OKB you're one of my favorite posters here but Damone is tearing up all of your assholes who agree to raising the minimum wage. Yes, 8-10$/hr is barely a living wage nowadays without being extremely frugal, but it's not like you can't get a 2nd job, go back to school (I'm surprised how many morons go to school for free) get some crowd funding idea, go make an app (You don't need to be some elite programmer to do any of that), etc. This is how these CEO's got to make obscene money, they grew the fucking company to the point where it could hire a ton of workers. And yes some of them may act like extravagant pigs, some of them work insanely hard and don't show off their money as much, but the common denominator is that if they fuck up the company, they will be gone (or if it's their own business, they're fucked). It's the risk you take.
raising the minimum is a fucking bad idea and a lot of the people in Seattle who voted for it will regret it if they're actually being objective about it afterwards and own a small business or are working these kind of jobs. fyfmfe
And yes everything I just said is pre-Econ101 shit. Fuck off
Look, Damoan has the econ board dialed in. There's another angle to this. The city has illegalized certain labor negotiations between two consenting parties.
CreepyCuoag is the most clued in poster on the economic board.
Yet he agrees with me and basically said your position can be reduced to shit with a basic understanding of freshman Econ.
You spout off, but refuse to educate yourself in the basics. I provided links to a couple things to help you, but you choose to remain ignorant.
I'm sure even you can figure out that a full time job that doesn't provide a liveable wage and requires someone to be on foodstamps is nothing more than a tax that everyone has to pay. The employer jips the workers and the result is that we all have to pour more money into the foodstamp program through taxes, which make the government a little bit bigger.
Paying what labor is worth "jips" no one. The government forcing a price floor for labor makes it illegal for those who are not worth the minimum wage to work for a wage. If a business can't afford to pay the artificial price floor (paying more than the labor is worth) the will figure out how use less labor or they will go out of business. In that case, people who were previously employed are no longer employed. Are they on food stamps ? You confuse what labor is worth to what our society thinks should be an acceptable standard of living. Two different things. The later is not the problem of the business.
But does anybody who isn't stoopid actually think minimum wages increase jobs and stimulate the economy? Does even a left-wing hippie with a basic education in economics really believe that it does those things as opposed to what it really does - serve as yet another means of redistribution?
I mean, I get it. Minimum wage means, among other things, that shit (defined loosely as goods and services) will cost more.
Is it honestly anyone's view here that there are a lot of people who don't understand this basic truth? It's not a point of view. It's a factual reality given the system we have today. Maybe Marx was right and someday in the future we will reach a point of evolution where we have moved on from free market principles to a better system ("better" being defined however it's defined at that time). But until then, this is the one we have, and it works the way it works.
I guess I'm saying, there's nothing to discover here.
Sounds like some basic Kane Hall freshman shit. And, yes, some people don't understand the basic truth, and when given the facts and data to read for themselves, won't take the time to understand it (Hi OBK!!!)
It's much easier to argue with Ad hominem attacks and build false realities (I.e. A CEO making $6 million a year while paying $10 an hour to 300 workers).
There is still no other system than the free market that lifts more people out of grinding poverty consistently and for the long term. So I'm not sure what the evolution would be to.
But does anybody who isn't stoopid actually think minimum wages increase jobs and stimulate the economy? Does even a left-wing hippie with a basic education in economics really believe that it does those things as opposed to what it really does - serve as yet another means of redistribution?
I mean, I get it. Minimum wage means, among other things, that shit (defined loosely as goods and services) will cost more.
Is it honestly anyone's view here that there are a lot of people who don't understand this basic truth? It's not a point of view. It's a factual reality given the system we have today. Maybe Marx was right and someday in the future we will reach a point of evolution where we have moved on from free market principles to a better system ("better" being defined however it's defined at that time). But until then, this is the one we have, and it works the way it works.
I guess I'm saying, there's nothing to discover here.
Sounds like some basic Kane Hall freshman shit. And, yes, some people don't understand the basic truth, and when given the facts and data to read for themselves, won't take the time to understand it (Hi OBK!!!)
It's much easier to argue with Ad hominem attacks and build false realities (I.e. A CEO making $6 million a year while paying $10 an hour to 300 workers).
There is still no other system than the free market that lifts more people out of grinding poverty consistently and for the long term. So I'm not sure what the evolution would be to.
But does anybody who isn't stoopid actually think minimum wages increase jobs and stimulate the economy? Does even a left-wing hippie with a basic education in economics really believe that it does those things as opposed to what it really does - serve as yet another means of redistribution?
I mean, I get it. Minimum wage means, among other things, that shit (defined loosely as goods and services) will cost more.
Is it honestly anyone's view here that there are a lot of people who don't understand this basic truth? It's not a point of view. It's a factual reality given the system we have today. Maybe Marx was right and someday in the future we will reach a point of evolution where we have moved on from free market principles to a better system ("better" being defined however it's defined at that time). But until then, this is the one we have, and it works the way it works.
I guess I'm saying, there's nothing to discover here.
Sounds like some basic Kane Hall freshman shit. And, yes, some people don't understand the basic truth, and when given the facts and data to read for themselves, won't take the time to understand it (Hi OBK!!!)
It's much easier to argue with Ad hominem attacks and build false realities (I.e. A CEO making $6 million a year while paying $10 an hour to 300 workers).
There is still no other system than the free market that lifts more people out of grinding poverty consistently.
1. Correct. But better to say, "some Heyne in Kane" shit. It rhymes. 2. Ok. I believe you. 3. There is nothing wrong with ad hominem rhetoric you pedantic little twat pimple. I would tell you to try it sometime, but you just called me a cunt somewhere else, so I think you are well familiar with the technique. 4. I don't agree that it's easier to build false realities than it is to learn this shit in econ 201. In fact, I think building a good strawman is actually harder - it takes creativity, whereas word vomiting Paul Heyne's lectures just takes a decent memory and a mental pulse. 5. You got that right pimpy. Even Marx said pretty much the same thing in both Das Kapital and The German Ideology. Hey, I'm not making this shit up. You can get those books on Amazon.
1. Heyne in Kane. Got it. 2. Duh 3. Is that what MSNBC told you to say? Cunt. But what you said in point 3 (above ) is not an ad hominem attack. And I know you thought it was. 4. Disagree. Building a starwman means your not able to debate the issue so you make shit up. 5 year olds do that when they are caught in a tough situation 5. I have both books and have read both books. I also refer my well worn copy of the Marx-Engles Reader fairly often when debating socialist Fucktards in real life.
6. Are we arguing or agreeing? Seems like we're on the same page here. 7. ? 8. profit
re #6, of course. but that's like saying we agree that it's Monday. who cares whether we agree or not. it is fucking Monday. and likewise minimum wage laws create shortages in the demand market for labor in our system. there are 1.5 million problems that occur at the legislative level in the cuntry, and that one is like #987. it's so overwhelming that my pea brain cannot assimilate it.
re #3, I don't know why you give me that question. who is this MSNBC you speak of? does he poast here?
re #3, look, I am a trained, professional philosophizer who hails from the hallowed grounds of Savory Hall, so don't fuck with me on the latin rhetorical device references, cuz I'll take you down, all the way down to China town. let's just say, sure, not exactly ad hominem, and let's just say, sure, my comments on your gripping thoughts about companion dogs wasn't really either. it's close enough for me. if you feel the need to be more precise, then go fuck yourself with it. twat lips.
re#5, good for you. tell the socialist fucktards I said, "hello". and I should correct myself - Marx didn't say precisely that capitalism pulls people out of poverty. what he said was that it is the best system we've come up with, to date, to eliminate scarcity. I suppose those are one in the same, but an argument can be made that they're not. maybe that's why he went off the reservation, partially abandoned his earlier theory of historical materialism and wrote the manifesto. or maybe he was bored.
But does anybody who isn't stoopid actually think minimum wages increase jobs and stimulate the economy? Does even a left-wing hippie with a basic education in economics really believe that it does those things as opposed to what it really does - serve as yet another means of redistribution?
I mean, I get it. Minimum wage means, among other things, that shit (defined loosely as goods and services) will cost more.
Is it honestly anyone's view here that there are a lot of people who don't understand this basic truth? It's not a point of view. It's a factual reality given the system we have today. Maybe Marx was right and someday in the future we will reach a point of evolution where we have moved on from free market principles to a better system ("better" being defined however it's defined at that time). But until then, this is the one we have, and it works the way it works.
I guess I'm saying, there's nothing to discover here.
Sounds like some basic Kane Hall freshman shit. And, yes, some people don't understand the basic truth, and when given the facts and data to read for themselves, won't take the time to understand it (Hi OBK!!!)
It's much easier to argue with Ad hominem attacks and build false realities (I.e. A CEO making $6 million a year while paying $10 an hour to 300 workers).
There is still no other system than the free market that lifts more people out of grinding poverty consistently.
1. Correct. But better to say, "some Heyne in Kane" shit. It rhymes. 2. Ok. I believe you. 3. There is nothing wrong with ad hominem rhetoric you pedantic little twat pimple. I would tell you to try it sometime, but you just called me a cunt somewhere else, so I think you are well familiar with the technique. 4. I don't agree that it's easier to build false realities than it is to learn this shit in econ 201. In fact, I think building a good strawman is actually harder - it takes creativity, whereas word vomiting Paul Heyne's lectures just takes a decent memory and a mental pulse. 5. You got that right pimpy. Even Marx said pretty much the same thing in both Das Kapital and The German Ideology. Hey, I'm not making this shit up. You can get those books on Amazon.
1. Heyne in Kane. Got it. 2. Duh 3. Is that what MSNBC told you to say? Cunt. But what you said in point 3 (above ) is not an ad hominem attack. And I know you thought it was. 4. Disagree. Building a starwman means your not able to debate the issue so you make shit up. 5 year olds do that when they are caught in a tough situation 5. I have both books and have read both books. I also refer my well worn copy of the Marx-Engles Reader fairly often when debating socialist Fucktards in real life.
6. Are we arguing or agreeing? Seems like we're on the same page here. 7. ? 8. profit
re #6, of course. but that's like saying we agree that it's Monday. who cares whether we agree or not. it is fucking Monday. and likewise minimum wage laws create shortages in the demand market for labor in our system. there are 1.5 million problems that occur at the legislative level in the cuntry, and that one is like #987. it's so overwhelming that my pea brain cannot assimilate it.
re #3, I don't know why you give me that question. who is this MSNBC you speak of? does he poast here?
re #3, look, I am a trained, professional philosophizer who hails from the hallowed grounds of Savory Hall, so don't fuck with me on the latin rhetorical device references, cuz I'll take you down, all the way down to China town. let's just say, sure, not exactly ad hominem, and let's just say, sure, my comments on your gripping thoughts about companion dogs wasn't really either. it's close enough for me. if you feel the need to be more precise, then go fuck yourself with it. twat lips.
re#5, good for you. tell the socialist fucktards I said, "hello". and I should correct myself - Marx didn't say precisely that capitalism pulls people out of poverty. what he said was that it is the best system we've come up with, to date, to eliminate scarcity. I suppose those are one in the same, but an argument can be made that they're not. maybe that's why he went off the reservation, partially abandoned his earlier theory of historical materialism and wrote the manifesto. or maybe he was bored.
But does anybody who isn't stoopid actually think minimum wages increase jobs and stimulate the economy? Does even a left-wing hippie with a basic education in economics really believe that it does those things as opposed to what it really does - serve as yet another means of redistribution?
I mean, I get it. Minimum wage means, among other things, that shit (defined loosely as goods and services) will cost more.
Is it honestly anyone's view here that there are a lot of people who don't understand this basic truth? It's not a point of view. It's a factual reality given the system we have today. Maybe Marx was right and someday in the future we will reach a point of evolution where we have moved on from free market principles to a better system ("better" being defined however it's defined at that time). But until then, this is the one we have, and it works the way it works.
I guess I'm saying, there's nothing to discover here.
Sounds like some basic Kane Hall freshman shit. And, yes, some people don't understand the basic truth, and when given the facts and data to read for themselves, won't take the time to understand it (Hi OBK!!!)
It's much easier to argue with Ad hominem attacks and build false realities (I.e. A CEO making $6 million a year while paying $10 an hour to 300 workers).
There is still no other system than the free market that lifts more people out of grinding poverty consistently.
1. Correct. But better to say, "some Heyne in Kane" shit. It rhymes. 2. Ok. I believe you. 3. There is nothing wrong with ad hominem rhetoric you pedantic little twat pimple. I would tell you to try it sometime, but you just called me a cunt somewhere else, so I think you are well familiar with the technique. 4. I don't agree that it's easier to build false realities than it is to learn this shit in econ 201. In fact, I think building a good strawman is actually harder - it takes creativity, whereas word vomiting Paul Heyne's lectures just takes a decent memory and a mental pulse. 5. You got that right pimpy. Even Marx said pretty much the same thing in both Das Kapital and The German Ideology. Hey, I'm not making this shit up. You can get those books on Amazon.
1. Heyne in Kane. Got it. 2. Duh 3. Is that what MSNBC told you to say? Cunt. But what you said in point 3 (above ) is not an ad hominem attack. And I know you thought it was. 4. Disagree. Building a starwman means your not able to debate the issue so you make shit up. 5 year olds do that when they are caught in a tough situation 5. I have both books and have read both books. I also refer my well worn copy of the Marx-Engles Reader fairly often when debating socialist Fucktards in real life.
6. Are we arguing or agreeing? Seems like we're on the same page here. 7. ? 8. profit
re #6, of course. but that's like saying we agree that it's Monday. who cares whether we agree or not. it is fucking Monday. and likewise minimum wage laws create shortages in the demand market for labor in our system. there are 1.5 million problems that occur at the legislative level in the cuntry, and that one is like #987. it's so overwhelming that my pea brain cannot assimilate it.
re #3, I don't know why you give me that question. who is this MSNBC you speak of? does he poast here?
re #3, look, I am a trained, professional philosophizer who hails from the hallowed grounds of Savory Hall, so don't fuck with me on the latin rhetorical device references, cuz I'll take you down, all the way down to China town. let's just say, sure, not exactly ad hominem, and let's just say, sure, my comments on your gripping thoughts about companion dogs wasn't really either. it's close enough for me. if you feel the need to be more precise, then go fuck yourself with it. twat lips.
re#5, good for you. tell the socialist fucktards I said, "hello". and I should correct myself - Marx didn't say precisely that capitalism pulls people out of poverty. what he said was that it is the best system we've come up with, to date, to eliminate scarcity. I suppose those are one in the same, but an argument can be made that they're not. maybe that's why he went off the reservation, partially abandoned his earlier theory of historical materialism and wrote the manifesto. or maybe he was bored.
re #8, what is this profit thing you speak of?
Pressing
I see your blood sugar is low this afternoon.
What, no more material from freshman year to shove down our throats?
But does anybody who isn't stoopid actually think minimum wages increase jobs and stimulate the economy? Does even a left-wing hippie with a basic education in economics really believe that it does those things as opposed to what it really does - serve as yet another means of redistribution?
I mean, I get it. Minimum wage means, among other things, that shit (defined loosely as goods and services) will cost more.
Is it honestly anyone's view here that there are a lot of people who don't understand this basic truth? It's not a point of view. It's a factual reality given the system we have today. Maybe Marx was right and someday in the future we will reach a point of evolution where we have moved on from free market principles to a better system ("better" being defined however it's defined at that time). But until then, this is the one we have, and it works the way it works.
I guess I'm saying, there's nothing to discover here.
Sounds like some basic Kane Hall freshman shit. And, yes, some people don't understand the basic truth, and when given the facts and data to read for themselves, won't take the time to understand it (Hi OBK!!!)
It's much easier to argue with Ad hominem attacks and build false realities (I.e. A CEO making $6 million a year while paying $10 an hour to 300 workers).
There is still no other system than the free market that lifts more people out of grinding poverty consistently.
1. Correct. But better to say, "some Heyne in Kane" shit. It rhymes. 2. Ok. I believe you. 3. There is nothing wrong with ad hominem rhetoric you pedantic little twat pimple. I would tell you to try it sometime, but you just called me a cunt somewhere else, so I think you are well familiar with the technique. 4. I don't agree that it's easier to build false realities than it is to learn this shit in econ 201. In fact, I think building a good strawman is actually harder - it takes creativity, whereas word vomiting Paul Heyne's lectures just takes a decent memory and a mental pulse. 5. You got that right pimpy. Even Marx said pretty much the same thing in both Das Kapital and The German Ideology. Hey, I'm not making this shit up. You can get those books on Amazon.
1. Heyne in Kane. Got it. 2. Duh 3. Is that what MSNBC told you to say? Cunt. But what you said in point 3 (above ) is not an ad hominem attack. And I know you thought it was. 4. Disagree. Building a starwman means your not able to debate the issue so you make shit up. 5 year olds do that when they are caught in a tough situation 5. I have both books and have read both books. I also refer my well worn copy of the Marx-Engles Reader fairly often when debating socialist Fucktards in real life.
6. Are we arguing or agreeing? Seems like we're on the same page here. 7. ? 8. profit
re #6, of course. but that's like saying we agree that it's Monday. who cares whether we agree or not. it is fucking Monday. and likewise minimum wage laws create shortages in the demand market for labor in our system. there are 1.5 million problems that occur at the legislative level in the cuntry, and that one is like #987. it's so overwhelming that my pea brain cannot assimilate it.
re #3, I don't know why you give me that question. who is this MSNBC you speak of? does he poast here?
re #3, look, I am a trained, professional philosophizer who hails from the hallowed grounds of Savory Hall, so don't fuck with me on the latin rhetorical device references, cuz I'll take you down, all the way down to China town. let's just say, sure, not exactly ad hominem, and let's just say, sure, my comments on your gripping thoughts about companion dogs wasn't really either. it's close enough for me. if you feel the need to be more precise, then go fuck yourself with it. twat lips.
re#5, good for you. tell the socialist fucktards I said, "hello". and I should correct myself - Marx didn't say precisely that capitalism pulls people out of poverty. what he said was that it is the best system we've come up with, to date, to eliminate scarcity. I suppose those are one in the same, but an argument can be made that they're not. maybe that's why he went off the reservation, partially abandoned his earlier theory of historical materialism and wrote the manifesto. or maybe he was bored.
re #8, what is this profit thing you speak of?
Pressing
I see your blood sugar is low this afternoon.
What, no more material from freshman year to shove down our throats?
OKB you're one of my favorite posters here but Damone is tearing up all of your assholes who agree to raising the minimum wage. Yes, 8-10$/hr is barely a living wage nowadays without being extremely frugal, but it's not like you can't get a 2nd job, go back to school (I'm surprised how many morons go to school for free) get some crowd funding idea, go make an app (You don't need to be some elite programmer to do any of that), etc. This is how these CEO's got to make obscene money, they grew the fucking company to the point where it could hire a ton of workers. And yes some of them may act like extravagant pigs, some of them work insanely hard and don't show off their money as much, but the common denominator is that if they fuck up the company, they will be gone (or if it's their own business, they're fucked). It's the risk you take.
raising the minimum is a fucking bad idea and a lot of the people in Seattle who voted for it will regret it if they're actually being objective about it afterwards and own a small business or are working these kind of jobs. fyfmfe
And yes everything I just said is pre-Econ101 shit. Fuck off
OKB you're one of my favorite posters here but Damone is tearing up all of your assholes who agree to raising the minimum wage. Yes, 8-10$/hr is barely a living wage nowadays without being extremely frugal, but it's not like you can't get a 2nd job, go back to school (I'm surprised how many morons go to school for free) get some crowd funding idea, go make an app (You don't need to be some elite programmer to do any of that), etc. This is how these CEO's got to make obscene money, they grew the fucking company to the point where it could hire a ton of workers. And yes some of them may act like extravagant pigs, some of them work insanely hard and don't show off their money as much, but the common denominator is that if they fuck up the company, they will be gone (or if it's their own business, they're fucked). It's the risk you take.
raising the minimum is a fucking bad idea and a lot of the people in Seattle who voted for it will regret it if they're actually being objective about it afterwards and own a small business or are working these kind of jobs. fyfmfe
And yes everything I just said is pre-Econ101 shit. Fuck off
Only 9 people "voted" for it.
HTH
vote/support/swallow-the-feces-from. but yeah you're right
OKB you're one of my favorite posters here but Damone is tearing up all of your assholes who agree to raising the minimum wage. Yes, 8-10$/hr is barely a living wage nowadays without being extremely frugal, but it's not like you can't get a 2nd job, go back to school (I'm surprised how many morons go to school for free) get some crowd funding idea, go make an app (You don't need to be some elite programmer to do any of that), etc. This is how these CEO's got to make obscene money, they grew the fucking company to the point where it could hire a ton of workers. And yes some of them may act like extravagant pigs, some of them work insanely hard and don't show off their money as much, but the common denominator is that if they fuck up the company, they will be gone (or if it's their own business, they're fucked). It's the risk you take.
raising the minimum is a fucking bad idea and a lot of the people in Seattle who voted for it will regret it if they're actually being objective about it afterwards and own a small business or are working these kind of jobs. fyfmfe
And yes everything I just said is pre-Econ101 shit. Fuck off
"I'm sure even you can figure out that a full time job that doesn't provide a liveable wage and requires someone to be on foodstamps is nothing more than a tax that everyone has to pay. The employer jips the workers and the result is that we all have to pour more money into the foodstamp program through taxes, which make the government a little bit bigger."
Your statement is simply not true. Yes, the lazy fuckers that work a minimum wage job (that doesn't provide a living wage) will certainly use food stamps - the ambitious ones will work more than one job.
Minimum wage jobs were never meant to provide a living wage to support a family of four. They are meant to provide some income for those without marketable skills.
"I'm sure even you can figure out that a full time job that doesn't provide a liveable wage and requires someone to be on foodstamps is nothing more than a tax that everyone has to pay. The employer jips the workers and the result is that we all have to pour more money into the foodstamp program through taxes, which make the government a little bit bigger."
Your statement is simply not true. Yes, the lazy fuckers that work a minimum wage job (that doesn't provide a living wage) will certainly use food stamps - the ambitious ones will work more than one job.
Minimum wage jobs were never meant to provide a living wage to support a family of four. They are meant to provide some income for those without marketable skills.
The problem with your theery fuckface, is that everyone who works a minimum wage job is lazy. Also, how many 2nd and 3rd jobs do people need to work just to get a wage to support their existence? 80 or 120 hours a week maybe?
Yes, the lazy fuckers that work a minimum wage job (that doesn't provide a living wage) will certainly use food stamps - the ambitious ones will work more than one job.
You said:
The problem with your theery fuckface, is that everyone who works a minimum wage job is lazy. Also, how many 2nd and 3rd jobs do people need to work just to get a wage to support their existence? 80 or 120 hours a week maybe?
Me again (new) :
Well, we know that reading comprehension is not one of your marketable skills.
Minimum wage job workers are only lazy if they prefer handouts (higher min wage or welfare) over actually earning what they receive. What you are missing, in your childish rant, is that minimum wage jobs are transition type work for people entering the work force that don't yet have marketable skills. They are entry level not destination type jobs.
My experience is that those who work the minimum wage jobs (and want to better themselves) actually are able to improve themselves. My apologies that you are not so capable.
"I'm sure even you can figure out that a full time job that doesn't provide a liveable wage and requires someone to be on foodstamps is nothing more than a tax that everyone has to pay. The employer jips the workers and the result is that we all have to pour more money into the foodstamp program through taxes, which make the government a little bit bigger."
Your statement is simply not true. Yes, the lazy fuckers that work a minimum wage job (that doesn't provide a living wage) will certainly use food stamps - the ambitious ones will work more than one job.
Minimum wage jobs were never meant to provide a living wage to support a family of four. They are meant to provide some income for those without marketable skills.
I think minimum wage should be able to support a family of four but not five. That would be ridiculous.
"I'm sure even you can figure out that a full time job that doesn't provide a liveable wage and requires someone to be on foodstamps is nothing more than a tax that everyone has to pay. The employer jips the workers and the result is that we all have to pour more money into the foodstamp program through taxes, which make the government a little bit bigger."
Your statement is simply not true. Yes, the lazy fuckers that work a minimum wage job (that doesn't provide a living wage) will certainly use food stamps - the ambitious ones will work more than one job.
Minimum wage jobs were never meant to provide a living wage to support a family of four. They are meant to provide some income for those without marketable skills.
I think minimum wage should be able to support a family of four but not five. That would be ridiculous.
If someone has a minimum wage job, why do they have 4 kids?
"I'm sure even you can figure out that a full time job that doesn't provide a liveable wage and requires someone to be on foodstamps is nothing more than a tax that everyone has to pay. The employer jips the workers and the result is that we all have to pour more money into the foodstamp program through taxes, which make the government a little bit bigger."
Your statement is simply not true. Yes, the lazy fuckers that work a minimum wage job (that doesn't provide a living wage) will certainly use food stamps - the ambitious ones will work more than one job.
Minimum wage jobs were never meant to provide a living wage to support a family of four. They are meant to provide some income for those without marketable skills.
I think minimum wage should be able to support a family of four but not five. That would be ridiculous.
If someone has a minimum wage job, why do they have 1 kid?
Comments
raising the minimum is a fucking bad idea and a lot of the people in Seattle who voted for it will regret it if they're actually being objective about it afterwards and own a small business or are working these kind of jobs. fyfmfe
And yes everything I just said is pre-Econ101 shit. Fuck off
forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/11/13/apologies-but-welfare-payments-to-employees-are-not-subsidies-to-walmart-and-mcdonalds/
Until then we're stuck with primitive economic theories and realities.
re #3, I don't know why you give me that question. who is this MSNBC you speak of? does he poast here?
re #3, look, I am a trained, professional philosophizer who hails from the hallowed grounds of Savory Hall, so don't fuck with me on the latin rhetorical device references, cuz I'll take you down, all the way down to China town. let's just say, sure, not exactly ad hominem, and let's just say, sure, my comments on your gripping thoughts about companion dogs wasn't really either. it's close enough for me. if you feel the need to be more precise, then go fuck yourself with it. twat lips.
re#5, good for you. tell the socialist fucktards I said, "hello". and I should correct myself - Marx didn't say precisely that capitalism pulls people out of poverty. what he said was that it is the best system we've come up with, to date, to eliminate scarcity. I suppose those are one in the same, but an argument can be made that they're not. maybe that's why he went off the reservation, partially abandoned his earlier theory of historical materialism and wrote the manifesto. or maybe he was bored.
re #8, what is this profit thing you speak of?
What, no more material from freshman year to shove down our throats?
Have a drink and relax. Fuck face.
HTH
"I'm sure even you can figure out that a full time job that doesn't provide a liveable wage and requires someone to be on foodstamps is nothing more than a tax that everyone has to pay. The employer jips the workers and the result is that we all have to pour more money into the foodstamp program through taxes, which make the government a little bit bigger."
Your statement is simply not true. Yes, the lazy fuckers that work a minimum wage job (that doesn't provide a living wage) will certainly use food stamps - the ambitious ones will work more than one job.
Minimum wage jobs were never meant to provide a living wage to support a family of four. They are meant to provide some income for those without marketable skills.
Yes, the lazy fuckers that work a minimum wage job (that doesn't provide a living wage) will certainly use food stamps - the ambitious ones will work more than one job.
You said:
The problem with your theery fuckface, is that everyone who works a minimum wage job is lazy. Also, how many 2nd and 3rd jobs do people need to work just to get a wage to support their existence? 80 or 120 hours a week maybe?
Me again (new) :
Well, we know that reading comprehension is not one of your marketable skills.
Minimum wage job workers are only lazy if they prefer handouts (higher min wage or welfare) over actually earning what they receive. What you are missing, in your childish rant, is that minimum wage jobs are transition type work for people entering the work force that don't yet have marketable skills. They are entry level not destination type jobs.
My experience is that those who work the minimum wage jobs (and want to better themselves) actually are able to improve themselves. My apologies that you are not so capable.
I think minimum wage should be able to support a family of four but not five. That would be ridiculous.
How old is too old to abort?