Liberal ideas move from fringe to front-burner for Democrats

CFM said:
It's as simple as this. Cut all welfare, pay a worker what their skills are worth not because they exist, and if they can't make it, tough shit on them. The rest of us won't have to deal with the freeloaders for very long.
Click to expand...

Cutting all welfare would result in businesses having to pay higher wages; and we know that most businesses would probably fail if they had to do that.

You think business owners are entitled to owning a business, and that entitlement entails government picking up the slack on low wages, just to maintain a higher profit margin for the business.

That is what welfare dependency is. Profits are dependent on welfare.
 
The Derp said:
Ridiculous.

So you say people need to better themselves, ostensibly through education, but because they make such low wages, they cannot afford the education to better themselves.

So your argument is just masturbation; it's you perpetuating a problem in order to complain about it, so you can feel better about your own shitty station in life.

I think you get off on judging low-income workers because of a personal deficiency or insecurity you have about yourself.





Yet that is precisely what you're encouraging for business owners...that the government does the work of bridging the gap between the low wage, and a living wage. There would be no need for welfare if businesses paid their workers a living wage. Instead, businesses rely on government welfare so they don't have to cut their profitability. That's entitlement.




The job's worth is the wage PLUS the welfare the worker qualifies for. That's a "Living wage". The only reason wages are so low is because business relies on welfare to make up the gap between the workers' wage and what would be a living wage. Business owners are welfare queens because they are forcing their workers to take welfare because of the low wages. So a business owner's profits are subsidized by the government picking up the slack on its low-wage workers.

That's welfare dependency, friend.

If there was no welfare, then the businesses would have to pay their workers more.
Click to expand...

If they can't afford it, you pay for it.

The job's worth is what the workers gets paid. Whether or not they leech off the welfare system is their choice not the choice of the business. Why do you justify low skilled workers stealing from the taxpayers because they're too fucking stupid to earn more and too lazy to get better?
 
The Derp said:
Cutting all welfare would result in businesses having to pay higher wages; and we know that most businesses would probably fail if they had to do that.

You think business owners are entitled to owning a business, and that entitlement entails government picking up the slack on low wages, just to maintain a higher profit margin for the business.

That is what welfare dependency is. Profits are dependent on welfare.
Click to expand...

Whether or not a leech files for welfare is their choice. No welfare would mean they'd either have to do better and earn more or starve. Either way, we wouldn't have to worry about them being leeches. They'd be better off or gone. Don't care which one.
 
cawacko said:
FACT: There are many many variables involved. A wife can work a full time job and the husband works part-time at McDonald's for extra income. That doesn't mean the husband is getting welfare benefits. There are all kinds of scenarios.
Click to expand...

No, there aren't many variables involved. None, actually. It's in fact, that straightforward.

There's one simple question we ask which will belie the intent of low wages:

If McDonald's paid its workers a wage high enough that they didn't qualify for welfare, would McDonald's be a profitable company?

If the answer is no, then McDonald's is a welfare business
If the answer is yes, then there's no excuse to not raise wages

In either case, McDonald's is artificially keeping its wages low because of welfare assistance.
 
The Derp said:
No, there aren't many variables involved. None, actually. It's in fact, that straightforward.

There's one simple question we ask which will belie the intent of low wages:

If McDonald's paid its workers a wage high enough that they didn't qualify for welfare, would McDonald's be a profitable company?

If the answer is no, then McDonald's is a welfare business
If the answer is yes, then there's no excuse to not raise wages

In either case, McDonald's is artificially keeping its wages low because of welfare assistance.
Click to expand...

McDonald's, or any business, is going to pay employees what the market demands. Many people can be taught to flip burgers. Therefore burger flippers aren't going to make a high salary. It doesn't mean as individuals they are bad people but its the market at work for their skill set.
 
cawacko said:
Again it depends what your goal is. If your goal is to bring automation in quicker then raise the minimum wage.
Click to expand...

I'm all for automation, but it's an inevitability. That's why I also support a guaranteed jobs program and a universal basic income. Raising the minimum wage isn't going to speed up automation; that's happening anyway. And with the rise of AI, it's only going to be sped up.

So you're arguing that we should keep shit pay jobs around for the sake of having shit pay jobs? Sounds counterproductive.


cawacko said:
If your goal is to create a loss of jobs for people in the lower income level raise the minimum wage. If your goal is to hurt those deemed most vulnerable raise the minimum wage.
Click to expand...

So, funny story...

In 2014, about a dozen states all raised their minimum wage.

The result was that those states all had better job growth than the states that didn't raise their minimum wage.

States That Raised Minimum Wage See Faster Job Growth, Report Says
"In the 13 states that boosted their minimums at the beginning of the year, the number of jobs grew an average of 0.85 percent from January through June. The average for the other 37 states was 0.61 percent.

Facts.

So your claim that raising the minimum wage would lead to job loss is, well, a pile of bullshit.
 
The Derp said:
I'm all for automation, but it's an inevitability. That's why I also support a guaranteed jobs program and a universal basic income. Raising the minimum wage isn't going to speed up automation; that's happening anyway. And with the rise of AI, it's only going to be sped up.

So you're arguing that we should keep shit pay jobs around for the sake of having shit pay jobs? Sounds counterproductive.




So, funny story...

In 2014, about a dozen states all raised their minimum wage.

The result was that those states all had better job growth than the states that didn't raise their minimum wage.

States That Raised Minimum Wage See Faster Job Growth, Report Says
"In the 13 states that boosted their minimums at the beginning of the year, the number of jobs grew an average of 0.85 percent from January through June. The average for the other 37 states was 0.61 percent.

Facts.

So your claim that raising the minimum wage would lead to job loss is, well, a pile of bullshit.
Click to expand...

In other words, you support people having a job and getting paid whether they do something or not.
 
The Derp said:
I'm all for automation, but it's an inevitability. That's why I also support a guaranteed jobs program and a universal basic income. Raising the minimum wage isn't going to speed up automation; that's happening anyway. And with the rise of AI, it's only going to be sped up.

So you're arguing that we should keep shit pay jobs around for the sake of having shit pay jobs? Sounds counterproductive.




So, funny story...

In 2014, about a dozen states all raised their minimum wage.

The result was that those states all had better job growth than the states that didn't raise their minimum wage.

States That Raised Minimum Wage See Faster Job Growth, Report Says
"In the 13 states that boosted their minimums at the beginning of the year, the number of jobs grew an average of 0.85 percent from January through June. The average for the other 37 states was 0.61 percent.

Facts.

So your claim that raising the minimum wage would lead to job loss is, well, a pile of bullshit.
Click to expand...

SMH. We are talking about the effects on low income workers that raising the minimum wage has. Props for attempting to obfuscate that fact. You can look at the CBO's 2014 report. You can look at the report put out by UW on Seattle's increase to $15.
 
CFM said:
The easiest way to get rid of welfare is to stop the programs. Wages still won't go up.
Click to expand...

Well, here's the thing; we've decided as a society that people who work shouldn't go without food, clothing, a roof over their heads, or healthcare. So if you get rid of those programs, how do you bridge the gap between what an employer pays, and what is needed for a worker to survive? Because government assistance + low wages = survival. There are only two variables in that equation. Try to guess which ones.


CFM said:
orporations don't operate with that mindset nor do they know workers will be leeches.
Click to expand...

The corporations are the leeches here, not the workers. The corporations know what level of assistance its workers' wages qualify. Corporations keep their wages low because they are dependent on government to provide assistance to their workers, in order to maintain profit margins.

So you're defending corporate welfare. How does it feel?
 
CFM said:
Sure they do. In fact, they have to pay more than some jobs are worth with the minimum wage of $7.25.
Click to expand...

Would you agree that a successful business would be one that is profitable, and whose workers don't qualify for benefits?
 
CFM said:
If they can't afford it, you pay for it.
Click to expand...

So if a business can't afford to pay its workers, then why should the business be allowed to exist?

Would you agree that it's entitlement for a business owner to make a profit by having their employees qualify for government assistance?



CFM said:
The job's worth is what the workers gets paid.
Click to expand...

Government assistance included, of course. When you include government assistance with the wages people get, you get a true "living wage". You're only counting the wage, you're not counting the assistance those workers qualify for, are you? So the value of the worker is much higher than $7.25 when you factor in the assistance for which they qualify, and for which exists for business owners to maintain profitability.
 
CFM said:
Whether or not a leech files for welfare is their choice. No welfare would mean they'd either have to do better and earn more or starve. Either way, we wouldn't have to worry about them being leeches. They'd be better off or gone. Don't care which one.
Click to expand...

The business owner is the one who puts that worker in that position, and they do that knowing that the worker will likely accept the assistance.

So that's corporate welfare.
 
Min wage, to keep with inflation ,would be about 15 bucks an hour. When it stays in one spot, it is a wage cut every year. A higher min. wage would be a big spur to the economy. It would increase demand, which is what creates expansion and hiring. It is a smart thing to do.
 
Nordberg said:
Min wage, to keep with inflation ,would be about 15 bucks an hour. When it stays in one spot, it is a wage cut every year. A higher min. wage would be a big spur to the economy. It would increase demand, which is what creates expansion and hiring. It is a smart thing to do.
Click to expand...

It's a smart thing to do if you want to move automation along quicker and lose numerous low skilled jobs.
 
cawacko said:
McDonald's, or any business, is going to pay employees what the market demands.
Click to expand...

So that demand is the wage + the assistance the worker qualifies for because of their wage. That's what the true value of labor is.

You also didn't answer the question; If McDonald's paid its workers a wage high enough that they didn't qualify for welfare, would McDonald's be a profitable company?




cawacko said:
Many people can be taught to flip burgers. Therefore burger flippers aren't going to make a high salary. It doesn't mean as individuals they are bad people but its the market at work for their skill set.
Click to expand...

So again, you're substituting your own subject judgement as to what the "worth" is for a job. A judgment that deliberately omits things like government assistance supplementing the low wage. The true value of labor is not just the wage, it's the wage PLUS the qualified assistance.

If McDonald's paid its workers a wage high enough where they didn't qualify for assistance, would McDonald's still be a profitable company?

^That's not a rhetorical question.
 
Racist republican men have fought against raising the minimum wage for decades.

They long for the days of slave wages. Doing nothing and making billions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top