Seattle put in place a $15/hour minimum because they said people needed a living wage and wanted to earn their way. When those higher wages started causing a reduction in handouts, rather than being honorable and doing what we were told they would do, those pieces of shit asked for fewer hours so the handouts wouldn't be cut. So much for the Liberal claim that freeloaders like these DEMOCRATS want to earn their way.
How is that $15/hour minimum wage working out Seattle?
- Thread starter canceled.2021.1
- Start date
Seattle put in place a $15/hour minimum because they said people needed a living wage and wanted to earn their way. When those higher wages started causing a reduction in handouts, rather than being honorable and doing what we were told they would do, those pieces of shit asked for fewer hours so the handouts wouldn't be cut. So much for the Liberal claim that freeloaders like these DEMOCRATS want to earn their way.
That's 12.75 more per hour than you make and 20 more per hour than you are worth with you self proclaimed, but unproven, degrees.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
what difference?......you can't vote anyway......no photo ID......
My problem with increasing the minimum wage is that those getting the increase aren't doing a damn thing more in the way of skills to get it. It's the only wage where one has to do nothing in order to get paid more.
You're just a dumbass regardless of what you believe.
IMT
New member
Dear CFM:
That's very forthright!
Of course as competing companies reduce laborers' pay to $2/day, it becomes necessary to slash wages yet again just to remain competitive. Two dollars an hour today, one dollar an hour tomorrow, then one dollar a day, and so forth.
How does one build a first world economy on that basis? You don't! Northwestern University economist Robert Gordon rightly notes that the US has entered a stage of permanent economic stagnation, expanding social inequality and poverty.
Moreover, there is absolutely nothing Paul Krugman can do to stop it!
Marxists have long said that workers cannot be paid a living wage under Capitalism; but it isn't every day you meet Capitalist exponents who cede Marx' point. Again, thank-you for your forthrightness.
IMT
That's very forthright!
Of course as competing companies reduce laborers' pay to $2/day, it becomes necessary to slash wages yet again just to remain competitive. Two dollars an hour today, one dollar an hour tomorrow, then one dollar a day, and so forth.
How does one build a first world economy on that basis? You don't! Northwestern University economist Robert Gordon rightly notes that the US has entered a stage of permanent economic stagnation, expanding social inequality and poverty.
Moreover, there is absolutely nothing Paul Krugman can do to stop it!
Marxists have long said that workers cannot be paid a living wage under Capitalism; but it isn't every day you meet Capitalist exponents who cede Marx' point. Again, thank-you for your forthrightness.
IMT
It's called paying someone what their skills are worth. You talk about social inequality and poverty yet seem to be saying businesses/capitalism are the causes of it. If someone brings only low level skills to the table, that's not the fault of the one doing the paying, it's the fault of the one doing the bringing of the skills. If someone doesn't want to be poor, provide something worth paying for in the way of skills.
Not very lawyerly, you flat earth toe tapping Jesus freak
What you are has nothing to do with color. You'd be a n*gger regardless of what it is.
IMT
New member
Dear CFM:
I don't recall talking about social inequality and poverty other than to to note Robert Gordon's observations.
Sample of his work here:
Of course Capitalism causes social inequality. Social inequality is so integral to Capitalism that an exponent would more likely argue that inequality is the natural order of things. What intelligent, erudite capitalist ever made a case for social equality? In fact, no socialist I [at least] know argues that the professor of medicine and the ditch digger should take home the same pay.
Now we could ask questions about what or who determines the worth of someone's skills. We could ask what objective validity that premise has, and what exactly makes it so. Or on what basis is the decision of the worth of a particular skill set determined. We could ask what 'makes' that so and exactly why are we supposed to believe the answer. But this really isn't the point being made by 'G-Force' [Prof Gordon] or myself. His point is that economic stagnation, expanding social inequality and poverty are now a permanent state of being for the US. This has huge import for the future. But while not unconcerned with that, my interest lies in another direction...
I suggest that the $2 dollar an hour --> $1 a day sliding pay scale IS an inevitable result of Capitalism for the ditch digger AND the professor of medicine. Now understand, CFM, that I'm employing hyperbole here. But the principle [my real concern in all this] is sound enough, as is evidenced by the butchering of pay for US autoworkers who are highly skilled professionals.
The issue is that in a competitive environment, the profit requirement demands downward pressure on wages that is relentless and has no bottom floor. Each concession from workers sets the stage for the next attack on wages. It is THAT reality which competitive capitalism cannot evade. Competitive Capitalism can tolerate NO mechanism to halt the destruction of wages. Ultimately then, it becomes Capitalism itself which necessitates socialism.
IMT
I don't recall talking about social inequality and poverty other than to to note Robert Gordon's observations.
Sample of his work here:
Of course Capitalism causes social inequality. Social inequality is so integral to Capitalism that an exponent would more likely argue that inequality is the natural order of things. What intelligent, erudite capitalist ever made a case for social equality? In fact, no socialist I [at least] know argues that the professor of medicine and the ditch digger should take home the same pay.
Now we could ask questions about what or who determines the worth of someone's skills. We could ask what objective validity that premise has, and what exactly makes it so. Or on what basis is the decision of the worth of a particular skill set determined. We could ask what 'makes' that so and exactly why are we supposed to believe the answer. But this really isn't the point being made by 'G-Force' [Prof Gordon] or myself. His point is that economic stagnation, expanding social inequality and poverty are now a permanent state of being for the US. This has huge import for the future. But while not unconcerned with that, my interest lies in another direction...
I suggest that the $2 dollar an hour --> $1 a day sliding pay scale IS an inevitable result of Capitalism for the ditch digger AND the professor of medicine. Now understand, CFM, that I'm employing hyperbole here. But the principle [my real concern in all this] is sound enough, as is evidenced by the butchering of pay for US autoworkers who are highly skilled professionals.
The issue is that in a competitive environment, the profit requirement demands downward pressure on wages that is relentless and has no bottom floor. Each concession from workers sets the stage for the next attack on wages. It is THAT reality which competitive capitalism cannot evade. Competitive Capitalism can tolerate NO mechanism to halt the destruction of wages. Ultimately then, it becomes Capitalism itself which necessitates socialism.
IMT
Last edited:
It's that obvious with you.
Social inequality results from differences in skills/abilities. Some people offer high level skills and get paid accordingly. They are the ones that took it upon themselves and did something to better themselves. Some people offer such low level skills the government has to force an employer to pay them a minimum wage despite their skills being worth less than that. They are the ones that have done nothing to improve what they offer and now expect the taxpayers to take care of them and business to be forced to pay them a higher wage than what they offer iOS worth. Over time, those with skills grow in the their wages while those offering little to nothing don't.