And you are pointing out the safety net that a lib called for in the early part of this thread.
It already exists.
And you are pointing out the safety net that a lib called for in the early part of this thread.
It already exists.
Fair enough. Rent on how big a place? Steak? Gucci?
Donât forget many of Walmartâs employees use government benefits to also shop at Walmart. In effect, Walmart is double (and sometimes triple) dipping into the taxpayer trough.
So what? So do people who arenât Walmart employees. Walmart is the go to store for government assistance. Plus they get a discount.
Many of these people use government assistance to make ends meet. How do you feel about your tax money subsidizing companies like Walmart?
(Of course, nobody questions why a persons âendsâ that need to be met are so far apart in the first place.)
thinkingman:should people be paid what they are worth?
Or, at least, what their labor is worth.
right. thats what i mean. not to assess the worth of a the human itself, which they somehow try to roll into discussion
Do you really think that Dems/Libs want to destroy America? To what end?
Yes. To remake it better.
In 1964 (the year before they stopped making silver quarters), the minimum wage was $1.25 per hour.
A 1964 silver quarter weighs in at 6.25 grams and is 90% silver and 10% copper.
5 silver quarters comes out to 28.125 grams of silver (roughly one ounce) and 3.125 grams of copper.
Leaving out the ~3 grams in copper, the current bidding price for 28.125 grams of silver is ~$15.25.
Whatâs a copper-nickel alloy quarter worth these days? 25 cents?
NJBob: WuWei: TheDoctorIsIn:The issue of income inequality is not that some people make too much money, it is most people make too little money.
How much is too little?
If someone works a full time job and still needs help to pay their rent, put food on the table and clothes on their back I would suggest that they are paid too little.
Many of these people use government assistance to make ends meet. How do you feel about your tax money subsidizing companies like Walmart?
Fair enough. Rent on how big a place? Steak? Gucci?
One room with a bath and kitchen, hamburger, JC Penny
NJBob:Many of these people use government assistance to make ends meet. How do you feel about your tax money subsidizing companies like Walmart?
And you are pointing out the safety net that a lib called for in the early part of this thread.
It already exists.
Do you want to subsidized the Walmarts of the world that pay less than a basic, living wage?
NJBob:Many of these people use government assistance to make ends meet. How do you feel about your tax money subsidizing companies like Walmart?
(Of course, nobody questions why a persons âendsâ that need to be met are so far apart in the first place.)
Thatâs not true. Ends equals a warm, dry home, basic healthy food on the table and clean, un-tattered cloths on their backs.
NJBob:Do you really think that Dems/Libs want to destroy America? To what end?
Yes. To remake it better.
Oh, come on Sneaky, thatâs not so.
You donât need to destroy America to make it better; you can build on whatâs already good.
In 1964 (the year before they stopped making silver quarters), the minimum wage was $1.25 per hour.
A 1964 silver quarter weighs in at 6.25 grams and is 90% silver and 10% copper.
5 silver quarters comes out to 28.125 grams of silver (roughly one ounce) and 3.125 grams of copper.
Leaving out the ~3 grams in copper, the current bidding price for 28.125 grams of silver is ~$15.25.
Whatâs a copper-nickel alloy quarter worth these days? 25 cents?
Are you arguing for a $15.00 minimum wage?
The best place to start is with work effort equality and it will lead to income equality. If you begin with income equality, it will never lead to work effort equality. Placing income first, is putting the cart, before the horse.
The best place to start is with work effort equality and it will lead to income equality. If you begin with income equality, it will never lead to work effort equality. Placing income first, is putting the cart, before the horse.
Not when employers/companies have all the power. America was a better place when unions had more say.
A factory or construction job provided for a middle class life. A house and 2 cars, maybe a summer cabin too plus vacations every year.
One room with a bath and kitchen, hamburger, JC Penny
So YOU say.
Do you want to subsidized the Walmarts of the world that pay less than a basic, living wage?
Highlighted is YOUR criterion.
The greeter, floor-sweeper, shopping cart jockey, ⌠they get the unskilled wage. Itâs what they earn. People with more experience and skills get more. Itâs that way at any and every corporation out there.
Donât conservatives look to the 1950s as the golden days when America was at its best?
Globalization and technology radically changed the economic landscape of the 1950âs. Add to that the skyrocketing costs of education and healthcare.
Not when employers/companies have all the power. America was a better place when unions had more say.
A factory or construction job provided for a middle class life. A house and 2 cars, maybe a summer cabin too plus vacations every year.
NobodyâŚhas power over you? You have to give that to someone and I have no idea why anyone would do that?
NJBob:One room with a bath and kitchen, hamburger, JC Penny
So YOU say.
NJBob:Do you want to subsidized the Walmarts of the world that pay less than a basic, living wage?
Highlighted is YOUR criterion.
The greeter, floor-sweeper, shopping cart jockey, ⌠they get the unskilled wage. Itâs what they earn. People with more experience and skills get more. Itâs that way at any and every corporation out there.
Yup, so I say. Am I wrong?
And it wasnât always so at every corporation. Employers/corporations have driven down wages for years all while squeezing out more productivity from workers. This doesnât just apply to floor-sweepers but to skilled factory and construction workers.
More money going to the very top at the expense of everyone else isnât sustainable.
Do you favor Right to Work laws? Donât they give more power to corporations?
Yup, so I say. Am I wrong?
You are saying thatâs what their âendsâ are. You simply donât know that. And youâre saying their income cannot provide those things. You donât know that.
Youâre tossing out a lot of nebulous, undefined statements and expecting the conversation to adopt them as fact. In that context, yes you are wrong.
And it wasnât always so at every corporation. Employers/corporations have driven down wages for years all while squeezing out more productivity from workers. This doesnât just apply to floor-sweepers but to skilled factory and construction workers.
Skilled workers get paid what they are worth, and that is certainly more than the unskilled jobs. It is that way at any corporation.
More money going to the very top at the expense of everyone else isnât sustainable.
Take it up with the Doctor (see earlier) who was trying to say that the lib argument isnât about the people at the very top making too much.
For the record, people at the top donât get more AT THE EXPENSE OF everyone else. Take 50 million Jeff Bezosâ salary and divide it among the 800,000 amazon employees, and theyâll get an extra $60 each. Divide that amount among Wal Martâs 2.2million employees and what would you have?