Lib talking point....."Living wage" for everyone....
- Thread starter Snow Sled Baby
- Start date
It is a general term because libs dont care about people making money. They just want votes.
This question should be asked among the Leftst elites:
Would you be willing to give up your lavish lifestyles and luxurious homes in order to live on the same lower basic wage as those we would fund using your wealth to pay for them?
If you work in a full-time job, you should receive enough salary and benefits so you don’t need SNAP or free health care at the emergency room.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareo...-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#6843212c720b
If you can work, but choose not to, best of luck. SSA disability payments should be much more carefully administered.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareo...-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#6843212c720b
If you can work, but choose not to, best of luck. SSA disability payments should be much more carefully administered.
1.First rule to memorize and accept when dealing with and trying to understand the Democrats/Marxists/socialists.
Rule 1: THEY ARE NOT CAPITALISTS
2. This is the most important rule you have to learn in the today's political environment. It will save you time and useless political attacks when you try to answer their actions, ideas and talking points.
3. Let me repeat the rule again.
Rule 1: THE LEFT ARE NOT CAPITALISTS.
4. What does this mean in real life? It means among other things: they don't care about profit, shareholder wealth, best practices, economics, growing their business, fair play in the workforce, business ethics, laws written by capitalists.
5. For example, Facebook and Twitter stock this week. Does anyone think Zuck and Jake give a crap their stock lost 20%? If you do please reread the first tweet of the thread. In fact I bet they are happy they have lost "those customers" after all that was the plan.
6. Both drew up plans, hired people and directed those people to limit the reach and amount of conservatives on their apps. As far as Zuck and Jake are concerned their plan worked and if it cost them 20% of their stock price who cares.
7. Hell Marxists would consider that a win-win. Not only did they limit the right's power/reach; they also cost real capitalists a lot of money.
8. Now does it make sense? Do you think Hollywood cares about profits? Do you think they are too stupid to know how to make a movie that would make hundreds of millions? They make the garbage they make knowing it won't sell. They don't care. They furthered their main objective.
9. Okay let's review. The first rule to understand when dealing with the left is that they ARE NOT CAPITALISTS.
10. Let's use a government policy example this time. When you hear a leftist say they want universal healthcare is you first counter talking point "how will they pay for it?" If so, you need to reread this entire thread. They don't care about Capitalism or paying for the policy.
11. When Leftists propose raising taxes do you answer "that will hurt the economy?" If so, you aren't getting the point. They don't care about the "economy". They don't care about economic laws like supply and demand. They don't care about the GDP or standard of living.
12. These are the same people that ignore the laws of biology and think you can change genders. Do you think they feel the laws of economics are anything but a capitalist construct? If so, you need to revisit the first rule when dealing with leftists.
13. For those having a hard time following along let me repeat the first rule when dealing with leftists.
Rule 1: LEFTISTS ARE NOT CAPITALISTS
14. When they propose increasing min wage is your answer "Well that will costs jobs?" If so you totally aren't understanding the lesson plan today. They don't care about jobs. If people are out of work they will just tax those working more to pay welfare to those that aren't.
15. But you say "if you increase taxes that will just negate the raise those people got by increasing the min wage." Again leftists don't give a flying **** about individual incomes. The aim for the left wasn't to increase wages it was to increase their power.
16. So to wrap up this lesson. Let's review.
Rule 1: THE LEFT ARE NOT CAPITALISTS
Any questions?
Rule 1: THEY ARE NOT CAPITALISTS
2. This is the most important rule you have to learn in the today's political environment. It will save you time and useless political attacks when you try to answer their actions, ideas and talking points.
3. Let me repeat the rule again.
Rule 1: THE LEFT ARE NOT CAPITALISTS.
4. What does this mean in real life? It means among other things: they don't care about profit, shareholder wealth, best practices, economics, growing their business, fair play in the workforce, business ethics, laws written by capitalists.
5. For example, Facebook and Twitter stock this week. Does anyone think Zuck and Jake give a crap their stock lost 20%? If you do please reread the first tweet of the thread. In fact I bet they are happy they have lost "those customers" after all that was the plan.
6. Both drew up plans, hired people and directed those people to limit the reach and amount of conservatives on their apps. As far as Zuck and Jake are concerned their plan worked and if it cost them 20% of their stock price who cares.
7. Hell Marxists would consider that a win-win. Not only did they limit the right's power/reach; they also cost real capitalists a lot of money.
8. Now does it make sense? Do you think Hollywood cares about profits? Do you think they are too stupid to know how to make a movie that would make hundreds of millions? They make the garbage they make knowing it won't sell. They don't care. They furthered their main objective.
9. Okay let's review. The first rule to understand when dealing with the left is that they ARE NOT CAPITALISTS.
10. Let's use a government policy example this time. When you hear a leftist say they want universal healthcare is you first counter talking point "how will they pay for it?" If so, you need to reread this entire thread. They don't care about Capitalism or paying for the policy.
11. When Leftists propose raising taxes do you answer "that will hurt the economy?" If so, you aren't getting the point. They don't care about the "economy". They don't care about economic laws like supply and demand. They don't care about the GDP or standard of living.
12. These are the same people that ignore the laws of biology and think you can change genders. Do you think they feel the laws of economics are anything but a capitalist construct? If so, you need to revisit the first rule when dealing with leftists.
13. For those having a hard time following along let me repeat the first rule when dealing with leftists.
Rule 1: LEFTISTS ARE NOT CAPITALISTS
14. When they propose increasing min wage is your answer "Well that will costs jobs?" If so you totally aren't understanding the lesson plan today. They don't care about jobs. If people are out of work they will just tax those working more to pay welfare to those that aren't.
15. But you say "if you increase taxes that will just negate the raise those people got by increasing the min wage." Again leftists don't give a flying **** about individual incomes. The aim for the left wasn't to increase wages it was to increase their power.
16. So to wrap up this lesson. Let's review.
Rule 1: THE LEFT ARE NOT CAPITALISTS
Any questions?
That actually is very well stated. But who do they tax when they run out of all the money from rich people and businesses they don't care about?
This is an interesting question and one that both sides should take off their political blinders to assess. The real answer isn't as much about ideology as it is about finding the best practical solution. The Ayn Rand crowd would like no minimum wage and that's fine if we want our country to look like India. The Bernie folks would like to see $20 and that would be an absolute economic disaster.
There is clear economic analysis that shows too high of a minimum wage directly causes an increase in unemployment. That's pretty easy to understand as employers hold off on hiring and keep workforce to a minimum to manage costs. This is the biggest risk involved in changing our current wage levels so it's important to avoiding the populist call to raise fast. There's also a secondary issue with wage increases driving inflation but that is relatively minor, particularly in the current economy.
From a fairness aspect, I'd rather see the working poor rewarded than seeing money go into welfare for those who don't work. I'd like a bigger gap between welfare "income" for non-workers and a minimum wage earner. I also think this factors into the human behavior element and a higher wage would encourage more people at the low end of the wage scale to work. In our current economy, 10s of millions of minimum wage workers are receiving government benefits. So we the taxpayers are subsidizing the wages of these workers.
In a consumer economy like ours, all of the money earned by minimum wage workers goes back into the economy. There can be a "trickle up" effect of having a wealthier financial lower class as long as that money is earned. This only works though if the overall economy is stronger as a result and unemployment doesn't increase excessively.
How about something like this:
--Phase in to about $10 over 3-4 years for companies with over 50 employees. Assess the impact on GDP, unemployment, and welfare costs. If the economy is still strong asses whether to go to 12 over the next 4 years.
----When that is complete, peg the rate to CPI and adjust every 2 years. Large adjustments have many more drawbacks than if this cost were absorbed into the economy in smaller bites more frequently.
--Companies with less than 50 employees can pay $2 less.
--There could also be some exceptions in the wage for students, seasonal work, etc...
--In the event of recession combined with rising unemployment, the wage can be reset to a lower value.
A way-too-high wage would have drastic unemployment effects so that has to be avoided but I do think our overall economy would be better in the long term with higher wages at the low end. In my view there is a "sweet spot" that is best for long term economic growth and we are below that value.
There is clear economic analysis that shows too high of a minimum wage directly causes an increase in unemployment. That's pretty easy to understand as employers hold off on hiring and keep workforce to a minimum to manage costs. This is the biggest risk involved in changing our current wage levels so it's important to avoiding the populist call to raise fast. There's also a secondary issue with wage increases driving inflation but that is relatively minor, particularly in the current economy.
From a fairness aspect, I'd rather see the working poor rewarded than seeing money go into welfare for those who don't work. I'd like a bigger gap between welfare "income" for non-workers and a minimum wage earner. I also think this factors into the human behavior element and a higher wage would encourage more people at the low end of the wage scale to work. In our current economy, 10s of millions of minimum wage workers are receiving government benefits. So we the taxpayers are subsidizing the wages of these workers.
In a consumer economy like ours, all of the money earned by minimum wage workers goes back into the economy. There can be a "trickle up" effect of having a wealthier financial lower class as long as that money is earned. This only works though if the overall economy is stronger as a result and unemployment doesn't increase excessively.
How about something like this:
--Phase in to about $10 over 3-4 years for companies with over 50 employees. Assess the impact on GDP, unemployment, and welfare costs. If the economy is still strong asses whether to go to 12 over the next 4 years.
----When that is complete, peg the rate to CPI and adjust every 2 years. Large adjustments have many more drawbacks than if this cost were absorbed into the economy in smaller bites more frequently.
--Companies with less than 50 employees can pay $2 less.
--There could also be some exceptions in the wage for students, seasonal work, etc...
--In the event of recession combined with rising unemployment, the wage can be reset to a lower value.
A way-too-high wage would have drastic unemployment effects so that has to be avoided but I do think our overall economy would be better in the long term with higher wages at the low end. In my view there is a "sweet spot" that is best for long term economic growth and we are below that value.
I think the followers of these far-left, socialistic, agendas care and feel like the key to everyone living in a euphoric society is as simple as "living wages, free healthcare, guaranteed jobs"...etc. They see the carrot, but are too brainwashed to notice their carrot is tethered to a stick, being held by the elitist, power-hungry socialists they insist on voting for.
Nothing is free, in the long run. Everyone ultimately pays until they can't and that's why socialism fails with no hope of recovery. Recovery isn't an option in socialism.
Last edited:
Good post. I don’t think there’s a single number for the whole country. A living wage in San Francisco is much higher than one in Jackson, MS.
I think we already live in a socialist country, but people don’t realize it. After all, what are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, as well as the aforementioned SNAP program?
The “guaranteed jobs” comment is interesting. If you’re receiving welfare benefits and you’re able to work, shouldn’t you do something for your benefits? Maybe this would encourage those on welfare to get a private sector job.
No matter what level you set a min wage the people making that wage will struggle. Raising it just makes business less competitive agaainst competition without a rate floor.
“When Seattle officials voted three years ago to incrementally boost the city's minimum wage up to $15 an hour, they'd hoped to improve the lives of low-income workers. Yet according to a major new study that could force economists to reassess past research on the issue, the hike has had the OPPOSITE EFFECT.
The city is gradually increasing the hourly minimum to $15 over several years. Already, though, some employers have not been able to afford the increased minimums. They've cut their payrolls, putting off new hiring, reducing hours or letting their workers go, the study found”.
The city is gradually increasing the hourly minimum to $15 over several years. Already, though, some employers have not been able to afford the increased minimums. They've cut their payrolls, putting off new hiring, reducing hours or letting their workers go, the study found”.
Businesses relocated outside city limits and offered the products at lower prices. Restaurants got killed.
The positive thing about that situation is that it encourages investment into improving productivity.
I can go into a local Apple Store, select an item or items off the shelves, scan, pay, and walk out of the store without any employee assistance. Imagine a Kroger or Walmart like that.
Businesses that can’t afford to pay their employees a living wage for their locale will be displaced by more productive approaches. That’s a good thing.
You wonder what productivity gains ultimately means for China’s economy and political stability.
Next time, use your 3D printer to make the ink cartridges. They basically give the printers away so they can sell you the ink cartridges.
I may be wrong, but if nation's go to this type of system they get rid of the welfare systems, like unemployment and SSI, correct?
I just got back from China last Sunday. It's amazing what's happening there. Because they don't have to consider individual rights they can do massive infrastructure projects on a scale that we can no longer do. They'll keep up with productivity gains in the next 20 years because they are building some of the most modern factories in the world.
The gains that their consumers have made in the last 10 years is very obvious when walking through the locals sections of Shanghai. The wages along the coast have exploded though are still significantly lower than ours. The average factory worker is now about $4 an hour country-wide. Wages are typically going up close to double digits per year. I think our engineers there are making about 1/3 the salary of what they'd make in the US.
It's funny that China is a ruled by something called the Communist Party. It's clearly a dictatorship and centrally run economy but it's about as far from Soviet style communism as a country could be. As their consumer economy grows, it will be interesting to see at what point the desire for individual freedoms will take more of center stage.
The gains that their consumers have made in the last 10 years is very obvious when walking through the locals sections of Shanghai. The wages along the coast have exploded though are still significantly lower than ours. The average factory worker is now about $4 an hour country-wide. Wages are typically going up close to double digits per year. I think our engineers there are making about 1/3 the salary of what they'd make in the US.
It's funny that China is a ruled by something called the Communist Party. It's clearly a dictatorship and centrally run economy but it's about as far from Soviet style communism as a country could be. As their consumer economy grows, it will be interesting to see at what point the desire for individual freedoms will take more of center stage.
No one truly believes in the living wage. It’s about buying and maintaining your voting block. Same as the free college nonsense. Fvcking people who come up with these ideas need laughed into a wood chipper.
I would rather see an increase in the costs of goods in the US be from increases in wages instead of ******** tariffs.
I am beginning to agree with the $15 per hr wage if they will give us SSI recipients the same per hr rate. Since I am retired 24 hrs per day I could live high on the hog....That actually is very well stated. But who do they tax when they run out of all the money from rich people and businesses they don't care about?
I think the market is slowly coming around that to on its own. It's hard to hire good people now @ just 10.00 an hour! The demand for skilled competent labor is driving the bottom wage up. It's simple supply and demand.
Fewer workers, demand higher salaries due to increased competition for their services. If they are skilled, companies pay more to attract or keep them. That drives up wages as they move on from lower paying to higher paying jobs and companies need to find quality replacements.
Last edited:
but the problem there is how many not so good workers will be let go to provide the larger salaries for the more talented employees....imagine the lawsuits...." we are letting you go because you aren't good enough"........"oh yeah?...where's my lawyer?....give me Robert Mueller!!"
There is always a certain amount of pruning any workforce. As employees become better skilled, they demand more salary even if they stay with the same company.
but my guess is that a lot of those "not so good" workers are the ones wearing the pink ****** hats and screaming at the sky, all the while waiting on their "living wage" to start.......take off the hats and go look for a freaking job so the taxpayers don't have to support you
where were those "jobs" when we were starting out?....I can scream as loud as any liberal[banana]
Give everyone $1 million per year at least. Then we tax them all at 50%.
Wait a minute.....
In their "unguarded" moments, Leftists admit they really do want ALL of our money handed over to them. Most times they don't admit it, but every once in a while you catch them being honest about it.
excerpt
"Warren suggested that she does not think a 50% personal income tax rate is too high. “There was a time in a very prosperous America…where the top marginal rate was well above 50 percent,” she said.
Harwood said it was 90%.
Warren replied: “That’s exactly right"
link:
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/0...p-tax-cuts-if-they-take-back-the-house-657544
Well then, why don't you Leftists run on it Keyser? 90% tax rates...that'll win back the house for 'ya!
Come back Keyser...come back....don't run away Dude...stand and fight for higher taxes and Socialism!
