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

[Red1966]

But I am NOT stepping on anyone's head to get it I work my ass off to get it. Companies used to take care of their employees that work hard for them they would pay them enough money to where they could take care of their families at home but now its not so.

Companies used to not take care of their employees.

 

[Red1966]

and get this..walmart will close down a complete site to re-staff with those willing to take the minimum, while the current employees are outside picketing..what do you suppose the daily <loss> for a closed walmart is vs. increasing the wage a few pennies?

No where near the cost of paying ever increasing wages for jobs that monkeys can be trained to do. Walmart replaces those workers in a single day. For every opening, there are 500 applicants.

 

[Grandpapy]

So you are a CEO, you have found that if you fire all of your workers and hire overseas VISA workers you will save millions of dollars each year.

Guess what choice you have as a CEO?

Prison, or more pay.

This would be by vote of the board of Directors weather the 1% profit out weighs the legal fees of manipulating the law. Without regard for any National Defense or Civic Advancement.

Remember, support your troops.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I'm done with this thread you will just keep on repeating the same bullshit thinking that the people on this thread are lazy because we want more money for the hard work we do I probably do more work than any of you pricks have ever done in your life In a day. Just because you want to be able to have 3 Lamborghinis. So you can take all the money you want that I earn and just barely give me any of it. All of you people that believe that is right can go eat a fucking dick. Peace and love to all those out there trying their hardest to get by.

That right there is the inherent problem with capitalism; it insists you produce more than you take home.. produce more than you take home... by it's nature, in order for it to function. So what is it called when your labor produces $30, your employer gives you $10 and keeps the $20 your labor produced for the business that day? Well, what's it called if you have $30 and I take $20 from you? That's called theft, right? Somehow theses people think it's somehow different when the starving guy signs a contract making it legally OK (not morally) to steal from you just so he's not starving anymore..

Interesting..

 

[sheskunk]

That right there is the inherent problem with capitalism; it insists you produce more than you take home.. produce more than you take home... by it's nature, in order for it to function. So what is it called when your labor produces $30, your employer gives you $10 and keeps the $20 your labor produced for the business that day? Well, what's it called if you have $30 and I take $20 from you? That's called theft, right? Somehow theses people think it's somehow different when the starving guy signs a contract making it legally OK (not morally) to steal from you just so he's not starving anymore..

Interesting..

You just proved you have no idea how a business operates.

 

[Padawanbater2]

 

[schuylaar]

And yet your nation keeps piling the regulations (which you support) on top of SMEs which perpetuates the cycle.

The boom in the US from the late forties to the early 70's was caused by the aftermath of WWII in which the only country which that still had industrial capacity and men to run them.

The change in this trend happened in the globalised economy (which you probably also adhere to) where countries with even worse conditions can use slave-factories to produce shit cheaper.

Ill ask you this and I wont get an answer...why should employees have the special right to change the terms of the contract THEY agreed to and signed?

what came first the chicken or the egg?..the bean or the bud?

in this case, guess what? regs would not be required if 'means' knew how to behave..that came first, as it always does..big business gives a town cancer? you can bet there's gonna be some 'splaining to do..and new regs..

 

[schuylaar]

Everything in this post has already been addressed

Mondragon Corporation in Spain

Post #357

"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."

thread.

 

[Harrekin]

what came first the chicken or the egg?..the bean or the bud?

in this case, guess what? regs would not be required if 'means' knew how to behave..that came first, as it always does..big business gives a town cancer? you can bet there's gonna be some 'splaining to do..and new regs..

Like your lefty friends who campaign for regulations to stop "greedy business owners" from robbing the taxpayer, only to produce and sell a legal (and regulated) product illegally, thusly avoiding taxes and regulations in the process?

 

[NoDrama]

That right there is the inherent problem with capitalism; it insists you produce more than you take home.. produce more than you take home... by it's nature, in order for it to function. So what is it called when your labor produces $30, your employer gives you $10 and keeps the $20 your labor produced for the business that day? Well, what's it called if you have $30 and I take $20 from you? That's called theft, right? Somehow theses people think it's somehow different when the starving guy signs a contract making it legally OK (not morally) to steal from you just so he's not starving anymore..

Interesting..

So why don't these people all just go work for themselves and keep the whole $30?

Tell me why all these millions of low wage workers don't do that.

 

[Grandpapy]

Companies used to not take care of their employees.

Companies/Politicians use to care for their customers.
http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-gm-ignition-bankruptcy-20150415-story.html

 

[Padawanbater2]

So why don't these people all just go work for themselves and keep the whole $30?

Tell me why all these millions of low wage workers don't do that.

Irrelevant since none of the reasons someone doesn't own their own company justifies the overwhelming majority of the gains of their surplus labor going to the top 1% of earners

 

[Red1966]

Companies/Politicians use to care for their customers.
http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-gm-ignition-bankruptcy-20150415-story.html

That right there is the inherent problem with capitalism; it insists you produce more than you take home.. produce more than you take home... by it's nature, in order for it to function. So what is it called when your labor produces $30, your employer gives you $10 and keeps the $20 your labor produced for the business that day? Well, what's it called if you have $30 and I take $20 from you? That's called theft, right? Somehow theses people think it's somehow different when the starving guy signs a contract making it legally OK (not morally) to steal from you just so he's not starving anymore..

Interesting..

When your labor produces $30 in goods, you use raw material, machinery, tranportation, etc. provided by your employer. He then gives you your $10. He has spent $10 plus whatever the material, machinery, tranportation, etc. cost. He has yet to recieve that $30., That same $30 you claim you "had". That $30 that doesn't exist yet. He then tries to sell that product. If he's successfull, he'll make some small profit, but it won't be anywhere near $30 Since you never had any $30, he couldn't possibly have stollen $20 of it from you. But this gives me new insight on why you're so poor. No one is going to hire anyone who thinks they're entitled to everything in the store.

 

[Red1966]

Irrelevant since none of the reasons someone doesn't own their own company justifies the overwhelming majority of the gains of their surplus labor going to the top 1% of earners

Not the "overwhelming majority" at all, so a lie. Why should the situation of the employee have to justify the employer making a profit? The situtation of the employer justifies it. If the employer doesn't benefit, the employee won't be an employee.

 

[Padawanbater2]

When your labor produces $30 in goods, you use raw material, machinery, tranportation, etc. provided by your employer. He then gives you your $10. He has spent $10 plus whatever the material, machinery, tranportation, etc. cost. He has yet to recieve that $30., That same $30 you claim you "had". That $30 that doesn't exist yet. He then tries to sell that product. If he's successfull, he'll make some small profit, but it won't be anywhere near $30 Since you never had any $30, he couldn't possibly have stollen $20 of it from you. But this gives me new insight on why you're so poor. No one is going to hire anyone who thinks they're entitled to everything in the store.

I'm not poor and I don't work for minimum wage, I did at one point, years ago, just like I'm sure you did at one point

If this was an issue that only poor people cared about, billionaires like Nick Hanauer and Warren Buffett wouldn't be calling for action to quell income inequality;

"A new report released by the World Economic Forum, ranks rising inequality as the top trend facing the globe in 2015, according to a survey of 1,767 global leaders from business, academia, government and non-profits"

http://reports.weforum.org/outlook-global-agenda-2015/

"Inequality is one of the key challenges of our time. Income inequality specifically is one of the most visible aspects of a broader and more complex issue, one that entails inequality of opportunity and extends to gender, ethnicity, disability, and age, among others. Ranking second in last year’s Outlook, it was identified as the most significant trend of 2015 by our Network’s experts. This affects all countries around the world. In developed and developing countries alike, the poorest half of the population often controls less than 10% of its wealth. This is a universal challenge that the whole world must address."

"Statistics on the gap between rich and poor around the world are stunning. Crédit Suisse says people with a net worth of more than $1 million represent just 0.7% of the global population, but they have 41% of the world’s wealth. Meanwhile, those with a net worth of less than $10,000 represent 69% of the population, but just 3% of global wealth."

https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fileID=BCDB1364-A105-0560-1332EC9100FF5C83


So you guys can keep trying to frame the argument in a way that suits your narrative all you want, it's not going to change the fact that you're in the minority in holding those beliefs and much smarter, hard working and wealthier people than you are working on solving the problem, and your little unfounded criticisms won't mean a thing.

 

[Red1966]

Yes "trending" means correctness...lol........ The wealthiest man in the world, Vladimer Putin, is the head of the socialist utopia you espouse. Your ideas don't work. They invariably lead to crushing tyranny.

"Crédit Suisse says people with a net worth of more than $1 million represent just 0.7% of the global population, but they have 41% of the world’s wealth. Meanwhile, those with a net worth of less than $10,000 represent 69% of the population, but just 3% of global wealth." So wealthy people have more wealth than poor people? Derrrr

 

[UncleBuck]

The wealthiest man in the world, Vladimer Putin

 

[god1]

.... hard working and wealthier people than you are working on solving the problem, and your little unfounded criticisms won't mean a thing.

Sure they are ... you're just too silly and naive to realize what they're tossing you! It's a diversion, their bottom line won't stop growing.

At the end of the day none of your objections matter.

As an employee you don't own the company. If you feel mistreated vote with your feet. As a consumer vote with your pocket book. You aren't anybodies patsy unless you want to be.

If you have no skills, feel trapped because you lack qualifications to compete for positions that would pay you more --- your problem.

Btw, fresh college degreed individuals with the appropriate technical field of study are doing quit well. They hire in at six figures. There's more technical jobs out there than there are qualified people to fill them.

Stop "dis'ing" on Walmart; your buddy needs them ... maybe you as well.

Stop you're belly aching and figure out how to make your life work. It's only impossible if you don't try. Nobody else is responsible for your lack of enthusiasm for your own life.

Get out, go do something useful.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Yes "trending" means correctness...lol........ The wealthiest man in the world, Vladimer Putin, is the head of the socialist utopia you espouse. Your ideas don't work. They invariably lead to crushing tyranny.

"Crédit Suisse says people with a net worth of more than $1 million represent just 0.7% of the global population, but they have 41% of the world’s wealth. Meanwhile, those with a net worth of less than $10,000 represent 69% of the population, but just 3% of global wealth." So wealthy people have more wealth than poor people? Derrrr

Wtf does Putin have anything to do with anything in this conversation? You do exactly what the other critics do, bring up Hillary, bring up Al Gore, bring up Al Sharpton.. Why can't you ever stay on the actual topic that's being discussed? Why do you insist on creating straw men and attempt to argue with that?

Do you believe it's perfectly OK that .7% of the population of the world controls 41% of the wealth?

 

[Grandpapy]

Yes "trending" means correctness...lol........ The wealthiest man in the world, Vladimer Putin, is the head of the socialist utopia you espouse. Your ideas don't work. They invariably lead to crushing tyranny.

"Crédit Suisse says people with a net worth of more than $1 million represent just 0.7% of the global population, but they have 41% of the world’s wealth. Meanwhile, those with a net worth of less than $10,000 represent 69% of the population, but just 3% of global wealth." So wealthy people have more wealth than poor people? Derrrr

But your Ideas place money more important than life (of your countrymen).

http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-gm-ignition-bankruptcy-20150415-story.html