we have a few outrageous demands

It seems a lot of people think instead of offering some jobs that don't pay a lving wage, we should s

It can be a bit subjective, but generally, sweeping the floor at a hardware store would be an example of an easy job for most people, and not worth a living wage for most small business owners. Someone in a wheelchair, for example, obviously would find this job unsuitable to their abilities, but they could instead, for example, pack and stamp envelopes for a mail advertisement campaign. Neither of these jobs would be suitable to hire a full time employee with full benefits and a living wage. But both would be suitable for a student who just wants spring break money or a homemaker who's children just started kindergarten and wants to build a small nest egg in their now-less-busy schedule.

I've thought out my post. I'm trying to figure out why so many people here, like you, want to entirely eliminate side gigs and part time employment opportunities for people who don't want or can't handle a a full career by mandating that all jobs pay a living wage. Not everyone lives off their wages. Why reduce their options?

 

So if they don't want part time work, and will only accept 'full time' work, then exactly what is preventing them from accepting those full time jobs? No one has yet to explain why it is the employer's responsibility to schedule around an employee's preference to that degree?. They either accept the position or not.

There are many people looking for work who will only work Monday-Friday. Others, it must be during school hours. Some must have Saturdays off or Sundays. 9-5 only. Not every employer can only use people full time within their individual preferences and needs. If so, restaurants would likely close during dinner hour, entertainments would be closed on Fridays and Saturdays, etc.

 

Do you force people to buy things?

 

Nope.

 

Your perspectives are always the same. You want people to be paid more than they're worth, be afforded programs you desire afforded by other people, and you want to impose the strong arm of government to provide for their sustenance with no requirement for them to contribute.

We have a name for people with that perspective.

 

So why do you think people are forcing me to buy things?

 

Ahh, I have a lot of experience in this area.

What you are failing to mention is the following:

1. Often, much of the cost that drives up construction in urban areas creating islands of super wealthy is red tape, regulations, and grease palms. I live in the Chicago area, working in an industry directly related to this, and absolutely the cost of construction about doubles simply to build a new apartment building in the City verse the suburbs. Once it's completed, the only people that can afford to live there are the wealthy. A 2x4 in Chicago costs the same as a 2x4 in Bridgeview but the costs to complete the project are WAY higher.

2. The roads are crumbling in the cities because everybody that has money is leaving. It has been going on for decades. The cities try to tax those that have money to pay for supporting those that don't so people get fed up and they leave. White Flight I think is the racist term used to describe it. People simply arne't going to stay rooted in to be taken advantage of by government with extraordinary costs that come with increasing crime, failing infrastructure, among other issues to pay twice the taxes they would pay for the same house 45 minutes away.

3. So people leave, they take with them their dollars, they commute 45 minutes burning more fuel on degrading roads, and they allocate their dollars to school districts that provide the level and type of education they want for their kids. A vacuum occurs in the urban centers. They raise taxes more on those that stayed, they look for other avenues of raising money, and the cycle starts all over again.


So you would think that this would cause the urban centers to evaluate WHY people are leaving. But they don't. They ignore it, and pretend that their agenda is all that matters. They blame capitalism, when really capitalism exists between our cities and states for residents and business revenue. So they hold the line, keep instituting failed policies, keep pushing people away, and then complain that they can't FORCE people to stay there with their money.

Same happens at the state level. People are fleeing Illinois.



Nearly every county in illinois is fleeing for another state. Every county has lost people. They aren't fleeing their suburbs, or their neighborhoods, they are fleeing their State government and bad policy.

So what does Illinois's democrat governor due?

https://www.illinoispolicy.org/prit...businesses&text=J.B.,this pain more than most.

He tries to cover the losses of revenue by people fleeing by taxing those who remain MORE.


So we have people that will blame capitalism, desire force to keep people where they need them (they don't really want the people just their money) and they will continued failed programs and failed policies.

There is nobody in Illinois to blame but democrats.

https://ballotpedia.org/Party_control_of_Illinois_state_government



But certainly, it's something else. It can't be failed policies, amiright?

 

I respect your opinon but I totally and completely disagree.

This is nothing but a fallacy. No one wants to eliminate jobs. We want to ensure pay does not return us to the days of unbridled capitalism. We all know how horrible life was for workers under the robber barons.

WTF??????????

I don't even know how to respond to this.

 

You want to pay people less than their worth, not be educated or have healthcare, and you want them to starve.

 

People aren't, but you are forced to.

 

While I do not speak for whomever you were responding to, an obvious example of a person working that is not living off their wages would be a teenager earning some spending money while working part time over summer break.

 

People's labor is worth what someone is willing to pay them in exchange for their labor. If they are willing to accept that amount, logically they were unable to get someone to pay them more. This means that since it was all they were able to get someone to pay, therefore that is the market "worth" for their labor.

Understand?

 

So what does the teen do with these wages if not "live off" them? As soon as they are spent they are "lived off." And what does it matter that he is in school and has his primary needs met by his parents which is what you two are trying to say but can't even get right?

 

and this system does not work well for all but employers which is why we have a bevy of labor laws.

 

No its not.

 

Well, before responding, I decided to look up the term "Live off", so that we can both be using a common definition.

live off

phrasal verb of live

1. depend on someone as a source of income or support.
   "if you think you're going to live off me for the rest of your life, you're mistaken"
   • have a particular amount of money with which to buy food and other necessities.
     "she had a husband who could support her so she didn't really have to live off 35 cents a week"
   • subsist on a particular type of food.
     "scavenging seabirds live off discarded fish and fish offal"

The one that obviously applies here is " have a particular amount of money with which to buy food and other necessities"

To answer your question as to what they do with the money other than "live off", I would submit buy bubble gum. Perhaps buy a new video game. One thing they are NOT doing is using it to buy necessities that they need in order to live. Such income is strictly discretionary.

What exactly is it that you are alleging that I cannot get right? I am not the person whom made the original statement, so if you have a problem with how they worded their statement, you may want to take it up with them, although I do not see the validity in your claim that they did not get it right. It actually looks to me like you are lashing out like a child that got caught with their hand in a cookie jar and are trying to change the subject.

At any rate, you are asking why it matters that they are in school?...You acted so confused by him saying that they are not living off those wages, and the fact that they are teenagers living at home still in school is what illustrates that they are not living off those wages.. Now it has been explained in such simple terms that even a child could understand.

Do you understand now?

 

Yes it is.

Even a minimum wage does not change that reality. The only thing that a minimum wage does in that regard is set an ARTIFICIAL floor for wages. Perhaps this is over your head if you are not familiar with rudimentary economics.

 

Yes, you post as a pawn of the wealthy. I got that before.

 

I'm familiar with the fact that employers pay the absolute minimum they can.

 

What labor law other than the existence of a minimum wage and maybe loosely overtime rules are you claiming applies to this principle? If you are going to correctly say bevy, you need a large group of laws. Please elaborate? What laws constitute this large group?

 

If by being knowledgeable and 100% right in my assertion, you want to label that as a "pawn of the wealthy"; then yes I suppose I am in fact a pawn of the wealthy.

 

...and that employees get the absolute maximum that they can. Welcome to the principles of the free market.

 

Well, I'm glad we established that employers DON'T pay employees what their worth.

 

I am glad that we established that even after being exposed to the reality of how market worth is determined, you choose to remain ignorant.

You prove the old adage that you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

 

Your thread is a meme! Memes are an alternative to thinking for ones self.

When you translate your meme into English, the true meaning is:

Give Democrats more power and ignore results.

I live in Los Angeles (The Dems petri dish)

Min wage is $15 and the cost of living went up, leaving workers no better off.

Our air quality is among the nations worst.

Dem controlled California leads the nation in poverty.

In spite of record consumption of pharm products and record profits for pharm companies, American are fatter and sicker than ever.

Are the college professors offering their services at a lower rate? Text should be free in the information age, yet I paid $1000.00 for a text book that can only be used once.

Equal pay for equal work is the opposite of what happens when increasing the size of government. Government employees do not do equal work.

Easier to vote is a joke. There is no concern for making it easier to exercise ones rights. When that same person wants to exercise their second amendment rights, all of a sudden, IDs are not a problem.

Here in L.A., Almost no CCWs are issues to ordinary citizens, so only cops, judges, and criminals carry guns here. Gun laws provide killers with easy victims.

Infrastructure here in L.A.!, In spite of having the highest taxes combined with a gas tax on top of a gas tax and taxes disguised as increased registration fees, our roads are crumbling. We pay more than twice per mile of road than the national average and our roads are among the worst.

The end result of everything on your list is a raise for the tax man. Society ends up worse off.