If All The Wealth In The U.S. Were Divided Up Equally ...

Yes, when I studied Western Civilization, the Renaissance was just getting started. Actually I'm 51. But I went into classes with liberal professors with a conservative mind, and they never managed to break me. Interestingly, at the time, all my liberal professors welcomed my conservative viewpoints in class and all gave me A's. I'm somewhat dismayed to hear these stories of liberal professors these days flunking conservatives or even throwing them out of their classes for presuming to argue with them.

 

No, in that case up is up, down down and I don't recall minimum or living wages ever being promoted as teen employment programs. More fantasy.

 

No doubt, a higher wage is an effective means of hiring and retaining hard working, reliable, and capable employees. Nobody has suggested otherwise. Smart employers realize this and reward the employees that they want/ need to stick around. A smart employer does not keep their good employees at minimum wage for very long, because they don't want that employee to leave ( Supply and Demand).

That isn't necessarily whom we are speaking about when talking about minimum wage. Minimum wage is for unskilled, inexperienced workers prior to them displaying their worth and reliability. If a person remains at minimum wage for any appreciable amount of time, they are CLEARLY doing something wrong. A person with no experience or track record is presumably coming to an employer hat in hand essentially saying "let me prove myself". The notion that this person with no experience or track record is demanding that you support them on a 40 hour work week, is utterly preposterous. The notion that an employee working 10 hours per week has the moral right to insist upon on hourly wage that would support an adult on 40 hours is equally preposterous. That employer doesn't owe you a living on 40 hours. For that matter, that employer owes you NOTHING.

 

I try not to waste words. You fit the mold as described by the linked Wikipedia description to a tee from what I've seen so far.

 

Why all the wistful fantasy?

 

What you quoted is a mindset behind the government issuance of a minimum wage. You inexplicably went all the way back to 1890's New Zealand no less!

What I was clearly describing when I said...

"That isn't necessarily whom we are speaking about when talking about minimum wage. Minimum wage is for unskilled, inexperienced workers prior to them displaying their worth and reliability."

...was the perspective of the employer in regards to whom they are hiring for the lowest wage positions; which is an ENTIRELY different concept than the mindset behind why a government enacts a minimum wage. One statement doesn't contradict the other, because they are entirely different topics. I am flattered that you went all the way back to 1890's New Zealand in an attempt to prove me wrong, but alas, you have failed AGAIN. One would think that you would get tired of this, but to each their own.

 

"As a term 'Elite' usually describes a person or group of people who are members of the uppermost class of society, and wealth can contribute to that class determination."
"Elitists also believe only a few 'shakers and movers' truly change society rather than society being changed by the majority of people who only vote and elect the elites into power. To elitists, the public is abjectly powerless and can be manipulated only by the top group of elites. Some synonyms for 'elite' might be 'upper-class' or 'aristocratic', indicating that the individual in question has a relatively large degree of control over a society's means of production."

Tain't me, McGee. I'm broke, homeless, and jobless. And I don't think the public is abjectly powerless, though they tend to vote for the wrong people all too often. So the ball's still in your court, WHY do you call me an elitist?

 

Your political philosophy is elitist "from what I've seen so far." You asked, I answered. I don't care if you eat rat poop for breakfast and stab yourself with a pitchfork every day, the sum total of what I've read from you here strikes me as entirely supportive of our major corporation controlled establishment and its approved pile of propaganda - in other words, shamelessly supportive of the billionaires hiding behind it all, pulling the strings. Except now we suddenly have clueless, spoiled brat Trump sitting right upfront in the captain's chair, steaming us straight into the iceberg zone, and you either still don't get it or simply don't give a rat's ass. There, I wasted some more words on ya. Happy now?

 

... the entirety of whom you clearly presume to speak for instead of being comfortable enough in your own skin to speak for yourself and share your sole perspective simply as your own, which is all any of us are actually equipped to do. But before even doing that, you must have presumed someone asked you to provide such a perspective, which seems even more bizarre.

eta, for example, I was an employer for fourteen solid years. That has never been my perspective. I don't care if you're a top business prof at Harvard or Oxford, you don't get to speak for me. I don't presume to speak for you. You need to get over yourself - not that you're the only one here by a long shot.

 

The US national debt is $19 Trillion. You could tax those billionaire's assets at 100% and you still wouldn't even come close to covering it, nevertheless providing for your utopian programs.

 

Your name is tattoo?

 

Still not following why didnt he want the increased productivity and the double revenue? Did the higher payroll exceed the doubling of the revenue?

 

Well they would have to sell all the assets theg own like all the businesses and factories they have shares stock and then skmeone else would own it and then you would come after them and on and on eliminating any capital formation and there would be no jobs or economy left.

 

Those "utopian" programs that those other industrialized, though not the "wealthiest" nations, appear to handle without batting an eyelash, let alone getting their panties all in a bunch over it, year after year...


Funny Utopia.

 

Why do you believe poor people are entitled to property held by these billionaires?

 

I am not an economist. I just wonder how USA lets hundreds of thousands of people in USA die from lack of help.

 

Very informative graphics. Sadly in USA humanitarianism is not a strong point.

 

Any Nation collects taxes.

 

That's not what I asked you.
You believe believe poor people are entitled to property held by billionaires. Why?

 

Most of these billionaires did not earn the wealth that they possess. All they do is possess the means of production. Most of the work is performed by their employees and these billionaires just profit off of the labor of their workers.

 

What is a "Child poverty rate compared to median income"
Yes the public education has been going downhill and perform worse and worse for decades.
Yes this is the land of opportunity and taking advantage of it can make some people VERY rich tipping the scales. What's your problem with that? There is no right for you to have the same income as someone else.

 

I believe Society has a duty of supporting those who can not support themselves.

 

What if it because of their own doing why should they have A LEGAL CLAIM to someone else's income and property?

 

Believe it or not, most "lazy" people are disabled. I have Moderate Autism and Moderate Depression.

 

What if they are mentally or physically disabled?