It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by aching_knuckles
No, what they have done is stolen all of our money through "inflation". Wages have not increased at the same rate as consumer prices and corporate profit, which have skyrocketed. Over the past 100 years, 99cents out of every dollar has "disappeared" and everyone just blames "inflation", instead of recognizing it for what it is: thievery.
And jack wagons like the original poster here want these companies to not even have to pay a minimum wage....sickening.
Originally posted by Emeraldprophet
reply to post by Varemia
Why only full-time jobs? What about single mothers who have to work part-time so they can also take care of their kids? Don't they 'deserve' a LIVABLE wage? And really, shouldn't the single mothers actually be paid more since they need it more? Just because someone has the ability to work 40 hrs. doesn't mean he should have the advantage, right?
It's a push forward, but really, all full-time jobs should offer a LIVABLE wage. In other words, if you are working full time (devoting all your available working hours) you should have enough money to live in the location you are. The minimum wage is such a far cry from being able to support a household, let alone a family, I don't know how people can get UPSET that it is being raised.
I'm playing Devil's advocate. Why should the single mother have to sacrifice? Shouldn't we use the power of government to fix her situation? Also, shouldn't the nanny make a fair wage too? Or maybe we should raise taxes on the single mother's bosses just a little more to fund government-run babysitting.
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by Emeraldprophet
reply to post by Varemia
Why only full-time jobs? What about single mothers who have to work part-time so they can also take care of their kids? Don't they 'deserve' a LIVABLE wage? And really, shouldn't the single mothers actually be paid more since they need it more? Just because someone has the ability to work 40 hrs. doesn't mean he should have the advantage, right?
Not sure if you're arguing against raising minimum wages or if you are just arguing points of debate for people IF they were to make it so people actually were able to live on the money they work for. A single mother has those sacrifices to make. I know quite a few single mothers right now who take on two to three jobs because they don't make enough, and have to hire a low-wage nanny to take care of their kids, or risk leaving them at home, because otherwise it will be impossible to pay the bills.
Everything is screwed up, and all I am saying is that raising the minimum wage is at least a small step forward.
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Emeraldprophet
I'm just saying that if you're working your ass off in a country with labor protection laws, you shouldn't be living in poverty. I mean, without minimum wage, people would be making far less money for the same work, and there would be even more impoverished people.
Originally posted by jr429
reply to post by brilab45
I'm sorry. Your intentions are probably good and I'm sure you're a smart person, but unfortunately you are an economic idiot. Let me explain:
There's almost 7 billion people in this world. If everyone were to make $20/hour AUD the cost of a gallon of gas would be $100 AUD, the cost of a burger would be $120 AUD, and your car would cost $250,000 AUD.
IT'S ALL RELATIVE. Because some poor bastards in India, China, and Africa get by working 14 hours a day for $2 AUD is why you can have the nice things you do. It's basic supply and demand. You want to make a difference? When you see those commercials for those starving african kids air on TV instead of buying your children that Xbox game or those new jeans donate that money to those charities.
For me, I will count my blessings and give thanks that myself and my family is not one of those starving people in Africa.
I'm really sorry to come off as dick as I am - but it's retarded wealth distribution ideology like yours that has totally screwed up our world and really pisses me off. Guess what's going to happen long term in SF? I"ll break it down for you:
1. Restaurants and businesses that rely on low wages gets squeezed= Tax base decreases
2. Some businesses ignore the law and pay cash under the table= Tax base decreases
3. Some businesses move out of SF = Tax base decreases
4. Young people and low wage earners leave SF = Tax base decreases
5. Idiots running SF realized they have spent too much and not enough taxes = Ask the FED for a BAILOUT
6. FED prints money
edit on 14-12-2011 by jr429 because: (no reason given)