Raising the minimum wage is good for the economy.

Commie? lol It's not like we haven't done what I suggested before. We have.

 

and there have been commies before. You guys aren't exactly new on the scene, so... so much for your rebuttal.

You can't talk about price points which everybody understands, so you ignore that. That's what commies do.

 

The government employing these people did nothing to alleviate the Great Depression.

Workers *do* control the cost of housing, food, energy, transportation, etc and they always have. They always will!

That's why smaller houses have become much more popular. It's why gardens and farmers markets are seeing a huge revival. I's why digital thermostats are so popular. It's why gas prices are down.

Do you know how long it took to extend electricity into the rural areas? The telephone? High speed internet has been around for less than twenty years, let me know what it looks like in another twenty-five years!

Long term care for the elderly and for working parents *used* to be provided for by the extended family. Not any more. The Marxist Democrats took care of that with their war on the nuclear family. What we need in this country is *more* emphasis from societal leaders on the nuclear family. It would help many problems we have.

We already have meals for shut-ins. It's called "Meals on Wheels". A *private* charity that does just what it says. Why would you want to replace them with inefficient government programs?

The government cannot provide jobs. TAXPAYERS might provide jobs but every dollar you take out of their pocket is a dollar they can't spend. It's fool's gold!

If you want to provide the young with better schools then get out and advocate for your local school district to offer those courses!

 

Here's what I think… We all live in this country and everything we do is interrelated. We need business to provide jobs, and, in turn, the salaries those jobs pay keep business operating and making a profit, as the salary is spent into the economy. If any part of that dynamic is altered, it impacts every other part.

Our people have to have a way to support themselves. Someone working 40 hours a week should be able to live in the community they work on the salary the job pays. I don't mean everyone lives in a mansion, but you shouldn't require government assistance if you are working full time. If they can't, then the entire economy will suffer. When it gets bad enough, history has shown us that revolution is the result. So, we can ignore the growing income inequality and let things rock on like they are, until those paid slave wages have had enough and revolt, or we can pay wages that allows anyone willing to work a full time job to be able to support themselves.

 

Can a business do something that the fed gov says it can't do?

Maybe you could start by explaining what you mean when you say that the owners of a business do or don't "own" their business?

 

Why is the taxpayer expected to supplement income of those who can't provide enough value to support themselves?

 

If you want people to support themselves then we need a GROWING economy where there is competition to hire people. *That* is what will get good wages.

Let me point out again, Until the 70's people lived without portable phones, air conditioning, and cable TV. The average wage today is actually *higher* than the average wage in 70's when inflation is accounted for. Why are there so many people who can't live without these amenities today. Get rid of the cell phone, kill the air conditioner, and cut the cable and life gets a *lot* cheaper really quickly!

Income inequality isn't the cause of revolution. People being unable to find enough food and shelter is. We didn't have a revolution in the 70's and if the average wage is actually higher today then why would we have a revolution today?

 

Most of us have a rational compassion for those who truly need our help for a while.

 

You guys? commies again? Sheesh!

You do not know me or anything about me, so don't presume you do. If price points were relevant to what I was saying, I would have addressed them. That you think price points related to my post tells me you didn't understand my post. I'm not sure you even read it.

Capitalism has its limits. One of them is income inequality. History has shown us the remedy for it is revolution. We either have business providing a job so people can support themselves, or we use the government to do so until the economy recovers. To allow things to continue as they are is going to bring about a revolution. It always have. You can only keep the serfs economically stressed for so long, until they revolt and storm the castle.

 

Living wage.


So a business should be forced to pay someone based upon the their lifestyle?

 

Why are you so desperate that you have to reduce it to a stupid question?

 

Of course if the business goes under, it's going to impact everything else. We are all interconnected.

The government has a responsibility to the people. It is there by the consent of the governed. Business operates through the auspices of the government. Businesses are licensed and incorporated through the government. They use United States money to transact trades. Business has its place. It is allowed to vend in this economy. From business our citizens earn a living. When business can't or won't supply enough jobs to support the citizens, the government steps in. Government has its place. It is supposed to promote the general welfare and insure domestic tranquility. You know what happens when most of the people are living on slave wages and desperate? Revolution.

 

So if someone can't make enough money to support themselves, what do you propose doing with those people?

 

How is that a stupid question? A living wage for a 16 year old living at home is different than a living wage for his next door neighbor single mother with 4 kids. Which is different from the married couple with no kids living across the street.

Whose living wage do you use to set the wages for all of your employees?

 

Here a quote from your idiotic study"On the whole, the study estimates, the average low-wage worker in the city lost $125 a month because of the hike in the minimum." Ya you bet , if you can't recognize bullshit when you read it then your comments are worthless. I have a study that says to this date there has been no increase in product cost or service cost since the increase started. So how in the hell can the poor lose money by their increase in pay. What kind of idiot thinks that this could happen anywhere in this world that increases wages for someone would cost them money.. I mean come on. I deal with idiots every day but this is ridiculous.. I'll give you a little tip all your corporate studies are going to lie for the corporations. From study "the authors did not include large employers with locations both inside and outside of Seattle in their calculations. Skeptics argued that omission could explain the unusual results." So they didn't compare it to what happened to the prices or what it cost with the same business one block out of the city. That is bullshit.

 

Because their hours were cut.

 

Yes, we need a growing economy. That requires demand. Demand requires disposable income. Disposable income requires more than subsistence wages.

We're not talking about not having luxuries, when we're talking about people living on $15,080 a year gross, especially when you consider where they live.

Why would we continue to keep people in desperate situations and just below the point of revolution, when we can do better? The Stock Market is hitting record highs. Productivity has never been higher. Businesses have done so well, they have parked money overseas and taken it our of circulation in our economy. Seems like business is doing fine. The worker on the other hand… not so much. It's not so much how bad things have to spur revolution, it's more how extreme the inequality is.

 

Bullshit they know nothing of the sort. except the bullshit propaganda that's written only for stupid people. You know the people that control the ring nose haters in the right. Just lead me around , I'll do exactly as you tell me and I will think exactly the way you want me to. You have a real force backing up your crap.

 

No, and you knew the answer when you asked the question. Should a person be able to support themselves on 40 hours of work a week, or not? If the amount they are paid does not allow them shelter, food, energy, and transportation, then living is not sustainable.

 

Three cashier's working the same 40 hours a week at Wal-Mart.

A living wage for a 16 year old living at home is different than a living wage for his next door neighbor single mother with 4 kids. Which is different from the married couple with no kids living across the street.

Whose living wage do you use to set the wages for all of your employees?

 

Every person with a open mind knows your explanation of what it means to be a Communist has nothing to do with anything in this country. Your trying to bullshit your way out of this, Does, Government set wages, does government own all the national resources, does government own the means of production , does government own all businesses, does government tell companies what they can and can't make. Does government tell people what their occupation will be, Ok your Your first tenets of communism that you listed are "Abolition of private property."" so tell us about there not being any private property in this country? Or even that someone is trying even to make it so. Tell us about about how government is the only one to give out credit, No banks no investment firms. He says I'm a commie, that dems are commies that there is a whole group of commies in this country, He is mindless. The list above takes in every main tenets of communism none of which even can be found in this country. His comments are worthless.

 

A growing economy needs MORE CAPITAL INVESTMENT. An economy can only grow from capital investment. We need to stop punishing capital investment in the US more than our competitor nation.

A growing economy will result in more disposable income by providing more good jobs.

I just keep being amazed at how little Marxist Democrats know about finances, especially corporate finances.

Corporations don't *park* funds. That goes back to your economic teacher Scrooge McDuck. Corporations may keep funds overseas that are earned overseas but they put them to work, either as investments or as operating capital. If you put a bunch of cash in a vault then it loses about 3% in value every single year (depending on what currency it is in). No corporation is going to do that!

Nor is this taking money out of circulation in our economy. This is purely a result of the refusal of the Marxist Democrats to implement territorial taxing for the US.

The businesses you see on the stock market represent mostly large international companies making money overseas, not domestically. BurgerKing earns more money overseas than it does in the US.

If you want to help lower the inequality then advocate for territorial taxing and a 10% or lower capital gains tax rate! That will grow the economy just like John Kennedy did!

 

What the hell are you talking about? The study done definitely demonstrates that the wage increases on non-essential positions results in fewer hours, and the victims are the very people you claim to help.

And you simply say 'bullsht'. That's not an argument, it's closing off.

 

I didn't explain what it means to be a Communist. I explained what it means to be a Marxist. You simply don't even know enough to be able to tell the difference. Have you not read *anything* I've schooled you on?

Why do you keep asking the same questions over and over? Do you think the answer will change? Read the message you quoted in your reply. The answers to all your questions are there.

Can you read?