255d
@averagejoe1 saidIn one scenario, the government gives you money for your food.
I'm sorry, and I don't mean to sound ugly, but that statement that the company has a burden of caring for low income people.....that just does not sit well with me.. The first question I would ask of you in a symposium, is just how far does that duty would go, and does it ever stop? And, what is the entity to set such a rule? Is it a government agency?
Your comm ...[text shortened]... he owners and managers of the company go down. Everything is leveled out, simply put. Socialism??
In another scenario, the employer pays a living wage so government handout is not needed.
If the employer can't pay the employee what it costs to live, then why should taxpayers be required to subsidize Amazon profits?
255d
@wildgrass saidNote you use the phrase 'living wage' which has never been defined on the Forum. It cant be because if you (single) and I (married w 3 kids) work at same job at the hardware store, we make the same wage. It would be fine for you, but not a 'living wage' for me/. What do you libs want to happen, are you going to pressure the hardware store to pay both of us a 'living wage', which means more pay to me???
In one scenario, the government gives you money for your food.
In another scenario, the employer pays a living wage so government handout is not needed.
If the employer can't pay the employee what it costs to live, then why should taxpayers be required to subsidize Amazon profits?
How bout you clear that up so that your post could be properly responded to.
I'll give you a preview of my response, however. What has the activity of a corp like Amazon got to do with taxpayers? And their 'subsidized' status is no different than my getting a tax break for having a certain number of children.
- Joined
- 23 Feb 22
- Moves
- 1798
255d
@AverageJoe1
Californian politicians are nuts, here's more proof:
https://www.kqed.org/news/11976026/san-francisco-appoints-first-non-citizen-to-serve-on-elections-commission
255d
@vivify saidHousing prices are very sensitive to marginal demand. A small decrease in demand will lead to significantly lower prices. Travel to other states from CA can cost almost nothing. You can go from Los Angeles to Phoenix by Flixbus for $39. My only point was that "people can't move because they can't afford to travel" isn't true.
You said "Nobody is being forced to live in California", implying you were talking about moving out of the state. Cali has 7 of the top ten most expensive cities to live in, including the #1 spot. So merely traveling to another city won't help.
Regardless of how difficult moving to another state is, better answers are needed than "GTFO". You'd need a mass exodus from C ...[text shortened]... easing no matter where in the U.S. you move to. That's why millennials are struggling to buy homes.
If millennials are struggling to buy homes, it's because they want to buy homes they can't afford. you want to buy a house? Move to Topeka or Hattiesburg. You want to live in San Francisco but don't make a lot of money? Then rent a flat in Belding Woods and take the BART to downtown when you want to go partying. Telling Target that it has to pay its janitors $50 an hour just means they won't hire janitors.
The government just isn't going to solve this problem for you, sorry.
@averagejoe1 saidI am just here to help.
If we have a $50 minimum wage, this is what happens. I am just here to help.
Nothing is cheaper, except money, which becomes cheaper.
OK: Businesses pay employees $50 an hour. No matter what business, I assume?
So, the costs will rise to what the market will bear.....McDonalds will have to raise the hamburger Seven (7) times more than it costs now. So, roughl ...[text shortened]... mocratic-rep-tries-to-explain-her-50-minimum-wage-proposal-to-befuddled-rivals-during-senate-debate/
No you're not Joe. All I've ever seen you do is paste provocative stories from Breitbart, FOX or other right wing sites, write out a (semi) factual title, post it here, along with your own bipolar thoughts, cherry picking only the facts you want people to read, complete with lots of misspelled words, and hillbilly lingo. In addition, you've given us at least 4 different versions of your life over the last year, each completely different. So, pardon me if I consider your credibility to be less than ideal.
I've never seen you "help" anyone. 🙄
255d
@AverageJoe1
Like he said, you pick non starters and treat that 50$ minimum like it was a real thing when in fact all you are after is to try to show in your pathetic way how stupid liberals are.
NOBODY is going to make 50 bucks an hour minimum wage happen and you knew that full well when you went into this latest anti liberal scree.
255d
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidLiving wage is some percentage above the poverty line that accounts for the amount needed to avoid slipping down into poverty. It's been defined as such many times.
Note you use the phrase 'living wage' which has never been defined on the Forum. It cant be because if you (single) and I (married w 3 kids) work at same job at the hardware store, we make the same wage. It would be fine for you, but not a 'living wage' for me/. What do you libs want to happen, are you going to pressure the hardware store to pay both of us a 'living wa ...[text shortened]... sidized' status is no different than my getting a tax break for having a certain number of children.
But it's beside the point. There's a poverty line and a minimum wage and they are both set by big goobermint. That's current.
All I'm asking is that these two numbers are aligned. Raise one, lower the other, whatever you gotta do so that my tax dollars are not paying for the food purchased by full time employees at Amazon, which takes in $5 billion profit every month.
Pay your workers enough to buy food so the government doesnt have to. This policy would instantly shrink the size of government.
255d
@mchill saidBut what about my post. You get so personal. Do you have a comment about the effect of paying employees $50 an hour? After all , a Democrat, a liberal, proposed it …is she wrong or is she right. Do you not get what debating is all about ….nobody cares what you think about me or who I am or what I do……some people do a lot of things. Some people play frisbee.
I am just here to help.
No you're not Joe. All I've ever seen you do is paste provocative stories from Breitbart, FOX or other right wing sites, write out a (semi) factual title, post it here, along with your own bipolar thoughts, cherry picking only the facts you want people to read, complete with lots of misspelled words, and hillbilly lingo. In addition, you've given us ...[text shortened]... if I consider your credibility to be less than ideal.
I've never seen you "help" anyone. 🙄
Also, you are correct that people on forum such as me hear the news every day and pull snippets from the news to discuss on the forum. You seem to say that that is a no-no. Can you explain?
So angry….. 🤔
255d
@sonhouse saidOf course ,It will not happen, but the discussion is about the concept of doing it just for our entertainment. I am letting this stupid liberal woman entertain us. I am sorry she is part of your party, but the issue remains, no matter who posted it.
@AverageJoe1
Like he said, you pick non starters and treat that 50$ minimum like it was a real thing when in fact all you are after is to try to show in your pathetic way how stupid liberals are.
NOBODY is going to make 50 bucks an hour minimum wage happen and you knew that full well when you went into this latest anti liberal scree.
The woman does not even know that $50 an hour would cause businesses, thousands of businesses, to go under. Isn’t it funny to actually see a person alive right now on TV say that,? And she could win the Senate. Do you know the lawyer, in the Georgia case named Fani, with all of the bad press she is getting for her misdeeds and fornication, will probably run for Senate, and will probably win? We discuss unbelievable truth, truth rather than fiction on the forum. This is one of the unbelievable truths.
255d
@wildgrass saidI don’t mean to be tedious, but could you really send me some link or some credible article, which defines, as you say, living wage. I don’t think there is one out there, frankly, for the very reason of the example I gave above. Two guys working the same paying job to have different needs than the other…, that is, money to live on for those needs. How would you pay a living wage, same wage, that satisfies the single guy And the man with a family.? it seems to me that you believe the employer should pay more money to the person that needs more money. Could you please offer a reasonable explanation for what you are trying to say?
Living wage is some percentage above the poverty line that accounts for the amount needed to avoid slipping down into poverty. It's been defined as such many times.
But it's beside the point. There's a poverty line and a minimum wage and they are both set by big goobermint. That's current.
All I'm asking is that these two numbers are aligned. Raise one, lower the othe ...[text shortened]... uy food so the government doesnt have to. This policy would instantly shrink the size of government.
255d
@averagejoe1 saidI think my last post was pretty darn clear and already answered your question.
I don’t mean to be tedious, but could you really send me some link or some credible article, which defines, as you say, living wage. I don’t think there is one out there, frankly, for the very reason of the example I gave above. Two guys working the same paying job to have different needs than the other…, that is, money to live on for those needs. How would you pay a livi ...[text shortened]... at needs more money. Could you please offer a reasonable explanation for what you are trying to say?
A higher minimum wage shrinks government.
255d
@wildgrass saidYou said above…..” living wage is defined many many times.” I civilly and nicely ask you to send me ANY acknowledged definition. Can you please do that? Would you not want me, total conservative capitalist, to be put on the spot by you and banter the definition? You would win the discussion just by the fact that a definition exists. I am saying there is no such definition. Can we just resolve that one issue?
I think my last post was pretty darn clear and already answered your question.
A higher minimum wage shrinks government.
255d
@averagejoe1 saidIt's a 5 second Google search for a definition.
You said above…..” living wage is defined many many times.” I civilly and nicely ask you to send me ANY acknowledged definition. Can you please do that? Would you not want me, total conservative capitalist, to be put on the spot by you and banter the definition? You would win the discussion just by the fact that a definition exists. I am saying there is no such definition. Can we just resolve that one issue?
"A living wage is the amount an individual or family would need to make to avoid living in poverty."
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/living_wage.asp
@wildgrass saidThen let us dissect and study the efficacy of this definition. If a guy needs 40,000 to live for a year, he can make that with a wage of $21.05/hr. (1900 hours). Yes, that wage to him is a living wage. If a man has 3 kids, he needs $60k, which would be$31.57/hr., his living wage.
It's a 5 second Google search for a definition.
"A living wage is the amount an individual or family would need to make to avoid living in poverty."
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/living_wage.asp
We then agree on that definition of a living wage. Of course , we are not saying or stating an exact dollar amount as a living wage, but rather that each person has a different dollar amount to satisfy an amount with which they can live on.
I think you are approaching this from what the govt requires of employers, simply put. So, if they both work in the same capacity, same job, for same employer, do you make any exceptions regarding a job which pays, let’s say $25.00/hr? You see, each makes $25…….so the single guy makes more than enough to live on, but his friend does NOT make enough to live on. Therefore, your idea of settling on a real minimum wage for this country seems implausible . Your definition does not contain all elements to reach a proper conclusion , where everyone makes enough to live on. Please respond to this thought, and then we can come up with a def that satisfies the needs of ALL wage earners, if possible.
Your def above does not accomplish that, I don’t think.