Do you believe Americans who work full time should earn a living wage?

[Grandpapy]

A living wage

You and I seem to have different metrics we use to determine an employee's wage. When it comes to businesses like Walmart, I think it should go without saying a living wage is the least acceptable wage that should be paid, we're talking about the top earner in the country, numero uno. The highest grossing company in America should pay their fucking employees enough so they don't have to go to the government (ME & YOU) to ask "please, sir, can I have another?"... I seriously hope you would agree with that much. As far as mom and pop shops employing less than 10 people, if a "living wage" breaks their business then that's obviously bad for the economy, right? So why don't we devise a system where the mom and pop shops pay as much as they can while the gov. subsidizes the rest? Right now, we pay fuckin' Walmart subsidies to pay their bills, that's bullshit. Transfer that payment to the mom and pop shops and make fuckin' Walmart pay what the fuck they should to their employees. Since Walmart is the largest employer in America, that will SUBSTANTIALLY decrease the amount of government subsidies paid out to mom and pop shop employees who can't pay their bills due to the increasing minimum wage paid. Problem fuckin' solved.

FUCK WALMART.

 

[god1]

Where have all the critics run?

Looking for critics, here you go.

You're like a "yappy" little dog chasing your tail; around and around you go.

Are you in high school?

I have a suggestion, do some empirical research; go start a business. Report back when you're profitable.

There is no "one shoe" fits all when it comes to a livable wage. Sure I'll take it, give me 200 bucks an hour and I'll "scrub" toilets with the rest of the folks.

Any governmental mandates are going to be a pass through to the user/consumer. Every business is going to do; it's just a matter of "how", it's an expense. Do you have any idea how this will affect sole proprietors? Or what contortions they will go through, depending on their "business" to make the bottom line work?

A better use of your time is to push for tax code revision. If you really want to make things equitable understand how that works. Understand that it's a "tool" used by business small and large to make the bottom line. Ask yourself why neither party really wants to restructure this can of worms. Yeah they yap about it, but do you see any serious movement?

In the real world you don't get something for nothing. There's always going to be somebody on the bottom and somebody on the top, (think normal distribution). You just need to figure out where you want to be and how to get there. Then be comfortable with your choice.

Rethink, you're obviously not "dumb", just naive.

 

[schuylaar]

I'm convinced the answer is unionization. The national union membership in America today is something abysmal, like 10%.. I really need to do a little bit of research on the decline of unions because when membership was high, workers didn't get fucked over so much, now, at an all time low, we haven't seen income inequality like this since the great depression..

Go ahead and let right wing idiots tell you that's just a coincidence... The thinking man knows better..

One of Bernie Sanders top priorities is reestablishing union bargaining power for the American working middle class. None of the critics in this thread will touch on why they think improving conditions for the middle class is a bad idea because none of them want to look bad, like they're fighting for the super wealthy and against the middle class. They think their GOP candidates fight for the middle class, that the democrats raise their taxes and the republicans lower them.. Need I bring up the county in.. I think it was Tennessee, that's 95% white, 99% require government assistance, and 99.? voted republican in 2012? Fucking embarrassing..

you're on the right track, pada. but something happened to unions long ago, i must research this myself. without googling, my perception is that there is some sort of profiting off ie; racketeering of unions. see jimmy hoffa.

GOP = Good Oleboy Party

identifies as party of 'white', bottom line is their god. but did you notice the poorest of the poor have dem governors? checkout WV/KY/VA swath of states..some people know which side their bread is buttered

i mean, isn't KY where we get 'mitch the bitch', 'rand the plagurizing man' and 'ron the turtle fuu'..just ron paul?

i spoke to my ex over the weekend about the current GOP lineup..without a blink of the eye he said 'libertarian whoever that is'..sure about that?..'yeah! get rid of the IRS'..fed the same red talking points..when, in fact, what he really wants is Bernie.

 

[theexpress]

Why is such a determination up to you? Since when is educating future citizens a lower priority than their health care?

Since not even half the kids graduate but over 2600 people we're shot last year. Also think about how long it takes to be a Dr vs a teacher.

 

[theexpress]

fuck the chicagos teachers union... fuck any union.. fuck some jag off making 40$ an hour to sleep in his car. fuck some teach making 100k a year a common hs teacher... fuck these mother fuckers trying to hide the money trail to.. http://wgntv.com/2015/04/30/ctu-sells-building-but-where-did-the-50m-go/

 

[MuyLocoNC]

Hey red nation, @MuyLocoNC , @Harrekin are you going to respond to @Padawanbater2 's question or are you gong to be predictably obnoxious and useless?

I'm not sure which question you're referring to. If you're talking about the "why?" from his first post, I answered it and it was deleted for what I have to assume was my use of a single Fbomb.

If you mean a different question, you'll have to be more specific.

 

[OddBall1st]

A living wage

You and I seem to have different metrics we use to determine an employee's wage. When it comes to businesses like Walmart, I think it should go without saying a living wage is the least acceptable wage that should be paid, we're talking about the top earner in the country, numero uno. The highest grossing company in America should pay their fucking employees enough so they don't have to go to the government (ME & YOU) to ask "please, sir, can I have another?"... I seriously hope you would agree with that much. As far as mom and pop shops employing less than 10 people, if a "living wage" breaks their business then that's obviously bad for the economy, right? So why don't we devise a system where the mom and pop shops pay as much as they can while the gov. subsidizes the rest? Right now, we pay fuckin' Walmart subsidies to pay their bills, that's bullshit. Transfer that payment to the mom and pop shops and make fuckin' Walmart pay what the fuck they should to their employees. Since Walmart is the largest employer in America, that will SUBSTANTIALLY decrease the amount of government subsidies paid out to mom and pop shop employees who can't pay their bills due to the increasing minimum wage paid. Problem fuckin' solved.

FUCK WALMART.

OOPs,...you forgot who owns Walmart ...then you forgot how much you, me, and our grandchildren actually owe them....

 

[Padawanbater2]

OOPs,...you forgot who owns Walmart ...then you forgot how much you, me, and our grandchildren actually owe them....

I don't owe Walmart a goddamn thing, the fuck are you on about now, old man?

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

I don't owe Walmart a goddamn thing, the fuck are you on about now, old man?

An argument could be made that if not for the pricing structure at Walmart, everything across the board would be slightly more expensive.

Walmart used to be a great company, before Sam Walton died. His kids have utterly trashed it.

I was working for them when he died. The way the company was run changed immediately. Sam would fire every one of his kids if he saw how Walmart is these days.

In the 80's and early 90's before he died, there was barely an item on the shelves that wasn't made in America. they had made in USA banners everywhere.

Employees, if they put in their time, could retire with an account worth over a million bucks. That is no longer the case. When I was hired, that was in effect. It has since changed.

Sam Walton was a good business man and fair to his employees. His kids can go eat a dick.

 

[OddBall1st]

An argument could be made that if not for the pricing structure at Walmart, everything across the board would be slightly more expensive.

Walmart used to be a great company, before Sam Walton died. His kids have utterly trashed it.

I was working for them when he died. The way the company was run changed immediately. Sam would fire every one of his kids if he saw how Walmart is these days.

In the 80's and early 90's before he died, there was barely an item on the shelves that wasn't made in America. they had made in USA banners everywhere.

Employees, if they put in their time, could retire with an account worth over a million bucks. That is no longer the case. When I was hired, that was in effect. It has since changed.

Sam Walton was a good business man and fair to his employees. His kids can go eat a dick.

Can a dick be eaten with chop sticks ?

 

[OddBall1st]

I don't owe Walmart a goddamn thing, the fuck are you on about now, old man?

Entities is a cool word because it`s got Tities in it.

 

[Fogdog]

I'm not sure which question you're referring to. If you're talking about the "why?" from his first post, I answered it and it was deleted for what I have to assume was my use of a single Fbomb.
If you mean a different question, you'll have to be more specific.

I know that reading and comprehension is a problem for you. So, I'll include a referral that contains the Paddy's question to you in its entirety . And because your memory is problematic, I'll repost the challenge that I sent out.

I said: Hey red nation, @MuyLocoNC , @Harrekin are you going to respond to @Padawanbater2 's question or are you gong to be predictably obnoxious and useless?

What follows is @Padawanbater2 's challenge question to RIU red nation, specifically calling you out.

"In this land of big dreams, there was never a dream bigger or more important than the one so deeply rooted in our values that it became known as the American Dream. Across generations, Americans shared the belief that hard work would bring opportunity and a better life. America wasn’t perfect, but we invested in our kids and put in place policies to build a strong middle class.

We don’t do that anymore, and the result is clear: The rich get richer, while everyone else falls behind. The game is rigged, and the people who rigged it want it to stay that way. They claim that if we act to improve the economic well-being of hard-working Americans — whether by increasing the minimum wage, reining in lawbreakers on Wall Street or doing practically anything else — we will threaten economic growth.

They are wrong.

That thinking is backward. A growing body of research — including work done by Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and the Roosevelt Institute — shows clearly that an increasing disparity between rich and poor, cronyism and an economic system that works only for those at the top are bad for the middle class and bad for our economy.

When the economy works for everyone, consumers have money to spend at businesses, and when businesses have more customers, they build more factories, hire more workers and sell more products — and the economy grows. For decades, our economy was built around this core understanding. We made big investments in the things that would create opportunities for everyone: public schools and universities; roads and bridges and power grids; research that spurred new industries, technologies — and jobs — here in the United States. We supported strong unions that pushed for better wages and working conditions, seeing those unions improve lives both for their members and for workers everywhere.

And it worked. From the 1930s to the late 1970s, as gross domestic product went up, wages increased more or less across the board. As the economic pie got bigger, pretty much everyone was getting a little more. That was how the United States built a great middle class.

Then in the early 1980s, a new theory swept the country. Its disciples claimed that if government policies took care of the rich and powerful, wealth would trickle down for everyone else. Trickle-down believers cut taxes sharply for those at the top and pushed for “deregulation” that hobbled the cops on Wall Street and let the most powerful corporations far too often do as they pleased.

Trickle-down economics failed disastrously. The rich and powerful have become richer and more powerful . In the past 35 years, the top 10 percent got all the growth in income. The rest of America — 90 percent of Americans — got nothing. Zip. Zero.

Government policies matter and can make a difference. Strengthening the American Dream is about the basics:

● Make work pay by increasing the minimum wage, empowering unions to bargain collectively, ending abusive scheduling practices for hourly workers, getting people the overtime pay they deserve, ensuring equal pay for equal work and making sure employers follow the law and respect the rights of workers.

● End the squeeze on working parents by passing a paid family leave requirement and investing in child care, after-school programs and extended learning days. Let families with children have a chance to balance careers with quality time together.

● Ensure everyone can get a great education without drowning in debt. Rein in the cost of college and allow families to refinance student loans at lower rates. Give every child access to full-day pre-kindergarten. Education is still the best ticket to the middle class.

● Focus on research and innovation needed to develop the technologies of the future. Investments in medical and scientific research let us build whole new industries and give us the chance to create good jobs right here in America.

● Invest in infrastructure — in roads, bridges, rail, water, power and broadband. Businesses can’t grow if the foundation crumbles beneath them. A 21st-century economy needs 21st-century infrastructure.

● Strengthen and expand Social Security, not just for today’s seniors but also for today’s young people. Work is changing. A strong Social Security system will ensure that all workers, no matter the number of jobs they piece together during their careers, can count on a secure retirement.

● Strengthen the rules of the marketplace. We don’t build a future by turning the biggest banks loose to do whatever they want, and markets don’t create value when corporations can cheat people or roll over their upstart competition.

● Promote fair trade by embracing only those trade policies that strengthen our economy, create good jobs with good wages and establish fair rules of the road for companies around the world. Our trade agreements shouldn’t help multinational companies gut environmental, health and safety standards here and abroad under the guise of promoting commerce.

● Reform the tax code by ending the billions in tax breaks for corporations shipping jobs overseas and big oil companies, while leveling the playing field so that millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share.

Rebuilding our middle class won’t be easy, but real change rarely is. It’s time to be bold.

The American Dream depends on it."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-to-revive-the-american-dream/2015/05/06/a583c94c-f323-11e4-b2f3-af5479e6bbdd_story.html?tid=rssfeed


Now, would any of you opponents or critics of such measures like to explain why any of those bullet points is the wrong thing to do to improve conditions for the poor/middle class? I have a strong suspicion @Uncle Ben and @Harrekin in particular oppose these measures or anything anyone perceived to be left of them proposes because they proposed it, not because of the actual measures themselves, which is what petulant children do when they don't get their way. If that's not the case and you can actually produce legitimate criticisms, I'm all ears, but we all know you can't. The most common rebuttal to the overwhelming data proving the point of the thread is "Yeah, well you're just lazy!"... Forgive me if I'm not overwhelmed by the thought that went into that..

If all you have is "You're lazy! Work harder! Get a better education! I did!", then go pound sand because it's all been addressed before, multiple times in this thread alone. You're not hearing what's being said, you think people are asking for handouts when what people are asking for is what they've already earned and what's rightfully theirs.

As for the rest of the members watching this thread, pay close attention to how these two address this challenge. It'll show you exactly how both sides view this issue, if improving conditions for the poor/middle class were actually a priority to them, they would respond at the very least with legitimate questions of their own, but they don't. Instead they sling mud and call poor people lazy and uneducated and tell them they fucked up their lives all on their own, their position in life, be it racial, economic or otherwise plays no role in reaching success and everyone's born with totally equal opportunity.

We'll see, this should be pretty interesting..

 

[Fogdog]

An argument could be made that if not for the pricing structure at Walmart, everything across the board would be slightly more expensive.

Walmart used to be a great company, before Sam Walton died. His kids have utterly trashed it.

I was working for them when he died. The way the company was run changed immediately. Sam would fire every one of his kids if he saw how Walmart is these days.

In the 80's and early 90's before he died, there was barely an item on the shelves that wasn't made in America. they had made in USA banners everywhere.

Employees, if they put in their time, could retire with an account worth over a million bucks. That is no longer the case. When I was hired, that was in effect. It has since changed.

Sam Walton was a good business man and fair to his employees. His kids can go eat a dick.

Not sure if I'm going to get a reply as I pissed you off in another thread but here goes. It sounds to me that Sam's company had a profit sharing based pension program, is this true or what kind of account are you referring to? Totally agree that the kind of shift in company policies you describe are a tragedy.

 

[Uncle Ben]

This discussion is meaningless based on one's standard of living witness the Clinton's. They get paid 6 digit figures from suckers who deem their tripe is important and claim to be "dead broke".

"Hillary Clinton is walking the line between being remarkably successful and yet still in touch with the lives of ordinary people. The former secretary of state and potential 2016 presidential candidate has found herself trying to limit blowback to her claim that she and husband Bill were "dead broke" when they left the White House.

She made the comment during an interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer. Sawyer pressed Clinton on a reported haul of $5 million in speaking fees.

"You have no reason to remember, but we came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt," Clinton said. "We had no money when we got there, and we struggled to piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea's education. It was not easy. Bill has worked really hard. And it's been amazing to me. He's worked very hard."

Sleezebags to the max.

Bottom line? A "living wage" is based on your personal expenditures. Nothing more, nothing less. If you spend like a drunken sailor then $100/hr. won't be a "living wage".

boring........

 

[Rob Roy]

All of that is irrelevant to this question. Do you simply think Americans who work full time should be paid a living wage. Forget everything else to answer that question

No, it's not irrelevant. First before solving a problem, a clear understanding of the causes is important. Therefore, one should examine why costs might be so high to begin with. Otherwise you are treating symptoms and not root causes.

You are turning up the thermostat to solve the cold house problem, when if you closed the windows and the door you might not need to turn up the thermostat.

Raising wages by themselves while keeping the institutional practices in that create a high cost of living will not solve the problem.

 

[Harrekin]

This discussion is meaningless based on one's standard of living witness the Clinton's. They get paid 6 digit figures from suckers who deem their tripe is important and claim to be "dead broke".

"Hillary Clinton is walking the line between being remarkably successful and yet still in touch with the lives of ordinary people. The former secretary of state and potential 2016 presidential candidate has found herself trying to limit blowback to her claim that she and husband Bill were "dead broke" when they left the White House.

She made the comment during an interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer. Sawyer pressed Clinton on a reported haul of $5 million in speaking fees.

"You have no reason to remember, but we came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt," Clinton said. "We had no money when we got there, and we struggled to piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea's education. It was not easy. Bill has worked really hard. And it's been amazing to me. He's worked very hard."

Sleezebags to the max.

Notice the plural there, "houses".

Totally in touch with the ordinary American.

 

[Uncle Ben]

Notice the plural there, "houses".

Totally in touch with the ordinary American.

No shit. And so many folks still haven't figured out the Clintons could give a shit about anyone other than themselves. I mean, how many scandals and shenanigens, cum stained blue dresses does it take? Benghazi, foreign contributions and cronyism in the millions into the Clinton's mega foundations, elaborate parties rubbing elbows with countries who don't like us, deleting emails, not following standard Whitehouse protocols regarding messaging, dodging questions and nothing but a big bore. Bitch doesn't even show enthusiasm about running. Even putting on a happy face is plastic and forced. And let's not forget what most have forgotten about these bottom feeders:

Chinagate - The Clinton-Gore campaign in 1996 allegedly took bribes from Chinese banks and their government to help their dwindling poll numbers.

Travelgate Scandal - Catherine Cornelius, a 25-year-old cousin of Bill's was allegedly promised the position of director of the travel office. Hillary Clinton then (indirectly) fired seven employees from the United States travel office and replaced them with associates from Arkansas.

Whitewater Scandal - Hillary and her husband were partners in a shady real estate development firm called Whitewater Development Corp in Arkansas. Accusations of impropriety against the Clintons and others soon surfaced, regarding improper campaign contributions, political and financial favors, and tax benefits.

Vince Foster Jr. Mystery - Questions cloud the suicide of Vince Foster, former colleague, friend, and White House aid of Hillary’s who had connections to Travelgate, and the Whitewater scandals.

Filegate Scandal - Craig Livingstone, director of the White House's Office of Personnel Security "improperly" accessed FBI files on several hundred individuals.

Mrs. Clinton called it a, "completely honest bureaucratic snafu."

Many of these files were on people from previous Republican administrations. Hillary Clinton hired Livingston and is alleged to have looked at the files and requested this move.

Cattle-Futures Miracle - Hillary’s first commodity trade was in cattle futures where she ordered 10 futures contracts which normally cost $12,000 dollars with only $1,000 dollars in her account. This turned into $6,300 dollars by the next morning and after 10 months totaled $100,000, with trading help from James B. Blair.

“Blair, who at the time was outside counsel to Tyson Foods Inc., Arkansas' largest employer, says he was advising Clinton out of friendship, not to seek political gain. . ." reports The WashingtonPost.

Robert L. "Red" Bone ran the Springdale, AK financial services company REFCO allowed the trades and later, after investigation, had to pay the largest fine at the time in the exchanges history and was suspended for three years. Hillary Clinton said she was able to make the successful trading because she read the Wall Street Journal for research.

Lootergate - Bill and especially Hillary started to ship White House furniture to their personal home in Chappaqua, N.Y.. The Clintons claimed they were donated, but at only some were proven to be donated and meant to stay in the White House after contacting the manufacturers. The Clintons returned some of the furniture after pressure was put on them to do so.

Drug Dealer Donor Scandal - Convicted drug trafficker Jorge Cabrera apparently made such a big donation to the Clinton’s campaign that he was invited to the White house without Secret Service present.

Ponzi Scheme and Political Favor Scandal - Norman Yung Yuen Hsu was a convicted pyramid investment promoter, and major Democratic donor. He contributed an undisclosed amount to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign.​

 

[panhead]

I'm glad there are good people out there like you. I guarantee your employees appreciate it

They do appreciate the way we treat them & if we had more employees we'd take the businesses union but both are too small .

These Cocksuckers are the one's who spend billions supporting anti labor groups .

Here's a little bit about the ABC & there ongoing plans to starve the workforce.

Mitt Romney promises anti-union construction business lobby he'll make their dreams come true
Feb 24, 2012 12:31pm PST by Laura Clawson

7341
Mitt Romney once again laid into unions on Thursday as he accepted the endorsement of the Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC), a staunchly anti-union industry group:
Thursday’s crowd was particularly receptive as Mr. Romney said he would pursue right-to-work laws and forbid unions from collecting dues that could be used for political purposes.
“If I become president of the United States, I will curb the practice we have in this country of giving union bosses an unfair advantage in contracting,” Mr. Romney said. “One of the first things that I will do – actually on Day One- is I will end the government’s favoritism towards unions in contracting on federal projects.” The audience responded with a standing ovation.

Romney was referring there to Project Labor Agreements, agreements that set uniform standards for all workers, union and non-union and from different trades, on a large construction project. They promote efficiency on projects involving multiple contractors and avert strikes and other labor disputes; additionally, they can contain provisions calling for jobs to be filled by local workers or, as in a recent Los Angeles PLA, people from economically disadvantaged communities.
The Associated Builders and Contractors really hates PLAs, even though PLAs include non-union workers, as part of a more general hatred of unions and workplace safety regulations and prevailing wage laws and really anything else that protects workers. But it's important to understand that the ABC is not the voice of the construction industry. Though the organization tries to present itself that way, a forthcoming (not yet available online) independent report by Thomas Kriger, a professor at the National Labor College, finds that if the ABC's claim to represent "23,000 merit shop construction and construction related firms" is true, it represents just 0.03 percent of the nearly 800,000 construction firms in the country. There is not a single state in which more than 6 percent of licensed or registered contractors are ABC members.

Not only that, the ABC does not appear to define "construction related firms" in the way that most of us would: Its members include 59 banks Freddie's Bar-B-Que of Sapulpa, Oklahoma, the Land and Sea Restaurant of Corpus Christi, Texas, and the Rose of Sharon European Florist of Jacksonville, Florida. In fact, there are only six states in which 75 percent or more of ABC members are actually contractors.

The Associated Builders and Contractors is a totally appropriate Mitt Romney endorser, in other words, since like him, it's not quite what it wants you to think it is. It portrays itself as speaking for a higher proportion of contractors than it does, portrays itself as speaking for contractors specifically when in fact many of its members are restaurants and banks, and uses that false image to promote a comprehensive anti-worker agenda. And in his speech to them, Romney basically promised to enact that entire agenda if he's elected.

 

[Uncle Ben]

I take it you don't like Scott Walker. FWIW, he's a tough hombre that did the right thing.

 

[Padawanbater2]

There are more unemployed than there are jobs, people will take whatever they can get, even the bare minimum, even when their skills/experience is worth more, even when they have a college degree because employers know if you won't take the $8/hour job, somebody else will. That's the problem.

Employers don't need to offer higher wages because they can get their labor at the lowest cost because there is a surplus of workers who need to pay their bills who are willing to work for peanuts. Just like offshoring jobs guarantees decreased labor costs because workers overseas don't have labor laws like we do in the US that ensure working wages.

You're praising the guy who offshores his workforce to save a few bucks and harms middle class America.

How much money do you make? You're probably one of these middle class people the very beliefs you support harm, how goddamn stupid do you feel?

Hows about that challenge I issued you earlier in the thread? Go pick one single point and tell me whats wrong with it. You hate middle America because the left supports it. Your priorities are fucked up.