Minimum Wage = Maximum Nonsense - A Masochistic Invitation to Derision

Hoosierdaddy71
reply to post by tinfoilman

 

Then we get rid of food stamps, subsidized housing and all other handout welfare

Wow you really do hate the poor? Handouts huh? You don't understand economic growth at all! Poor person starves to death! Hmm, not very useful. Poor person gets food stamps for a little bit until they're back on their feet and build their credit back up and the next thing you know they're at your shop buying YOUR product with money they make at their new job where they'll eventually, THANKS TO INFLATION, pay enough back in taxes to cover the amount of food stamps they used.

You do know you have to work or be in the process of finding work to get those don't you?

Many of those programs got started around the time of the great depression. Guess business owners didn't like soup kitchens lining up around their store fronts or something. It's too bad you don't know what things were like back then. You'd realize how much better things are today due to social welfare programs and how much of a moron you are.

reply to post by tinfoilman

Keep in mind I didn't design the system. I'm telling you how it is designed. I'm telling you MW is not what you think it is. I am not China. You have a problem with China, take it up with China. Don't ramble on about nonsense racist crap. I'm trying to show you how it really works.

What I am telling you is that inflation was built into the system on purpose. What I'm trying to get through to you is that in your head you have the misconception that minimum wage and inflation are bad or BROKEN because they make prices go up!

What you don't realize is that it was DESIGNED TO DO THAT! It is not broken. It just keeps the poorest employees in line with inflation. It's working perfectly. But the politicians and news media don't tell you how it really works because they're probably not smart enough to figure it out.

What I find stunning in this line of reasoning (if you can all it that) is the presumption that a centralized banking system designed to inflate fiat currency is somehow appropriate and beneficial. Can you hear yourself?

reply to post by tinfoilman


What is obvious to me is that you are a typical liberal progressive. You have managed to call me a racist, a moron and state that I hate the poor. Calling me names because I don't agree with you.

I have one minimum wage employee that that works 3 hours a day sweeping up, he's 77 yrs old.
I don't have to have him around but he needs the money for golfing.

When I said end food stamps i also said pay a living wage, so why do you need food stamps?
If you have a living wage job you can buy food, hence "living wage".
That doesn't mean no help for the unemployed or other hardship cases, but you have to have limits.

As for the car thing, I meant buy a car worth 4 not a car worth 7 so you can make the payments.
You are trying to say its the same car and that's not what I said. Buy within your means!
A dealer doesn't sell a car for the price they pay for it, that would be stupid.

You appear to think you know all about how good businesses and bosses should act. Ok then

I'm 42 yrs old, have a college degree, worked for others for 13 years and have owned my own business for about 12 yrs.

Please tell me your background so we can compare apples to apples
I'll take a guess at yours. I know nothing about you other than what you have said here on ATS.

Let's see your in your early to mid twenties, in college or maybe recently out. Studying sociology or something equally silly. Prolly live at home yet or with a working girlfriend.
You have only worked in service jobs and never in a factory. Have never had an employee. Believe in the occupy movement. Voted Obama.

That's just a guess. Feel free to correct me or fill in the blanks. Try doing it without calling me names if you can, I have feelings too.

reply to post by Hoosierdaddy71

I think that local and state sales taxes, along with federal sales taxes collected from municipalities and states must be considered when discussing inflation. It makes everyone involved in the "Skimfest" more money the higher prices are, and they aren't going to allow anyone to not pay that tiny percentage of taxes collected which goes to welfare programs and such, they just take the same tax (payment for services) and do whatever they want with it yet fail to provide serv ices they are paid for.

Ross Perot wanted to run the government like a business, which would have been a good thing, better at least than running it like a non-profit, or a church, like it seems to work similarly to regarding the amount of faith a lot of dummies have in it, and what a great big deep dark fkn secret a lot of it is.

Anyway....

MyHappyDogShiner
reply to post by Hoosierdaddy71

 

I think that local and state sales taxes, along with federal sales taxes collected from municipalities and states must be considered when discussing inflation. It makes everyone involved in the "Skimfest" more money the higher prices are, and they aren't going to allow anyone to not pay that tiny percentage of taxes collected which goes to welfare programs and such, they just take the same tax (payment for services) and do whatever they want with it yet fail to provide serv ices they are paid for.

Ross Perot wanted to run the government like a business, which would have been a good thing, better at least than running it like a non-profit, or a church, like it seems to work similarly to regarding the amount of faith a lot of dummies have in it, and what a great big deep dark fkn secret a lot of it is.

Anyway....

You are absolutely right about everybody getting a piece of the pie, nobody is willing to cut anywhere but in others pockets. So that will not change anytime soon.

I voted for Perot! I think that was the first election that I voted in maybe second.
I was new to politics and didn't know at the time that Perot cost the republicans that election.
Most of his votes were pulled from the right. I still wonder what would have happened if he had won. Prolly would have been shot.

reply to post by Hoosierdaddy71

No comment to your reply other than one, to move forward without going deeper in debt to finance a business or anything else, it must be run as close to "Below it's means" as possible, the farther below means the better, this is where the "Evil Boss" stuff crops up when people get laid off and so on. Most of these employees go into debt just because some other business is waiting for them to do so for things they really don't even need, they just want...

Rather lengthy for a non-reply, I know, but it isn't just business to even a business owner when they have to boot someone to only save money to stay afloat either, it hurts sometimes.

There's an awful lot wrong with the whole mess, but things could be closer to right than they are if there weren't so many businesses in the business of skimming right off the top of everyone's bottom line.

reply to post by MyHappyDogShiner


I have 6 employees so my perspective is not the same as a place with hundreds or thousands on the payroll. I would imagine skimming is more common with larger companies. I have had to lay off 2 people a few times over the years but only for a month or two. They actually like the time off believe it or not but they knew they were coming back.
One thing I should mention is the $15,000 lawyer fees I had to pay because of a lawsuit.
My guy made a delivery at the end of the day so I told him to take the truck home a bring it back in the morning. He fell and broke his wrist "getting out of my truck so I got blamed" lucky for me his neighbor saw him fall on the ice while checking his mail. Still cost 15k to defend myself. And yes I fired his butt.

greencmp
Considering how disconnected from reality most folks are around here, this post could rightly be considered an act of masochism. I have no illusions and fully expect to receive the unrestrained ire of the socialist sympathizers among us.

However, given that many of you will be delighted to shout down this frank assessment and will have nearly unlimited and unquestioning support, perhaps a mere handful of you might at least be given pause to consider the implications of this form of government interference that claims to deliver you from the pan of undercompensation only to deposit you into the fire of unemployment.

Oh boy, here we go... One last chance to change my mind... 'click'

Minimum Wage, Maximum Nonsense

Is the current national hoopla to “do something” about minimum wages another governmental mistake? Absolutely. Minimum wage laws lessen employment opportunities for workers (especially teens and low-skilled workers) and hurt some of the very individuals that they are allegedly designed to help…the working poor. Boosting the minimum wage substantially at the state or federal level would be a public policy mistake.

The law of demand operates in all markets including and especially labor markets. If I operate a lawn service or a car dealership or if I’m a large box retailer, any increase in the price (cost) of labor that is not accompanied by an increase in productivity, will decrease my incentive to hire or retain workers; with my income revenue relatively fixed, I simply must use fewer factors of production. In addition, I also have an incentive to substitute some (cheaper) non-labor resource in an attempt to maintain the overall productivity of the operation. Thus the monetary incentives associated with the income and substitution effects result in fewer workers hired or retained.

Minimum wage laws always decrease employment opportunities and always interfere with free choice and the freedom of contract. They are supported by politicians seeking votes and by labor unions anxious to cripple non-union, low cost competitors. They are also inherently discriminatory since they hurt only workers on the lowest rung of the employment ladder; workers making $30 an hour are not directly affected. And increasing the minimum wage provides no boost to overall “consumption” (as advocates maintain) since the workers displaced easily negate any (slight) income change for the workers retained.

edit on 27-9-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)

The next poster is correct history has proven that greed wins every time. Employers will pay the least they can. What I find sad is that there are some who still think that is OK and the way it should be.

I worked for a wise Christian man once, he called each employee in one by one and got to know everyone's families situation. He then left his lifestyle behind and went about to try and live on what he paid the medium level employee for a month. This was long before these TV shows. He tried to pay all the bills this persons family had to pay. After this month we had a company meeting and the owner broke down in tears and apologized to everyone. He seriously had no idea how his employees struggled to survive on the minimum wage he was paying them. He instituted many changes that day and some meant charging customers more. Despite what some might think his business flourished and grew stronger.

I challenge those hear who want to argue this to tell us how much they make.

I don't call it free market, call it what it is, greed market society. It is like congress arguing about health-care when all along they had the best coverage and paid less than hundred dollars for it.

Here is simple example, will say you make 8 an hour an do get forty hours week, no health care insurance. After taxes you bring home 250 * 4 = 1000 a month.

1000
- 100 car insurance
- 250 utility bill, mine was 285 this month with fuel adjustment (greed tax) they kept on after fuel lowered
- 675 rent or mortgage, mine is hundred more than this
Oops that is already 25 more than we make and we have not finished yet. We still need phone bill, another 100,
Water and garbage, was 81 last month, car payment or bus and train fare, cell phone, that is our phone lol, other loans or credit cards, oh and last but not least, food for four, ouch no money for that. This is reality for millions upon millions of people struggling just to survive.

And you want to argue about paying someone two dollars more an hour. You have to be kidding. History has also shown that customers will support companies who pay their employees better and it does not have to mean loss of profit or customers. In contrast it means better service, better employee retention and productivity which in turn means more profits.

Trying to argue for lesser wages is asinine and just an argument made out of greed.

The Bot

P. S. You can't take it with you and money is useless on the other side lol.

The good news is none of us make it to the year 2020.

Hoosierdaddy71
reply to post by tinfoilman

 

What is obvious to me is that you are a typical liberal progressive. You have managed to call me a racist, a moron and state that I hate the poor. Calling me names because I don't agree with you.

Just cause you get called nasty things doesn't mean they aren't true.

You right wingers all hate the poor. You try to lie about it, to deny it, to disguise it with euphemisms, metaphors hypocrisy and silliness.

But you know you do. And you know you love the rich.

Probably because you secretly hope to become one of the rich yourselves some day.

Do any of your right wing threads rail about the monetary system?

About how banking is legalised fraud/counterfeiting and should be abolished altogether (not just the Central Bank, you merry hypocrites, outlaw all banking, disband all banks, nationalise all bank assets, nullify all debt to banks, nationalise the right to issue money and stuff like that)?

Hell, no!

Do I hear you rail on about gas guzzlers, waste of resources and pollution, obscene waste of energy and resources like building artificial islands for the rich and what not?

Hell, no!

Do I hear you rail on about the need for more and better public transportation systems?

Hell, no!

But spend a few hundred bucks a week or month to feed help feed a needy person (who needs to be prove they are looking for work while on the program)?

The outrage!

Also, why are you so indignant about money being "wasted"?

Don't you understand that money doesn't magically disappear from existence after you spend it? And it doesn't magically appear into existence when you earn it.

I think even my dogs understand as much.

That I'm not dead and buried when they don't see me cause I'm gone to work or shopping.

Yet you right wingers somehow fail to realise that money doesn't get destroyed when you spend it or created when you earn it.

You also seem to find it exceedingly difficult to comprehend that banks issue trillions of dollars every year out of thin air just by lending it into existence with nothing tangible, of intrinsic value to provide any backing by allowing the issued money to be redeemed in it at face value.

That's how you got your home or car loan. It was conjured up out of thin air thereby externalising the cost of lending that money to you to the whole of society through inflation.

Where's the outrage there, huh?

Where was your outrage then, huh?

So why the # do you care so bloody much if a couple hundred buck are spent to feed someone who would scarcely afford to eat otherwise?

That money doesn't get destroyed and it isn't coming out of your pocket. It might actually be going into your pocket if you work at the store people on SNAP buy food from.

Or if you work for the company that makes the food that gets bought by people on SNAP.

Or if you work for the company that ships the food to the store.

Or the company that provides accounting services to the store.

Do you give a rat's ass when billions and billions of dollars get conjured up out of thin air to further enrich the plutocracy?

Bankers and Wallstreet speculators and financiers?

HELL, NO!

Do you give a rat's ass when billions and billions of dollars get conjured up out of thin air to wage wars overseas?

HELL, NO!

Bunch of hypocrites.

Especially right wingers who fancy themselves Christians.

How can you stand yourselves?

Pejeu

Hoosierdaddy71
reply to post by tinfoilman

 

What is obvious to me is that you are a typical liberal progressive. You have managed to call me a racist, a moron and state that I hate the poor. Calling me names because I don't agree with you.

Just cause you get called nasty things doesn't mean they aren't true.

You right wingers all hate the poor. You try to lie about it, to deny it, to disguise it with euphemisms, metaphors hypocrisy and silliness.

But you know you do. And you know you love the rich.

Probably because you secretly hope to become one of the rich yourselves some day.

Do any of your right wing threads rail about the monetary system?

About how banking is legalised fraud/counterfeiting and should be abolished altogether (not just the Central Bank, you merry hypocrites, outlaw all banking, disband all banks, nationalise all bank assets, nullify all debt to banks, nationalise the right to issue money and stuff like that)?

Hell, no!

Do I hear you rail on about gas guzzlers, waste of resources and pollution, obscene waste of energy and resources like building artificial islands for the rich and what not?

Hell, no!

Do I hear you rail on about the need for more and better public transportation systems?

Hell, no!

But spend a few hundred bucks a week or month to feed help feed a needy person (who needs to be prove they are looking for work while on the program)?

The outrage!

Also, why are you so indignant about money being "wasted"?

Don't you understand that money doesn't magically disappear from existence after you spend it? And it doesn't magically appear into existence when you earn it.

I think even my dogs understand as much.

That I'm not dead and buried when they don't see me cause I'm gone to work or shopping.

Yet you right wingers somehow fail to realise that money doesn't get destroyed when you spend it or created when you earn it.

You also seem to find it exceedingly difficult to comprehend that banks issue trillions of dollars every year out of thin air just by lending it.

That's how you got your home loan. It was conjured up out of thin air thereby externalising the cost of lending that money to you to the whole of society through inflation.

Where the outrage there, huh?

So why the # do you care so bloody much if a couple hundred buck are spent to feed someone who would scarcely afford to eat otherwise?

That money doesn't get destroyed and it isn't coming out of your pocket. It might actually be going into your pocket if you work at the store people on SNAP buy food from.

Or if you work for the company that makes the food that gets bought by people on SNAP.

Or if you work for the company that ships the food to the store.

Or the company that provides accounting services to the store.

Do you give a rat's ass when billions and billions of dollars get conjured up out of thin air to further enrich the plutocracy?

Bankers and Wallstreet speculators and financiers?

HELL, NO!

Do you give a rat's ass when billions and billions of dollars get conjured up out of thin air to wage wars overseas?

HELL, NO!

Bunch of hypocrites.

Especially right wingers who fancy themselves Christians.

How can you stand yourselves?

edit on 2013/9/29 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

edit on 2013/9/29 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

Hmmm, a Romanian Communist, who would have thunk it?

Thanks for your rantings, your BS is widely known and would be humorous if it weren't so destructive.

reply to post by greencmp


A socialist, actually. But thank you for your concern.

I see you are at a loss for words as to a reply to what I've said so decided upon a classic ad hominem instead.

Good for you.

OrphanApologyreply to post by greencmp

 

This is nonsense with misguided understanding of the current system I see quite often. In the current system people cannot survive without the stipulation of a minimum wage. This has nothing to do with free-markets as the current system is in no way a free-market system.

In an ideal land where the federal reserve, governments, and fiat money cease to exist...there is no need for a minimum wage because in that world people would have 100% control over their own personal unit of human capital. It's far more complicated than that example but to put it plainly: free-market principles cannot be applied to only one segment. It is all or none.

To take away minimum wage in the current system will do nothing but force people to break the law, which would have been a good thing if the federal reserve hadn't been invented which made us all slaves to the fiat petrodollar.

Again it's all or none. You cannot simply apply free-market theory to one segment of society without eliminating all laws and government. In a system that is essentially a cartel of businesses(regulatory agencies) and violence cartels(police/military) free market principles do not apply anymore.

So you agree that banking should be outlawed entirely and all existing banks should be disbanded, then?

Or do you want to see only the central bank (the Fed Res.) abolished?

Do you think the government should have a laissez-faire attitude towards outright fraud (what banking - there is no other kind of banking but Fractional Reserve Banking; or else it isn't banking - is)?

That is to say... let the market regulate the level of fraud it would bear (what the fractional reserve should be)?

What is the free market and out is extraneous of the free market?

I submit to you that the free market is everything and everything is the free market.

Not just what you would like to pigeon hole the idea of 'free market' to mean.

That is to say, the free market can and has chosen marxism/communism/nazism/fascism in some places and times in history.

Yes, that too was the free market.

It wasn't Martians that came down in saucers and imposed those systems from outside, as an intervention truly extraneous of the free market.

It was people, right here on Earth. By and through their own will and uncoerced volition (generally speaking; there were surely cases of individual or minority coercion but you can't truly coerce a majority of the population into anything unless it actually acquiesces).

So yeah. The free market isn't all it's made out to be.

Hoosierdaddy71
Many of you don't understand how business works. A business cant just throw money around willy nilly "thats a business term". Every company has to get a return on investments or it will cease to exist. They are mostly not run by evil suits but by small business owners such as myself that take all the risk and are only trying to make a living.

So are your customers and your employees.

Why is your making a living so much more important than them making a living or getting by?

Why is it only moral to talk about yourself needing to make a living?

Why is it not even contemplable that they too might need to survive or not be price gouged by yourself?

You realise your profits come either from

1. what you overcharge your customers

or

2. what you underpay your employees and suppliers.

Don't you?

Yet somehow it is moral for you to do that without even a mention or question about it.

And everyone's heart should be bleeding all over the place for you.

But your customers or employees or suppliers?

#'em!

You got yours, 's all that actually matters, innit?

reply to post by Pejeu

 

A socialist, actually. But thank you for your concern.

I see you are at a loss for words as to a reply to what I've said so decided upon a classic ad hominem instead.

Good for you.
[/url]

 

Please allow me to clarify, it is not you that I disagree with, your ultimate ends seem a little adolescent but, are not overtly or obviously threatening in themselves. It is just that, in order to achieve those ends, that ideology cannot avoid becoming totalitarian.

I believe totalitarianism is BS and that it is the scourge of mankind and has been responsible for more human misery and death than any other state obedience enforcement regime of any ideology, utopian or not.

Sooner or later, progressive or national socialism, egalitarianism, collectivism, communism or any other 'planned' system devolves into or otherwise demands a mandatory inclusive totalitarian order.

What you are describing is a planned economy, an approach which is severely flawed, you do not have 'markets'. It is not that free markets have a better plan, we have no plan and are therefore, always more flexible and auto corrective. We waste the bear minimum of productivity. More people have been raised out of abject poverty under the free market than any other 'system'.

In no cases throughout human history has a system been composed which achieves the goal you are describing. But, every case ends in loss of freedom and liberty, a descent into the maelstrom of hyper-authoritarianism and a final tremendous and abominable end.

Our problem is that we are, in fact, closer to your 'system' than many would have you believe. I am preparing another thread on the political spectrum to highlight some of this outside of the context of minimum wage.

Circular Thinking - Graphic Analogs of the Political Spectrum - An Ideology Refresher

ThecakeisalieWhy do you think so many jobs go overseas? no minimum wage laws. It's an outrage if someone in the states earns less than 10 an hour, but think of all those outsourced jobs where ten dollars is an annual salary.

This is right wing nonsense.

10 dollars buys a WHOLE lot more in China or Vietnam or wherever else than it does in the states.

It's called purchasing power discrepancy.

And the reason for it is the monetary system that caters to the interests and whimsical desires of the rich almost exclusively, not the whole of society.

If international trade were conducted solely in physical gold or annulment of debts of physical gold and not paper or electronic money churned out by the trillions of units, all out of nothing - with no backing whatsoever, by the for profit private banking system worldwide each year this wouldn't happen.

Neither would have the absolute evisceration of industry in the US and other developed nations.

Neither would you have some currencies consistently, for decades on end, worth less than others. Or other currencies worth more than others despite negative trade balances sustained for decades by the banks printing money out of thin air.

But, then again, that would not do for the plutocrats and right wingers, you see.

Right wingers love socialism.

So long as it's socialism for the rich.

And they love liberalism (in the European sense of the word) for the poor and the unrich. The unwashed masses, "lower stratum" you see.


If there is one thing right wingers hate more than absolutely any thing else in this world it's socialism for the poor and the not rich.

greencmp

reply to post by Pejeu

 

A socialist, actually. But thank you for your concern.

I see you are at a loss for words as to a reply to what I've said so decided upon a classic ad hominem instead.

Good for you.
[/url]

 

Please allow me to clarify, it is not you that I disagree with, your ultimate ends seem a little adolescent but, are not overtly or obviously threatening in themselves. It is just that, in order to achieve those ends, that ideology cannot avoid becoming totalitarian.

I believe totalitarianism is BS and that it is the scourge of mankind and has been responsible for more human misery and death than any other state obedience enforcement regime of any ideology, utopian or not.

Sooner or later, progressive or national socialism, egalitarianism, collectivism, communism or any other 'planned' system devolves, demands or requires a mandatory inclusive totalitarian order.

What you are describing is a planned economy, an approach which is severely flawed, you do not have 'markets'. It is not that free markets have a better plan, we have no plan and are therefore, always more flexible and auto corrective. We waste the bear minimum of productivity.

In no cases throughout human history has a system been composed which achieves the goal you are describing. But, every case ends in loss of freedom and liberty, a descent into the maelstrom of hyper-authoritarianism and a final tremendous and abominable end.

edit on 29-9-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)

1. Everything you love to denounce and claim to hate about the state you absolutely love about private businesses and individuals.

That is not your fault. It is the way right wingers think and feel.

It is your nature to think and feel that way.

Otherwise you would be left leaning.

2. You make quite an unargumented leap in ascribing a totalitarianist aspect to socialism or claiming it inevitably requires or leads to totalitarianism.

Socialism is what we otherwise refer to as civilized society and everything humane and decent about humanity and society.

As well as every collective aspect of how society works and is run.

Public roads are socialism.

Unprivatised EMT, firefighting and police services are socialism.

Emergency medical care to anyone who needs it is socialism.

Insurance (even for profit, private) is socialistic as long as people may draw more than what they've contributed.

Progressive taxation is socialist.

The banking system is socialism itself as the cost of lending is externalised to the whole of society through inflation.

Even though it has been perverted by the right into the obscene monster it is today by allowing it to levy interest on a service that is actually provided by the society at large and not itself (society at large is who actually bears the cost of lending by the banks by the inflation it is forced to endure as a result).

Banking is the very essence of right wing ideology: socialise the cost, privatise the gains/profit.

Or: take a good and wholesome idea and pervert it into something obscene and dreadful with nary a trace of resemblance to its former self by making it for profit.

The whole of your so-called capitalism is built on foundations of socialism.

Everything that works (as well as it can) in and under so-called capitalism is socialistic and 'totalitarian' in nature.

Yet you claim socialism doesn't work and 'capitalism' does.

As if you can't have capitalism within an overall socialist society or socialism within an overal capitalistic society and they're not actually interwoven in a functional society.

3. Not everything can or must be provided at profit.

Indeed many things must not be provided at profit because that profit motive will # things up beyond all recognition eventually, maybe gradually but inevitably.

For instance you can't have a profit motive in redistributing the wealth and purchasing power of society to fund projects for development and advancement.

That is to say, you can't have banks.

Banks will eventually # everything up. And they already have.

The profit motive #s almost everything it touches up.

reply to post by Pejeu


Tell me something. What kind of Star Trek utopia do you live in?
Neither you or I can take care of everybody. People have to work things out for themselves.
Starting with a level playing field is about all we can do but we can't keep it level.
A rich guy can send his kid to a better school, you know darn well you would send yours to the best school you can. Does that make you a hypocrite? No! It makes you a good parent.
I plan on sending mine to college with no loans, if that makes me evil in your eyes so be it.

And it's funny you call right wingers rich hypocrites.
Name the leading liberal progressives.
Nancy pilosi.. Worth 35 million
Michael Moore.. Worth 50 million
Al gore... Worth 300 million
Tom cruise.. Worth 250 million
Sean penn... Worth 150 million

These are the people leading the charge for the poor man?
This discussion about the minimum wage has gone way off track!

reply to post by Pejeu



If you want to bitch about capitalism start your own thread I can ignore. This thread is about minimum wage.

reply to post by greencmp


We have a government that is for the Big Banks and Big Corporations. These entities set the market policies that determine the wages. They want nothing more than to eliminate minimum wage so more of the productivity and profits funnel into Wall Street and CEO bonuses.


Get Wall Street and The Big Corps out of the government, put an end to the lax immigration laws and "Free" Trade Agreements and we would see the market adjust upwards accordingly for everyone.

Hoosierdaddy71
reply to post by Pejeu

 

Tell me something. What kind of Star Trek utopia do you live in?
Neither you or I can take care of everybody. People have to work things out for themselves.
Starting with a level playing field is about all we can do but we can't keep it level.
A rich guy can send his kid to a better school, you know darn well you would send yours to the best school you can. Does that make you a hypocrite? No! It makes you a good parent.
I plan on sending mine to college with no loans, if that makes me evil in your eyes so be it.

And it's funny you call right wingers rich hypocrites.
Name the leading liberal progressives.
Nancy pilosi.. Worth 35 million
Michael Moore.. Worth 50 million
Al gore... Worth 300 million
Tom cruise.. Worth 250 million
Sean penn... Worth 150 million

These are the people leading the charge for the poor man?
This discussion about the minimum wage has gone way off track!

So what you're basically saying is that there is not enough to go round for everyone to live a decent, perhaps even nice, middle-class life. This is in and of itself a lie.

But regardless...

You conclude from this unfounded hypothesis of yours which you take for unassailable fact that, as there isn't enough for everyone to lead nice lives, we might as well defraud or covertly steal (perhaps even under the guise of lawfulness and justice) from others so that we might live better lives than we otherwise would, irrespective of the fact that the ones we take from will be even worse, perhaps horrendously off.

This is the typical right wing mentality.

If there isn't enough for everyone to go around and have nice life of it than it's ok for some to appropriate from others (by fraud and direct or indirect coercion) even if it impoverishes or outright starves them to death.

Hey, survival of the fittest/smartest/ablest, right?!

Oh, wait a second here.

Isn't that what you always claim the left is about?

reply to post by Hoosierdaddy71


...and minmum wage laws are uncapitalistic?

Sorry, I don't buy that unless you're saying a capitalist country, like America, is Communist by going the minimum wage route. Mild socialism, sure, but not anything Pol Pot would have endorsed.