Do you believe in a living wage?

i dont believe in a mandated living wage. I believe in the government helping to create conditions that contribute to the companies giving you a living wage whether it is mandated or not.

 

I don't believe that I can live on the governments mandated living wage.
I expect to starve to death on that kind of money. Not instantly but over any extended period of time, working for that kind of money = me dead.

 

They offer stock to raise cash. Once that stock is all sold jt does not benefit the company any more. Thats when traders aren't really owners. More gamblers.

 

Yes, they have three choices, or maybe just two, and you are too dense it see it. They can work for starvation wages, and go on welfare; they can work two or three jobs, and go on welfare since that is not enough to support them; or they can not work, and go on welfare.

See if you can understand this. if there is no "ladder" for upward mobility it matters not what you do, you will not get up the ladder. When corporate America controls the wealth you are not going to share in it.

Do yourself a favor, and google "The Founding Fathers Opposed Income Inequality" and "The End Of Upward Social Mobility". You might also check out how the Founding Fathers hated corporations.

 

Aside from all of what you said that was accomplished in the past, not the present, and has nothing to do with a living wage, I haven't voted Republican, or Democrat, for over 30 years. Good luck in your fantasy world though.

 

You can't replace government assistance with wages...can't be done because many of the people either don't have jobs near them, or they have limited capabilities, or they simply don't qualify or refuse to do certain work. You can't hold a gun to millions of people's head and demand they work. Further, it's highly unlikely that we have millions of open jobs waiting for welfare people to take over? And, since you can only have one policy your idea must be either all or nothing.

I don't personally care how much wealth the 1% has, and I don't care how much power they 'believe' they have over government. I only care that my local, state and federal representatives do the right thing most of the time.

Lastly, even if you force higher taxation on the 1% or 15% or whomever, there are limits to how successful this will be based on 'diminishing returns'. Further, give the bottom rung all the money you wish, but at the end of the day, those who CHOOSE to function in the bottom rungs are going to forever be in the bottom rungs of the economy and society...

 

Who will make up the current and future tax revenues from corporate taxation?

Most businesses in the USA are small businesses and any taxation is done as individual income. IMO the remaining large businesses have no problem paying income taxes and most have plenty of cash on hand so giving them extra cash via no taxation won't change a thing. Lots of companies like Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc. have plenty of cash to invest to grow their businesses so a few bucks more will change nothing.

 

There's something like $6 TRILLION in cash in stocks and unless all of this cash is stuffed into mattresses, ALL of that cash in some way or another is energizing the economy!

About 50% of Americans are invested in the stock market either buying stocks, mutual funds, or through personal retirement accounts like 401K's or IRA's.

You might wish to consider your 99% statement...

 

And you think that these things just magically appear because they have in the past?

It's not my fantasy world, it's your magical thinking world. The one in which the tooth fairy gives people money and that creates more wealth.

- - - Updated - - -

According to dairyair, those people are too stupid to know what is good for them and need bureaucrats and politicians to tell them how to manage their money.

 

Yes, I want enforcement, too.

But, the guy Trump put in charge of the EPA is the guy who wants the EPA destroyed - which means there is no enforcement.

 

No, but they appeared when people, the average worker, were receiving a livable wage, and the employer did not receive 500 times as much as the employee.

And giving more to the wealthy does not create more wealth. Kind of like thinking the rise in the stock market is creating more wealth for all, and is a sign of a growing economy, not just the few.

 

A living wage sounds like a good thing but get real. There are many small businesses that will close if the min wage is at $15 a hour. The big box stores will be around but not many small businesses. I think that is happening in Seattle. Also if you have to pay a person with no experience $15 you will have to increase people with experience more..it will trigger inflation and no one will win.

I would rather see a person working and getting some government help than not working and getting all their help from the government. People working have more self esteem and more likely will stay out of trouble. Then there are the young people that are just starting out...they in many cases are luck to get min wage job.

 

No, it doesn't even sound good. People pay to go to school in order to get the knowledge necessary to earn a good living. This used to be done by agreeing to work for free as an apprentice. Which is better? Getting an education and room and board, or paying to get an education?

And what about those summer jobs high school students used to have? Or newspaper routes? Babysitting?

All you end up doing with mandating a living wage for 40 hours a week is ensure that work ends after 39 hours a week, or they have to get multiple part-time jobs.

The fact is that you cannot legislate how much a person's labor is worth to somebody else.

 

If you own land, that is wealth. If you own a home or more, that is wealth. If you own stocks, more wealth. A pension plan is wealth. Saved cash is wealth.

This country made the most progress when men so produced, they got very rich. I guess one who surprised me and also gave me hope was Andrew Carnegie. Andrew came up from poverty and managed to get very rich. We have public libraries today largely due to his leading the way and really forcing America to create libraries. He wanted the rest of us to know how to get rich.

I do not wish the poor to teach me lessons. I see how the poor live. I was once in a very poor family. We had no running water. We lived in a small shack easily towed around the 4 acres to new locations. We got our lights for a long time using a car generator to light head lights into the house. We had kerosene lamps. We had no fancy place. And what is more, the neighbors mostly did not either.

Give me the rich as my teachers and many of them do teach us how to do it. Trump has himself written books on how to better your life. Quit bashing him and read his books.

 

Here is an idea I think would greatly benefit the poor.

Create an academy that they can live at that teaches them how to get rich.

It could be done. And once they learn how, let them seek wealth.

The poor, and I was once one of them, lack fundamental concepts that lead to high incomes.

They lack
setting goals
planning skills
action oriented skills
Essential knowledge of how it is done which can be taught

They do not need to remain impoverished and simply handing them a few more nickels per hour won't correct the fundamental causes of why they remain poor.

I urge you all. If you truly want millions to be a bit better off, plead with congress to double the payments made to the old known as social security.

 

Its not according to me, its according to those who don't have any or much savings. It's easy to look up.

 

Didn't say it did did I, I said "take owenrship of some of the capital of the company". You know like purchasing stock in the market. But then companies do issue NEW stock which you CAN buy and that puts NEW money into the company.

So try again because I don't think you really know?

When I invest in a CD what do you think happens to that money? When I invest in a company and take ownership of some of the capital of the company what do you think happens with that capital me and my fellow owners have invested in that company? Do you believe someone spending that money on a new video game adds more to the economy of the that money being invested in a business does more for the economy? Do you know what leveraging money/capital is?

 

Why? It's not my fault the cost of living somewhere is his higher that where I live and I don't live it those cities because the cost of living is so high why should those cities higher higher minimum wages so they can live there?

And then the little equal protection thingy.

 

What does you money you used to buy stock that isn't IPO or new stock do for the economy? What is it doing?
Yes, the sale of the stock creates a sell and probably some commission.

 

"More than half of Americans, 52 percent, are currently not investing in the stock market" That means 48% are invested in the market.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/09/half-of-americans-avoid-the-stock-market.html

Where do you have your retirement money, under your mattress?

 

WHAT, do you even know what a share of stock represents? It represents the assets and capital of the company. You don't think those assets and capital benefit the company? And those assets and capital are leveraged and used to build and acquire more capital and assets as in creating jobs and buying equipment and land and building new factories.

 

I said most stocks traded isn't technically investing. It's simply buying, holding, and selling stocks. Hopefully at some gain.
It's saving if it goes up. It's losing if they go down.

 

The IPO or issuing of new shares is money the company gets.
After that, the stocks of the company traded do not affect the company's assets.

 

We need a genius who could control capitalism and deft enough to manipulate corporates to share their proceeds, but on the other hand could we pattern wages with the rigorous and uncertain flow of the market, I don't think so, many will complain if the trading at DOW (hopefully will not) plummets.
If the public is involved then the government should intervene and should support private commerce but is it now a conservative view?

 

Summer jobs and babysitting don't get the kind of pay necessary for college anymore. And, I bet a lot of kids don't even know what a "newspaper route" is. The budgets of a by-gone era just don't apply anymore.

What employers pay is the least they can possibly pay to get someone to do the job.

The value of the work is found in how much employers can get when they sell the work product.

Remember that when we see corporate profits go up it does NOT mean that employee pay goes up - like what would happen if there was a tie between value of work product and compensation.