It's high-time that we doubled the National Minimum-Wage in America!

This is how the vast majority of office staff used to be hired in the US. Now those same jobs require college degrees or even Masters degrees so the pressure is taken off businesses to teach.

 

What message , trickle up.poor/ trickle up misery?

No thanks



.

 

Let's see only 3% of American workers are on minimum wage, Name me one person after 1 year on the same job still making minimum wage?

.

 

Only?

From the Poverty Research Center (UofCal, Davis):

The Minimum Wage is $15K per year.

Which is way, way below the Poverty Threshold. In fact, that wage is just above what is called "Deep Poverty" - which U.S. Census Bureau defines as living in a household with a total cash income below 50 percent of its poverty threshold, or $12K yearly.

According to the Census Bureau, in 2015, 19.4 million people lived in deep poverty. Those in deep poverty represented 6.1 percent of the total population and 45 percent of those in poverty. That's more than 22 million individuals - about the population of the state of New York.

My Point: To each his own set of discomforting numbers. But, pray tell, how would YOU like to be one of those 22 million ... ?

 

You know what would help minimum wage workers more than increasing the minimum wage? Get rid of the employer mandate that all full time employees in companies greater than 50 employers have. It's not resulting in them getting insurance, it's only resulting in them not having full time jobs any more.

 

Dear @LafayetteBis
What I am ADDING to this reform you see coming
is that we take on the PRISON reform that is wasting the resources that CAN make education and health care affordable and accessible to all.

Currently Texas alone wastes up to 50K a year per person per year incarcerated in prison who loses ability to work.
And over $2 million on every capital punishment case. Not to mention $80K per year that someone is wrongly imprisoned.

All I'm saying is to tackle this problem with crime and punishment,
then we can REDIRECT those dollars to medical education and programs
so we CAN set up universal care and education.

We just need to AGREE To QUIT FUNDING failed prisons that make millions for private contractors and politicians profiting off crime and drug wars.
Then we can create the jobs and educational training programs NEEDED to support universal care.

Where do you think that is going to come from?
By agreeing to quit funding crime and criminals,
and start collecting REIMBURSEMENTS for costs of corruption and abuses charged to taxpayers,
then CREDIT these debts and damages back so we can refinance
the debts to leverage investments into reform programs like you envision developing.

I agree this is going to change, but I'm pointing out
HOW to orchestrate the reform WITHOUT CHARGING TAXPAYERS MORE MONEY.

When you talk about "making it free" WITHOUT EXPLAINING HOW ITS COVERED
then all the opponents hear is you expect working taxpayers to pay the bill while
the people recieving the benefits don't work and don't pay for it. NO, we ALL
contribute by working and cutting the costs of crime so our taxes pay for education and health care instead.

That's what's missing from your principles.
You don't explain that all people will be working and contributing to their own districts
and owning their own shares in local programs in order to make this work sustainably.

Do you see how this fits in and fulfills what you are saying also?
Thanks @LafayetteBis
I think you and I agree more than disagree,
but I would CLARIFY your platform to explain
that everyone will have jobs that support these reforms and services.
It isn't "free" as in expecting "other people to pay";
but it's "free" in terms of benefits that are supported ***by the work the people
are doing ourselves to sustain our own self-governing districts***. We still work and
contribute to providing these service programs.

That's how labor and health care co-ops work.
And both Sanders/the Greens and
Sean Hannity support health care co-ops!
By focusing on where we AGREE, then we do achieve the goals of
universal care, equal access to education, and liberation from corporatized slavery.
www.rightsfortheworkers.org
www.earnedamnesty.org
www.ethics-commission.net

 

And all I am saying is educate better the people and have them earn better incomes and they wont go to jail. Because they wont need to steal.

Which means we simply close down the prisons built.

Crime is a direct result of poverty. Since time immemorial. Just look at the stats of who is incarcerated and their socioecomic level. It's the poor and mostly ignorant.

From here:
Prison Education Reduces Recidivism - excerpt:

 

Sorry but I don't agree...there is NO entitlement to have a job in the USA. There is no entitlement to ever be in the position to 'accept or decline' a wage. People must compete for jobs, and the higher demand jobs have the most rigorous competition. People who compete and are lucky enough to receive a job offer can decide to accept or reject the offer. Very few Americans earn minimum wage, perhaps 1 million out of 150 million, and IMO there are solid reasons why 'some' people earn minimum wage...

 

There is no data to support your comments?

Wages are primarily based on supply and demand of labor...when we have a surplus of workers capable of working for minimum wage, this holds the wages lower. A company having a few extra bucks from not buying insurance is not going to dump that money into higher wages unless the labor market requires it...

 

that is a perfect anad typical liberal lie!! Crime is a result of liberalism, not poverty. Prison populations from the liberal ghettos were tiny before the crippling liberal welfare programs. In fact in the 1950's black teen unemployment was lower than white teen unemployment!

 

a few extra bucks? Insurance is about $10,000 per head; its huge cost and could be used for higher wages that attract a better work force that puts the competition out of business. Now do you understand?

 

Um, it's called math. More hours equals more dollars, no matter your hourly wage.

 

You've take the notion of "competition" a bit too far romantically.

Workers compete in their jobs already. The worst never make an acceptable pay-grade. Some are weeded out forever. Others drop by the wayside due to drugs.

Competition is central to any market-economy - but so are human-rights. And, amongst those human-rights first and foremost is Income Fairness. Which America lacks badly.

You've got green-glasses on if you think that worker-competition is the sole ill plaguing America's market-economy, because it isn't. What's far more important is this: OLIGOPOLIES!

With a massive wave of buy-outs in the latter part of the 20th century, we have had entire economic sectors aggregate amongst two, three of four dominant players - who set the prices and reap the profits.

And we suckers, the consumers, pay higher market-prices so that Oligopoly Management can earn million-dollar stock-options and retire at 50 to the golf-links of Florida!

For your edification, read here (March, 2016): The Economist - Too much of a good thing
- excerpt (click on image to expand it):

Wakey, wakey! There's one helluva lotta "rip-off" going on in America's market-economy ...

 

And again, I never said or implied anything about a job, simply referred to to a wage stating that one is entitled to accept or decline a wage offer if they are offered one. In addition I would add that everyone is entitled to seek wage earning employment, although there is no guarantee or entitlement that they succeed in finding such.
But then many seem to believe and/or promote government as being responsible for ensuring that everyone is entitled to share in the success of others, regardless of their own efforts or lack of.

 

Of course if that was true you would not be so afraid to name the oligopolies. What do you learn from your fear?

 

It'll accomplish the outlawing of jobs. And, black male youth unemployment will likely skyrocket to something like 70%. Not that the OP cares about those people.

 

If you cut the DoD budget to zero, and assumed that that resulted in zero change in employment and net government revenue, in even the rosiest cost projections of a single payer health system you'd still be $700 billion short(we currently spend $1.3 trillion on health care, would add $600 billion from the DoD for a total of $1.9 trillion, and the best estimates I've seen for NHC is $2.6 trillion). So where's that shortfall, let alone funding for universal higher education going to come from?

In reality the DoD is unquestionably the largest employer in the world, paying the highest wages with the greatest economic benefit from tax dollars spent. It also provides the greatest social benefit, as it employs millions with disabilities and provides a direct pipeline to the middle class for the nation's most disadvantaged.

The military has always had one singular purpose-to give one to those whom society otherwise would have no use. Most importantly, imagine where the US economy would be without GPS, lasers, the internet, and every major technological innovation since 1940?

Even more importantly, why does a service industry job require a college degree?

I've spent a lot of my time around the impoverished, and the best way to help them isn't by increasing the minimum wage. Our welfare system is intentionally designed to keep people in poverty, and changing the system is how you end poverty.

I worked with a guy who ended up homeless with his family, and some LA City Councilman "discovered" him and fast tracked him on to every assistance program there is-SNAP, Section 8, cash aid, TANF, you name it, even free cable and internet. They even got him a job as a temp at my plant. We had just landed major distribution contracts with Walmart and Costco, and if you wanted to work 20 hours a day, 7 days a week, management didn't give a ****, and for an entire month this guy worked himself damn near to death putting in 14-16 hour days, every single day.

Until he found out that working hard to save up some money so he could afford to move out of his shitty neighborhood, fix his busted ass Dodge van that ran on duct tape and prayers, or buy some furnishings for his home meant he lost all of his government assistance.

A 45 year old man who worked hours even my grandpa, who taught me that the purpose of life was work, would have called excessive, was trapped in the poverty cycle that we spend a trillion dollars a year to perpetuate.

Don't. Elect. Democrats.

Democrats, as you just stated, are enemies of the free market, and serve the corporate interests which seek to destroy it.

 

You're the one who does not understand much? What do you believe a company will tell their employees if the company cancels ACA? What will this company do when their competitor down the road is providing health insurance?

It would be silly for a company to pay wages at any rate higher than what is needed to hire and sustain the appropriate employees...

 

A company will only allow enough work hours to satisfy demand...um...it's called math...

 

There is no such thing, no such human right, for income fairness?? Every capable person decides their income potential based on their personal actions. If a person desires $300K annual income while another person accepts $25K annual income, both went down a different path of CHOICE when deciding on what education and skills they would obtain. The person earning $25K cannot demand income from the person earning $300K or even your wages from your hated CEO's...the $25K person must take personal steps to earn more! If they are incapable of earning more then they must design their lives around their income potential. Other people, and government, and politics, cannot solve this problem for them!

Prices are determined by the consumer not by your hated corporations. If you don't believe this then try to fathom what happens to Apple Inc. if 500 million people suddenly decide to stop buying iPhones...the prices of iPhones will drop.

How can a person be ripped off when the person makes all buying decisions?

 

?? "you've no longer have health insurance"????

 

You're just stating the obvious...of course people get to decide if they accept a job offer...of course people get to decide how to seek out jobs. These are not entitlements!

Government has a role but a relatively small role, like a safe workplace, like no fraud against workers, like overtime, like no discrimination, etc. and government is responsible for the public education system and can be more involved in re-training or other job assistance...but government is never going to force lower wage earners into middle wage earners simply by manipulating the private sector...

 

if they want to survive they will have to provide health insurance or the cash equivalent. AND???????????????????

 

It's a huge bet isn't it that if wages are forced higher, that all businesses can accommodate the higher costs, and that consumers will cheer inflation...

 

you have learned no less than 46 times a company has to pay the highest wages possible and produce the best product possible to survive under Republican capitalism.This is what forces economic growth. Do you understand this time or must we go for 47?