The Taliban have WON in Afghanistan... (really?)

No one should be given an income!!!!

You should get the income you earn and deserve.

 

The entire idea to pay a honest day wage for a honest day work is not present in the US, champ.
the US even sponsors low wages, by handing out food stamps so the working class have the food on the table.
It's sponsorring big companies to underpay their workers.

 

Alexander pacified Afghanistan. It was not easy.
The Afghans have a long memory - hence Kandahar.

 

All wrong

 

you can qualify for food stamps even when you work 40 hours a week. The pay can be that low.
Hence I am right, and you are not.

 

LOL..

Low wages are due to
1. Companies without enough profit to pay more
2. Employees being of low quality

3. Jobs not requiring skill.


There is in most cases a direct inverse correlation to how much an employee complains and what they are worth.

 

Its totally different. Americans are soft people who freak out over the smallest acts of violence on our own soil. The Afghanis accept war as a way of life. You can't conquer a people that don't mind fighting.

 

lol.... when the government needs to help out people with having a meal, after a honest days work....
than the companies they work for do not pay a honest day wage. It is as simple as that.
And companies who underpay their people, are being sponsored by the government.

It is not as if your argument disputes any of this. At best, you explain why it is.

 

Yeah. Afghans are 2nd class humans who have no feelings.
/facedesk

 

People in the US are largely fatasses who don't need food stamps.

 

I dont know how you got that out of what I said.

 

My argument is that it's not the fault of the companies.

 

None the less.... +40% of the US earn 15 bucks or less. Plenty of them need financial aid to get some food on the table,... despite working... full time. That's government sponsoring corporate America so CEO's get a bigger bonus.

The way you claim Afgans think violence is normal. Yeah... seeing your mother being droned to death,.. that does nothing to them, according to you. They got no feelings. Must be 2nd class humans.

Seriously how you think other people would just accept that everybody around them get killed, and find it all acceptable or something. WTF man.... lol

 

of course it is. They are being sponsored by the US government so they get to pay the people they pay less, so more money ends up in the pockets of the CEO's. You go ask yourself,... why the hell you're paying taxes so some person gets foodstamps even though the management makes millions and is able to pay a normal wage, but doesnt... so your taxes are used to pay for that, while the CEO gets a bonus.

 

Wrong..... those managers don't get paid millions in cash. They get paid on stocks. And most ofvthem make decisions that make their companies many more times their salary . Most low wage workers in America take more out of companies than they contribute.
The purpose of a company it to make money for the people who risked their capital. The purpose is not to employ people or to make money for employees.
The purpose is to make money for investors. That is right and just.

If investors don't make a return on their investment they take their money elsewhere and people lose their jobs.

I've worked with lots of people in lots ov environments. Most felt underpaid and most i thought were overpaid.

 

It's why Afghanistan has been named "Graveyard of nations".

 

However, keep in mind the following (from the article you linked to):

 

Sure. They have no salary at all. lol

The purpose of capitalism, is not that you get to pay TAXES, in order that the government can hand out food stamps to people who have jobs, while the companies makes a fortune and the managers make millions! You have yet to explain that one to me, buddy.

 

True. But keep in mind the US is rather rich. And to claim there isn't enough money around to pay for this.... not true.

 

Take a little time and find out the real reasons why Venezuela is suffering. Here is your first link:

Hands Off Venezuela: US, Canada Go Home!
https://www.globalresearch.ca/hands-off-venezuela-us-canada-go-home/5668584

here your second:
US Treasury Sanctions Central Bank of Venezuela and its Director
https://www.voltairenet.org/article206230.html

Just as Brazil's Dilma Rousseff was topple by the US, so they try now to get rid of Maduro in Venezuela.
http://www.pravdareport.com/world/130028-brazil_dilma_rousseff_color_revolution/

 

You are right ... there is plenty of money. However, what you want to do is to transfer some of that money from the wealthy, to the less wealthy. One of the ways that you might try doing that is to raise the minimum wage, forcing the wealthy to pay more to the non-wealthy. But the problem is, they might respond by firing the non-wealthy, and just doing without their services -- or replacing them with robots. That was what the article was getting at.

Where the effect of the minimum wage has been tested -- or the one I know about -- no such effect was found. The authors compared employment in the restaurant business after an increase in a state minimum wage, with employment right across the state line in a state where this increase did not occur. They found no job losses.

But as the article points out, we don't know what the effect would be of doing this to 40% of the labor force. Large companies can probably afford to pay higher wages than small companies can, just as they can more easily deal with regulartory paperwork. So this might have the effect of further monopolizing American capitalism.

 

People have been saying that replacing jobs with robots is going to make loads of people unemployed.... ever since we hit the industrial age. And what actually happened with the industrial age, that there is plenty of work while we got a lot more people around as well. Unemployment rates are rather low in the most modern countries. Says enough.

 

I don't have to explain it because it's not true.
Most people are employed by small businesses. Who don't even make a million dollars a year..
You are grossly distorting the reality of business life im America.

But that aside lets look at walmart.
They employ 1.4 million people in the US.
Lets assume to keep the math easy they all work 40 hours a week.
That's 56 million hours per week
What happens if they give all their employees a 50 cent raise?
That's 28 million dollars a week.
Almost 3 billion dollars per year.

And thats just a measly 50 cent raise.
1 dollar raise? 6 billion per year
2 dollar raise 12 billion per year..

Do you know how much profit walmart had last year.
14 billion.
2.50 cent raise for all their employees = bankruptcy

You are flat out wrong and don't know what you are talking about.

 

There are two kinds of argument about the minimum wage (and other laws regulating working hours and other conditions).

One is the Libertarian argument: if two adults come to an agreement, and it harms no one else, they should be allowed to pursue their agreement. It's
a matter of principle.

If you adhere to this view, this is where the argument stops. It's literally irrelevant to discuss the practical effects of legal regulations like the minimum wage -- the Libertarian opposes these laws in principle. To the LIbertarian, saying that the minimum wage would raise the living standard of many, while not really materially affect the living standard of a few, is like saying that sacrificing a few children to cancer research would be justified, if it meant we made real progress in preventing/curing cancer.

The second argument is the pragmatic argument: will the minimum wage hurt more than it helps? Will it help some, at the expense of hurting others? And these 'others' are not the employers forced to pay above-market wages, but people with few skills, no job record, who are not actually worth the new higher wage to their employers. This is why most minimum wage proposals exempt young people, who are just starting in the job market, and sometimes exempt small businesses, which have very tight profit margins.

The pragmatic argument is the complicated one, because, while it's easy to argue hypothetical cases, the question is how widely the hypothetical case actually applies. So you've got to look at reality.

When Seattle raised its minimum wage, a lot of people on the Right predicted very bad results. What have the results actually been?

Here's what appears to be the most objective study to date (But I haven't done an extensive search. If anyone has other relevant sources, please provide them.). But wait!!!! If you have a strong belief about the minimum wage, such that there is literally no evidence that could change your mind ... that is, your belief is essentially a religious one, not a scientific one ... then DO NOT click on that link. Religion in the sense of belief in sky-gods is dying, but the religious spirit is alive and well in political beliefs. If, for something you believe which is a factual question, there is literally no evidence that could change your mind, you are religious.)

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017...clinton-reelection-campaign-media-downplayed/

Countries do this kind of crap to each other. That's not what caused Venezuela to fold. It's that you cannot have a functioning society with people sitting around waiting for fat checks from the government. Try getting a nurse to give you an aspirin if she thinks she's just supposed to get cash for reasons.