The beauty of capitalism in pictures.

[quote name='UncleBob']Hmmm... interesting. I wasn't aware that property taxes had been repealed all over the US.

In regards to the estate tax - thankfully, family farmers can get special loans from the government that help pay their taxes. So, basically, the family farmers get to end up working for the government for a few years...[/QUOTE]

So you want to repeal that property taxes, because you guess it causes people to lose their farms?

I can't find data on it at the moment....where did you find yours?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Why equate capitalism with government corruption that allows some people to screw over others? In China, as illustrated by your pictures, the corrupt government does this as a matter of policy: those who can make money for the government are given license to destroy what is communal property (air, rivers). Letting one party destroy an asset partially owned by others with no recompense is a result of corrupt and oppressive government, not capitalism. Unfortunately, we have seen at times that the two have gone together, but if you look at the history of industry in Eastern Europe during the Cold War you'll see that it's not a hard and fast rule.[/QUOTE]


Thank you El for finally revealing the truth about China. An oppressive, fascist government that would never allow these affected people to protest their living conditions without a massive suppression by force. A type of government in complete control of the dissemination of information to their own people. A type of government that is actively worshiped and would be welcomed by the CAG-Left and other Socialist/Communist Utopia-thinkers in America for the good of the people.

Gareman, I've never doubted the will of individuals, be they true liberals or conservatives, to affect change in our America. Those changes you cite could never have occurred in a place like China, or anywhere else where the government wields complete control over it's people. The argument WAS about capitalism being bad and I stated otherwise in pictures. That was the point of the OP. The end result of capitalism is devastation with the implicit connection of being inherently flawed. Your examples of our freedom to lobby our government to protect us only illustrates the inherent success of our system of government over others in the world.
 
[quote name='speedracer']
The really bullshit part of this is that while I think we enjoy being douches to each other (at least I enjoy it because I'm a douche), I bet we could settle 90% of our problems over a six pack and a couple of Padrons. We would probably end up with strong regulation to curtail the really god awful shit like we see in the pictures, but also completely free trade without tariff. I'd demand nationalized health care and offer up the Fed for you to slaughter. Throw in FoC and we could probably end world hunger as well.

The REALLY bullshit part is at the end of the negotiation we'd probably end up with a cradle to grave social net, a completely free market (outside of a don't be fucking evil regulation system), and could still probably cut taxes by 25% just as a start.

Or maybe I'm just delusional. Who knows.[/QUOTE]

No, you aren't delusional. I totally agree with the above.
I'm just enough conspiracy theorist to believe the root cause of all we are both talking about is the corprotacracy. I really am starting to believe it's the evil large banks controlling everything that matters and preventing any real change. They are the true enemy to me. Government has little to do with it, because they are almost completely controlled by such now.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Why equate capitalism with government corruption that allows some people to screw over others?[/quote]
Because capital as a matter of "good" economic policy seeks out those countries that will offer it the lowest regulation, the lowest labor costs, and the most hospitable government cooperation. A perfect host country would be one that allowed them to discard externalities as a cost of business entirely, a large exploitable labor force without labor protection recourse of any kind, etc. Sure, China deserves criticism. That's a obvious and a given. But should we pretend that capital doesn't have a significant role here?

thrust's analogy was perfect. A man punches his wife in the face. We buy teeth. We're against abuse but we buy any teeth made available as a result of abuse. And then we say the blame lies entirely with the man, then wink and say thanks for the teeth.

No way dude.

If the problem is China, then the problem would end immediately when China cleaned up its act right? There would be no more of this kind of hideous shit without China? Of course not. In fact as stated in this thread already by capital supporters, we all know that industry would pack up and move to the next country that allowed them to do this. American industry would lead the way in seeking out the next nasty regime. And then we'd all become apologists for the industry again with the end result exactly the same.

Nothing about that makes sense.

[quote name='thrustbucket']I'm just enough conspiracy theorist to believe the root cause of all we are both talking about is the corprotacracy. I really am starting to believe it's the evil large banks controlling everything that matters and preventing any real change. They are the true enemy to me. Government has little to do with it, because they are almost completely controlled by such now.[/QUOTE]
I agree and think it can be completely wiped out with two regulation changes. First, eliminate the limiting of liability or piercing of the veil. I'm not talking about torts per se, I mean stop allowing companies to allow one or two people to be the fall guys and everyone else's pile of money is safe. That's absurd and most lawyers and business people get a big grin on their faces when you talk about how limited liability entities have evolved to essentially turn companies into fortresses that allow them to evade any/all bad behavior liability. It wasn't this way until very recently and the change has been dramatic.

Second, make companies choose between being an individual or being a corporation in the eyes of the law. They far too easily dissolve back into a *limited liability* corporation when they get busted doing awful shit or want to hide income from the tax man, but then suddenly become individuals when it's time to grease Congress with money or talk about freedom of speech. The reality that a corporation has MORE freedom and LESS liability than a human being is positively absurd.
[quote name='bmulligan']The argument WAS about capitalism being bad and I stated otherwise in pictures. That was the point of the OP. The end result of capitalism is devastation with the implicit connection of being inherently flawed.[/QUOTE]
"Capitalism" is not bad. Capitalism as a mode of production is unrivaled in its ability to bring efficiency and innovation to the front. Those are inherent in capitalism and only a fool disagrees with that. But capital also partners with those that are oppressive, goddamn evil entities in order to increase its capital value. That's inherent as well and only a fool would see otherwise what is obvious. The body of evidence clearly bears that out.

Or we could just trust them to clean their act up without regulation. Like Disney circa 2007:
Reacting to three separate recalls of Mattel toys found to contain unsafe levels of lead paint, The Walt Disney Company said it would begin its own testing of toys featuring Disney characters, including random testing of products already on store shelves.

Executives at Disney made the decision to institute the testing on Thursday and intend to inform Mattel and other toy manufacturers today.
Click to expand...
Yesterday:
Toys carrying the Barbie and Disney logos have turned up with high levels of lead in them, a California advocacy group says - a finding that may give holiday shoppers pause.
Click to expand...
It would be funny if this wasn't so serious, ya know?

This is what happens when I wait for a city employee in order to finish my job. I end up writing damn thesis length posts. Damn city workers. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I notice a strong pattern - any truthiness coming from Bmuls, UncleBob, and the other borderline anarcho-capitalists is smacked down hard and fast by fact. I have enjoyed reading every post by speedracer, gareman, msut (and occasionally tb)

The underlying truth is that American corporations are exploiting foreign workers and trashing the environment in foreign lands. Bmuls frames the issue as a situation where you can only get the shiny toys by cheating workers in foreign lands. It's a nice try but it doesn't get the consumer off the hook. We could get these goods, but only after we refused to support labels that use sweatshops. We could be buy enviornmentally friendly, but only after we demanded to know the environmental impact of the item's production. Unfortunately people usually just buy whatever is on sale and go about their busy lives. Out of sight, out of mind - a sad fact of human nature.

I would argue that human rights issues like those depicted in the pictures are too important to be left to the whims of the consumer. You can't expect someone buying a sweatshop Nike shirt on sale to fully understand the exploitation and human misery they are buying into, it's not realistic. I also tend to think (perhaps naively) that most Americans are decent moral people who would be willing to pay a little extra if it means avoidance of the disasters shown in the pictures. Under this premise it only makes sense to tighten government regulation of these businesses.
 
Camoor, I really do believe that we are just a few years, if not months, away from a great 'equalization'. We soon will have no other choice but to lower our lifestyle. We will soon be closer to Mexico. The reasons for this are many, but it's coming. The dollar is so artificially higher than the rest of currency's right now that it will come down, and quickly. Call it karma if you like.
 
[quote name='bmulligan'] A type of government that is actively worshiped and would be welcomed by the CAG-Left and other Socialist/Communist Utopia-thinkers in America for the good of the people.
[/QUOTE]

Nobody is looking to turn the U.S. into China... It's like me saying you want to turn the U.S. into a labor camp run by a multinational corporation.
 
I'm against Capitalism as it stands now, which is the government/corporate tag-team against the poor and working class. I still think there are benefits in a capitalistic system that is properly regulated.
 
Say I have an idea for something, I spend 5 years developing the idea, spend all my money, sell everything, but eventually start to become successful. At the end of the year, I hired 100 employees. They all get a wage equal to their marketplace value. Somebody making copies may get minimum wage, but doesn't have the stresses and workload of somebody who makes 80K a year creates big contracts for my company. My profits are 100 million at the end of the year. All workers got at least minimum wage, but based on their skills and education probably made on average 40K each. They all got health insurance, 401K, vacation and personal time, etc. I think we can all agree that this example matches all successful companies right? The profits may be more or less and the amount of employees as well but this is basically the capitalist system right?

Now somebody give me a reasonable case for why I should do X Y or Z with my profits. Let's also assume that I do not ever take government bailouts, and that I will continue to keep this company profitable and competetive, hire more workers, and keep the ones I have already employeed. I need to know what the problem is, if I decided to put all my proftis on black, or give everyone a brand new house, tell me what is illegal or immoral or just wrong in your opinion of me for let's say not giving any more of that money than my employees contract states. Let's made the argument deeper than, he should distribute the profits evenly among his employees, thereby making each work a millionaire after one year.
 
I guess it depends on whether or not you are destroying the air/land/sea and/or influencing policymakers to give you tax refunds and incentives. What about when your company's profits start to increase exponentially yet your employees (who are the main source of these profits) salaries increase only slightly despite a rising cost of living? There's a lot more to this argument, and I am not well-versed enough to give you the best argument, but I'm trying.
 
[quote name='jputahraptor']To the people against capitalism, what kind of market do you propose and please cite a country where it is successful.[/QUOTE]

Socialism. Sweden.

EDIT: Socialism. Norway.
 
Well for starters there are plenty of people in the real world who don't make 40k a year, don't have a 401k, don't get vacation time etc...

I guess i'll stop with my "China is not communist" argument because people apparently don't care.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']I'm against Capitalism as it stands now, which is the government/corporate tag-team against the poor and working class. I still think there are benefits in a capitalistic system that is properly regulated.[/QUOTE]

Winner. :)
 
[quote name='jputahraptor']Say I have an idea for something, I spend 5 years developing the idea, spend all my money, sell everything, but eventually start to become successful. At the end of the year, I hired 100 employees. They all get a wage equal to their marketplace value. Somebody making copies may get minimum wage, but doesn't have the stresses and workload of somebody who makes 80K a year creates big contracts for my company. My profits are 100 million at the end of the year. All workers got at least minimum wage, but based on their skills and education probably made on average 40K each. They all got health insurance, 401K, vacation and personal time, etc. I think we can all agree that this example matches all successful companies right? The profits may be more or less and the amount of employees as well but this is basically the capitalist system right?

Now somebody give me a reasonable case for why I should do X Y or Z with my profits. Let's also assume that I do not ever take government bailouts, and that I will continue to keep this company profitable and competetive, hire more workers, and keep the ones I have already employeed. I need to know what the problem is, if I decided to put all my proftis on black, or give everyone a brand new house, tell me what is illegal or immoral or just wrong in your opinion of me for let's say not giving any more of that money than my employees contract states. Let's made the argument deeper than, he should distribute the profits evenly among his employees, thereby making each work a millionaire after one year.[/QUOTE]

You have a very simplistic world view.

And if you think all of the people at the top are working harder then the average Joe and actually deserve their excessive salaries, then you're a bigger fool then I can imagine.
 
This was such an interesting thread until the Randian knucklehead showed up.

YOU SEE YOU SEE YOU SEE IF YOU REGULATE ME THEN I WONT DO ALL THE WHIZ BANG SHIT THAT MAKES THIS COUNTRY GREAT AND EMPLOYS 100S OF YOU MAYBE AND THEN WHERE WILL YOU BE PROBABLY LIKE OH SNAP WE WISH THOSE GUYS WOULD COME BACK BUT THEY WONT CAUSE THEYLL BE IN A MOUNTAIN HIDEOUT CIRCLE JERKING AND LAUGHING ABOUT HOW THE REST OF YOU WILL NOT HAVE RICH PEOPLE OR PRODUCTION PEOPLE OR SOMETHING I FORGET WHICH.
tell me what is illegal or immoral or just wrong in your opinion of me for let's say not giving any more of that money than my employees contract states. Let's made the argument deeper than, he should distribute the profits evenly among his employees, thereby making each work a millionaire after one year.
Click to expand...
Tell me what is wrong or immoral or just wrong in your opinion of me for let's say not giving any more safety protection than my employees contract states. Let's made the argument deeper than, the company should not be responsible for externalities. It's supposed to be a free market right? People should be able to contract whatever they want right? And let's made the argument deeper than again. Why shouldn't children be able to contract?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As long as nobody is forced to work for someone they don't want to (slavery), I am not sure what people want. Forcing company's to pay more etc is just kind of silly.

I thought this thread was about how supposedly capitalism is responsible for keeping the third world down.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I thought this thread was about how supposedly capitalism is responsible for keeping the third world down.[/QUOTE]
It is. We're being indulgent, at least I am, because this seems to be one of the few things we can actually all agree on and then the sideshow popped in for a little ridiculously OT fun.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']As long as nobody is forced to work for someone they don't want to (slavery), I am not sure what people want. Forcing company's to pay more etc is just kind of silly.[/QUOTE]

Why is it silly? If the people don't stand up for their fair share the rich will take it all. "We do God's work" is the new "Let them eat cake"

Mr Blankfein made his comments just 12 months after bankers brought the world's economy to the brink of collapse.
He said modern banking performed a vital function and described himself as just a banker 'doing God's work'.
...
While Mr Blankfein conceded that people are angry at bankers, he said that the bank's recent performance is cause for celebration as rising profits indicate economic recovery.
He told the newspaper: 'Everybody should be happy. Companies are looking to grow again and raise money. That's where we come in.
Click to expand...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-Gods-work-defends-banks-bumper-profits.html
 
Workers have more power than they think they do, that's why. They can strike and the rich won't be rich for much longer. Nobody is FORCED to work for a shitty company in this country. It's a choice.

That being said, I do support a minimum wage (within reason).

See, if I want to start a company that doesn't offer any benefits and only pays minimum wage, that's my right. Why can't I? Nobody has to come work for me. I can't force anyone to work for me. Why should the government be able to step in as soon as I incorporate my company and say "You fucker, you have to supply anyone that works for you with this, this, this, and a lot more pay". That's bullshit.

If I open a hot-dog stand, put up a help wanted sign, and refuse to offer anyone more than minimum wage then I can expect to either A) not find any help or B) find really shitty help. It's not the governments job to step in and tell me that whomever I hire, I better supply them with benefits and offer them $12 an hour.

You can't honestly tell a guy that opens a hot-dog stand tomorrow that anyone he hires he has to pay $12 an hour. That's ludicrous. But it seems, at some point, you feel that when a business is large enough, what they pay needs to be legally forced. I don't get that.

If you are going to advocate stuff like that, why not just take it one step further and just tax all company's for 70% of their profits and let the government pay everyone their paychecks based on some arbitrary fairness calculation?
 
[quote name='willardhaven']I'm against Capitalism as it stands now, which is the government/corporate tag-team against the poor and working class. I still think there are benefits in a capitalistic system that is properly regulated.[/QUOTE]

Same, like I said earlier the goal should be leaving most things to the market, and just finding the right mix of the least possible regulations that get the job done and protect the middle and lower classes.

I wouldn't support a system of full socialism. Other than maybe for health care as access to doctors and medicine should be a basic human right and not something people do without or go bankrupt over. That should never have been allowed to turn into a job sector based on huge salaries for doctors, drug companies and especially insurance companies which adds up to their bottom lines being what they care most about, rather than positive outcomes for patients.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Workers have more power than they think they do, that's why. They can strike and the rich won't be rich for much longer. Nobody is FORCED to work for a shitty company in this country. It's a choice.
[/QUOTE]

Depends on the type of job. People with no education or marketable skills have a much harder time doing that. If they've finally got a job that makes ends meet, it's hard for them to strike (if it's a non-union job) or to quit and go elsewhere as they know they'll have a hard time finding more than a minimum wage job.

Especially in this economy with unemployment so high, so many people looking for jobs, and the continued erosion of blue collar jobs outside of the minimum wage paying service sector.

Again, I don't support moving fully away from capitalism, but I don't think workers have that much power. Especially in today's economy. When people are desperate for work, the workers have little power as they'll be quickly replaced.
 
[quote name='camoor']You have a very simplistic world view.

And if you think all of the people at the top are working harder then the average Joe and actually deserve their excessive salaries, then you're a bigger fool then I can imagine.[/QUOTE]


Is A-Rod worth the 25 million he gets per year for the 162 or so games he plays? Of course not.


What you fail to see in Capitalism is that the worker is free to leave his place of work if he feels he is being paid an unfair wage and compete for other jobs which pay better. That's something our little Socialists in training here on CAG wouldn't have. Hate your job in Socialist America, to bad, the government will tell you what to do and where to do it, no freedom to improve your skills and compete for better jobs. In fact, why create anything, if your going to lose it to the government anyway. America became the leader in so many fields, from medicine to automobiles, thanks to innovative companies and individuals who were free to explore and invent things that you all take for granted and wouldn't have otherwise.

And you clearly have no business experience at all. If you expect companies to share their wealth, you are either naive or dellusional. When you get hired, you agree to what pay and benefits you get. If you don't like the offer you don't have to take it. Do some people get paid to much, hell yes, and that is life, so grow up and get an education so you don't some so whiny next time.
 
[quote name='jputahraptor']Is A-Rod worth the 25 million he gets per year for the 162 or so games he plays? Of course not.


What you fail to see in Capitalism is that the worker is free to leave his place of work if he feels he is being paid an unfair wage and compete for other jobs which pay better. That's something our little Socialists in training here on CAG wouldn't have. Hate your job in Socialist America, to bad, the government will tell you what to do and where to do it, no freedom to improve your skills and compete for better jobs. In fact, why create anything, if your going to lose it to the government anyway. America became the leader in so many fields, from medicine to automobiles, thanks to innovative companies and individuals who were free to explore and invent things that you all take for granted and wouldn't have otherwise.

And you clearly have no business experience at all. If you expect companies to share their wealth, you are either naive or dellusional. When you get hired, you agree to what pay and benefits you get. If you don't like the offer you don't have to take it. Do some people get paid to much, hell yes, and that is life, so grow up and get an education so you don't some so whiny next time.[/QUOTE]

I don't believe you've ever used anything as an example that anyone has ever actually said.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Depends on the type of job. People with no education or marketable skills have a much harder time doing that.[/QUOTE]

If EA releases a crappy game, should we all go out and buy it at $50?

Or would you spend your money on another game? Wait for a price drop? Not buy it at all?

If EA wants me to buy their game at the price they want, then they'll need to put effort into increasing the quality of it.

Likewise with a low-wage, no skills worker. Put some effort into increasing the quality of your work (Night classes at the local community college, for example) and you'll increase the chances of someone wanting to pay you what you think your product (in this case, your labor) is worth.
 
If they have time to do that. Many have made bad decisions and are stuck working 2 or 3 crappy jobs to make ends meet.

It's not so easy to just take night classes and go find a better job for some. That said, I've said many times I don't particularly feel bad for such people as life is what you make of it and you have to live with poor decisions that have made your life hard.

But I do think the super pro-capitalism people over state how easy it is for someone born into abject poverty to become successful. It can and does happen, but acting like everyone in a purely capitalist society has an equal chance to succeed is naive. Just as it is naive for the socialist to think a socialist system can solve all problems.

Again, the right answer will be a mix of the two that controls corporations, and helps people born into disadvantage to level the playing field to break out of the cycle of poverty etc.
 
I don't think everyone has an equal chance to succeed - but I don't think it's morally right to amputate everyone's right leg because one guy lost his leg. There's a balance between the two - and it's just unrealistic to expect an employer to pay large groups of people more than the people are worth.
 
The only problem with paying people minimum wage is that.. you can't live off of this so called minimum wage. Here in NJ it's like $7.50 an hour :shock: My rent is $1075 a month.. how on earth would I be able to pay for that on $7-$8? I don't even understand how they even determine what a minimum wage even is.

Why do we want people making the extreme bare minimum? Wouldn't it be ideal to set a minimum wage so people are able to pay bills and buy food easier and still have some money left over..that can go into spending..that goes back into the economy... which helps the economy.. ETC.

When I worked at Wal-Mart when I was like 19..yeah sure $7.95 an hour was cool since I was living at home and that was it :lol:.. but now being a responsible adult and junk, I can't EVER imagine making like $8 an hour to live off of. :(
 
If you're working one minimum wage job and have an $1,100 rent, then you're living beyond your means. Get a roommate (or two), move back with your parents, get a second job or find a cheaper apartment/rental (which may involve moving... a few years ago, I rented a nice apartment with two bedrooms, kitchen, appliances, cable and electric/water included for $450/month (and no, this was not any kind of low-rend, subsidized housing either). Split between my roommate and I, we never had a problem making rent.).

Minimum skills = minimum wage = minimum lifestyle.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']
Likewise with a low-wage, no skills worker. Put some effort into increasing the quality of your work (Night classes at the local community college, for example) and you'll increase the chances of someone wanting to pay you what you think your product (in this case, your labor) is worth.[/QUOTE]

If someone is working two minimum wage jobs to pay for rent, food, clothing and possibly medical care, where are they getting the cash and free time for night school? Minimum wage now is worth less than it was not too many years ago. The point a lot of us are trying to make is that the working poor are getting taken for what little they had to begin with.

I don't think an uneducated, unskilled and inexperienced worker should be rolling around in a luxury sports car, but he or she should be able to get by on a 40 hour work week.
 
What if that individual has a 40 hour a week job delivering newspapers and is a single parent of two kids? Should they be able to get by on his/her 40 hour work week?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']What if that individual has a 40 hour a week job delivering newspapers and is a single parent of two kids? Should they be able to get by on his/her 40 hour work week?[/QUOTE]

Yes.
 
Yep. Having food, clothing and shelter (at a level of modest fitting with your income) without going into debt bankrupty--aka getting by--should be a basic human right for anyone willing to work 40 hours a week.

They key is what portion of the burden should be on employers (minimum wage level) and what on the goverment (level of welfare) to make that a reality.
 
I think the point of a minimum wage would be the wage required for an individual working 40 hrs a week to survive (food, clothing, shelter). Not necessarily enough money to raise a family, but at least for an individual. I don't think $15k a year really cuts that much of anywhere.
 
Yeah, I'd more or less agree with that, and that the welfare net needs to come in when kids are involved since they can't support themselves.
 
I think anyone that devotes 40 hours of their life to a job should be able to very minimally (food, health care, shelter, clothes) support one or two kids. If it is two parents working full time at any job there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to support two kids.

If anyone ever wants to fix the poverty problem in America then this needs to happen. As someone who grew up with no health care and at points not having clothes, food, or adequate shelter I know how hard it is to break the cycle.

Working 40 hours a week and going to school full-time is no easy task, and at times I doubt I will make it. Life would have been easier had I not started so far behind everyone else (I had a non reliable car, 3,000 dollars worth of dental work, no money or emotional support for school). I have mentioned this before and, no I am not asking for pity or admiration...I am just saying as someone whom has lived growing up in poverty--it is not fun and puts a person at a huge disadvantage. I completely understand those give up the "American dream" by the time they haven't even graduated from high school....hell I think I have almost given up a half a dozen times this week. The only thing that separates me from a homeless person, drop out meth head, or a single parent with 4 kids is a couple "bad" choices.

The bottom line is everyone deserves food, shelter, health care, and clothing especially if one is playing the game and working a full-time job.
 
So, I'm hearing different ideas here - what would you (everyone feel free to answer) set the required minimum wage for a 40-hour/week employee at any particular job at if you were to write such a bill for consideration in the House/Senate?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, I'm hearing different ideas here - what would you (everyone feel free to answer) set the required minimum wage for a 40-hour/week employee at any particular job at if you were to write such a bill for consideration in the House/Senate?[/QUOTE]

Doing it nationwide is kind of difficult anyway because of varying costs-of-living in different places, so the national minimum wage probably should just be a baseline that the state/local governments can change in order to make it work better. I guess the biggest problem now is just that over the past few years nobody seems to have really cared about raising it to match increases in the cost of living.

So it's a hard thing to do as one number across the entire country, so the best legislation I think would require local governments to figure it out, and it would have to be based on an average cost for rent, utilities, etc. in that area. The national minimum wage could be based on a national average for those things, but it would have to be flexible and the local minimum wage would have to be able to override it. Right now I know states can add to the minimum wage, but I don't believe they can subtract from it. So either the national minimum wage would have to be low enough that it works everywhere and states are required to assess and add to it when necessary, or it would have to be able to be both added to and subtracted from and based on a national average.

Anyway, that's long, but I think federally the law should focus on making sure that minimum wages exist (maybe with a baseline/average number) and the local laws should be what sets the numbers so that they cover what they should as best as possible.

And I don't know much about existing minimum wage laws, so I don't know how much of that is already done.
 
buncha commies in this thread.

im not saying that minimum wage is great, but for a single individual, minimum wage is liveable. out here in california youd make about 16k at minimum wage, a little over 1k a month. theres no reason why you cant get a cheap apartment, with or without a roommate for under $500. that leaves you with 6-700 for food, clothing, and bills, which should be more than manageable for an individual as long as they are frugal.

[quote name='SpazX']

Anyway, that's long, but I think federally the law should focus on making sure that minimum wages exist (maybe with a baseline/average number) and the local laws should be what sets the numbers so that they cover what they should as best as possible.

[/QUOTE]

thats how it is right now. states have their own minimums. and within states counties and cities (very few actually do this) can set their own minimum wages. the only time it can be lower is for certain professions, mostly service (ie waiter) and agriculture (ie picking lettuce).
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']buncha commies in this thread.

im not saying that minimum wage is great, but for a single individual, minimum wage is liveable. out here in california youd make about 16k at minimum wage, a little over 1k a month. theres no reason why you cant get a cheap apartment, with or without a roommate for under $500. that leaves you with 6-700 for food, clothing, and bills, which should be more than manageable for an individual as long as they are frugal.
[/QUOTE]


That sounds like almost every teenager ever trying to explain to his/her parents how when they move out the following year "it will be easy."



Things come up. Tires pop, a person has a social life, student loans need to be paid, medical and dental problems arise.............
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']thats how it is right now. states have their own minimums. and within states counties and cities (very few actually do this) can set their own minimum wages. the only time it can be lower is for certain professions, mostly service (ie waiter) and agriculture (ie picking lettuce).[/QUOTE]

I know state's can have their own minimums, but I don't think they're required to do anything except enforce the federal minimum, right?

And I guess gareman's point is also valid. Barely making it is how people generally get fucked. Something happens and there's no way to cover it but with loans/credit cards and then you're stuck in a cycle of paying off the interest with that debt since you were barely able to afford the basics before that.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I know state's can have their own minimums, but I don't think they're required to do anything except enforce the federal minimum, right?

And I guess gareman's point is also valid. Barely making it is how people generally get fucked. Something happens and there's no way to cover it but with loans/credit cards and then you're stuck in a cycle of paying off the interest with that debt since you were barely able to afford the basics before that.[/QUOTE]


And then conservatives among others will be right there telling that they shouldn't have taken out a loan or found a better job....


Taking out huge loans right out of high school then graduating college and having to take the first job that is available to you in order to take advantage of that degree and pay back those loans for the next 25 years. If you are lucky you will get a job with health insurance, then you can't quit out of fear for losing health insurance for your children or wife/husband. How is that freedom?

True freedom would be not having to worry about staying at a horrible job or one that has nothing to do with your passion/degree because health care is provided. Not having to take the first job offered and be able to have more time and less debt to get a job you love because you have no student loans to pay back.
 
[quote name='gareman']That sounds like almost every teenager ever trying to explain to his/her parents how when they move out the following year "it will be easy."



Things come up. Tires pop, a person has a social life, student loans need to be paid, medical and dental problems arise.............[/QUOTE]

It also assumes full time minimum wage (or not much more) try planning a budget when one week you work 50 and the next 30 hours.

Taking out huge loans right out of high school then graduating college and having to take the first job that is available to you in order to take advantage of that degree and pay back those loans for the next 25 years. If you are lucky you will get a job with health insurance, then you can't quit out of fear for losing health insurance for your children or wife/husband. How is that freedom?
Click to expand...

Because anything less is communism.
 
[quote name='gareman']That sounds like almost every teenager ever trying to explain to his/her parents how when they move out the following year "it will be easy."



Things come up. Tires pop, a person has a social life, student loans need to be paid, medical and dental problems arise.............[/QUOTE]

i didnt say it was ideal or easy. i said it was doable. and "shit happens" is not an argument for anything.

[quote name='SpazX']I know state's can have their own minimums, but I don't think they're required to do anything except enforce the federal minimum, right?

[/QUOTE]

yes, they only have to enforce the federal level and there are exceptions to that too.

[quote name='gareman']And then conservatives among others will be right there telling that they shouldn't have taken out a loan or found a better job....


Taking out huge loans right out of high school then graduating college and having to take the first job that is available to you in order to take advantage of that degree and pay back those loans for the next 25 years. If you are lucky you will get a job with health insurance, then you can't quit out of fear for losing health insurance for your children or wife/husband. How is that freedom?

True freedom would be not having to worry about staying at a horrible job or one that has nothing to do with your passion/degree because health care is provided. Not having to take the first job offered and be able to have more time and less debt to get a job you love because you have no student loans to pay back.[/QUOTE]

what is this fantasy world youve created where everyone is taken care of and everyone does what they love. youre day dreaming on a forum about something that will never happen.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']i didnt say it was ideal or easy. i said it was doable. and "shit happens" is not an argument for anything.



yes, they only have to enforce the federal level and there are exceptions to that too.



what is this fantasy world youve created where everyone is taken care of and everyone does what they love. youre day dreaming on a forum about something that will never happen.[/QUOTE]

A fantasy world equals universal health care and free and/or affordable college education?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top