fascism, upon the walls.

No other business in history showed to me, when reading about, this principle as well as the still working principles.

IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3c9c27969530.jpg[/atsimg]

Amazon Review :

Was IBM, "The Solutions Company," partly responsible for the Final Solution? That's the question raised by Edwin Black's IBM and the Holocaust, the most controversial book on the subject since Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners. Black, a son of Holocaust survivors, is less tendentiously simplistic than Goldhagen, but his thesis is no less provocative: he argues that IBM founder Thomas Watson deserved the Merit Cross (Germany's second-highest honor) awarded him by Hitler, his second-biggest customer on earth. "IBM, primarily through its German subsidiary, made Hitler's program of Jewish destruction a technologic mission the company pursued with chilling success," writes Black. "IBM had almost single-handedly brought modern warfare into the information age [and] virtually put the 'blitz' in the krieg."

The crucial technology was a precursor to the computer, the IBM Hollerith punch card machine, which Black glimpsed on exhibit at the U.S. Holocaust Museum, inspiring his five-year, top-secret book project. The Hollerith was used to tabulate and alphabetize census data. Black says the Hollerith and its punch card data ("hole 3 signified homosexual ... hole 8 designated a Jew") was indispensable in rounding up prisoners, keeping the trains fully packed and on time, tallying the deaths, and organizing the entire war effort. Hitler's regime was fantastically, suicidally chaotic; could IBM have been the cause of its sole competence: mass-murdering civilians? Better scholars than I must sift through and appraise Black's mountainous evidence, but clearly the assessment is overdue.

The moral argument turns on one question: How much did IBM New York know about IBM Germany's work, and when? Black documents a scary game of brinksmanship orchestrated by IBM chief Watson, who walked a fine line between enraging U.S. officials and infuriating Hitler. He shamefully delayed returning the Nazi medal until forced to--and when he did return it, the Nazis almost kicked IBM and its crucial machines out of Germany. (Hitler was prone to self-defeating decisions, as demonstrated in How Hitler Could Have Won World War II.)

Black has created a must-read work of history. But it's also a fascinating business book examining the colliding influences of personality, morality, and cold strategic calculation. --Tim Appelo

Now, I bet some are wondering what I.B.M., and their past customer, Adolph Hitler, have to do with minimum Wage.

Like I mentioned, corporations are close to fascism, and corporate America had plans during WWII.

As exampled by I.B.M. willingness to sidle up to evil men, all they care about, are profits, profits, profits.

It matters not if our Government has passed a Trading with the Enemy Act as we all know.

Prescott Bush knew this which is why he assisted the Nazi's through Brown Brothers Harriman.

The same goes with Dick Cheney through Halliburton and seeking out oil through drawing us into needless wars.

The current one is of course, the Iraq War, as well as Afghanistan, or just put a pushpin on a map where oil is not owned by American corporations, and you will see a future target of Washington D.C., the next one is Venezuela.

Quite a few of you have mentioned N.A.F.T.A., or the North American Free Trade Agreement

Why is NAFTA important?


I do not see N.A.F.T.A. as a good thing but advance work towards our drive towards Venezuela.

It takes years of pre-planning for war, building income, building roads, building the need for soldiers.

And as well through that need for soldiers the creation of a collapsed economy to make recruitment numbers rise.

Quote from : Wikipedia : North American Freed Trade Agreement

The North American Free Trade Agreement or NAFTA is an agreement signed by the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States, creating a trilateral trade bloc in North America. The agreement came into force on January 1, 1994.

It superseded the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement between the U.S. and Canada.

In terms of combined purchasing power parity GDP of its members, as of 2007 the trade bloc is the largest in the world and second largest by nominal GDP comparison.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has two supplements, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) and the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC).

All of this is of course tied together, the Nazi's, I.B.M., N.A.F.T.A., and minimum wages.

Through giving tax benefits to American corporations to move factories outside our borders Washington D.C. and the United Nation directing it, they are securing quite a few things, most of which is to not only screw you and I, but the American citizen, using the same methods as Hitler did, except this time it will not be the Jews with a yellow star.

Nazi Concentration Camp Auschwitz Survivors, tattoo of identification
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d3b5f0166f18.jpg[/atsimg]

So the question you should be asking yourself if you're not in the know of this information is how this ties to Minimum Wage.

It has quite in fact to do with that lowest pay rate for if crappy wages were not out there society would never have a lower class, to politicians in Washington D.C., and of course, Wall Street, not myself, the cannon fodder for war.

I am speaking of course of the people who are unable to get a job due to an economy being murdered joining the military.

Like we are currently within a state of because of Bush and continues through right now with Obama.

It did of course start under Clinton but these machinations started during WWII and the Bilderberg Group after.

Bilderberger : The Global Agenda, Eugenics, Global Warming, And Biochiping Sheeple

But it started with I.B.M., Hitler, Congress, and the prior to WWII League of Nations, now the United Nations.

And through them while the Jews got a yellow paper Star of David we as Americans got the Social Security Card.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Social Security Administration : History

The Social Security Act created a Social Security Board (SSB), to oversee the administration of the new program.

It was created as part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal with the signing of Social Security Act of 1935, August 14, 1935.

The Board consisted of three presidentially appointed executives, and started with no budget, no staff, and no furniture.

It obtained a temporary budget from the Federal Emergency Relief Administration headed by Harry Hopkins.

The first Social Security office opened in Austin, Texas, on October 14, 1936.

Social Security taxes were collected first in January 1937, along with the first one-time, lump-sum payments.

The first person to receive a Social Security benefit was Ernest Ackerman, who was paid 17 cents in January 1937.

This was a one-time, lump-sum pay-out, which was the only form of benefits paid during the start-up period January 1937 through December 1939.

The first person to receive monthly retirement benefits was Ida May Fuller of Brattleboro, Vermont. Her first check, dated January 31, 1940 was in the amount of US$22.54.

In 1939, the Social Security Board merged into a cabinet-level Federal Security Agency, which included the SSB, the U.S. Public Health Service, the Civilian Conservation Corps, and other agencies.

In January 1940, the first regular ongoing monthly benefits were begun.

In 1946, the SSB was renamed the Social Security Administration under President Harry S. Truman's Reorganization Plan.

In 1972, Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs) were introduced into SSA programs to deal with the effects of inflation on fixed incomes.

In 1953, the Federal Security Agency was abolished and the SSA was placed under the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

HEW became the Department of Health and Human Services in 1980.

In 1994, President Bill Clinton signed into law 42 U.S.C. § 901 returning the SSA to the status of an independent agency in the executive branch of government.

It started in 1935 for America through the Social Security Administration and the little white paper card.

This is all tied of course to Franklin D. Roosevelt, the father of American Socialism, and Smedley Butler.

Smedley Butler is of course the former Marine Lieutenant-General who stopped the coup against the White House during WWII.

I bring this all up of course because to see where America and the world is heading you have to of course remember history.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Thomas J. Watson : Head of I.B.M.

In 1924, he renamed the company International Business Machines.

Watson built IBM into such a dominant company that the federal government filed a civil antitrust suit against them in 1952.

IBM owned and leased to its customers more than 90 percent of all tabulating machines in the United States at the time.

When Watson died in 1956, IBM's revenues were $897 million, and the company had 72,500 employees.

Throughout his life, Watson maintained a deep interest in international relations, both from a diplomatic and a business perspective.

He was known as President Roosevelt's un-official Ambassador in NY and often entertained foreign statesmen.

In 1937, he was elected president of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and at that year's biennial congress in Berlin stated the conference keynote to be World Peace Through World Trade.

That phrase became the slogan of both the ICC and IBM.

Watson's merger of diplomacy and business was not always lauded.

During the 1930s, IBM's German subsidiary was IBM's most profitable foreign operation, and a recent book argues that Watson's pursuit of profit led him to personally approve and spearhead IBM's strategic technological relationship with the Third Reich.

In particular, critics point to the coveted Eagle with Star medal that Watson received at the Berlin ICCC meeting in 1937, as evidence that he was being honored for the help that IBM's German subsidiary Dehomag (Deutsche Hollerith-Maschinen Gesellschaft mbH) and its punch card machines provided the Nazi regime, particularly in the tabulation of census data.

Most people do not know though, that Watson was not just assisting Hitler, but America with our Census.

At the same time Hitler was rounding up the Jews and putting them into Concentration Camps through the Census, with the Hollerith Card Sorting Machine, our Census Program was growing and doing it fast.

No other information was misused during WWII on American soil than the Census Information.

Quote from : Wikipedia : United States Census : Historical F.B.I. Use of Data

Under the Roosevelt administration the FBI, using primarily census records, compiled (1939–1941) the Custodial Detention Index ("CDI") on citizens, enemy aliens, and foreign nationals, who might be dangerous.

The Second War Powers Act of 1941 repealed the legal protection of confidential census data, which was not restored until 1947.

This information facilitated the internment of Japanese-Americans, following the Japanese attack on the U.S. at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 and the internment of Italian- and German-Americans following the United States's entry into World War II.

In 1980, 4 FBI agents went to the Census Bureau's Colorado Springs office with warrants to seize Census documents, but were forced to leave with nothing.

Courts upheld that no agency, including the FBI, has access to Census data.

This is where I only begin diverging back towards the present but use history to do it and show the paper-trails.

Few know as much history of WWII because of the lack of information we are supplied through public school.

History is of course written by the victors and not the vanquished because the vanquished know too much.

This brings us to the 1945 timeframe and 1947 where we remember of course the alleged Roswell crash.

Quote from : Destron Fearing Website

Destron Fearing is a global leader in innovative animal identification.

With presence in over 40 countries worldwide we seek to provide real world ID solutions to match the ever increasing complexity and opportunities related to animal identification.

Since 1945 we have provided innovative products addressing the needs of livestock producers, companion animal owners, horse owners, wildlife managers and government agencies.

Destron Fearing provides a full complement of radio frequency identification products and software solutions to automate the collection of critical livestock production and carcass information.

Individual and herd information can then be easily transferred between all parties involved in the production and retail of meat products.

Information sharing allows the food industry to meet the discriminating demands of the market place.

Remember now, when the alleged Roswell Incident happened, we were at the end of WWII and funds were waning.

But what better to rob funds from Congress than to have a threat which could never truly be acknowledged?

You will notice the corporation Destron Fearing is tied to 1945 but you might be wondering why it is important here.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a59e58fbb44f.jpg[/atsimg]

Digital Angel Qualified to Sell Destron Fearing Animal ID Tags in Finland

Read the two websites, both the one above, and the one below and you will see Digital Angel, Applied Digital Solutions, and Destron Fearing

Applied Digital Solutions, Inc. To Acquire Destron Fearing Corporation

Now, Digital Angel,Applied Digital Solutions, and Destron Fearing are all tied together.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/338cc3d8b0fa.jpg[/atsimg]

With all of this information and the advent of N.A.F.T.A. in tandem with politicians it should become clearer.

Mexico : The American/Mexican Border, Why Your Rights Are Gone, Because of Arizona...

Through moving our corporations outside of American borders and the collapse of the economy we see the threat.

And it comes through a structure some call the North American Union and of course there is the M.I.A.C. Report.

Quote from : Wikipedia : North American Union

The North American Union (NAU) is a theoretical economic union, in some instances also a political union, of Canada, Mexico, and the United States.

The concept is loosely based on the European Union, occasionally including a common currency called the Amero or the North American Dollar.

While the idea for some form of union has been discussed or proposed in academic, business and political circles for many decades, government officials from all three nations say there are no plans to create such a union and no agreement to do so has been signed.

The formation of a North American Union has been the subject of various conspiracy theories.

Of course the Wikipedia article says it is a theoretical economic union but we can see the writing on the wall.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4d0ab0bbc547.jpg[/atsimg]

An economy does not collapse, nor do jobs dry up, without a lack of a plan, or a complete plan made to look innocent.

This is of course all tied to a process where our Government, Canada's, and Mexico's all combine in union.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/79d097d8e3ab.jpg[/atsimg]

And the M.I.A.C. Report is direct evidence of just how Washington D.C. tried to make it happen through seeding evidence, ahead of their crimes, by taking on the militia's, groups loyal to America and our nationality.

M.I.A.C. Report : The Modern Militia Movement

Through this seeding, ahead of the crime, information, planting of evidence corporate America hoped to dupe the citizens.

We saw through it of course just as easily as the militia groups who were targeted by Homeland Security.

Just what were the designs though and why would they go through surreptitious means to cover it up?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6069b530fc32.jpg[/atsimg]

That is course because of the greatest fear of Government is the people will refuse some plan they put into action.

Look no further than the Trans-Texas Corridor and Mexico to see the designs and implemented plans.

These things are important for Minimum Wage is but a small part of this plan because of the importance of money.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Trans-Texas Corridor

The Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) is a transportation network in the planning and early construction stages in the U.S. State of Texas. The network, as originally envisioned, would be composed of a 4,000-mile (6,400 km) network of supercorridors up to 1,200 feet (370 m) wide to carry parallel links of tollways, rails, and utility lines.

It is intended to route long-distance traffic around population centers, and to provide stable corridors for future infrastructure improvements–such as new power lines from wind farms in West Texas to the cities in the east–without the otherwise often lengthy administrative and legal procedures required to build on privately owned land.

The tollway portion would be divided into two separate elements: truck lanes and lanes for passenger vehicles. Similarly, the rail lines in the corridor would be divided among freight, commuter, and high-speed rail.

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) intends to "charge public and private concerns for utility, commodity or data transmission" within the corridor, in essence making a toll road for services such as water, electricity, natural gas, petroleum, fiber optic lines, and other telecommunications services.

The network would have been funded by private investors and built and expanded as demand warrants.

In 2009, TxDOT decided to phase out the all-in-one corridor concept in favor of developing separate rights-of-way for road, rail, and other infrastructure using more traditional corridor widths for those modes.

In 2010, official decision of "no action" was issued by the Federal Highway Administration, formally ending the project.

The action eliminated the study area and canceled the agreement between TxDOT and Cintra Zachry.

It is of course important, not just because of N.A.F.T.A., the Trans-Texas Corridor, or Verichip.

This system has been building for decades, decades in fact, where people have literally seen it.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b3417e314bf3.jpg[/atsimg]

Right under their noses and hiding in plain sight.

Microchip in Mexico Law Enforcement


You see these people in power picked Mexico to implement this device within first, at least in humans.

Because of our immigration woes here in America with Illegal Aliens crossing over most people could care less.

This is because we have our own economic woes but with the problems of immigration subverting our economy, assisting in collapsing our economy, and as well our border being a major issue, it is acting as a smokescreen.

Before we can restructure our minimum wages we need to have out priorities in order first.

Which is important more our national boundary or the criminal actions leading to our slavery through being chipped?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/27ced99bc1e5.jpg[/atsimg]

Information is power, and information is a commodity, tracking our whereabouts is the next money system.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


So to cut through it quickly ( local time constraint not for any other reason)

You are stating that each of these incidents are related?

I can see it, but I have a quite different understanding. Each is a group or individuals attempting to seize control through various means. Me personally I see no connection other then possibility of similar tactics.

I want to thank them for the ideas..

It ties in the discussion due to the nature of the base idea of restructuring our base wage.

My view is twisted between a dream and the reality.

A) Forget all the laws (finance) and remove every single one. allow free market rules to rein completely with no government over sight... This also means no copyright protect protection or non-compete enforcements. Ad nausea... no taxes...

B) the real world solution

The cost to produce each item forced to be listed...
Labor included...

The tariff on the shipment is then taxed to match the items cost in american terms... American labor, shipping ect... It would then cost the same as it would to make in america but you have to make sure they cant deduct the shipping through ports from the cost...

Youll have a lot of whiners but it would protect the american worker and bolster the tax base...

Nike would be crying as well as dell, ect.... (walmart too)


That is about the best answer I can think of... Raising the minimum wage will not improve the lot of the worker nor will giving power to the unions do a single thing at all.

All it does is raise cost to the consumer, you.

As an outsider looking in I am shocked by the low wages that are legally permitted in the USA.

I am aware our economies are not identical.Our GDP per capita is fairly similar,US being slightly higher.
Australia has managed to enforce a minimum wage that seems far more livable.
The most recent rise brought the adult full time wage to $569.90 a week, before tax.
www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/03/2917094.htm

That being said, those on minimum wage still experience difficulties meeting costs for housing, utilities,transport, groceries and essential items such as clothing.

Our current unemployment rate is 5.2%
www.abc.net.au...

The USA has a current unemployment rate of
9.6%
www.bls.gov...

The cost of living is higher than the USA so the USA may not need the minimum wage to be quite so high.
www.immigration2australia.com...

And here is the comparison of quality of life, Australia far outranking the USA.
en.wikipedia.org...

I see no reason why the USA would not be able to slowly increase minimum wage to eventually match Australia's.

Personally I think it is time to put an end to this capitalistic system. Minimum wage and poverty are two essentials to the capitalistic foundation. Reform; many will be against, the greedy business owners want to pay there workers as little as possible, hence all the people that higher illegal immigrants. Plus, I don't see any MW reform happening anytime within the next few years.

Originally posted by ripcontrol
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

So to cut through it quickly ( local time constraint not for any other reason)

You are stating that each of these incidents are related?

I can see it, but I have a quite different understanding. Each is a group or individuals attempting to seize control through various means. Me personally I see no connection other then possibility of similar tactics.

Indeed all of these are connected, inter-related, and or indirectly linked.

The book about I.B.M. being involved in the Holocaust shows the birth of the information databases.

A means to track information, sort it, process it, and locate people.

It is some people acting upon their own initiatives but as well separate pieces of the whole.

Verichip, Digital Angel, Destron Fearing and all the other corporations I mentioned are trying to control money.

Or at the very least, depending upon your perspective, be the vehicle for those who want it controlled and paperless.

The World Bank, the Federal Reserve, and the power elite families who have the majority of the world's money.

Originally posted by ripcontrol
I want to thank them for the ideas..

It ties in the discussion due to the nature of the base idea of restructuring our base wage.

My view is twisted between a dream and the reality.

Thank them?

Sorry, I do not want to thank them, I want them destroyed.

The cashless society is one where money can be more easily manipulated by those in power.

As well as this you as an individual are directly linked to your money, work, home, vehicle.

If they decide you are a problem they merely shut off your access to this system.

And seeing as cash will be gone, or an underground economy, you will either go underground.

Or die due to not being allowed to purchase items, work, drive, or even have credit.

Originally posted by ripcontrol
A) Forget all the laws (finance) and remove every single one. allow free market rules to rein completely with no government over sight... This also means no copyright protect protection or non-compete enforcements. Ad nausea... no taxes...

B) the real world solution

The cost to produce each item forced to be listed...
Labor included...

What you are speaking of is an economic free-for-all and nothing more.

Society cannot trust corporations without rules, laws, restrictions.

If not for the laws we did have Hitler, Watson, the Bush family would have taken America to a darker place.

If not for upstanding individuals like Smedley Butler we would have had Fascist Concentation Camps dotting the American landscape, to match those Nazi ones throughout Europe, and I see that as wholly evil, and it all links to money.

Wall Street too had their filthy hands all over all of those plans.

It is all about the money, the people controlling the money, and how they can manipulate us out of it.

Originally posted by ripcontrol
The tariff on the shipment is then taxed to match the items cost in american terms... American labor, shipping ect... It would then cost the same as it would to make in america but you have to make sure they cant deduct the shipping through ports from the cost...

Youll have a lot of whiners but it would protect the american worker and bolster the tax base...

Nike would be crying as well as dell, ect.... (walmart too)

Screw corporate America.

Corporations are not what runs America even if they think it is that thought pattern is faulty.

What we need are corporations who will do the right thing without being told to do so.

Fair pay, less profits, and more workers rights against abusive behaviors.

But not through a union either.

Through someone who actually has honor, morals, ethics, scruples.

Originally posted by ripcontrol
That is about the best answer I can think of... Raising the minimum wage will not improve the lot of the worker nor will giving power to the unions do a single thing at all.

All it does is raise cost to the consumer, you.

No, completely remove the unions, they do nothing except guarantee certain people higher pay.

While everyone else including the consumer is screwed and the rest of the work force.

Raising minimum wage is not wrong allowing corporations to raise product cost when they have immense profits is wrong.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


Thanks for the thoughtful response but, there were many U.S. individuals and companies that cooperated with Hitler during the war so I'm not so sure about the IBM connection being the conspiracy to top all others. Unfortunately, there will always be those greedy people who attempt to generate a profit by controlling the actions of others.

I guess that my main question is this; In a country where corporations are posting new record profit margins year after year, why is it acceptable that "labor cost" are always the first overhead cost to be cut. I'm stepping out on a limb here, but what's wrong with reducing the profit margin just a tad? Why does every dime a company spends have to be passed along to the consumer when profit margins are so high?

American corporations have outsourced their manufacturing under the guise that it would make products cheaper for the American consumer, when in reality all it has done is increase the profit margins of the corporations. Therefore, it only makes sense to somehow tie workers pay to company profits so that the workers can afford the products that they make. I believe that Henry Ford reflected this principal in his own business model.

As a footnote; Not all unions are "bad." I worked through a union for 32 years and during that time, I cannot think of one other entity that was willing to tirelessly address the needs of the workers. I'm not saying that all unions are good either. There are bad apples in every walk of life from religion to politics to business and everywhere in between so I try not to label any group as bad, based on the actions of a few. Unions are a form of democracy within the workplace where the workers can unite and voice their concerns to management without being afraid of retribution from the employer. The recent coal mine disasters in the non-union mines of W. Virginia are a very good example of how people can be hurt or killed when workers are not allowed to stand up to safety violations for fear of being fired.

If unions were all that detrimental to the success of business, then there would not be any pro sports leagues in this country today. I can't think of any other union in the U.S. that has managed to secure such high pay for it's members. The reason for this is because they have somehow managed to correlate their pay to team profits and despite this, the team owners are still raking in the profit. Last I checked, team owners were still doing quite well despite the huge payrolls.

If we don't change the system, the CEO's will continue to walk away with the bread while the workers are left to survive on the crumbs.

reply to post by Flatfish


No problem.

It is not so much I.B.M.'s connection to Hitler which is the ultimate conspiracy.

As I said, it was to me, one of the greatest showing of fascism and corporation, walking hand in hand.

And I am so glad you brought up Henry Ford because he was connected to Hitler as well.

Yes, many corporations were, I.B.M., Ford Motors, J.P. Morgan and a host of other corporations.

I originally brought up I.B.M. because of the link to corporations and fascism.

Minimum Wage is controlled not just by the corporations, through lobbyists, special interest groups, but by Wall Street.

Three other books which I highly suggest for anyone wanting to know the history of how corporations control their monetary, stock, and shareholder interests, as well as lead towards the troubling things we see now, historically, are :

Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/917453de6a29.jpg[/atsimg]

Amazon Review :

This important book goes into the role of Morgan banking executives in funneling illegal Bolshevik gold into the U.S. and how the American Red Cross was co-opted by powerful forces on Wall Street.

It also tells of Wall Streeters who intervened to free Leon Trotsky, even though Trotsky's stated aim was to engineer 'the real revolution'?

The Soviet coup which toppled Kerensky, and much more.

I have not found a picture for Wall Street and FDR but the Amazon link is here.

Wall Street and FDR

And attached to Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler is my Amazon review.

Wall Street & the Rise of Hitler

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b270a571015b.jpg[/atsimg]

SKL's Amazon Review :

This book is quite literally a tell all of all the names of who financed Adolph Hitler's rise to power by financial means. The man didn't get into power just by his lies, but by lies of other men too, the men with power, with money, and influence, and the access to Wall Street. You would be surprised to see the names within this book that financed "the funny little man, with the funny little mustache" that almost took over the entire world.

I will not ruin the book for you by telling all the names in it, but I will tell you two men's name I know you will instantly recognize.

Henry Ford & Edsel Ford. Yes, those "Ford's", from Ford Motor Company. Henry Ford even got the highest award the Nazi's could give to a foreigner, in recognition of his assistance to Adolph Hitler, and his picture hung in Hitler's office.

Just so you know, I am not a fan of the Nazi's, nor am I a racist of any kind, nor a fan of Adolph Hitler. I'm following a papertrail to find out all the names of who helped the man get into power to begin with, because I am someone who knows there's more to history than what they teach you in school. It doesn't just come down to the lies a politician tells the people who put them in office, but to the power-brokers who finance the man. Adolph Hitler was a politician, plain and simple. He knew how to lie to the people and give them comfort through manipulative persuasion and then when the people willingly gave him the power he went for the throat of the world.

Another good book that tells the details of who assisted Hitler that you may be able to find here on Amazon is, "IBM and the Holocaust."

Yes, I am talking about that "IBM" here too. They helped Hitler track down the Jews and other "undesirables" (Hitler's words, not Mine) through the use of the census and the Hollerith Card Sorting Machine.

And through that control they do dire and dastardly things we consider unthinkable.

Now, what was that you were saying about Henry Ford, because his efficiency?

His efficiency was admired by Adolph Hitler.

And he admired what Hitler was doing in all regards because Ford was a fascist.

I agree with you 100% about reducing the profits margins of corporations to a reasonable amount.

As well the allowable profit margins of hospitals without insurance.

I can see a semblence of reason behind unions but I see just as much problems there.

Unions are often tied to the Mafia, or forcefully coerce people into signing on, sometimes both are linked.

The reason this is all relevant to today is history is currently in the process of repeating itself.

Through the defined actions with N.A.F.T.A., the currently collapsed economy, and both Bush and Obama.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


Thanks again for the added insight, I will indeed check out some of your recommended reads.

I'm really not sure just what the answer is that will revitalize the diminishing middle class in America and put a stop to the rampant greed that has seemed to have taken over. I agree that corporations should do the right thing without being told to do so but is seems that greed has replaced righteousness. Fiduciary responsibility mandates that "profit margins" supersede all other considerations, and I mean all other considerations.

Prior to my retirement, I served for 10 yrs. as a trustee on the board of our pension, vacation and health & welfare trust funds, funds totaling some 500 million in assets. Early on in my tenure as a trustee, I learned that well over half of the money on Wall St. was actually under the control of institutional investors like the very trust fund I was representing. When I ask why we couldn't ban together with other like minded institutional investors to direct our collective investments away from corporations that outsource and utilize sweatshop labor, etc... I was informed by our legal team that if we did so, we could be charged with violating our fiduciary responsibility to the beneficiaries of the trust, for not insuring that we maximize profits on investments in order to provide the best benefits possible. Legally, I found myself in a catch 22 if you know what I mean. Even though I wanted to do the right thing, I was not allowed to do so. By the way, my tenure as a trustee was from 1995 to 2005 and Obama had nothing to do with being the cause of my dilemma.

Corporate mentality, "profits over ethics," is the true culprit here and I'm not quite sure just how to combat it. They prey on the weak minded by convincing them that if they play by "their" rules, one day they can be rich too, when in fact, statistically speaking, it's probably not going to happen. They perpetuate a highly contagious mentality that, "So long as I get mine, screw everybody else." Kinda brings BP to mind doesn't it?

Another "Union" footnote; Like I said before, I worked through a union for 32 years prior to my retirement. The union I worked for definitely had problems with organized crime in it's early years but not in my region of the U.S.. You see, the organized crime element was primarily confined to the areas where there was a large volume of work going on, like New York or Miami. I believe the reason for the localized influence was due to the fact that unions do not solicit organized crime families for help, but rather it is organized crime that infiltrates the unions in order to use the union's influence to secure payoffs or "family profits."

Organized crime is a problem in and of itself and it's not the unions fault that the crime families targeted their operations in order to gain influence. The Mafia recognized an opportunity and they jumped on it, just the same as they spread their influence throughout many industries both union and non-union.

We haven't seen the return of prohibition just because of previous organized crime involvement in the trade. Quite the opposite, today alcohol is legal and we have NASCAR to boot.

Just saying, that just because the Mafia had some influence over some unions in the past is no reason to abolish all unions today. On the other hand, it may very well be the time to abolish corporations because I think that in reality, corporations are the new Mafia in disguise.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
It is DEFINATELY time to do so. TIme the super rich start sharing their wealth or there's gonna be trouble ahead, ...
The clock..... is ticking........

You can't be serious.

If a college student who always studies, never goes to parties and as a result has a 4.0 GPA, would you ask them to share their GPA points with others less fortunate?

reply to post by Alxandro


I think you're trying to compare apples to oranges here.

The GPA of 4.0 was a product of the student's hard work alone and did not require the input of a team of workers to acquire it. When that student starts a business that requires a team of workers to produce a product then the wealth should be shared. If the student doesn't want to share the profits then maybe he/she shouldn't share the workload either. Let that student reap the profits from whatever he/she can produce in solitary and let's see how rich he/she gets.

You know the old saying, "the value of the product should be greater than the sum of all parts." It is the added value that should generate the profit for the business owner, the business should not profit by denying a living wage or benefits to it's workers.

reply to post by Flatfish


Well, as much as the middle class is a part of America, I do not see they need revitalizing.

Working as long as I have and being someone who works with the public as well as in the behind the scenes venue, I saw the itemized profits and losses, on documentation, from invoices to sales sheets, and I have to say if America knew how much is profit and how much is actual pay to employees, we might boycott all corporations forever until they treat workers fairly.

Sorry, I still say it, screw corporate America, they do nothing for America except hold people to crappy wages.

Having been someone who took my money and invested it in stocks however I say it is just as much the fault of the workers.

Put money into retirement, invest it to make your money make money, and stop wasting money on lottery tickets.

I know the Catch-22 you're speaking of because I see here daily on ATS with all the talkers who do not walk the rhetoric they speak.

It is to me about as ignorant as the person speaking out about seeing masturbation as evil and not masturbating herself.

I understand the corporate mentality well which is why corporate raiders fascinate me in pulling down wounded businesses.

I see Skull and Bones as nothing but criminals in suits hiding behind corporate piracy.

Personally, I want to be self-employed, as I am tired of working for idiots, morons, and bastards in business to get themselves rich.

While they screw all the workers with $7.00 an hour, and up in management, while the C.E.O. makes a six figure income.

I am one of those people who sees talent and I recognize it and after an employee would get to a certain income level, I would make them an offer, branch out, with money, and expand my business in a different direction, the first few years would be to pay me back as fast as possible, and after that I would give them the business through tax-loopholes.

Write it off as an investment and as well training and a loan under the correct tax codes.

As to your comments, thoughts, and knowledge of unions I commend you for your integrity.

Organized crime has many faces, one of many is Las Vegas, another is New York, another is Miami.

Yet another one is the corruption within politics of Washington D.C. and through corporate greed.

Lobbyist groups and special interest groups, while fully legal, are to me another form or organized crime.

They screw the natural processes of politics through buying Congressmen and Senators.

And that is why minimum wage will never be changed to a reasonable amount to reflect fair pay.

We have seen the return of Prohibition in the alleged War on Drugs it just changed prohibited items.

I do not support drug use, I say if we're going to have a war against something, eradicate it completely.

Yet the Golden Triangle, Golden Crescent, and Columbia filter that crap into our country.

If you're not going after the sources and shutting them down you're wasting our tax money and through that minimum wage is kept low, making people on that income level the primary targets to use, buy, and or sell drugs, just to get off the dead-end income levels.

A self-perpetuating abusive behavior between the lower income and middle class America.

In other words nothing but an Ouroboros to keep funding flowing and crime high to give a reason for existence.

Divide and Conquer.

Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by Alxandro

 

Let that student reap the profits from whatever he/she can produce in solitary and let's see how rich he/she gets.

So I suppose now you want to go after the guy that developed Facebook too?