Are we really to third party quotes now? I respond to dutch, then ctrl responds to me on the same question, and now you huh? Really? The one you responded to.
Aim higher. I do not understand the question as stated. Do I believe in creating enough consumption to keep the economy growing at any cost? No... I don't sell crack... Do I believe in not crippling the businesses which keep our economy growing? That seems to be your bag. So it is only ok to (*)(*)(*)(*) over business owners? Then it is justified extortion... whereas a person agrees to a wage to do a job... they are being exploited...
I was responding to your position regarding $100 burgers. Are you now stating that that is not your position? I have responded to several questions. Maybe you could be a little more specific.
You see homeboy, this is the post I was responding to: http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...inimum-wage-not-22-hour-4.html#post1062413530 Is it still your position that, as you stated, "McDonalds just needs to sell two billion items at $100 to generate $200 billion in revenue?" Or have you changed that position?
I am, but unlike you, I am going to save my wages to start a small business, so I don't owe my soul to the banksters. Guess, what guy? Not having enough consumption to create positive growth in our economy also cripples business, and America. Yes, in the same way monopoly laws do, yes.........
And I was responding to someone's claim that 22$ wages would mean 100$ big Mac's. This can't be that hard to track for you. Don't care then. - - - Updated - - - No, because you are too blind, or are intentionally trying to muddy the waters, to see this is the post I was responding to.
Yes, you responded to their claim by tacit agreement when you presented your hypothetical revenue forecast for McDonalds. So, I ask again, is it still your position--as you stated--that all McDonalds need do is sell two billion burgers at $100 to generate $200 billion revenue? It's a yes or no question.
Because that is what politicians in America do. They have no interest in removing the debt of the average American. Debt is one of the many structural limitations which assures people will continue to be good capitalist producers. People free from debt can become artists, start small businesses, and do things which fulfill them. People in debt need to produce and make money, in order to service their debt. Seeing as how all American politicians are servants of capital, you can see the problem with that. However, bailouts and stimulus are helpful to the crony capitalists(which is redundant by the way), so they use the money of the government to continue to enrich the already extraordinarily wealthy. If only people would wake up to this fact, understand that both sides do it to our detriment, maybe then we could do something to change that reality.
Bull (*)(*)(*)(*)!! Government in a capitalist system will always, without exception, intervene to protect capitalist profit. Why then, should government be expected to refrain from intervening to help the average American? The only schizophrenia is the one which asserts that government intervention on behalf of the "job creators" is great, but when it helps normal people it is a moral evil which needs to be stopped at all costs!! PS. You may oppose government intervention in all instances, but that is utopian nonsense. There will NEVER be a capitalist system where government doesn't intervene to protect and promote capitalist profit. So basically you by default advocate for the government to intervene to enrich those who are already obscenely wealthy, to the detriment of everyone else, while ensuring that they are not expected to pay anyone in the society they are enriching themselves off of.
What absolute idiotic nonsense. The minimum wage in the 1960s was the equivalent of what is now $11 an hour. The Australian minimum wage is about 16 dollars. Unemployment there has consistently hovered around 5% for the last few years. Bread does not cost 6,000 dollars. The Australian dollar is the currency many people are turning towards, as they turn away from dollars and Euros. Shockingly, you appeal to ridicule, is just another insane logical fallacy. It is of course true that it would be detrimental to change the minimum wage to $22 an hour over night, but Senator Warren would NEVER advocate for such an action. However, a slow transition to a minimum wage twice as high as the one we have now over the next few years would be great for workers, and would not lead to the cost of bread becoming 10 trillion dollars a slice over night!! Despite what right wing and corporate liars(who are simply trying to protect their obscene profits, I can't see what you get out of it) would have you believe.
The market will always place downward pressure on wages for low paying jobs as long as unemployment is over a certain percentage. Because corporations want to keep wages as low as possible, there is a large reserve of unemployed workers, and corporations have FAR MORE bargaining power than any worker can ever hope for. To say because market forces drive wages down on the low end of the spectrum, workers should accept that because that is what the market says, is absurd nonsense. The market values workers only as commodities, meant to achieve a certain end. We as human beings and as citizens, tend not to believe such things. Therefore we make rules with respect to our understanding of the humanity of workers, something the market is incapable of taking into account.
When you buy a car, do you think it is wrong to ask for a lower price than the one on the window sticker? When you go to the store, do you offer to pay more than the asking price for a product if you think the price is too low?
Nope this is a Constitutional Republic. Which means the federal government authority to dictate wages. You mush be dreaming of some other socialist sewer. Remember when the soviets declared there were no unemployed in the USSR. Look how well that worked.
Never took that college course huh ? NO, you're taking anything from anything. As for revenue, that is a net GAIN, not a loss. Think hard. Checking ALL the criterea involved ? So far, you left out the most important one. You know what it is, don't you ?
He DOESN'T HAVE TO sell burgers at $100 ea. He doesn't have to do anything with his price at all. All he has to do is enjoy the windfall he gets from his skyrocketing sales$$$. - - - Updated - - - So do electronic trash made overseas.
Yeah, I taught it. So what's your problem ? The reason why he majority work for above minimum wage is because businesses are pressured somewhat by their competitors. If the competitors pay higher wages, all the prospective workers will apply for jobs there. Even still, the wages paid are far below a living wage, and many ARE at minimum wage.
Because what people make in a 40 hour week should give then the right to at least make a living from that. That's why. And NOT from some greed freak's conception of what the person is worth to him. What makes you think things should be done just to suit that business owner (his idea of what something is worth to him), and not at all to suit the people working for him. What do you think those people are ? Horses ? Tools ? Tractors ? You want everything to be all suited to the employer. Sorry. This is a democratic republic and the American people generally don't share your selfish perspective.
Call it what you like, but if you ignore it, and you go with the ideas of some people in this thread, your business won't last long.
It's a constitutional republic which is a democratic republic. Democracy (sort of) through the use of a republican prerentitivde system. In any case, the people in some way decide what we want, and if we want a higher minimum wage, then that's what will be. All those who don't like it can move. Quite a few countries have a very low of no minimum wage. Syria, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Lebabon......Bon voyage.
