Liberal ideas move from fringe to front-burner for Democrats

CFM said:
Whether they get assistance is a choice totally separate from the wage for working.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if they accept it or not, the point is that their income qualifies them for assistance. And the employer knows that. So the employer pays its workers a low wage because the employer knows government will be there to pick up the slack, which means the less they pay their worker, the more profit they make.

In other words, welfare dependency.

The business is dependent on assistance in order to maintain profits.

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

^Not a rhetorical question^
 
The Derp said:
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?






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.
Click to expand...

1) many McDonald's are franchises so I don't know the profitability of each store

2) minimum wage jobs affect more than just McDonald's

3) there's a holistic picture involved - like the example I have, a wife could earn $100K and the husband could earn minimum wage part time at Mickey d's. He would not qualify for benefits
 
The Derp said:
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?








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.
Click to expand...


He also ran away from the question of who works at McDonalds when the kids are in school.

This entire right wing logic is born from greed, violence and fear.
 
cawacko said:
SMH. We are talking about the effects on low income workers that raising the minimum wage has.
Click to expand...

The effects are that their wages are higher, or they move into better paying jobs, and that they qualify for less government assistance, which saves taxpayers. What is so hard to understand about that? Do you have some sort of mental block, or is this obtuseness just an act?


cawacko said:
rops 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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, so funny story about Seattle.

Yes, there were fewer minimum wage jobs after the wage increase, BUT THAT WAS MADE UP BY THE FACT THAT MORE PEOPLE BECAME EMPLOYED AT FULL TIME POSITIONS.

So you leave that part out, why? Because you're a dishonest fucking scumbag.
 
TTQ64 said:
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.
Click to expand...

When you don't understand how markets work and economics you say things like you did.

What's funny is you supported Hillary Clinton and she wasn't willing to go to $15/hr. Racist white democratic women huh?
 
cawacko said:
1) many McDonald's are franchises so I don't know the profitability of each store

2) minimum wage jobs affect more than just McDonald's

3) there's a holistic picture involved - like the example I have, a wife could earn $100K and the husband could earn minimum wage part time at Mickey d's. He would not qualify for benefits
Click to expand...

Run Forest Run......tee hee hee.
 
cawacko said:
When you don't understand how markets work and economics you say things like you did.

What's funny is you supported Hillary Clinton and she wasn't willing to go to $15/hr. Racist white democratic women huh?
Click to expand...

STFU Don't blame this on Hilary. You racist white men haven't raised the wages in decades.
 
cawacko said:
It's a smart thing to do if you want to move automation along quicker and lose numerous low skilled jobs.
Click to expand...

Automation is an inevitability.

Secondly, wage growth leads to full time employment, which we saw in Seattle (and what you left out of your post). Funny how that works; you just omit the key pieces of information that completely undermine your case. How boring and typical.
 
The Derp said:
The effects are that their wages are higher, or they move into better paying jobs, and that they qualify for less government assistance, which saves taxpayers. What is so hard to understand about that? Do you have some sort of mental block, or is this obtuseness just an act?




Yeah, so funny story about Seattle.

Yes, there were fewer minimum wage jobs after the wage increase, BUT THAT WAS MADE UP BY THE FACT THAT MORE PEOPLE BECAME EMPLOYED AT FULL TIME POSITIONS.

So you leave that part out, why? Because you're a dishonest fucking scumbag.
Click to expand...

once again you get personal and resort to name calling because your argument falls apart. What do you think happens to young people and the low skilled when there are less minimum wage/low paying jobs?
 
cawacko said:
once again you get personal and resort to name calling because your argument falls apart. What do you think happens to young people and the low skilled when there are less minimum wage/low paying jobs?
Click to expand...

What exactly is a low skilled person?

I remember Racist white men saying Blacks were low skilled. Do you remember that?
 
The Derp said:
OK, so swap in Walmart for McDonald's, same question: If Walmart paid its workers a wage high enough that they didn't qualify for benefits, would Walmart be profitable?
Click to expand...

You think those are the only two companies with minimum wage workers? No small businesses, no restaurants etc. only McDonald's and Walmart?
 
cawacko said:
3) there's a holistic picture involved - like the example I have, a wife could earn $100K and the husband could earn minimum wage part time at Mickey d's. He would not qualify for benefits
Click to expand...

Not a real example; one you came up with off the top of your head that makes little sense.

But it doesn't matter. If you work, you deserve a wage high enough that you don't qualify for benefits.

Businesses aren't a charity, and neither are workers.

Get off the government dole and pay your workers more. Taxpayers shouldn't subsidize corporate profits because you think you're entitled to owning a business. Fuck you, and fuck your business you welfare queen.
 
cawacko said:
LOL, ok. Why did you vote for her if she wasn't willing to do it?
Click to expand...

Because she was.

And I would never vote for a racist white man ever. He doesn't have my best interest in mind.

And miss me with the Hilary is worse. I don't buy the Hilary lies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top