Increasing wages is a good move, and it makes no sense that people are opposed to it. But I see a lot of them feeling insulted that a "burger flipper" makes more than they do more than anythin else. I'm sure most companies can afford the increase, but they're too greedy.
Well, that is not something that can happen assuming the burger flipper in question is making minimum wage. He is already at the minimum after all. Honestly, I don't think most businesses are even concerned at paying people that amount. The issue is not the 3 mil people that make minimum wage, the issue is all the people that used to make more than minimum wage and then don't. And the people who suddenly make barely more than minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage to the extent obama suggests would also result in other wages and salaries increasing simply because they are jobs that are supposed to pay to whatever extent more or well more than minimum wage. That said, company profits are at an all time high and income inequality has in fact increased in the US over the past few years while wages have remained stagnant so odds are increasing wages would be the healthiest thing to do.
Well, not what their participants expected - as shown by how massively they underestimated the actual wealth inequality in the country.
Of course, a look at every single developed nation who triumphs the US in terms of income, wealth inequality and overall lifestyle easily suggests which is the approach that has worked.
So we should be comparing to places like Luxembourg, Switzerland, Quatar, Norway, Ireland, then?
By whatmethod are we judging these things?
America doesn't seem to be doing too well in the whole wealth inequality - and how would one judge something so subjective as 'overall lifestyle' quality?
Perhaps by health of the populace? - life expectancy, or health expendature, or perhaps health expendature covered by the government?
Maybe judging the happiness of the population? - perhaps through questionare, or checking out the suicide rate?
To be honest, I am not sure what your point was... But it seems that whatever approach America is using, it doesn't appear to be putting the USA as high as it possibly should be.
Well, not what their participants expected - as shown by how massively they underestimated the actual wealth inequality in the country.
So we should be comparing to places like Luxembourg, Switzerland, Quatar, Norway, Ireland, then?
By whatmethod are we judging these things?
America doesn't seem to be doing too well in the whole wealth inequality - and how would one judge something so subjective as 'overall lifestyle' quality?
Perhaps by health of the populace? - life expectancy, or health expendature, or perhaps health expendature covered by the government?
Maybe judging the happiness of the population? - perhaps through questionare, or checking out the suicide rate?
To be honest, I am not sure what your point was... But it seems that whatever approach America is using, it doesn't appear to be putting the USA as high as it possibly should be.
Well, but that is an issue of ignorance, not of what level of wealth equality people would want. My point is that naturally people would hope for better status quo, it's basic. Actively working against that knowingly and consciously would be something akin to cartoonish levels of evil which have to be stopped by batman feeding bad guys their kneecaps or something.
Well, I don't know quatar (literally nothing, I haven't even wikipediad those guys) but the other guys you mentioned are countries I would use as a metric as well. Along with germany, denmark and a couple others... Of course, what I meant to imply here is that the stuff suggested by republicans specifically does not work (all of those countries are literally socialists). As you are suggesting there are a number of other first world countries that do significantly better than the US in several metrics and they specifically did not use republican ideas. I have made the point earlier than in other countries some republican ideas (or dogma) would be seen as fringe insanity. The other day I was reading specifically about germany. They attribute their success nowadays to strong support of family owned business combined with high wages and relatively high taxes. And it makes sense.. High wages address the income inequality gap, keep money flowing to the less wealthy areas of the population and maintain consumption. High taxes pay for the services the government gives (which are probably not quite as perfect as the world is generally lead to believe but still pretty good overall and cheaper than going private). What republicans suggest, tax cuts for the wealthy is something that there is strong evidence specifically does not work or works marginally at best. Tthe best argument I have found so far for tax cuts is that they can boost consumption.. but when they are aimed at the button 90% of the population. In context, literally the opposite of what republicans are currently suggesting.
Of course, what I meant to imply here is that the stuff suggested by republicans specifically does not work (all of those countries are literally socialists). As you are suggesting there are a number of other first world countries that do significantly better than the US in several metrics and they specifically did not use republican ideas. I have made the point earlier than in other countries some republican ideas (or dogma) would be seen as fringe insanity.
Yeah, I think so. I originally I meant to comment on the study you presented mostly (about the results not being surprising). But then I just kept writing....
Well, that is not something that can happen assuming the burger flipper in question is making minimum wage. He is already at the minimum after all. Honestly, I don't think most businesses are even concerned at paying people that amount. The issue is not the 3 mil people that make minimum wage, the issue is all the people that used to make more than minimum wage and then don't. And the people who suddenly make barely more than minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage to the extent obama suggests would also result in other wages and salaries increasing simply because they are jobs that are supposed to pay to whatever extent more or well more than minimum wage. That said, company profits are at an all time high and income inequality has in fact increased in the US over the past few years while wages have remained stagnant so odds are increasing wages would be the healthiest thing to do.
Increasing minimum wage,from $8-9 to $15. If businesses had their own way, minimum wage would be between $0-5.
The issue is being able to live off minimum wage. Most people can't, not in cities like NYC and Chicago anyway where they'd have to get another job, and maybe even a third job to be able to support their family. It depends on what other wages and salaries you're talking about, but I do think in general, both should increase. Hell, reduce the spending in defense and warfare and use the difference to help make sure the employees get the wages, somehow.
It would definitely be the healthiest thing to do. Problem is, a lot of people, especially republicans and businesses, disagree. They cite higher expense, inflation, increased prices, or whatnot. Thing is, that's the companies' fault, if they can afford the increase.
Yeah, I think so. I originally I meant to comment on the study you presented mostly (about the results not being surprising). But then I just kept writing....
So apparently Trump and Rubio had a problem with Obama visiting a mosque, and Rubio accused Obama of pitting people against each other. What kind of dumb fucks are they? Obama is about equality and gave a great speech to Muslims that they're part of America and should be free to be Muslim Americans. Stuff like this makes it hard for me to hate Obama just because others are hating him.
And apparently Trump is in running for Nobel Peace Prize. Eh, if Obama can get it, then I don't see it being impossible for Trump.
Increasing minimum wage,from $8-9 to $15. If businesses had their own way, minimum wage would be between $0-5.
The issue is being able to live off minimum wage. Most people can't, not in cities like NYC and Chicago anyway where they'd have to get another job, and maybe even a third job to be able to support their family. It depends on what other wages and salaries you're talking about, but I do think in general, both should increase. Hell, reduce the spending in defense and warfare and use the difference to help make sure the employees get the wages, somehow.
It would definitely be the healthiest thing to do. Problem is, a lot of people, especially republicans and businesses, disagree. They cite higher expense, inflation, increased prices, or whatnot. Thing is, that's the companies' fault, if they can afford the increase.
Story of your life.
Obama saying all the good things. While causing tons of damage to Middle East. But w/e, not the US so who cares.
Well, that is not something that can happen assuming the burger flipper in question is making minimum wage. He is already at the minimum after all. Honestly, I don't think most businesses are even concerned at paying people that amount. The issue is not the 3 mil people that make minimum wage, the issue is all the people that used to make more than minimum wage and then don't. And the people who suddenly make barely more than minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage to the extent obama suggests would also result in other wages and salaries increasing simply because they are jobs that are supposed to pay to whatever extent more or well more than minimum wage. That said, company profits are at an all time high and income inequality has in fact increased in the US over the past few years while wages have remained stagnant so odds are increasing wages would be the healthiest thing to do.
15$ an hour earns you more than what some people with PhDs make. I can see how Successful people would feel threatened. Though studies do show that people in jobs that require degrees feel that they are being underpaid.
Does working as a waiter at a mom and pop joint or mowing lawns or hand washing cars, or cleaning hotel rooms really need to be $15 an hour jobs?
Donate to the poor? Republicans hate the poor (e.g. they've been trying to get rid of the EITC for the past 20+ years). Be nice to others? Republicans hate blacks, Latinos, Muslims, gays, etc., essentially anyone non-WASP. Heck, look how often they accuse these groups of things such as nonexistent voter fraud.
The party preaches "Christian values", but what they practice is something else entirely. For example, you do know that Red States have higher rates of divorce than Blue States, right?
15$ an hour earns you more than what some people with PhDs make. I can see how Successful people would feel threatened. Though studies do show that people in jobs that require degrees feel that they are being underpaid.
Does working as a waiter at a mom and pop joint or mowing lawns or hand washing cars, or cleaning hotel rooms really need to be $15 an hour jobs?
--- Double Post Merged, ---
There are many black republicans, lets not forget one in the carolinas just endorsses Mr Rubio this week.
I don't know, but $15 would help more than $8 an hour, obviously.
I'm not sure if people with PhDs should be paid a lot if they don't contribute as much, or how $15 can be more than what said demographics make. If one works seven hours per day, five days per week, they'd make about $525, which would be $2,100 per month and $25,200 per year, before taxes. I'm pretty sure that's far less than what people with PhDs would make. Not that I was thinkin of them anyway, my friend had an issue with "burger flippers" being paid more than an EMT worker like him.
Do CEOs need to make tons of money? They make $274 per hour for sitting around and discussing things? Have you worked as a waiter or cleaned hotel rooms? Unless you have or have an idea how hard it can be to bus tables, clean rooms, and/or live on so little wage, I will not respect anything you say here, given how difficult and usually thankless both jobs are.
Don't forget an Indian republican who pulled out of the race because he's a piece of shit.
15$ an hour earns you more than what some people with PhDs make. I can see how Successful people would feel threatened. Though studies do show that people in jobs that require degrees feel that they are being underpaid.
Does working as a waiter at a mom and pop joint or mowing lawns or hand washing cars, or cleaning hotel rooms really need to be $15 an hour jobs?
--- Double Post Merged, ---
There are many black republicans, lets not forget one in the carolinas just endorsses Mr Rubio this week.
I doubt there is a wage that allows you to live at NYC lol. It's expensive beyond reason...
Feeling underpaid is most likely an aspect of human nature... For pretty much anyone the process is to want something, work for it, get it, then it becomes normal to you.
Are mom and pop places still a thing? That aside, why not? It's there some sort of objective norm that the minimum wage should be bellow a living wage or specifically imply a degree of abject poverty? It's not like with 15 dollars an hour they would suddenly be rich. The US has the specific problem of stagnant wages, a reduced middle class, and an increasing divide in income between its top and bottom earners. All of that at the time where companies are making record profits for the most part. This is something that makes sense even in terms of capitalism... Where would you rather sell a product, where people are making 15 dollars and hour or where people make 7.25?
How do you define "many"? Obama won 96% of the black vote in 2008 and won 93% of the black vote in 2012. If Rubio was on the ballot, he'd certainly win the minority vote (no pun intended). Regardless, tokenism does nothing to dismiss the fact that the Republican Party has a genuine hostility toward nonwhites. It's like trying to argue a birther isn't a racist or that the modern GOP isn't built on white identity politics.
I doubt there is a wage that allows you to live at NYC lol. It's expensive beyond reason...
Feeling underpaid is most likely an aspect of human nature... For pretty much anyone the process is to want something, work for it, get it, then it becomes normal to you.
Are mom and pop places still a thing? That aside, why not? It's there some sort of objective norm that the minimum wage should be bellow a living wage or specifically imply a degree of abject poverty? It's not like with 15 dollars an hour they would suddenly be rich. The US has the specific problem of stagnant wages, a reduced middle class, and an increasing divide in income between its top and bottom earners. All of that at the time where companies are making record profits for the most part. This is something that makes sense even in terms of capitalism... Where would you rather sell a product, where people are making 15 dollars and hour or where people make 7.25?
How do you define "many"? Obama won 96% of the black vote in 2008 and won 93% of the black vote in 2012. If Rubio was on the ballot, he'd certainly win the minority vote (no pun intended). Regardless, tokenism does nothing to dismiss the fact that the Republican Party has a genuine hostility toward nonwhites. It's like trying to argue a birther isn't a racist or that the modern GOP isn't built on white identity politics.
We should be rallying behind rubio, who is a minority, wheres the minorith democrat? We republicans has jindle and now have mr carson and preferrably mr rubio who struggled and rose through the ranks like most other minority individuals in the US.
Minority democrat was Obama, who got criticized and attacked by republicans and democrats even when he made the country better or at least, tried to. Ben Carson espouses the ridiculous, dangerous values that republicans have, so of course he's chosen. Hell, maybe they think Carson could win because he's black, just as they think Obama won.
Because NYC also has wealthy people living in the city too, and tons of companies. how much of its customers are people who work minimum wage job/s?
We should be rallying behind rubio, who is a minority, wheres the minorith democrat? We republicans has jindle and now have mr carson and preferrably mr rubio who struggled and rose through the ranks like most other minority individuals in the US.
Most minorities don't "rise through the ranks"...whatever that means
I mean, if you want to play this game, Sanders is a Jew and Clinton is a woman. However, even as a Democrat, I don't personally think this is really relevant. None of the Republican candidates were particularly disadvantaged, regardless of race or religion, despite however they try to frame it (mostly speaking of Carson's bullshit he's written about).
If the current republican candidates care about freedom, rights, and less government interference, then why do they want to take away the right and freedom for homosexuals to get married, for immigrants and refugees regardless of race or religion to come into this country, for abortion, and for safe healthcare in Planned Parenthood away? Why do they want the government to interfere and ban same sex marriage while forcing Christianity upon people?
How can you or anyone trust the current republican candidates when they have no problem with lying and misinforming people? What else would they lie about? if Bush knew about the 9/11 plot, then he could have prevented it. Would the candidates do the same thing?
current candidates and their supporters are one big mass of hypocrisy and double standards. As it seems, the democrats have less problems than the republicans.
If the current republican candidates care about freedom, rights, and less government interference, then why do they want to take away the right and freedom for homosexuals to get married, for immigrants and refugees regardless of race or religion to come into this country, for abortion, and for safe healthcare in Planned Parenthood away? Why do they want the government to interfere and ban same sex marriage while forcing Christianity upon people?
How can you or anyone trust the current republican candidates when they have no problem with lying and misinforming people? What else would they lie about? if Bush knew about the 9/11 plot, then he could have prevented it. Would the candidates do the same thing?
current candidates and their supporters are one big mass of hypocrisy and double standards. As it seems, the democrats have less problems than the republicans.
Of course democrats have less problems, Hillary Rodham Obama is running vs angry senior citizen Sanders, there is litrally no middle ground or diversity. Or better yet a race to see who is the least progressive than the other
Ive yet to see anything that suggested that we need refugees in the country or that they provide any benefit to me as an American, or that immigration is helping me in anyway. If Im not being helped why would I want them. Worst yet, the people who are muslims are a security liability that inconveniences me. If muslim terrorists werent attacking then I wouldnt have to go through the hassle of having my luggage checked at airports or have to pack accordingly to various regulations, lets not forget to mention have to be on camera from the moment one enters the airport. This is a grave inconvenience in sum. Blocking muslims, enhancing grealty enhancing Border Patrol and beefing up the fence to prevent any illegals from coming here is necessary. I can not identify ways that muslims have been important in my life.
Why wouldnt one want to take away the right to abortion? We already identified it is as legalized baby killing, which goes against the protection of persons, meaning it is against the natural law, meaning, it is bad. Since planned parenthood is socially linked with abortion, it make sense that it would be defunded. Why fund something like that? Abortions kind of trump everything else that they do.
I highly doubt all republicans are against same sex relationships in 2016.
And lastly the mistakes made during the previous president's reign enabled terrorirists to grow in power thus leading to 9.11. There was no way for Bush to be prepared however his response to it was simply outstanding. Weapons of Mass Destruction were safely snatched from enemy hands.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Reasons Im still incompatible with him. A strengthened military will enable us to have more strenght as the worlds protector and enforcer of justice. Its in our DNA to help other countries.
Of course democrats have less problems, Hillary Rodham Obama is running vs angry senior citizen Sanders, there is litrally no middle ground or diversity. Or better yet a race to see who is the least progressive than the other
Double standards. you're willing to blast the democrats for infighting, but you do not mention anything about the republican infighting, which is way worse and pathetic. The republicans barely have middle ground or diversity either, except for Jeb not hating Muslims and Rubio being immigrant friendly.
I thought it was a race to see who's more progressive than the other. I know Bernie is, I know the republicans aren't, but I'm not sure about Hillary.
Ive yet to see anything that suggested that we need refugees in the country or that they provide any benefit to me as an American, or that immigration is helping me in anyway. If Im not being helped why would I want them. Worst yet, the people who are muslims are a security liability that inconveniences me. If muslim terrorists werent attacking then I wouldnt have to go through the hassle of having my luggage checked at airports or have to pack accordingly to various regulations, lets not forget to mention have to be on camera from the moment one enters the airport. This is a grave inconvenience in sum. Blocking muslims, enhancing grealty enhancing Border Patrol and beefing up the fence to prevent any illegals from coming here is necessary. I can not identify ways that muslims have been important in my life.
Immigration helps provide you cheaper labor and services. More people in the country means more money flows, unless I'm missing something.
I don't understand how anyone can say Muslims are a security liability when white people are literally committing mass shootings, from inside a theater to inside a church. From what you continually say or side-step, it's okay by you if white people commit acts of terrorism, but bad if Muslims do it. There's no inconvenience in being on camera or havin a stricter security. Oddly enough, I've rarely ever had my luggage checked.
Blocking Muslims fixes nothing, especially when there has been no attempt to hijack American planes. You're statistically safer from Muslims than you are from white or black people in America. There really has been absolutely no decent argument as to why we should block Muslims from coming in. And if you actually do research, you'd find that more Americans have died at the hands of other Americans than they have from hands of Muslims in America. But of course, if republicans did research using unbiased source, they'd have no argument to most of their stupid thoughts and views.
I cannot identify ways that republicans have been important in my life, but I can identify ways that they have caused inconveniences and even trouble. We should deport republicans back to Europe, whichever country they came from. And if you know your history, which I doubt you do, you'd know that Muslims are among the most influential religion groups.
But one thing I also noticed seeing the candidates talk and reading/hearing the republican voters' views: republicans are extremely selfish. It's either "me me me" or "GIVE WEALTHY PEOPLE MORE MONEY AND TAKE MONEY FROM POOR PEOPLE! THEY'RE DIRT, ESPECIALLY BLACKS AND MEXICANS!"
Why wouldnt one want to take away the right to abortion? We already identified it is as legalized baby killing, which goes against the protection of persons, meaning it is against the natural law, meaning, it is bad. Since planned parenthood is socially linked with abortion, it make sense that it would be defunded. Why fund something like that? Abortions kind of trump everything else that they do.
I highly doubt all republicans are against same sex relationships in 2016.
And lastly the mistakes made during the previous president's reign enabled terrorirists to grow in power thus leading to 9.11. There was no way for Bush to be prepared however his response to it was simply outstanding. Weapons of Mass Destruction were safely snatched from enemy hands.
Because it's none of your business what women choose to do? Abortion is bad, but again, it's not your choice, nor is it mine or even the woman's significant other. If she wants to get an abortion, she has all the right to. And if you think banning abortion will stop it, you're dumb. All it does is make abortion unsafe and unsanitary, but it won't stop it.
So, homosexuality and same sex marriage should be banned too because people already identify it as against the natural and religious law.
No, it makes sense to republicans and ignorant people because the republican politicians have lied through their teeth about Planned Parenthood. Obviously you did not read the links I provided or did your research, which is understandable because it would destroy any and all arguments you and republicans have against the organization. Planned Parenthood is not socially linked with abortion, it's because of republican lies that you think so. It is also a fact that less than 5% of the services performed by Planned Parenthood are abortions, so again, how does it even come close to kind of trumping everything else that they do?
No republican deserves to have an opinion on Planned Parenthood because they either know nothing about it or lie about it. Provide me with unbiased facts that what you say about Planned Parenthood is true. And if you really do care about babies' lives, why not start with the babies that already exist, as well as the kids and adults?
I'm pretty sure majority of them are. Trump seems to be, and I know Cruz and Huckabee are. You can provide proof if you want.
Pretty sure the mistakes were made during before Bill Clinton came to power. George Bush Sr., a republican, probably made tons of mistakes that allowed terrorists to grow in power, which is US's fault either way. Not only did we train them, but we gave them weapons as well. If you do your research, there's allegations Bush Jr. was warned, but chose to do nothing about it. His response to 9/11 was horrible, a complete failure, and the main reason why our economy... no, the entire country, is in a pretty bad place right now, which under Obama has slowly been improving. At least some things like unemployment rate goin down.
Bush apparently lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Reasons Im still incompatible with him. A strengthened military will enable us to have more strenght as the worlds protector and enforcer of justice. Its in our DNA to help other countries.
We should not be the world's protector, that's just bullshit to justify exploiting the countries for its resources and leaving it in worse state. You'd rather the US spend time and money to help other countries than itself? But you don't benefit from them doing that, and it's an inconvenience because they're spending your hard earned money to kill people and steal the country's resources!
Just recently I was speaking to someone from a German manufacturing company. He told me that the main production site had been moved to Romania, they had a plant in China and they were building a huge new plant in Mexico.
And you know were most companies are NOT building their fabrics? In the US and Europe. All that regulation and government intervention in wages makes it much more convenient to build their plants somewhere else. So in the end the US just keep losing manufacturing jobs to China, Mexico and everyone else, like Trump has been saying all this time. The tendency is only going to continue. Expect to see more and more companies moving their business overseas because the anti-business climate liberals have created.
The issue is being able to live off minimum wage. Most people can't, not in cities like NYC and Chicago anyway where they'd have to get another job, and maybe even a third job to be able to support their family.
See that's the problem right there. Who on earth said that you were supposed to be able to support an entire family from a minimum wage job? Minimum wage jobs used to be a way to start gaining some experience while you work your way up, not a permanent thing, certainly not a way to support a family.
How about this for a radical suggestion: If you have a shitty, low paying job, try focusing on working your way up or getting some kind of education on the side so you can later get a better job instead of having a bunch of children that you won't even be able to feed without other people's money.
Instead, you have all these women who are unemployed or working at some low paying job and they go on to have 3 or 4 children anyway since they know the government will support them. That is extremely irresponsible and liberals just keep promoting that kind of behavior.
Under Obama, the number of people on food stamps has increased by almost 50%. There are many millions of people in the US who are literally unable to even feed themselves without government handouts. How can democrats look at this situation and think the country is going in a good direction is beyond my comprehension.
