The Progressive Agenda means the Right to Earn a Living Wage for All Americans.

Well workers are free to engage in capital formation and risk all their wealth in a business they can then own and reap the profits or suffer the loses. Do you think other people should just give them companies to own? I mean if it is so easy all you have to do is sit back and watch the money roll in.

 

then the left throws those people to the dogs of uselessness.

They don't mind. In fact, they love poor people. The poorer the person, the more likely they are to vote for democrats.

 

Well if you can’t eat or have shelter or get to and from work or stay clothed, then someone will have to help you. And that “someone” is usually the taxpayer. Why does that have to be the solution we resort to?

 

Second job, roommate(s), get married, BETTER YOURSELF. Why is it someone else's responsibility?

 

Because gibsmedat.

 

Where has this system been applied wholesale so we can see the functionality and sustainability on a population-supporting level? Where has it produced enough goods and services to maintain a society of human beings?

Nobody is stopping American workers from doing this now - I think what you mean is the prerequisite would be the forced expropriation of the means of production and redistribution of those assets to rank-and-file workers who haven't the slightest clue how to run a business let alone one that large. That kind of economical approach resulted in the deaths of 100,000,000 in the last century.

Why are we revisiting this?

 

Perhaps the best way to put this is that you are focused on the wrong end of the problem. Specifics about individuals are irrelevant to the concept of a living wage because there will always be exceptions. Just because there are exceptions does not mean that nothing should be done that benefits the majority of the people.

For example there are people who are on social security who don't need any of it in order to pay their living expenses. Some of them live in homes that are entirely paid off while others still have to make rent or mortgage payments.

https://www.investopedia.com/articl...fortable-retirement-social-security-alone.asp

That means that those hardworking Americans were UNDERPAID so that they could not afford to save for their retirement.

Across the board hardworking Americans in the food services industry are UNDERPAID so badly that they are proved with housing, medical and food subsidies from the federal government. In essence taxpayers are subsidizing the DIFFERENCE between what the food service industry pays their workers and what they actually need to live on and pay their bills. If take the total cost of those taxpayer subsidies divided by the total number of hardworking Americans we can figure out how much each worker is being UNDERPAID on average. Since housing, medical and food are all BASIC necessities having the food services industry meet these needs is what must be remediated.

One option is just to impose a direct tax per employee on the food services industry to cover the cost of the taxpayer subsidies for housing, medical and food as opposed to requiring that wages in the food services industry must be increased by X percent in order that their income exceeds the limit to receive those taxpayer subsidies.

Yes, these increases will be passed on to the consumer. However what the consumer is receiving right now is taxpayer subsidized products from the food services industry. An extra nickel or dime per hamburger is the appropriate way to handle this problem IMO.

So we need to address a living wage as it pertains to taxpayer subsidies overall. This applies to things like Pell grants for college students. Increasing the living wage so that hardworking Americans can AFFORD to send their kids to college is a preferable solution than having taxpayers footing the bill for Pell grants.

In essence those on the right are constantly wanting to REDUCE government spending especially on welfare programs. This can be done when corporations provide living wages because then these taxpayer subsidies will no longer be needed.

The solution is to take away the taxpayer payroll subsidies from corporations by making them pay the FULL ACTUAL COSTS of their employee wages. Corporations are probably the biggest "welfare queens" in all of America today.

 

What a joke. IT DOESN"T WORK. Over 100,000,000 lives have been lost trying to prove it does, and it doesn't. How about simple. You work, you eat. God made charities to fill in the gap. Your terrible example as social security for those who don't need it. I find that people's lifestyles, drive and common sense prevail to make a good system for self improvement. I paid for that social security since 1964 and even if I wanted to burn the money, I would take it just to do that. I don't care about those that fail to provide for themselves other than I give to charities. Most end up there because of bad choices, and this is NOT my problem with my wealth to pay for them BY FORCE.
And what is this "so called" corporate welfare. They are not responsible for their workers!! In a free country, I am in charge of where and how I work, and how much I work for. I am responsible for ME! Nobody else unless I decide to give to charity for those who truly are incapable of taking care of themselves THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN. Businesses owe me NOTHING.
Drug additions IS NOT A DISEASE, ALCOHOLISM in not a DISEASE, Having 4 babies by 4 daddies by 23 IS NOT A DISEASE. It is terrible choices!!!

America give you the OPPORTUNITY to grow and prosper, but it doesn't OWE you a result. That result is up to YOU. We should be subsidizing NOBODY. That is what charities are for.

If you hit 65 and don't have your home paid off, then you are living beyond your means for the last 35 years. You KNEW this day was coming. Parties, new cars, credit card debt, trips, eating out, etc are the reason they don't have any money. It is again choices you make.

Go read or listen to Dave Ramsey. He has common sense on how you should financially live.
Eat out once a day for 40 years at $7 more than packing a lunch, and right there you have $102,200 you could have saved and invested into $340,000, enough to pay off the average mortgage. You had 4 babies by 4 different daddies, you are 23 and working at Walmart, that is YOUR FAULT!. No subsidies for you!!!! And the wages are low because the democrats want the illegal here that hold down wages for your welfare queen single mother of 4. Go figure.

 

That is what charities are for, not force to take my money to give to those who will not apply themselves. There are truly those in need through no fault of their own, but they are few and far between. The majority could have chosen not to have 4 babies by 4 daddies by the time they are 23, or do drugs etc. They destroy themselves.

 

Tax subsidies are not tax cuts. A tax subsidy is another way of describing a government payout.

Corporations are "persons" per the Law of the Land. When any person has income it is taxable. A corporate person retaining profits, as opposed to paying them out as dividends, creates a tax liability for the corporate person. One way or another income is taxable. Corporations should not have any special exemptions otherwise we open up massive loopholes for the wealthy to evade paying taxes.

The issue here is why should corporations NOT have to pay the full cost of the workers on their payroll? Why must taxpayers provide for the cost of their housing, medical and food expenses? If a corporation cannot afford to pay living wages then it probably should not be in business. Taxpayers should not be FORCED to subsidize FOR PROFIT corporations.

Worker owned corporations are FOR PROFIT. (I don't know where you got the idea that they were non-profits.) The only difference is that the profits of worker owned corporations end up in the paychecks of the workers themselves. Yes, they can and do compete and that is exactly how the system must work.

Enacting a higher minimum wage is one way to address the problem and we could just add up the cost of all housing, medical and food subsidies currently provided to hardworking Americans and divide it by the number of people receiving MW and then adjust the MW by that amount. I suspect that this will cause outrage on the part of those opposed to any increase whatsoever but when it is pointed out that these increases will result in lower government spending they might be more amenable to the concept.

We do need to clamp down on any politician who supports the idiocy of outsourcing American jobs overseas. It is harming America and in this regard these politicians are violating their duty to represent the people who elected them.

 

Your consistent kneejerk denialism that flies in the face ot FACTUAL REALITY is duly noted and all further posts from you on this topic will be ignored for all practical purposes since they provide nothing of any value whatsoever.

Have a nice day!

 

The content of your posts are nothing but regurgitations of debunked alt right disinformation.

 

In other words clueless kneejerk alt right lack of comprehension.

 

Only the alt right CONFUSE banking with the Wall Street Casino.

 

Who other than bleeding heart liberals says taxpayers have to support other people?

Liberals set the welfare policies

So dont complain about the monster you created

 

I recommend that you research the Mondragon corporation to see how this works in practice.

 

Mondragon and 300 other corporations right here in America prove that it DOES WORK!

 

Unfettered Republican/Libertarian CAPITALISM creates POVERTY!

There is an alternative solution to that poverty.

 

With few exceptions poverty in America is caused by the welfare state itself with the lure of free money

and bad decisions by irresponsible and/or stupid people who depend on the welfare state

 

Complete and utter alt right bovine excrement that has already debunked umpteen times.

 

Thats the canned response you use for 75% of your posts

 

Only because 75% of the CONTENT of those posts are nothing more than debunked alt right bovine excrement.

Try using other sources instead and then you will see different responses.

 

I am simply trying to figure out how your suggested living wage would be implemented. I am giving you various scenarios with the hope that you will add some concrete detail to your abstract ideas. I am trying to understand exactly what you want done. Can you please explain how your plan is going to be implemented?

To be honest, your refusal to elaborate on your plan is giving me the feeling that you really haven't put much thought into it. Don't take that as me being mean, it is just an honest assessment. I simply would like to know more about your suggested plan. My questions in the previous post are not focusing on the extremes. They are questions designed to help you add substance to your plan of how we would determine what an equitable living wage would be. They are questions that need to be addressed if we as a society are going to implement your ideas.

Again, how are we going to determine what a living wage is? Hopefully the answer will contain more details than "enough to pay the bills" because that is too vague to convince a person that you have put thought into this and that your idea has merit.

 

As has been noted by other posters, you won’t define what a living wage is, specifically.

It also appears you hate corporate America and the wealthy. You see a CEO salary as robbing from those workers and fail to see the value of that CEO. So, let’s give you an example rather than a personal anecdote. To work at Walmart you can get a job with basic skills. The CEO will have a much higher skill set than an average Walmart employee. The CEO of Walmart earned $22.8 million in 2018. You will see that as excessive. So, let’s take his salary and divide it equally among all Walmart employees. Those employees will enjoy a annual bonus of just over $10. As an employee, is it worth $10 a year to ensure you have a qualified person successfully leading the company?

Your comment on what corporations have taught hardworking Americans again doesn’t look at the whole picture. It used to be longevity in a job was a plus. Not so much now because hardworking Americans began jumping from job to job chasing a better wage. Employee loyalty is rare today and it can be expensive to train new people. A cost business must absorb. So don’t be upset if a company does not look out for your best interest when you are already looking out for your own at their expense.

I need to see your undeniable evidence that proves earnings has flatlined. In 1964 the average wage for a production or non supervisory employee was $2.50 per hour. It had a purchasing power in today’s dollars of $20.27 per hour. Today’s average wage is $22.65 so while purchasing power has been pretty steady over the last 40 years, it has risen.

Rich people make money in many different ways as compared to low income people. That diversity gives that rich person an advantage to maintain or increase earnings in changing markets over those solely depending on a paycheck for their earnings from an employer. No reason to hate them.

And since you asked for a personal anecdote, yes I give raises and bonuses when deserved. And yes, if a recession drops my inflow below my outflow, something will get cut, yes possibly an employee.

 

The "living wage" isn't a policy, it's just a feeling. You're wasting your time trying to get details about feelz.